Mainstream Muslims Finally Take on Extremists

[°Leprechaun]

I still don't get how anyone is saying that I am defending Islam. I don't defend religion. Islam is a religion. How can you not get that?

[°Leprechaun]

Suppose I said that Kasich is not as bad as Trump. Does that mean I like Kasich? Does that make me a defender of the Republican party?
So if I argue that some Muslims are not as bad as others (and I have no knowledge of why they are the way they are), I am somehow defending all Muslims?

[°Leprechaun]

Islam also shouldn't be judged on what Muslim countries do. Well, not entirely.
The question in my mind are countries with minority Muslim populations, where Muslims don't have the same kind of power that they do in majority Muslim countries.
Muslims in a country such as the USA are more likely to be moderate to the degree that they accept the values, culture and ethics of whatever country they are in.
Of course, secular countries with Muslim majorities would be better than non secular ones. This would be true of other religions as well.

Islam shouldn't be judged by what Islamic societies do but by what Muslim minorities in non-Islamic societies do? Why? This seems like a random assertion. The only reason I can think of for making it is that you think Muslim minorities make Muslims look better. The fact is, they don't though. It does not look good when a group only supports freedom of expression when they they themselves are a minority.

Right.  It's very interesting how people defend Islam.  There is no much obfuscation in lieu of making actual claims that could be refuted.

An analogy is helpful here.  Let's say we're talking about whether ice cream is a healthy food.  Does the following sentence make sense?  Some people who eat ice cream in moderation are healthy so ice cream is healthy.

Of course not.  It's like people think the argument is, can you be both Muslim and non extreme/moderate?  Sure!  But, speaking up in favor of moderating ice cream, or Islam, or cigarette smoking doesn't necessarily recommend any of those activities.  It recommends not demonizing anyone who is Muslim, smokes one cigarette a year or eats Ice cream, certainly.

I think what everyone wants from Muslims is to very basic.  Accept secularism, secular government and law, accept the basic western liberal conception of civil liberty, and take your religion with an appropriate grain of salt, IE don't be literal or fundamentalist.  That's the same thing we expect from Jews and Christians.

That's basically what I was saying. Oh and by the way I am one of those infidels who eat ice cream and smoke cigarettes. I guess I wouldn't make a good Muslim after all. haha

[Famous Mortimer]

Jesus. Settle down.

[°Leprechaun]

Jesus. Settle down.

that would be the logical thing to do

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A distinction should be made between the two possible meanings conveyed by the word 'extreme'. There's merely being very, very conservative in your personal interpretation of religion - so deep Salafism etc. - or being willing to use violent aims to bring about your goals. Is the latter a direct consequence of the former? Or is it more complicated than that.

[DC Al Fine]

A distinction should be made between the two possible meanings conveyed by the word 'extreme'. There's merely being very, very conservative in your personal interpretation of religion - so deep Salafism etc. - or being willing to use violent aims to bring about your goals. Is the latter a direct consequence of the former? Or is it more complicated than that.

It's more complicated than that.  There are all sorts of religious sects whose religion is eccentric or even "extreme" by secular Western standards that manage not to blow anyone up. The Amish seem to have avoided terrorism, no?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Well quite. I think the trouble is we miss the forest for the trees. We see these unquestionably weird and foreign practices in the Middle East (which are carried out by most of the major indigenous religious including the old Jewish and Christian communities) and instinctively associate them with the violent jihadis. which is really a bad way of looking at things - not that I'm defending these patriarchal conservative groups, but they typically aren't the source of jihadism. Indeed why would they? Typically they are loyal to their own ancestral form of heterodox tribal Islam, not some speculative 'worldwide caliphate'. Indeed jihadi terrorists seem to come from the same sorts of sources as other non Islamic radicals: rootless, bored young men of varying incomes. They aren't especially devout normally - levels of religious piety seem to have very little correlation with 'going jihadi' or not. That's why I don't think the root cause of terrorism is as much theological as it is psychological. Obviously atm Islam is a greater catalyst to inspire terrorist acts due to a mixture of being well-funded and being a self-perpetuating phenomenon, but there is very little difference in motive between young jihadists and young, say, Shiv Sana members, or young hardcore nationalists or even gang members. People of a certain type gravitate towards ideologies to fulfill deeper longings.

[bedstuy]

I'm defending these patriarchal conservative groups, but they typically aren't the source of jihadism. Indeed why would they? Typically they are loyal to their own ancestral form of heterodox tribal Islam, not some speculative 'worldwide caliphate'.

Well, that's true.  I think Islamic fundamentalism is going through a revival period.  Uneducated people who can't read and aren't part of a globalized society are less likely to see religion as a global struggle.  They're less likely to hate people from around the world, because they don't even care.  As we've gotten more globalized though and Saudi/Iranian influence has radiated out, Islam has gotten more extremist and fundamentalist.

And, I hate to say it, there is a connection between conservative Islam influenced by Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda/ISIS.  Here's how it goes:

Conservative Muslim:  "Sharia law is the ideal, it's totally awesome.  We should have an Islamic government and Western values are corrupt and wrong.  America and Israel have evil foreign policy and they're committing genocide on Muslims.  BUT, we don't condone violence and terrorism is wrong.  Our religion is peaceful."

That's a dangerous message, it's sedition.  Young Muslims hear that and they internalize it.  More impressionable and violent people just delete the caveat that violence is wrong.  And, it's not a huge leap at all.  Violence is a normal human tool and people will inevitably justify it, if they care about something enough.

They aren't especially devout normally - levels of religious piety seem to have very little correlation with 'going jihadi' or not.

Totally disagree.  ISIS members are extremely devout.  They're not religious scholars or experts, sure.  But, if you blow yourself up expecting to go to heaven, you're devout or fanatical in your religious beliefs, by definition.  I think the better point is that they're often young, uneducated in religion and swept up in fervor rather than educated on the finer points.  You actually see ISIS members who can't speak Arabic as I understand it.

That's why I don't think the root cause of terrorism is as much theological as it is psychological.

That's an important point to bring up.  But, I think you're losing the thread a bit.

There is definitely a type of person who joins cult, a type of person who commits acts of violence.  But, if there were no people who could be driven to violence or join a mass movement, the world would be a very different place.  There are such young men who are Christian in America, atheist in China, Jewish in the UK, etc.  But, a far, far, far few of them are in a global terrorist group and are willing to go to extremes like going to another country to fight or kill innocent people.  If it was just the psychology, ISIS like groups would be distributed more or less equally, or according to poverty/opportunity. 

[Famous Mortimer]

Conservatism, even if it's not violent, encourages violence. If a society endorses the views that the Koran was literal and Mohammad was a great guy, that's going to encourage some people to act out the Koran literally and act like Mohammad.

[°Leprechaun]

Conservatism, even if it's not violent, encourages violence. If a society endorses the views that the Koran was literal and Mohammad was a great guy, that's going to encourage some people to act out the Koran literally and act like Mohammad.

True, and I think violence is a great evil, but there are other evils.
(Note: I don't mean to imply anything about what you personally think on any of this because I have no idea, my comments are not directed at anyone in particular)
Can you substitute the word "religion" for conservatism? Liberal religion is much less harmful than conservatism, but it is like the ice cream analogy. Small amounts of religion can be harmless in the same way that small amounts of ice cream are better than binging on ice cream.
Liberalism has it's downside as well, moral relativism, angry emotion, and extreme political correctness where one has to watch every word one says in the fear of possibly offending someone. The belief in god and or an afterlife may be harmless in themselves but when other religious ideas are added to those ideas, they can be harmful. Insofar as liberalism encourages interfaith cooperation and coexisting that is good, but atheists should be included as well, in spite of all the anti-atheist bigotry.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, well the fact is that conservative Islam comes in several groupings. (Warning: HOT TAKES METAPHOR APPROACHES) The old Sufi Islam is conservative in the same way that Social Credit style social conservativism is - a long-lasting and ancestral driven thing; while the Salafi driven stuff (like Wahhabism) is equivalent to Reagan conservativism - it is more 'radical' than what is traditionally described as conservativism.

I think ota also important to distinguish between zealous and pious. These jihadis are undoubtedly zealous. They are consumed with a passion to die for their cause. But is it a deep-rooted 'true' belief?  Hearing stories about the sort of people who join ISIS (and the tales of defectors) makes me highly doubt it. They aren't noted for being religious before they go. Often their attendance at mosques is shaky and they break all sort of Koran inspired diktats. They take a small drink from the Pierian Spring, as Pope wouldn say, forgetting that a little learning is a dangerous thing. This initial catalyst of well-funded propaganda compounded with groupthink compounded with personal issues and resentments is a powerful mix.

As for why is it's Islam and not some other Cray ideology? It's merely what is in vogue right now. A few decades ago the fashion would have been Arab nationalism, and really (although it is now dressed up in religious clothes) the toxic signs of nationalism - feelings of resentment towards foreign powers etc still seem to be there. You are right though that certain countries are inflaming things through their malignant influence - it's worth noting that many previously secular separatist and nationalistic movements are becoming more Islamist in character. I don't really know what it means though. Will popular islamism essentially be a fad like arab nationalism? Who knows.

[bedstuy]

As for why is it's Islam and not some other Cray ideology? It's merely what is in vogue right now. A few decades ago the fashion would have been Arab nationalism, and really (although it is now dressed up in religious clothes) the toxic signs of nationalism - feelings of resentment towards foreign powers etc still seem to be there. You are right though that certain countries are inflaming things through their malignant influence - it's worth noting that many previously secular separatist and nationalistic movements are becoming more Islamist in character. I don't really know what it means though. Will popular islamism essentially be a fad like arab nationalism? Who knows.

So, we have this horrible ideology afflicting much of the world including our countries. 

Why is your answer,
"well, what if the problem was another ideology."
"well, it might go away of its own accord."
"well, the problem isn't the ideology, it's that people have low-self esteem so they get caught up in it."

You know, the problem in the 1930s could have been Islamism, but it was fascism.  And, we couldn't hope it went away on its own.  We couldn't send the Nazis to self-esteem classes.  Thankfully, the Islamists don't control a country as scary as Germany.  But, let's acknowledge that parts of Islam are a problem and it needs to change. 

You don't solve the problem by refusing to have the conversation for the sake of people's feelings.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

crabcake is absolutely right about daesh's "islamism" being more of a cover than an actual deeply-rooted belief ftr.

[bedstuy]

crabcake is absolutely right about daesh's "islamism" being more of a cover than an actual deeply-rooted belief ftr.

What do you mean by that?  That seems just obviously untrue.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I just think it's ridiculous that we can be having the conversation on this website about how the exaggerated rhetoric, political extremism, and fundamentalist religious beliefs of Christians in America could conceivably lead to crazy white guys shooting up Planned Parenthood, but once you introduce Islam into the conversation, some of the same people who strongly caution about the former believe that coming to a similar conclusion about the latter is racist or Islamophobic. That there must be other reasons for why they do what they do. It's just such a strange inconsistency. (And to be fair, there are many many people who are hypocrites in the reverse, as well.)

"Well, if this was fifty years ago it would've just been something different, so blibbityblimblam" is one of the weirder defenses. It's hard for me to see this refusal to acknowledge that there is a core issue with the religion, with that worldview, and how widespread those beliefs truly are, as anything other than hyper sensitive social justice politics.

Lefties in America (and other places in the West) are perfectly capable of looking at the Planned Parenthood shooting and realizing what led to it, and are justifiably outraged. But imagine a broad swath of the world where those kinds of extremist beliefs are not only common, but state-sanctioned. Where those people control genuine patriarchal theocratic regimes and subjugate their populace on the regular. Beliefs that have been inculcated in these people all their lives spiral out of control when outside factors are introduced (be it poverty, political instability, war, some combination of all three) and those are important to consider, but it's ridiculous to pretend like extreme religious beliefs (many of which are widely believed in huge regions of the world, whether that's convenient to admit or not) aren't the largest issues here from which much of this springs.

And like I said, lefties have demonstrated they are perfectly capable of understanding these thought processes, and responding with targeting the appropriate ideologies. Provided the people involved are white.

You know, the problem in the 1930s could have been Islamism, but it was fascism.  And, we couldn't hope it went away on its own.  We couldn't send the Nazis to self-esteem classes.  Thankfully, the Islamists don't control a country as scary as Germany.  But, let's acknowledge that parts of Islam are a problem and it needs to change.

This is basically the point I was getting at, more succinctly put. Crabcake specifically understands this, if you're talking about the Nazis. She's reasonable enough to admit that whether you wanted to or not, you needed to target the ideology as harmful, regardless of how it sprung up. Yes, there were plenty of reasons why the Nazis came to power, and why their belief system spread, but at the end of the day the ideology was influential regardless and did grievous harm. So you target the ideology. But in this case, suddenly targeting the various extremist Islamic belief systems becomes problematic.

Where could this odd refusal to confront the problem be coming from, I wonder?

[ingemann]

I just think it's ridiculous that we can be having the conversation on this website about how the exaggerated rhetoric, political extremism, and fundamentalist religious beliefs of Christians in America could conceivably lead to crazy white guys shooting up Planned Parenthood, but once you introduce Islam into the conversation, some of the same people who strongly caution about the former believe that coming to a similar conclusion about the latter is racist or Islamophobic. That there must be other reasons for why they do what they do. It's just such a strange inconsistency. (And to be fair, there are many many people who are hypocrites in the reverse, as well.)

"Well, if this was fifty years ago it would've just been something different, so blibbityblimblam" is one of the weirder defenses. It's hard for me to see this refusal to acknowledge that there is a core issue with the religion, with that worldview, and how widespread those beliefs truly are, as anything other than hyper sensitive social justice politics.

Lefties in America (and other places in the West) are perfectly capable of looking at the Planned Parenthood shooting and realizing what led to it, and are justifiably outraged. But imagine a broad swath of the world where those kinds of extremist beliefs are not only common, but state-sanctioned. Where those people control genuine patriarchal theocratic regimes and subjugate their populace on the regular. Beliefs that have been inculcated in these people all their lives spiral out of control when outside factors are introduced (be it poverty, political instability, war, some combination of all three) and those are important to consider, but it's ridiculous to pretend like extreme religious beliefs (many of which are widely believed in huge regions of the world, whether that's convenient to admit or not) aren't the largest issues here from which much of this springs.

And like I said, lefties have demonstrated they are perfectly capable of understanding these thought processes, and responding with targeting the appropriate ideologies. Provided the people involved are white.

You know, the problem in the 1930s could have been Islamism, but it was fascism.  And, we couldn't hope it went away on its own.  We couldn't send the Nazis to self-esteem classes.  Thankfully, the Islamists don't control a country as scary as Germany.  But, let's acknowledge that parts of Islam are a problem and it needs to change.

This is basically the point I was getting at, more succinctly put. Crabcake specifically understands this, if you're talking about the Nazis. She's reasonable enough to admit that whether you wanted to or not, you needed to target the ideology as harmful, regardless of how it sprung up. Yes, there were plenty of reasons why the Nazis came to power, and why their belief system spread, but at the end of the day the ideology was influential regardless and did grievous harm. So you target the ideology. But in this case, suddenly targeting the various extremist Islamic belief systems becomes problematic.

Bravo

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also the last question, I think it's quite interesting, it could be worth its own debate, because it's not just a blind spot for CrabCake (a poster I respect) but a blind spot a lot of people share. Of course some of it is pure team sport, there's some quite obnoxious people who don't like Muslims, and often they're connected to Kulturkampfs of the past, which automatic place some people on the other side. But it's also in my opinion part of greater intellectual wave of cultural self blaming of western culture.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Partially it's logistical. It is very impractical to declare war on an entire religion and for the west to frame it as a matter of us vs Islam (like many republicans are intent on doing so) seems wholly misguided.

I mean let's take the Nazi analogy further. There were many conservatives who disliked the Nazis but never effectively targeted them, and thus allowed Hitler's regime to prosper. Some of them were chabcers who thought they could use the rising Nazi movement to their own ends (which in the Islamic analogy would be certain elements of the Saudi Arabian government). But others were genuinely choosing what they saw as the worst of two evils, with the other evil being communism in the Nazi example. To fight jihadi ideology, you need to form a broad coalition which includes non-violent Islamic conservative movements, even if they are distasteful. You don't want to leave out the mass movement islamists, because it will just prompt further polarisation between radical jihadis and the west.

[bedstuy]

Partially it's logistical. It is very impractical to declare war on an entire religion and for the west to frame it as a matter of us vs Islam (like many republicans are intent on doing so) seems wholly misguided.

I mean let's take the Nazi analogy further. There were many conservatives who disliked the Nazis but never effectively targeted them, and thus allowed Hitler's regime to prosper. Some of them were chabcers who thought they could use the rising Nazi movement to their own ends (which in the Islamic analogy would be certain elements of the Saudi Arabian government). But others were genuinely choosing what they saw as the worst of two evils, with the other evil being communism in the Nazi example. To fight jihadi ideology, you need to form a broad coalition which includes non-violent Islamic conservative movements, even if they are distasteful. You don't want to leave out the mass movement islamists, because it will just prompt further polarisation between radical jihadis and the west.

Moderate radical Islamism

Listen to your argument.  You've got it backwards.  You're deluding yourself.  It's impractical to think you can defeat ISIS, while embracing people who basically believe the same stuff as ISIS, but are "peaceful."  It's impractical to be mealy mouthed and cowardly in the face of truly incompatible ideas. 

We are weak if we're afraid to stick up for our values.  We would have been weak in WWII if we tried to appeal to "moderate Nazis" and refused to frame the war as democracy vs. fascism.  The more you dilute your ideas, the more you stand for nothing.  Watering down our values into something that encompasses moderate Islamism turns them into something nobody could possible want to fight for.  A broad coalition of people who don't agree or know what they're fighting for is weak.

We can't really fight the ideological battle with ISIS unless it becomes Islamic values vs. Western values.  That's what we believe in.  Let's just be clear about what we believe and let the chips fall where they may.  We don't need to enforce these values with war or violence.  We need to stand up for our values with words, for example, supporting people who draw cartoons of Mohammed instead of surrendering our freedom to Islamists in hopes they go away if we surrender enough.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

First, let's define these "Western Values" and "Islamic Values" that are supposed to be inherently opposed

[bedstuy]

Define these "Western Values" and "Islamic Values" that you suppose are inherently exclusive

"Free speech vs. "Blasphemy laws and using violence to stop free speech"
"Feminism vs. Treating women as inferior and mutilating their genitals"
"Democracy, separation of church and state vs. Islamic theocracy"
"Cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism vs. ignorance and hatred of minorities"
"Minority rights vs. Tyranny of the majority"
"An acceptance of basic classical liberal values vs. trying to exploit freedom while speaking against it"
"Gay Rights vs. Death penalty for gay sex"
"Proper law and justice vs. sharia law"
I could go on.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm not really sure how "Western values" is supposed to win in the Middle East without your run of the mill Islamists. There's a huge difference between some random peasant in Jordan seeing the divide as the local imam vs. ISIS and the Godless Whore of the West vs. Islam.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Define these "Western Values" and "Islamic Values" that you suppose are inherently exclusive

"Free speech vs. "Blasphemy laws and using violence to stop free speech"
"Feminism vs. Treating women as inferior and mutilating their genitals"
"Democracy, separation of church and state vs. Islamic theocracy"
"Cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism vs. ignorance and hatred of minorities"
"Minority rights vs. Tyranny of the majority"
"An acceptance of basic classical liberal values vs. trying to exploit freedom while speaking against it"
"Gay Rights vs. Death penalty for gay sex"
"Proper law and justice vs. sharia law"
I could go on.

Those are not "Islamic" values, those are "Islamist" values. Two letters, big difference.


You say

We can't really fight the ideological battle with ISIS unless it becomes Islamic values vs. Western values.

which I disagree with, but I'm assuming you meant to type "Islamist values", which I would then agree with.

[bedstuy]

Muslims decide what is and is not in their religion.

And, you have to understand my point in the context of my argument.  I think we need to create a break between Muslims and Islamism/Wahhabism/Salafism/Any kind Islam that conflicts with basic human rights and Democratic values. 

Crabcake said we should try to accommodate moderate Islamists and Saudi type Islam which has all the evil of ISIS, just without the extreme brutality and outward violence.  I couldn't disagree more.

As far as Islamist vs. Islamic, it's a fair distinction.  Not eating pork is neither here nor there for me, although I find it annoying.  But, Islamist values are also Islamic values.  I sometimes feel like people want to create this separate category for "bad Islam."  Islamist, Wahhabi, extreme, radical, Islamofascist, political Islam, they all just mean "bad Islam."  Well, there's a danger because some "bad Islamists" call themselves moderate and peaceful while they preach hatred and awful nonsense that goes against American values.  We need to be a bit more specific about what we will and will not accept from our religious groups.

Advocating Sharia law, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-democracy/pro-theocracy, violence against cartoonists, chopping hands off for stealing, nah, that's unacceptable, period.

[Sbane]

Advocating Sharia law, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-democracy/pro-theocracy, violence against cartoonists, chopping hands off for stealing, nah, that's unacceptable, period.

Yes, I agree with this. I just disagree with the implication that this means we need to go to war against "Islamic values". There are plenty of muslims out there who don't believe in that stuff. Indonesia or Bangladesh doesn't do most of what you listed. India has one of the largest populations of muslims and they don't advocate the things you listed, although India does have sharia law for muslims (which I think is a travesty and should be changed but that's a discussion for another thread). It's just not helpful to go on a crusade against "islamic values".