Is Islam reformable - and how?

[Bootstoots]

Religions containing large numbers of followers with a deep history don't simply go away, unlike flash-in-the-pan ideologies like National Socialism or even Marxism-Leninism. No matter what you think of Islam, it's going to remain a huge force in the world for the foreseeable future, and attempts to confront it head-on are only going to reinforce the clash-of-civilizations narratives that drive radical Islamists to do what they do. While people like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are certainly right about much of what they say, their style involves a frontal attack against Islam as it exists today, and it is unsurprising that they aren't convincing conservative Muslims of anything other than that they should be killed as apostates.

It is true that the median Muslim (at this point in time) is much less liberal in a large number of ways than the median Westerner, and that many of the reasons for this are intrinsic to the religion. Ultimately, though, there really is no alternative but coexistence. This is something you are going to have to come to terms with, because nothing you or people who agree with you can do is going to cause mass deconversions from Islam or a rapid moderation of Islamic belief.

What ultimately has to happen is a liberalization process which will inevitably be gradual and uneven. There are things we can do to help. Continuing to diffuse Western culture into their societies while stopping the misguided military interventions in the Middle East is a good start - give Middle Eastern Muslims as few geopolitical reasons to dislike the West as possible. Western countries should greatly increase foreign aid, including offering far more extensive assistance for refugees of wars and the countries burdened by them, but without taking in unlimited numbers of refugees themselves. Support for conservative Gulf States should be cut immediately, as should support for Islamists (e.g. the "moderate Syrian rebels") who are harassing some unfriendly regime. Distancing ourselves from Israel, while still supporting its territorial integrity within the pre-1967 borders, would be a good idea as well. Muslims within the Western world should be treated respectfully and Islamophobia should continue to be frowned upon, while at the same time it should be made clear that illiberal practices will not be tolerated. While the current level of immigration to much of Western Europe (esp. Germany and Sweden) is too high for successful integration, keep in mind that living in the Western world does on average result in moderation of beliefs and the diffusion of Western beliefs into the Muslim world, so immigration should be held at a moderate level rather than cut off.

Changes in religious practice are slow and uneven, but they can and do happen.

 

[Borachio]

Nope. Islam is not "reformable." For one thing there is actually no universal thing encompassing two billion people that can even be described with the one word Islam. For another thing, idiots so deep into their hatred of this "Islam" that they think the one word actually does encompass the entire two billion people who they consider to be the hated otherness wouldn't notice anything that happens outside the scope of their fear driven rage anyway.

Well, true. But it's strange that these two billion people whose views cannot be described by the one word "Islam" seem to do exactly that themselves.

You reform Islam the same way you do any other religion. With your third great prophet. Islamic cities will have to start picking up the pace and generating more faith if they want their religion to be reformed, so they can start getting their enhancer beliefs.

Also true. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for another prophet though, who might be just as likely to sow further discord rather than unity.

And how about a nice peaceful Universalist prophet? Would that work? Or would the Islamists tear him/her apart for being a polytheist?

Religions containing large numbers of followers with a deep history don't simply go away, unlike flash-in-the-pan ideologies like National Socialism or even Marxism-Leninism. No matter what you think of Islam, it's going to remain a huge force in the world for the foreseeable future, and attempts to confront it head-on are only going to reinforce the clash-of-civilizations narratives that drive radical Islamists to do what they do. While people like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are certainly right about much of what they say, their style involves a frontal attack against Islam as it exists today, and it is unsurprising that they aren't convincing conservative Muslims of anything other than that they should be killed as apostates.

It is true that the median Muslim (at this point in time) is much less liberal in a large number of ways than the median Westerner, and that many of the reasons for this are intrinsic to the religion. Ultimately, though, there really is no alternative but coexistence. This is something you are going to have to come to terms with, because nothing you or people who agree with you can do is going to cause mass deconversions from Islam or a rapid moderation of Islamic belief.

What ultimately has to happen is a liberalization process which will inevitably be gradual and uneven. There are things we can do to help. Continuing to diffuse Western culture into their societies while stopping the misguided military interventions in the Middle East is a good start - give Middle Eastern Muslims as few geopolitical reasons to dislike the West as possible. Western countries should greatly increase foreign aid, including offering far more extensive assistance for refugees of wars and the countries burdened by them, but without taking in unlimited numbers of refugees themselves. Support for conservative Gulf States should be cut immediately, as should support for Islamists (e.g. the "moderate Syrian rebels") who are harassing some unfriendly regime. Distancing ourselves from Israel, while still supporting its territorial integrity within the pre-1967 borders, would be a good idea as well. Muslims within the Western world should be treated respectfully and Islamophobia should continue to be frowned upon, while at the same time it should be made clear that illiberal practices will not be tolerated. While the current level of immigration to much of Western Europe (esp. Germany and Sweden) is too high for successful integration, keep in mind that living in the Western world does on average result in moderation of beliefs and the diffusion of Western beliefs into the Muslim world, so immigration should be held at a moderate level rather than cut off.

Changes in religious practice are slow and uneven, but they can and do happen.

And yet more truth. But I think you expect too much. It seems much more likely to me that the world will become even more polarized.

People can be, and sometimes are, just plain daft.

 

[Princeps]

But it's strange that these two billion people whose views cannot be described by the one word "Islam" seem to do exactly that themselves

.

Christians continued to use the term Christendom for a long while after the concept had lost almost all of its genuine political content.

 

[Borachio]

And yet I still hear the UK (for example) described as a "Christian" country.

Indeed, I'm really not sure that Christendom has lost its political content at all. Despite not currently being a term used to describe a political entity.

Also, crusaders. Though probably less so.

 

[Funky]

Considering Germany managed to cleanse itself of genocide and be re-admitted to the human race, I'm confident "Islam" can "fix itself" for doing far less than attempting the systematic, industrial annihilation of entire races.

The comparison you make gives me the chance to bring up two crucial and very concerning points.

First, Islamic groups are engaged in systematic persecution and even genocide. According to Professor Thomas Schirrmacher from the International Society for Human Rights, thousands of Christians are killed by Muslims every year. What the Islamic State has done to the Yazidis can only be described as ethnic cleansing. Many Islamic countries have already successfully cleansed themselves from Christians and Jews, or are in the process of doing so. If we go back a bit, 1.5 million people were killed in the Armenian genocide. Today, the reason why the destruction caused by radical Islamic groups is quantitatively smaller and less punctuated than that of Nazi Germany is due to lack of means, not lack of will. Islamists state unambiguously what they would do to Jews if they had the power to do so.
Qualititatively, the Islamic State already arguably outperforms the Nazis when they nail children to crosses or hang up infidels over fires where they slowly roast, or keep girls as young as ten as sex slaves. Due to the amount of such news we have grown insensitive to its horrific nature. Just two days ago, a mass grave of was found in Palmyra with dozens of murdered people, including many children - this merited no more than a side-note on most news sites.
In case you'd argue that this is only the most extreme form of Islam and that most Muslims are against the slaughter of infidels, well, most Germans did not participate in the holocaust. Those in charge of commanding the enacting the extermination of the Jews were a few thousand. At its peak, only 10 percent of Germans were members of the NSDAP. The silent majority was irrelevant, as it is today.

The second point is even more important. Germany did not "manage to cleanse itself of genocide". Nazism was destroyed because Germany was totally demolished in the Second World War. It took 50 million deaths and the destruction of large parts of Europe before the ideology was brought to its knees. After the war, the allies established massive denazification programs to actively combat the remnants of the Nazi ideology and re-program the indoctrinated Germans. Only by means of a military and ideological struggle of unprecedented proportion was Nazism defeated.
Obviously, nobody wants this episode of history to repeat itself. We are currently engaged in a war of ideas. By "we" I mean all the rational, secular forces in the world, including moderate Muslims. If the war of ideas fails, then a military war will become inevitable. And such a war, which would be fought with the most destructive weapon technology available, would have unforseeable consequences. This is a very uncomfortable truth. Yet it is time we acknowledge how dire our situation may become if we are not able to make significant progress in the next one or two decades. We can't just wait for Islam to "fix itself" - even if we had reason to believe this would happen, it is far too late for that. I am worried that it will take a dirty bomb causing an entire region of Europe or the US to become inhabitable before some people realize the gravity of the situation we are in.

Living within a society is different from admiring and striving to share similar beliefs as another society. Most of the people who support ISIS from the western world tend to live in insulated Islamic communities or have significant ties to family in the Middle East. It's also important to remember that these are a minority. There are far more Muslims in the west who are staunchly against ISIS and radical Islam.

That most people supporting the IS have family ties to Syria is just not true. More importantly, while those who actually travel to Syria to fight for the IS are obviously a small minority compared to the total population of Muslims, we are still talking about huge numbers. Many thousands of westernised, second- and third generation Muslims, who had all the opportunities they could hope for, have found the best thing they could do with their lives was to travel to Syria and fight for the caliphate. Three times as many British Muslims fight for the IS than for the British army.
And yes, most Muslims don't support the IS. But many of them hold other highly problematic beliefs, despite their upbringing in Western, liberal countries. Your statement, "Allow these people to experience and witness a better way of life and they will start to believe in change and something different", unfortunately has little basis in reality.

Islam would have to reform if it would start losing followers. The growth of muslims is through the fact that ex-muslims risk their life and that non-emancipated women continue in indoctrination to other generations. Enforce protections of ex-muslims/atheists/conversed and enforce women emancipation should be good way to achieve change but I am pessimist regards this.

This I agree with. I am convinced that the number of atheists or quasi-atheists in the Islamic world is way higher than we tend to assume, especially among young Muslims. Yet for them to "come out" is a life-threatening endeavor. The least we can do to support them is give ex-Muslims and Muslim reformers the platforms to speak about Islam as much as possible.

No matter what you think of Islam, it's going to remain a huge force in the world for the foreseeable future, and attempts to confront it head-on are only going to reinforce the clash-of-civilizations narratives that drive radical Islamists to do what they do. While people like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are certainly right about much of what they say, their style involves a frontal attack against Islam as it exists today, and it is unsurprising that they aren't convincing conservative Muslims of anything other than that they should be killed as apostates.

But what else should they do? Islamists are going to harp on perceived grievances anyway. Implying that Muslim and ex-Muslim reformers should not speak honestly about Islam for fear of antagonizing Islamists seems to be a rather misguided stance. This becomes clear once we apply the line of thought to any other group; should we not speak honestly about neo-Nazism lest people from the far-right become radicalised? Should we not speak critically about racism for fear of radicalising racists?
I view Ali's and Nawaz' criticism as extremely valuable - if not so much directly for orthodox Muslims, then for us as non-Muslims, in order to help us understand the nature of Islam, which will in turn hopefully cause us to confront orthodox Muslims and make it clear to them that we will not accept their anti-democratic, anti-liberal, anti-secular views in our societies.

It is true that the median Muslim (at this point in time) is much less liberal in a large number of ways than the median Westerner, and that many of the reasons for this are intrinsic to the religion. Ultimately, though, there really is no alternative but coexistence. This is something you are going to have to come to terms with, because nothing you or people who agree with you can do is going to cause mass deconversions from Islam or a rapid moderation of Islamic belief.

This is far too resignative for my liking. While I am far from optimistic, we cannot just sit around and wait for the problems to get worse. And they will get worse if we do nothing. I already mentioned the growing risk of a dirty bomb. But that aside, if the trends regarding the Muslim demographics in Europe continue, in a few short decades we will have large Muslim minorities of 30 and more percent in many Western European countries. The higher their number, the less likely they are to integrate and adopt liberal values, and the more they will form their own communities within our societies.

The consequences would be dramatic. The welfare state would collapse, as it is unable to provide support for the Muslim population, which is already hugely overrepresented in dependence on welfare. Muslims will move together into certain regions and districts, increasing and enlargening Islamic parallel societies. Sharia will become the dominant rule of governance in these areas, causing non-Muslims to leave these areas. The consequence will be a societal segregation, with whole regions within our countries becoming detached from the rest of the country. Animosity and violence between the Muslims and the indigenous population will be daily occurences. As Muslims attempt to spread sharia, many Western Europeans will move to other countries, to Eastern Europe, or to the US and Canada. And eventually Europe will have become transformed, from what was once a group of free societies, a beacon of hope for the world, into countries that are more reminiscient of what we see in the Islamic world now.

Does this outlook sound overly bleak and pessimistic? I agree, it does. Yet judging by everything we know about Islamic history, we have no reason to believe that it is not also a realistic prospect. A similar development occured in Lebanon just a few decades ago. What's more, Muslims are telling us that this is their goal. It's about time we take them at their word. If we don't combat this ideology now, if we don't fight the war of ideas, it may soon be too late. I view ourselves as being in a kind of emergency situation.
I realise that for many Americans my outlook sounds exaggerated. And I am the first to hope that it is. Yet these kinds of scenarios are what is being predicted by many sociologists, historians and futurologists in Germany, many of who, by the way, have always stood firmly on the left or are ex-Muslims who have grown up in Islamic countries.

Changes in religious practice are slow and uneven, but they can and do happen.

I agree that changes in religious practises can happen (otherwise we would be doomed). But when it comes to Islam, these changes will not come about just like that, by taking a passive stance, hoping that Islam will eventually be absorbed by exposing Muslims to liberalism. The ideology must be actively challenged. And how we can go about doing that is the actual question of this thread.

 

[Synobun]

That most people supporting the IS have family ties to Syria is just not true. More importantly, while those who actually travel to Syria to fight for the IS are obviously a small minority compared to the total population of Muslims, we are still talking about huge numbers. Many thousands of westernised, second- and third generation Muslims, who had all the opportunities they could hope for, have found the best thing they could do with their lives was to travel to Syria and fight for the caliphate. Three times as many British Muslims fight for the IS than for the British army.

I don't know how much of a serious discussion you're expecting to have if you dismiss the Muslims with more liberal beliefs as still not being good enough. And with that in mind, I'll redirect you to my first post made in this thread where I point out that many people advocating for reformation are just a new flavour of "my way is the right way".

I specifically referred to the Middle East, not just Syria, and family ties entails more than the simple presence of blood relatives within a geographical area. Heritage and culture is deeply ingrained in Muslim society. "Huge numbers" is a non-factor in this discussion; statistics are more important. Compared to the number of Muslim citizens in the West, a minuscule amount directly supports ISIS or other radical movements. It's easy to paint a poor picture of Muslims if you use a restrictive comparison point (enrollment in the British military). Did you know that the difference between Muslim NGO founders in Britain is outnumbered over 10000% by ISIS supporters? Crazy. Who knew Muslims were so bloodthirsty?

And yes, most Muslims don't support the IS. But many of them hold other highly problematic beliefs, despite their upbringing in Western, liberal countries. Your statement, "Allow these people to experience and witness a better way of life and they will start to believe in change and something different", unfortunately has little basis in reality.

If anything, that proves my point. It takes time and patience. The Muslims that grow up in the West most often share very different opinions than their brethren "back home". If you base your opinion on Muslim belief shifting on first generation immigrants, you intentionally skew the reality of the situation. Most first and second generation immigrants that come from an overbearing culture/society tend to keep most of the beliefs they had back at home. This is true with more than just Muslims; Hindus and the Chinese are notable mentions for this.

A good comparison is to try and claim that the collective beliefs of America are nothing more than the beliefs of their oldest generation and their children. You'd scoff at this, so why not scoff at the implication that all Muslims, even those who grow up in the West, are obviously still barbaric? You'll find that the opinions of the Muslim youth generation, provided that they were allowed sufficient exposure to the outside world, are very different than the opinions of their grandparents and the parents that made that initial leap over the ocean or Mediterranean.

It takes several generations for beliefs to shift. You don't get huge civil rights breakthroughs without first a gradual shift for several decades or even centuries beforehand. Women and black people weren't granted rights and considerations in the West because everyone in a position of power suddenly woke up one day and had a change of heart. Gradual change. It's glacial but it happens.

Through the power of the internet and interaction with, most often, Westerners, there are organizations and clusters of people in the impoverished areas of the Middle East dedicated to improving the welfare and quality of life of their communities. This would have been unheard of a century ago. People are changing and the Muslim faith will reform when a sufficient number of followers find themselves disagreeing with how things get done.

 

[Bootstoots]

But what else should they do? Islamists are going to harp on perceived grievances anyway. Implying that Muslim and ex-Muslim reformers should not speak honestly about Islam for fear of antagonizing Islamists seems to be a rather misguided stance. This becomes clear once we apply the line of thought to any other group; should we not speak honestly about neo-Nazism lest people from the far-right become radicalised? Should we not speak critically about racism for fear of radicalising racists?
I view Ali's and Nawaz' criticism as extremely valuable - if not so much directly for orthodox Muslims, then for us as non-Muslims, in order to help us understand the nature of Islam, which will in turn hopefully cause us to confront orthodox Muslims and make it clear to them that we will not accept their anti-democratic, anti-liberal, anti-secular views in our societies.

I don't think they should stop discussing Islam honestly, but it is worth noting that they aren't likely to convince anyone within the Muslim world. Perhaps they might help people who realize they don't believe, which is valuable. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't say what they do for fear of radicalizing Islamists, just that their approach is not likely to convince anyone who is already a practicing Muslim that they should adopt more liberal beliefs. The sorts of approaches that may succeed are more subtle than this.

This is far too resignative for my liking. While I am far from optimistic, we cannot just sit around and wait for the problems to get worse. And they will get worse if we do nothing. I already mentioned the growing risk of a dirty bomb. But that aside, if the trends regarding the Muslim demographics in Europe continue, in a few short decades we will have large Muslim minorities of 30 and more percent in many Western European countries. The higher their number, the less likely they are to integrate and adopt liberal values, and the more they will form their own communities within our societies.

The consequences would be dramatic. The welfare state would collapse, as it is unable to provide support for the Muslim population, which is already hugely overrepresented in dependence on welfare. Muslims will move together into certain regions and districts, increasing and enlargening Islamic parallel societies. Sharia will become the dominant rule of governance in these areas, causing non-Muslims to leave these areas. The consequence will be a societal segregation, with whole regions within our countries becoming detached from the rest of the country. Animosity and violence between the Muslims and the indigenous population will be daily occurences. As Muslims attempt to spread sharia, many Western Europeans will move to other countries, to Eastern Europe, or to the US and Canada. And eventually Europe will have become transformed, from what was once a group of free societies, a beacon of hope for the world, into countries that are more reminiscient of what we see in the Islamic world now.

Well, I would agree that countries like Germany and Sweden should abandon their open-door policies and restrict immigration to a level that is consistent with successful integration and the continued proper functioning of their welfare states. This is something I've changed my opinion about in the last year - I didn't realize until recently how big of a challenge it is to integrate non-Western Muslims into Western society. I agree with you that it is important for total parallel societies not to develop, and demands for Sharia law in e.g. family courts should be resisted. And, of course, Western countries should hold Muslims to the same standards as non-Muslims in terms of what is and isn't allowed.

It is important to realize, though, that conservative Muslims are not going to become secular Westerners overnight, and that direct criticism of Islam is unlikely to shift Islamic belief in a more liberal direction. A religion that consists of 1.6 billion people and that has lasted for 1400 years is not going to change simply because Westerners (including ex-Muslims) are critical of it.

Does this outlook sound overly bleak and pessimistic? I agree, it does. Yet judging by everything we know about Islamic history, we have no reason to believe that it is not also a realistic prospect. A similar development occured in Lebanon just a few decades ago. What's more, Muslims are telling us that this is their goal. It's about time we take them at their word. If we don't combat this ideology now, if we don't fight the war of ideas, it may soon be too late. I view ourselves as being in a kind of emergency situation.
I realise that for many Americans my outlook sounds exaggerated. And I am the first to hope that it is. Yet these kinds of scenarios are what is being predicted by many sociologists, historians and futurologists in Germany, many of who, by the way, have always stood firmly on the left or are ex-Muslims who have grown up in Islamic countries.



I agree that changes in religious practises can happen (otherwise we would be doomed). But when it comes to Islam, these changes will not come about just like that, by taking a passive stance, hoping that Islam will eventually be absorbed by exposing Muslims to liberalism. The ideology must be actively challenged. And how we can go about doing that is the actual question of this thread.

The whole issue I have is this: how do you expect that challenges toward Islamic belief coming from non-Muslims or ex-Muslims will lead Muslims towards being more liberal? My problem with this is a tactical one - it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would actually work. I'm thinking that change will come largely from people who remain within Islam but push for more moderate interpretations. Some of what you say may be useful: a doctrine of valuing the early, Mecca part of the Quran over the more problematic later parts would be helpful, for instance. This sort of thing is going to have to be promoted by self-identified Muslims, though.

 

[Funky]

In my reply to Bootstooth I wrote,

I realise that for many Americans my outlook sounds exaggerated. And I am the first to hope that it is. Yet these kinds of scenarios are what is being predicted by many sociologists, historians and futurologists in Germany, many of who, by the way, have always stood firmly on the left or are ex-Muslims who have grown up in Islamic countries.

It may be unsatisfactory for you to hear about what German researchers write whose language you can't understand. To give you one point of contact to a work in English, I can strongly recommend the book from Bat Ye'or, Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate from 2011. The now 83-year-old author was born in Cairo and fled to England after the Suez War when she was 24. She has researched and written about the Middle East and Islam her whole life, and her works have been commended by the renowned expert of Middle Eastern history, Bernard Lewis. Her book about the coming caliphate is well written and extremely well documented. I advise anyone who wants to educate himself on the topic to read it.

Here is an extensive review I found on amazon:

Spoiler :

To understand both Time magazine’s award of its 2015 “person of the year” award to Angelica Merkel for welcoming nearly a million Syrian immigrants to Germany and the pro-Islamic rhetoric and policies of the Obama administration, they must be seen as nearly verbatim implementations of European pronouncements streaming for 40 years from international organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union. That Barack Obama launched his 2008 presidential campaign with a speech in Berlin, Germany, indicates the degree to which he consistently seeks to align himself with European nations and their Islamic overtures. For example, the EU’s ban on words which might offend Muslims—e.g. jihad; fundamentalists; Islamic terrorism—is scrupulously followed by the American president. So Obama administration spokesmen, following terrorist attacks, consistently refer to violent extremists, ever insisting they have no necessary ties to Islam—which is, of course, a necessarily “peaceful” religion. Indeed, as Attorney-General Loretta Lynch immediately declared, following the slaughter in Riverside, California, we must, above all else, avoid Islamophobia whenever “extremists” indulge in terrorist acts!
Should one want to get inside such thinking he should heed Bat Ye’or’s Europe, Globalization, and the Coming Universal Caliphate (Madison, N.J.: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, c. 2011), an expansion and update of her earlier Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Doing so enables one to see that what’s now happening in America has been developing, in what was once the heart of Western Civilization as Muslims implement their “Koranic duty to Islamize the planet,” since the whole earth is Allah’s and his people, the Muslims, are to enforce his rule. Importantly: “Muslims can never be guilty of occupation or oppression because Allah granted them the whole world; jihad returns to them what belongs to them as true believers” (#317). So while “Westerners define terrorism as murderous attacks that blindly target civilian populations or individuals, committed by criminal gangs that act outside of recognized formations and do not respect the laws of war,” Muslims “judge terrorism by its motives, not its methods. Any enterprise aimed at extending Islamic territory is considered ‘resistance.’ Palestinian jihidists, who popularized all modern terrorist methods, are always called ‘resistants’ in official OIC documents” (#930).
Bat Ye’or is an Egypt-born Jewess who has devoted her life to historical research, publishing important treatises illustrating the plight of Jews and Christians under Islam in The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam and The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude. In an enlightening foreword to The Dhimmi, the great French philosopher Jacques Ellul noted that there exists in the secularized West a “current of favorable predispositions to Islam,” notably evident in the many euphemistic discussions of jihad. But by setting forth the historical facts, Bat Ye’or dares contradict such prevailing assumptions. “Historians,” she says, “professionally or economically connected to the Arab-Muslim world,” have misled the public with treatises “which were either tendentious or combined facts with apologetics and fantasy. After World War II, the predominance of a left-wing intelligentsia and the emergence of Arab regimes which were ‘socialist’ or allied to Moscow consolidated an Arabophile revolutionary internationalism” that remains strong is much of the contemporary world.
Jihad, in fact, necessarily characterizes Islam, Ellul says, for it is a sacred duty for the faithful—“Islam’s normal path to expansion.” Almost never the inner “spiritual” combat imagined by some pro-Islamic writers seeking to make the religion palatable to non-Muslims, actual jihad advocates “a real military war of conquest” followed by an iron-handed policy of “dhimmitude”—the brutal reduction of conquered peoples to Islamic law. Indeed the word Islam means submission—not peace! Muslims divide the world into two—and only two—realms: the “domain of Islam” and “the domain of war.” At times there will be tactical concessions and “peaceful” interludes. But ultimately, all devout Muslims are committed to conquer and control as much of the globe as possible. Ellul stresses this “because there is so much talk nowadays of the tolerance and fundamental pacifism of Islam that it is necessary to recall its nature, which is fundamentally warlike!” Writing presciently in 1991 Ellul declared: “Hostage-taking, terrorism . . . the weakening of the Eastern Churches (not to mention the wish to destroy Israel) . . . all this recalls precisely the resurgence of the traditional policy of Islam.”
Turning to Bat Ye’or Europe, Globalization, and the Coming Universal Caliphate, we find a careful study of the multitudinous documents generated by various congresses operating under the auspices of the UN and EU as well as assorted Muslim-controlled organizations such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) which work to establish an “EU Mediterranean policy.” Illustrating the dictum of Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran’s revolution—“If Islam is not political, it is nothing”—the OIC fuses religion and politics. “Close to the Muslim Brotherhood, it shares its strategic and cultural vision, that of a universal religious community, the Ummah based upon the Koran, the Sunna and the canonical orthodoxy of shari’a” (#1429). It’s supported by 65 countries and represents some 1.3 billion Muslims. The OIC vows “‘to support the restoration of the complete sovereignty and territorial integrity of a member-state under foreign occupation.’ Such a principle could be applied to every jihad waged by Muslims in various countries to expand the reach of Islam and to install shari’a there, whether in Europe, Africa or Asia” (#4156).
The ideas set forth by these organizations rather quickly set the tone and substance of policies that have shaped much of the modern world; providing “the progressive Islamization of the West; they establish the major elements of a new global system of totalitarian social and political domination impervious to Western democratic institutions” (#215). “Europe is a perfect ally, serving the expansionist ambitions of the Ummah, the universal Muslim community” (#902). In the past Jihadist warriors conquered vast swaths of land and subjected the residents who survived to the dhimmitude that slowly destroyed them. Today’s “jihad ideology of world conquest, propelled by billions of petrodollars and facilitated by the complacency of European governments and the rivalry between Western powers, is flourishing in every corner of the world. The driving force of this process is the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has been dedicated since its creation in 1969 to the elimination of the State of Israel and the eventual implementation of shari’a over the West” (#257).
Accordingly, Muslim supporters (many of them former Nazis, such as Paul Kickoff, the former SS officer who became the head of Interpol, and Kurt Waldheim, who served as the UN Secretary General) especially stressed a “multilateralism” and “multiculturalism” paradoxically combined with an anti-Israel agenda which included the strident anti-Americanism routinely expressed in UN resolutions. Multiculturalism, devoted to the notion that all cultures are equally admirable, served as a rationale recognizing the reality of “Muslim immigrants’ refusal to integrate into Western societies” (#1752) while simultaneously insisting that European nations provide employment, housing, medical care, education, etc. It also mandated that Europeans promote Islamic culture among immigrants and celebrate the utterly spurious “immense contribution of Islamic culture and civilization to Europe’s development and to include it in school and university syllabuses” (#1954).
The strong support of the European Community for Yassar Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (leading to, of all things, a Nobel Peace Prize for the murderous Arafat) sharply illustrates the legitimization of modern jihadism. One of the most powerful organizations, The Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation (PAEAC), was formed “in 1974 in response to Palestinian terrorism and the oil boycott . . . injected Eurabia into the very heart of Europe. In effect, to its initial anti-Israeli and anti-American program the association added a new element relating to the internal politics of the EEC: the promotion in European countries of an extensive Muslim Immigration on which would be conferred the same social, political, and national rights as the indigenous populations” (#550). Yet the rights and privileges (e.g. freedom of religious expression, equality under law) Muslims demand for themselves in Europe are precisely those denied non-Muslims in Muslim nations! As Montalembert noted long ago: “When I am weaker, I ask you for liberty because it is your principle; but when I am strong, I take it away from you because it is not my principle.”
Bat Ye’or repeatedly discusses the nation of Israel, pointing out how the very survival of this tiny nation is at risk. She illustrates the deep hostility toward Jews ever-evident in Islamic history, and she shows how this hostility continues in conferences hosted by Arab countries whose publications represent “a monument to hatred and anti-jewish incitement that goes well beyond Nazi literature, with sentences such as, ‘Jews are the enemies of Allah, the enemies of faith and of the worship of Allah’” (#2860). Israel has no right to exist, and all the land must be returned to Palestinians (this explains why an independent Palestinian “state” alongside Israel is unacceptable to Muslims). Pro-Palestinian edicts —fully evident in World Council of Churches publications and United Nations resolutions and elite universities’ “divestment from Israel” posturing—are pervasive.
What’s taking place, Bat Ye’or insists, is the steady break-up of the nation states that once constituted Europe. Without their consent, the historic peoples of France and Germany, Italy and Spain, have lost their identity as the European Union has taken control of the continent and acceded to almost every Islamic demand, especially regarding immigration. Dependent on Middle East oil and hoping to profit from immigrant labor, the EU has provided ways for Muslims to settle in Europe without forfeiting their Islamic culture. Second and third generations insist on the teaching of Arabic and pro-Islamic materials in the schools. Leaders from Muslim communities must be included in the political system and where possible sharia law must be established to settle intra-Muslim issues. Slowly, through demographic growth, Muslims hope to gain power in various places. The Caliphate now effectively dominates a number of European cities. And across the Atlantic, with “President Obama, America is engaging more radically along such a path,” engaging in “outreach” and education, easing “the bureaucratic process in obtaining US visas and avoid embarrassing delays” entering the country (#3527).
Europe’s “globalist and pacifist trends are obvious in the American Democratic administration under President Barack Obama,” which strongly supports UN policies and embraced a booklet titled Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World. “For a European familiar with EU surrender policy, President Obama’s policy had no surprises. Western guilt, apologies, flatteries, tributes, anti-Zionism/antisemitism, open-doors immigration, were all part of the dhimmitude paraphernalia” (#4521). Thus in his 2009 Ramadan address, the president praised “‘Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings’” (#4534). Such statements, Bat Ye’or sadly concludes, reflect a civilization in the process of collapse, a people willing to submit to Islam. Europe lost its bet that money and appeasement would pacify Muslims. And the United States, she fears, is tilting in the same direction.

I don't know how much of a serious discussion you're expecting to have if you dismiss the Muslims with more liberal beliefs as still not being good enough.

Is that where you set the bar? As long as Muslims choose not fight for the IS all is fine? Deciding not to travel to Syria to support the caliphate does not make you liberal!

"Huge numbers" is a non-factor in this discussion; statistics are more important. Compared to the number of Muslim citizens in the West, a minuscule amount directly supports ISIS or other radical movements. It's easy to paint a poor picture of Muslims if you use a restrictive comparison point (enrollment in the British military).

That thousands of second and third generations Muslims who have had all the benefits of growing up in democratic, secular societies have gone to fight for the IS is a shocking fact, and it disproves the narrative that exposure to liberalism is enough to counter radicalisation. Obviously it's a small number compared to the total Muslim population, that is totally beyond the point. As I said before, only a tiny minority of Germans actively participated in the holocaust. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a problem!
The comparison to the British army is crucial for two reasons; first, the potential recruits are from the same demographic and interest group (young men interested in combat). Second, it shows that the affiliation of young Muslims lies more with the Islamic State than with Britain when it comes to military involvement.
Furthermore, support for the IS is not "miniscule"; surveys in the UK have shown support to be 12, 14, and even up to 20 percent. And the number significantly increases when Muslims are polled about their attitudes to jihad in general.

But this is all beside the point. Support for the IS or jihad is only the tip of the iceberg. Many Islamists don't support jihad, they want to spread Islam and implement sharia through political means. And there are yet far more Muslims who are not interested in actively spreading Islam at all, yet adhere to other orthodox aspects of Islam and hold beliefs about the world which are deeply troubling. It's a spectrum. And in contrast to your notion that we just need time, radicalisation in the West is actually increasing.

Since I don't have unlimited time, I will add two short videos. The first shows Brigitte Gabriel commenting on the majority of peaceful Muslims. The second is an excellent overview of the spectrum I mentioned.


Link to video.


Link to video.

 

[warpus]

There is no way to reform "Islam", because Islam is not one thing. It is a bunch of things. What you need to do is plug up the extremist versions of Islam (Wahhabism, etc.) and push forward more moderate versions of it. That's be a good start.

 

[Funky]

I don't think they should stop discussing Islam honestly, but it is worth noting that they aren't likely to convince anyone within the Muslim world. Perhaps they might help people who realize they don't believe, which is valuable. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't say what they do for fear of radicalizing Islamists, just that their approach is not likely to convince anyone who is already a practicing Muslim that they should adopt more liberal beliefs. The sorts of approaches that may succeed are more subtle than this.

I wouldn't be too hasty in predetermining which approaches are likely to be successful or unsuccessful. There is no evidence that a full-on attack on religion doesn't lead to desirable outcomes, quite the contrary. Sam Harris, for instance, reports that he has received thousands of emails from Muslims who by some kind of exposure to his criticism have abandoned their faith and become atheists. I have personally spoken to (ex-)Muslims in the Islamic world who through means of the Internet devour the speeches by Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Hirsi Ali and others. Such critics have a tremendous outreach. Sarah Haider from the Council of ex-Muslims said that she lost her faith after her atheist fellow students kept on ridiculing her and her religion, saying the Quran was barbaric and vile. She wanted to disprove them and studied her holy book - and became an atheist.

Now, this will not work for everyone. Some may indeed require a more subtle approach. That is why we need all voices. We need the harsh intellectual critics, we need the subtle negotiators, we need the comedians ridiculing the faith, we need Muslims and non-Muslims... the critique has to come from all sides.

Well, I would agree that countries like Germany and Sweden should abandon their open-door policies and restrict immigration to a level that is consistent with successful integration and the continued proper functioning of their welfare states. This is something I've changed my opinion about in the last year - I didn't realize until recently how big of a challenge it is to integrate non-Western Muslims into Western society. I agree with you that it is important for total parallel societies not to develop, and demands for Sharia law in e.g. family courts should be resisted. And, of course, Western countries should hold Muslims to the same standards as non-Muslims in terms of what is and isn't allowed.

It is not common for people to change their minds in Internet forums, and much less to admit it, so grats on that! Countless Germans I know or have heard from have undergone the same process - at the beginning they were enthusiastic about helping, meanwhile they have become totally disillusioned and downright appalled by the attitudes and behaviours they have witnessed.

The whole issue I have is this: how do you expect that challenges toward Islamic belief coming from non-Muslims or ex-Muslims will lead Muslims towards being more liberal? My problem with this is a tactical one - it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would actually work. I'm thinking that change will come largely from people who remain within Islam but push for more moderate interpretations. Some of what you say may be useful: a doctrine of valuing the early, Mecca part of the Quran over the more problematic later parts would be helpful, for instance. This sort of thing is going to have to be promoted by self-identified Muslims, though.

This is the question I actually wanted to talk about in this thread, which we have hardly gotten in to. While criticism of Islam in general has to come from all sides, and both non-Muslims and ex-Muslims have to become more vocal in voicing this criticism, I agree with you that when it comes to the project of theological alteration and interpretation we need moderate Muslims to do the job. The question is, how can we get them to do it? And is it even possible to ideologically transform Islam into a religion which is totally benign, given the specific nature of the texts?

 

[Senethro]

And what of this eradication option you mentioned in the OP?

 

[Funky]

And what of this eradication option you mentioned in the OP?

If Islam cannot be rid of the divisiveness and hatred it promotes, if there is no way to theologically nullify its core tenets of misogyny, violence and sharia, if 90 percent of imams continue to promote illiberal beliefs as they do today, if Islamism and jihadism cannot be theologically tackled and continue to spread and cause mayhem, then the ideology has to be eradicated.

While I wish Maajid Nawaz and other reformers the best of luck, given the nature of Islam I am doubtful whether a reform is really possible.

 

[Bootstoots]

But eradicating Islam is simply not possible. A religion with 1.6 billion followers that has existed for 1400 years is not going to go away just because people living in Western democracies are not comfortable with it. I don't see why you think it can just be eliminated like Nazism or fascism. Reform is the only option.

 

[warpus]

The answer is right there in your post Funky, go after extremist imams. They are responsible for interpreting the various texts and instructing other Muslims on how to behave.

 

[Recon Rover]

In my opinion, if the objective is to reform or pacify a group of people within a religion so they become ever more agreeable to the western world, then you must begin by exporting western culture, reducing poverty, and increasing education.

Muslims are as susceptible as anyone to the forms of media that modernized the west. Western culture through its cartoons to its novels continue to challenge traditional narratives successfully.

If we can continue to encourage the spread and tolerance of free speech in Muslim majority countries, Islam should eventually find itself pacified in the same way Christianity and Judaism are.

 

[useless]

But eradicating Islam is simply not possible. A religion with 1.6 billion followers that has existed for 1400 years is not going to go away just because people living in Western democracies are not comfortable with it. I don't see why you think it can just be eliminated like Nazism or fascism. Reform is the only option.

The belief you could eradicate believers of a religion is alien to me, especially in this day and age; imagine for a second if someone on this board seriously suggested the topic of eliminating christianity or even judaism, imagine the outroar that would ensue.

All it would do, in trying to eradicate Islam, would be to play into the hands of it's worst elements, justifying ISIS claim about how Muslims are somehow incompatible with the west (despite muslims living in the west for centuries).

 

[Borachio]

Doesn't the UAE hold courses for training moderate imams? And hasn't it been doing so for a long time?

http://www.awqaf.gov.ae/NewsItem.aspx?Lang=EN&SectionID=16&RefID=5999

 

[warpus]

Doesn't help when Saudi Arabia is spending billions exporting an extremist ideology, and building mosques in other countries were extremist imams can preach. And we let them.

 

[Ajidica]

The comparison you make gives me the chance to bring up two crucial and very concerning points.

First, Islamic groups are engaged in systematic persecution and even genocide. According to Professor Thomas Schirrmacher from the International Society for Human Rights, thousands of Christians are killed by Muslims every year.

Let's break that down.
Using the BBC article (nice to see you agree with the BBC after calling them a bunch of regressive leftists when talking about Buddhist violence toward the Royhinga but ymmv) and the person you mentioned by name, he has this to say once you try and control for Christians being killed because they are Christians:

"One has to see that there is no scientific number at the moment. It has not been researched and all experts in this area are very hesitant to give a figure," he says.
"We are starting a research project with several universities worldwide on this topic and there we start with a guess of 7-8,000 Christians killed as martyrs each year."

Your statement that "thousands of Christians are killed by Muslims every year" is not supported by the article posted and is by the admission of the numbers creator - a complete guess lacking any and all scientific certainty.

What the Islamic State has done to the Yazidis can only be described as ethnic cleansing. Many Islamic countries have already successfully cleansed themselves from Christians and Jews, or are in the process of doing so. If we go back a bit, 1.5 million people were killed in the Armenian genocide. Today, the reason why the destruction caused by radical Islamic groups is quantitatively smaller and less punctuated than that of Nazi Germany is due to lack of means, not lack of will. Islamists state unambiguously what they would do to Jews if they had the power to do so.

Wanton butchery can be found throughout the world. Rwanda and Burundi have seen ethnic conflict after ethnic conflict accompanied by the infamous Rwandan Genocide. The Japanese have the Sook Ching massacres and the Rape of Nanking.
To date only people ostentiably identifying as Christians planned out and acted upon the desire to eliminate entire races on an industrial scale.
Again, if Germany could cleanse themselves of genocide and be re-admitted to the human race, I see no reason to believe that that the various Islamic religious authorities are bound by the actions of violent butchers who are already condemned based on lack of adherence to established Islamic teachings and traditions.

Qualititatively, the Islamic State already arguably outperforms the Nazis when they nail children to crosses or hang up infidels over fires where they slowly roast, or keep girls as young as ten as sex slaves. Due to the amount of such news we have grown insensitive to its horrific nature. Just two days ago, a mass grave of was found in Palmyra with dozens of murdered people, including many children - this merited no more than a side-note on most news sites.

Let me know once IS starts building gas chambers to the who-scale industrial extermination of entire races - where 70 years on the walls are still stained blue from the gas.
IS is a collection of violent butchers whose connection to established Islamic interpretations and tradition is shaky at best. I see no more reason to believe IS is indicative of Islam that the gas chambers of Majdanek are indicative of Christianity.
Violent, intolerant butchers and their followers can be found across the world regardless of religion or ethnicity.

In case you'd argue that this is only the most extreme form of Islam and that most Muslims are against the slaughter of infidels, well, most Germans did not participate in the holocaust. Those in charge of commanding the enacting the extermination of the Jews were a few thousand. At its peak, only 10 percent of Germans were members of the NSDAP. The silent majority was irrelevant, as it is today.

Do you believe that the entire German diaspora somehow bore in their culture and beliefs the seed for the Holocaust and sending the world down the most destructive conflict it has ever seen?
If no, why should the Muslims living in -say, Minneapolis- be assumed as violent fundies whose religion needs a dose of reformation to make it palatable as a result of actions carried out by violent butchers half a world away?

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

The country with the largest muslim population in the world is Indonesia, yet I have not once ever heard of an indonesian terrorist. If the problem really was Islam we wouldn't mostly hear problems with regards to the middle east or minority communities in Europe or such.