The greatest ideological struggle in the post-communist era is, so the media tells us, the struggle against radical Islam. Unfortunately, the media oracle feeds us conflicting messages on what the real issue is and how it can be solved. Like any issue that involves political zombies, America has two irreconcilable visions of the problem, and two radically different solutions. But, as is true with many issues in American politics: both sides are wrong. This is part one of a two-part series dealing with the problems Americans have with understanding and responding to radical Islam.
Let us begin with the right, which frankly speaking, isn’t. From the view of extreme partisans on the right, the problem is Islam itself. The Islamaniacs , and all those who follow the False Prophet, follow a fundamentally violent religion. From this perspective, Islam is locked in an eternal jihad against the heathen world, and it is a conflict that can only be continued by force of arms: Non-Muslims must either recite the shahadah or perish: There is no room for the separation of Mosque and State in Islam. Supporters of this view of Islam feel that the solution to the conflict is to take up arms to oppose the jihad. Though most won’t say it, there are always the more candid (and extreme) voices that feel that Islam must be destroyed. Supporters of this position point to the (admittedly) violent rise of Islam in the 7th and 8th century and content that the us-versus-them mindset of the early days of Islam translate perfectly into the 21st century.
In a refreshing (albeit disturbing) alternative to the zombification of politics, fellows from the “Atheist by Faith Alone” camp of lunatic leftists (like the recent douchebag-cum-author Christopher Hitchens) agree with this view. But this odd confluence of fundamentalist Christians and irrational atheists is united in something else: being flat out wrong.
For starters, Islam is not the only religion to have a troubling relationship with the state. Christianity, for instance has had problems in all its major branches (see late medieval Western Europe for Catholicism, the late Byzantine Orthodoxy or later writings of Luther that smack of complete Caesero-Papism). Second, the violence in Arabia was par for the course at the time and that Islamic nations were significantly less violent than some of their pagan contemporaries (the Golden Horde comes to mind). Third, radical Islam is a product of the modern era: beginning in the late 19th century with Jamal al-Din al-Afghani as a response to the British occupation. Until that point, the Islamic world (at least in its Turkoman/Islamic flavor) wallowed in the peaceful, slothful decadence it had descended into since the Battle of Lepanto. Fourth, barring isolated separatist insurgencies (which are not, in general religiously motivated), Muslims in Southeast Asia, the major nexus of Islam outside of the Middle East have lived quite peacefully for a long time.
A detailed look at history and a smattering of common sense (often lacking in the American right) tell a clear story: this view of Islam is wrong, and the conclusion that it must be destroyed by force cannot be supported from that evidence. If only the other side offered a better view. As we’ll see in the next issue, things aren’t any better on the left.
September 7, 2007 at 3:16 pm
While I agree that Islam has been many things over many centuries, and that any monolithic view is a problem, we need to be careful. At the present time, the radical Islam of Saudi Arabia wields influence far beyond what it should. Consider this artricle from the Times in London, confirming again what has been confirmed many times: hardliners control many of the leading mosques in the country:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece
But, ANM is right about two things: radical Islam can’t be separated from the modern context—all its appeals to the purity of the past notwithstanding; and more moderate Muslims are as much natural allies in the struggle as potential converts to the enemy’s cause.
As Americans, in particular, we should realize this: as we have “tamed” more wacky religions than any nation in history—taming not by eliminating them or moderating their creeds but by demanding that their adherents have basic human respect for one another despite their disagreements.
September 12, 2007 at 11:11 am
[…] We’ve been awfully serious here for a while. I mean, recent topics include the radical Islam and ethics of stem cell research, what’s next, heart attacks, breast cancer or nuclear war? […]
October 1, 2007 at 10:06 pm
[…] with the problems Americans have with understanding and responding to radical Islam. You can find part one […]
October 2, 2007 at 10:32 am
First of all, replace the term “radical Islam” with “mainstream Islam”. All Muslims that engage in dialog or other such reasonable actions are heretics in Islam’s eyes.
Second, there is another response against Islam besides arms, and that is isolation. Europe may have already lost the war against Islam, with their huge Muslim ghettoes, but here in the US we need to introduce political profiling: those who profess allegiance to political groups that have avowed the destruction of the government of the US (like Islam) should be denied entrance to the US. This will be almost 100 percent individuals of Arabic extraction, but it is political profiling, not ethnic or racial profiling, that is necessary here.
Let me leave you with just one troubling fact: Muslim rape of Western women. In Oslo, two-thirds of men arrested for rape are of “non-Western ethnic origin” (Oslo’s daily Aftenposten). In Denmark, most rapes are committed by immigrants, overwhelmingly Muslim, who account for 5 percent of the population but consume 40 percent of the country’s welfare spending (Daniel Pipes, “Something Is Rotten In The State of Denmark”, NY Post, Aug 27, 2002). Muhammed would approve, seeing how he did explicitly approve an orgy of rape of 500 kidnapped women of the Jewish tribe of Banu-‘l-Mustaliq in the year 626. This behavior displays a disturbing difference in how Western women are viewed, since Muslim women are never raped by Muslims. Imagine the rioting that would occur if Westerners gang-raped a Muslim women.
October 4, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Mike T.,
Thanks for providing another example of how the right just doesn’t get it about Islam! It’s good to see that you feel that the 1st ammendment is superfluous and that that explicit and draconian religious descrimination is the future of America. It only makes your position look more like it actually is: absurd.
Cheers!
October 17, 2007 at 1:19 am
I think most people know the difference between militant Muslims and Islam, but it’s sort of like hearing about the Yankees on tv all the time: you know there are lots of other teams, but that’s the first team that comes to mind when someone says baseball. Look at all the negative examples of Islam on the news all the time. We never hear anything positive about the culture because it isn’t news worthy. I mean, it is, but you know what I mean, it doesn’t sell.