Groups vs. Individuals

[Skeptic]

A private message I recieved got me thinking.

I can see why people jump on me when I say that "Islam is..." this and that, especially when I say something neative. Naturally, the suspicion is that I am one of the "I'm not a racist, but..." crowd.

But that criticism of a group's behavior can be used as an excuse to express racist feelings doesn't mean all criticism of a group's behavior is illegitimate. OF COURSE I do not mean every single member (or, for that matter, even that most or many members) of the group agrees with the group's bad behavior, let alone that the group's bad behavior is due to inherited, racial traits of the members.

The "don't you know most Muslims are decent people?" is a red herring--of course that is true! But it's still the case that Islam as a group is--today--a threat to the west.

Why? Because it is, very often, the case that groups behave horribly when most of their members are perfectly decent people. The reason for that is in the old adage, "the only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". E.g., most Iranians, Russians, North Korean, etc. want(ed) nothing more than a decent life and no trouble with the authorities. But this means the evil leaders of Islamist Iran, Soviet Russia, and North Korea could use them for their goals.

I am not criticizing their inaction--I do not presume I, if I had to live in Iran or Stalinist Russia, would act any differently. But it's still the case that Iran or the USSR are (or were) a threat to the west, due to those countries' goals.

As I said--repeatedly--the reason Islam is a threat to the west is not that most Muslims are evil or violent, or that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity or Judaism. The problem is who its leaders are and how they interpret and apply their religion.

 

[Earthborn]

But it's still the case that Islam as a group is--today--a threat to the west.

The problem with this concept is: Islam is not a group. It is a religion. It is a personal part of every single Muslim. Muslims do not form the group of 'Islam' but rather Islam is 'inside' every single one of them. If you want to talk about Muslims as a group, there are better expressions such as 'the Muslim World'.

But it's still the case that Iran or the USSR are (or were) a threat to the west, due to those countries' goals.

People often use the name of a country to refer to its government, simply because its government is the most powerful organisation in a country. This leads to much less confusion about you mean than when you use the name of a religion to refer to violent minority groups within that religion that often fight against their own governments or their own religious establishments.

While refering to the a country's government with the name of the country does ignore the opinions of large numbers of people within that country, it is not as wrong as refering to specific religiously motivated political movements with the name of their religion. That's because governments have policies and goals that are fairly consistent, while different political groups with the same religion often clash with eachother.

The problem is who its leaders are and how they interpret and apply their religion.

Islam does not have leaders, except maybe the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and Allah.

It's not even that different in that regard from other religions. Is the pope the leader of Christianity? One might say he is only the leader of a specific branch of Christianity, but not Christianity as a whole. Is George W. Bush the leader of Christianity? No, definitely not. Is the president or the prime minister of Israel the leader of Judaism? No, of course not. That would be ridiculous. Therefore you cannot use the name of the religion as a shorthand for the policies they stand for.

 

[Mephisto]

Is George W. Bush the leader of Christianity? No, definitely not.

I once argued the premise in the OP with Skeptic and came around to his point of view. Your statement above could be changed to, "Is George W. Bush the leader of the U.S?" which would be true, and to many people in the Muslim world it is his actions that comdemn us all as Americans.

It's plainly clear that the majority of the American people do not support George W. Bush's war in Iraq, but the fact remains we are fighting (and planning on sending MORE soldiers) in Iraq, so whether or not the average American supports the actions of the President, the average Muslim could say with all conviction that the policies of America are injurious to Muslims in the middle-east.

 

[Wolfman]

Sorry, Skeptic...while I understand your argument, I don't quite agree with it. Let me take your logic and apply it to other situations.

The leaders of the United States have taken military action against Iraq, and threaten military action against Iran. Since the government represents the elected leadership of the people of the United States, and indeed a good number of Americans supports such a policy, would it be valid to equate "the United States government is a threat to Iran" and "Americans are a threat to Iran"?

You talk about "Islam as a group" being a "threat to the West". No. Discrete groups of Muslims are a "threat to the West". A statement such as yours opens wide the gates of intolerance and fear-mongering.

There are many Islamic organizations within the U.S. that not only are opposed to Muslim extremists, but who are actively involved in helping American authorities by reporting on activities of potential terrorists, etc. How do you think such people would react to being told that they are, in fact, a "threat to the West", simply by merit of being Muslim?

While I don't accuse you of being racist, I do think that your perspective is one that leads to groupthink and polarization; it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when Muslims who do not support such activities inevitably see themselves being branded as a "threat to the West" based on no more than a religious label.

It is of crucial importance at a time like this to make a special effort to reach out to Muslim communities -- both inside and outside of your country -- and demonstrate very clearly that you understand the difference between them, and terrorists. Not to rely on lazy language and convenient generalities that result in a picture that is far from accurate.

You appreciate that not all Muslims are terrorists; others who read your posts may not make that distinction. If you believe there is such a distinction, I'd consider it a basic responsibility to make that as clear as possible. Otherwise, the words you use without racist intent will, inevitably, be used by someone else with racist intent.

 

[Roboramma]

I was in india when the US went to war with Iraq.
The next day, I was walking home, back to the house where I was staying. On my way there, three guys pulled up on a motorcycle* jumped off it, started getting uncomfortably close and surrounding me as they yelled at me in kanada (the language in karnataka). I was lucky - I was almost home and the lady who cleans the house was on her way out. She started yelling at them and they left me alone.
When I asked what the problem was she wouldn't say anything except, "They're Muslims."

Nothing else like that ever happened when I was in India, and I spent about a year there.

I wouldn't be surprised if they viewed me as an "American" (though I'm Canadian) and thought that "America is a threat to muslims", or to India, or whatever.

Not sure if this has that much to do with the OP. Just thought it was worth mentioning.

*Yes they jumped off a motorcycle. This was India.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I am not criticizing their inaction--I do not presume I, if I had to live in Iran or Stalinist Russia, would act any differently. But it's still the case that Iran or the USSR are (or were) a threat to the west, due to those countries' goals.

And these people have an excuse that Muslims lack: they are coerced into participation. People have much more of a choice what religion to be a member of than what country to live in.

The problem with this concept is: Islam is not a group. It is a religion.

Are those supposed to be mutually exclusive?

If you want to talk about Muslims as a group, there are better expressions such as 'the Muslim World'.

No, "Muslim world" implies that one is talking about all countries with a Muslim majority. I am part of the "Christian world" even though I am not a Christian, and there are a lot of Christians who are part of the Muslim world. If we want to talk about Muslims, the proper term is "Muslim".

People often use the name of a country to refer to its government, simply because its government is the most powerful organisation in a country.

A bit of idle curiousity: you use the British spelling of "organization". Are you using the British meaning of "government"?

This leads to much less confusion about you mean than when you use the name of a religion to refer to violent minority groups within that religion that often fight against their own governments or their own religious establishments.

But we're not talking a violent minority group. We're talking about widespread problems.

Islam does not have leaders, except maybe the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and Allah.

Inmans are not leaders?

It's not even that different in that regard from other religions. Is the pope the leader of Christianity?

The leader? No. A leader? Absolutely.

Therefore you cannot use the name of the religion as a shorthand for the policies they stand for.

A religion is the policies that it stands for.

Let me take your logic and apply it to other situations.

Funny how often people say they're going to apply some else's logic, but just apply their own.

Since the government represents the elected leadership of the people of the United States, and indeed a good number of Americans supports such a policy, would it be valid to equate "the United States government is a threat to Iran" and "Americans are a threat to Iran"?

When did Skeptic ever say it would?

Discrete groups of Muslims are a "threat to the West".

Al Qaeda is not a discrete group.

A statement such as yours opens wide the gates of intolerance and fear-mongering.

The gates of intolerance should be opened. Tolerance of vice is no virtue.

There are many Islamic organizations within the U.S. that not only are opposed to Muslim extremists, but who are actively involved in helping American authorities by reporting on activities of potential terrorists, etc.

Then why are the Muslims? Why do they not, at the very least, start an offshoot of Islam, and make it publicly known that they are opposed to terrorism, instead of declaring themselves to be in essential agreement with terrorists? A major schism in Islam has developed over who should have succeeded Mohammed. They're still squabbling over it a millenium and a half later. That, they consider important enough to found completely different branches over. But thousands of Americans being murdered? All that merits is a few condemnatory speeches. ***** that. If you're a Muslim, and you can't be bothered to make terrorism more important than A FOURTEEN-CENTURY-OLD TIFF, then you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

How do you think such people would react to being told that they are, in fact, a "threat to the West", simply by merit of being Muslim?

How do you think that Skeptic feels about you misrepresenting his position? His position is that they are members of a group that is a threat to the West.

While I don't accuse you of being racist, I do think that your perspective is one that leads to groupthink and polarization; it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when Muslims who do not support such activities inevitably see themselves being branded as a "threat to the West" based on no more than a religious label.

Perhaps they'll realize that the remedy for that is rejecting a terrorist religion? Should we allow terrorists to blackmail us into censorship out of fear of more terrorists?

It is of crucial importance at a time like this to make a special effort to reach out to Muslim communities -- both inside and outside of your country -- and demonstrate very clearly that you understand the difference between them, and terrorists.

The difference is that terrorists at least admit that they are following a terrorist religion.

If you believe there is such a distinction, I'd consider it a basic responsibility to make that as clear as possible.

He has a responsibility to go out of his way to avoid people concluding something completely different from what he's saying? Don't Muslims have a basic responsibility to make it clear that even though they follow a terrorist religion, they aren't in fact terrorists?

And what's all this talk about racism? Are you one of those people that are unable to distinguish between that intolerance of Islam and racism?

 

[Schneibster]

Hate ta tell ya, there, Skep, but where the problem is is over in Western Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan. Iran and Iraq are great ways to avoid dealin with the real problem. These guys are gonna blow off a nuclear weapon somewhere while we're still playin footsie with Iran, not to mention using our army in Iraq. Then what?

 

[Skeptic]

There are many Islamic organizations within the U.S. that not only are opposed to Muslim extremists, but who are actively involved in helping American authorities by reporting on activities of potential terrorists, etc. How do you think such people would react to being told that they are, in fact, a "threat to the West", simply by merit of being Muslim?

(Sigh)

Again: THAT'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT I AM SAYING!!!

I am NOT saying all Muslims, or all Muslims groups, are a threat to the west. I am saying Islam is. I mean, Einstein was a German; if I said, in 1941, "Germany is a threat to the USA", would that have been an insult to Einstein, or meant he is a threat to the USA?

My point is precisely that "Islam is a threat to the west" is COMPATIBLE with the claim that many, in fact most, Muslims are not individually a threat, and that the decency and lack of threat of most Muslims should not blind us to the fact that Islam now is a threat, for reasons I outlined above.

I fail to see why this is so controvertial. In 1943, Germany was a threat to the USA. Does that mean that, even then, anybody seriously meant that every single German on earth--including Albert Einstein and the leaders of the German resistance--are a threat to the USA? In 1972, the USSR was a threat to the USA. Did that ever mean all Russians were enamored with Communism and wanted nothing more than nuclear war?

 

[Wolfman]

The difference is that terrorists at least admit that they are following a terrorist religion.

He has a responsibility to go out of his way to avoid people concluding something completely different from what he's saying? Don't Muslims have a basic responsibility to make it clear that even though they follow a terrorist religion, they aren't in fact terrorists?

And what's all this talk about racism? Are you one of those people that are unable to distinguish between that intolerance of Islam and racism?

Thank you, my friend, for illustrating exactly the point that I was trying to make. There is nothing in Islam that is implicitly "terrorist". In fact, if you bothered to study history, you will find that there were times in the past when the situations were effectively reversed from what they are today -- when Islam was a religion of tolerance (promoting scientific study, women's rights, religious tolerance) while Christianity was a "terrorist" religion, forcing people to convert on threat of death, and killing anyone of opposing religious beliefs.

You are exactly the kind of person that I am warning Skeptic about; it is plain from his post that he sees the difference between Muslims who engage in terrorism and in perceiving all Islam as terrorist. But when he makes posts that generalize, people such as yourself will be unable to appreciate the difference, and use such information to support their own ignorant beliefs, and thereby promote hatred and intolerance.

For the record, I am against terrorism of any kind. I am no apologist for terrorism, whether it be committed by Muslim or Christian, by atheist or theist. I have many very good Muslim friends (just as I have Christian friends, Buddhist friends, Hindu friends, atheist friends, etc.), and they are about as far from being "terrorists" as possible. They are very devout Muslims, and see what Islamic terrorists do as a perversion and abuse of their religion -- it is the terrorists, in other words, who are not the "real Muslims".

But when ignorant bigots turn around and condemn their religious beliefs -- calling their religion a "terrorist religion" or lumping them in with murderers and criminals -- it is understandable that they get angry. Such an attitude only guarantees greater conflict and misunderstanding between the two sides.

Yes, pandering to terrorists is wrong. But alienating and promoting hatred/intolerance of people who could be our allies is just about the stupidest policy I can imagine.

 

[The Painter]

How is condemning a religion racist? Are all Muslim the same race? No whites, no blacks, no Asians, no Indians. Are they all Arabs? I also find it surprising that people here who claim to be atheist or nonreligious are quick to call people stupid who do believe in God, but I’ve yet to hear them call Muslims stupid. I hear them defending The Muslims saying its America’s fault for being mean to them. I’m sure there are many peaceful people in the Muslim world, but they need to stand up to the extremist in their religion. They haven’t.

"the only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

Very appropriate. If the good people do nothing it can be seen as approval of the extremists. Right after 9-11, I don’t remember pictures of Muslims hanging their heads in shame for what their brothers did. I do remember cheers, dancing and shooting guns in the air in celebration. I interpret that as approval. Until we are shown the peaceful side of the religion of peace our guard must be kept up, because the non-peaceful side wants to kill us. All of us.

 

[Schneibster]

Thank you, my friend, for illustrating exactly the point that I was trying to make. There is nothing in Islam that is implicitly "terrorist". In fact, if you bothered to study history, you will find that there were times in the past when the situations were effectively reversed from what they are today -- when Islam was a religion of tolerance (promoting scientific study, women's rights, religious tolerance) while Christianity was a "terrorist" religion, forcing people to convert on threat of death, and killing anyone of opposing religious beliefs.

You are exactly the kind of person that I am warning Skeptic about; it is plain from his post that he sees the difference between Muslims who engage in terrorism and in perceiving all Islam as terrorist. But when he makes posts that generalize, people such as yourself will be unable to appreciate the difference, and use such information to support their own ignorant beliefs, and thereby promote hatred and intolerance.

I stopped paying any attention to Art a while back after he decided it would be fun to bait me. I don't recommend reading or responding to his posts; don't feed the troll.

 

[Schneibster]

How is condemning a religion racist?

No, it's prejudiced, which is the problem with racism as well. The popular term for people who express and condone prejudice is "bigot." You are a bigot.

Very appropriate. If the good people do nothing it can be seen as approval of the extremists. Right after 9-11, I don’t remember pictures of Muslims hanging their heads in shame for what their brothers did. I do remember cheers, dancing and shooting guns in the air in celebration. I interpret that as approval. Until we are shown the peaceful side of the religion of peace our guard must be kept up, because the non-peaceful side wants to kill us. All of us.

Guess you still believe in St. Rupert even after he admitted he's been lying all along, huh? Not only a bigot, but a STUPID bigot. Neato. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter?

 

[Wolfman]

(Sigh)

Again: THAT'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT I AM SAYING!!!

I am NOT saying all Muslims, or all Muslims groups, are a threat to the west. I am saying Islam is. I mean, Einstein was a German; if I said, in 1941, "Germany is a threat to the USA", would that have been an insult to Einstein, or meant he is a threat to the USA?

My point is precisely that "Islam is a threat to the west" is COMPATIBLE with the claim that many, in fact most, Muslims are not individually a threat, and that the decency and lack of threat of most Muslims should not blind us to the fact that Islam now is a threat, for reasons I outlined above.

I fail to see why this is so controvertial. In 1943, Germany was a threat to the USA. Does that mean that, even then, anybody seriously meant that every single German on earth--including Albert Einstein and the leaders of the German resistance--are a threat to the USA? In 1972, the USSR was a threat to the USA. Did that ever mean all Russians were enamored with Communism and wanted nothing more than nuclear war?

Skeptic, in many ways, you and I are saying much the same thing. However, I disagree with your comparison here.

When talking about Germany, and saying "Germany is a threat", you are correct -- because all the German leaders were leading a war against other nations. It didn't mean that every German was a threat.

However, in Islam, while there certainly are some leaders who promote violence and terrorism, there are many others who do not! Germany had a unified leadership, who were united in their goal; Islam has many different leaders, who have many different messages.

And I note that you failed entirely to respond to what I considered the main point of my response to you. You are able to differentiate between the actions of individuals, and the actions of a group as a whole. Others are not able to do so (as more than adequately evidenced by responses like Art Vandelay's). When you make posts that rely on generalities, you feed into that intolerance.

Look at it logically. As you stated, saying "Germany is a threat" means essentially that all the German leaders are united in actions against others. We wouldn't say "Germany is a threat" if a few radicals within the German government took independent action to kill some Jews, but the rest opposed such actions; only if that were the actual policy of the government itself. So when you say that "Islam is a threat", you are giving the same impression -- that Islamic leaders are united in actions against us. But that is not the case; many Islamic leaders are, in fact, directly opposed to terrorism.

 

[Schneibster]

And it's even better than that, Skep- many leaders of Islam, in both the Sunni and Shi'a traditions, are biased TOWARD us. They live here, after all.

 

[Mephisto]

Skeptic, in many ways, you and I are saying much the same thing.

Wolfman, I suggest you read Skeptic's thread "Random Musings," (which is likely now on page 2 or 3 of this forum) as your position sounds quite the same as the position I took.

I understand your assertions (having made them myself), but if you read that thread in particular, I'm sure you'll understand that Skeptic is making a valid point.

 

[Kerberos]

(Sigh)

Again: THAT'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT I AM SAYING!!!

I am NOT saying all Muslims, or all Muslims groups, are a threat to the west. I am saying Islam is. I mean, Einstein was a German; if I said, in 1941, "Germany is a threat to the USA", would that have been an insult to Einstein, or meant he is a threat to the USA?

My point is precisely that "Islam is a threat to the west" is COMPATIBLE with the claim that many, in fact most, Muslims are not individually a threat, and that the decency and lack of threat of most Muslims should not blind us to the fact that Islam now is a threat, for reasons I outlined above.

I fail to see why this is so controvertial. In 1943, Germany was a threat to the USA. Does that mean that, even then, anybody seriously meant that every single German on earth--including Albert Einstein and the leaders of the German resistance--are a threat to the USA? In 1972, the USSR was a threat to the USA. Did that ever mean all Russians were enamored with Communism and wanted nothing more than nuclear war?

Germany was and is a Country, Countries are very, very concrete thing, with policies independent of the wishes of the individual members. This is simply not the case when talking about religions, with the exceptions of small cults. To say that Germany was a threat is comparable to stating that Iran is a threat. It is also comparable to stating that this or that Muslim organisation is a threat (All-Qaida, Hamas etc.). It is not comparable to saying Islam is a threat.

 

[Kerberos]

Wolfman, I suggest you read Skeptic's thread "Random Musings," (which is likely now on page 2 or 3 of this forum) as your position sounds quite the same as the position I took.

I understand your assertions (having made them myself), but if you read that thread in particular, I'm sure you'll understand that Skeptic is making a valid point.

You mean to say that you changed you mind based on an internet debate? Isn't that a banable offence or something?

 

[Mephisto]

You mean to say that you changed you mind based on an internet debate? Isn't that a banable offence or something?

Yep! I'm a flip-flopper. At least in view of current American politics, being a flip-flopper might not carry the stigma it used to.

 

[Darth Rotor]

In fact, if you bothered to study history, you will find that there were times in the past when the situations were effectively reversed from what they are today -- when Islam was a religion of tolerance . . . while Christianity was a "terrorist" religion, forcing people to convert on threat of death, and killing anyone of opposing religious beliefs.

Short answer: so what?

Digression. I'd like to explore in another thread when this allegedly occurred: Medieval Muslims universally ceasing in the pursuit and execution of infidels throughout the Ummah. If you insist on cherry picking the Christians, like Charlamagne or various Crusaders, or Torquamadea, you must likewise scrutinize their counterparts and contemporaries among the various Caliphates to make a fair appraisal.

You deserve better than a "so what?" Herewith is the long answer.

What does that have to do with the past 200-300 years, the Age of Enlightenment's growth and flowering that left Islam in the dust after a high water mark in Vienna, 1699? How does it address today's concerns?

Arbitrarily reaching back to a selectively remembered past does not support your argument. I think that it argues for your opponent, since the intellectual leadership you refer to was squandered about about seven or eight centuries ago. This Christianity-evil-Muslim-benevolent strawman ignores the historical detail that in both cases medieval, feudal and autocratic rule was the norm. Saudi Arabia for fifty, Alex, in a tag team with Ferdinand and Isabella's Spain.

The king (and in some cases the Church, in other cases both) owned your sorry behind no matter your alphabet, no matter your faith, no matter your location. That a fraction of one broader society's elite for a time were wiser, or more broadminded than the intelligensia of the other society does not represent much of anything useful for Islam, nor the West, in the here and now. It remains a case of an "in the good old days" nostalgia. Are we going to hear calls for reruns of "Leave it to Bashir" next?

Ataturk had good reason to flush Islam from Turkey's political primacy: its proponents were hidebound, and backward thinking. Whatever medieval glory the Crescent once held had been old news for a couple of centuries in his day.

Of course, back in the good old days, the American Chestnut was the most glorious of trees. Big deal, they are now gone, thanks to an Asian blight that arrived in America and found easy ecological pickings. Nostalgia gets you no shade on a hot summer day.

Longfellow wept. So too, I suspect, would the scholars of Damascus and Baghdad from "back in the day."

For the record, I am against terrorism of any kind.

No kidding? It's also easy to be against running babies through woodchippers, which horror I am adamantly against. Your stand on this isn't germane, though I agree with that position.

Terrorism as a means to an end has massive leverage. It doesn't take too many people participating in it to make it effective. It does not matter what the masses don't do, as regards terrorism, what matters is what the activists do. The critical thing that the masses do is look the other way, or more commonly, feel helpless to make a difference.

I am no apologist for terrorism, whether it be committed by Muslim or Christian, by atheist or theist. I have many very good Muslim friends (just as I have Christian friends, Buddhist friends, Hindu friends, atheist friends, etc.), and they are about as far from being "terrorists" as possible. They are very devout Muslims, and see what Islamic terrorists do as a perversion and abuse of their religion -- it is the terrorists, in other words, who are not the "real Muslims".

No True Muslim, of course. Funnily enough, some of the more radical Muslims look across the table at the sheep who decry their terroristic methods and make the same point: those who will not struggle for The Cause are Not True Muslims. I got a face full of such talk from some members of a Church we were looking into joining. I was not prepared to be a militant anti-abortion activist, and was advised of a variety of things wrong with me. We went elsewhere.

I am not sure when the last time was that a Christian Church Leader (Pope, head of the Episcopalean Church, Billy Graham, or the Dahli Lama) put out a hit on an author, or a political figure, via a doctrinal or official decree. I know of a High Muslim Cleric who did within the past 20 years. I am likewise unaware of any Western court whose proceedings can be overruled by a subsequent religious court's decision.

These distinctions are current, and they matter. What kind of world do you intend to live in, and have your children live in?

That the medieval approach sustains in the here and now, when the means made possible by the industrial and technological revolution put even greater leverage into the hands of a terrorist, makes me wonder at anyone attempting the "moral equivalence between religions" gambit, where the religions intersect with the geopolitical game. The religions are not equal, and are not equivalent, at that level. Islam, in the words of Bernard Lewis, has not had its Reformation, nor its Rennaisance. Its acting as a storehouse of ancient philosophy and thought was a useful feature that enabled the West to recapture much that had been lost. Toledo and Cordoba for fifty, Alex.

What have they done for the world lately?

But when ignorant bigots turn around and condemn their religious beliefs -- calling their religion a "terrorist religion" or lumping them in with murderers and criminals -- it is understandable that they get angry. Such an attitude only guarantees greater conflict and misunderstanding between the two sides.

See my note about fatwas, and tell me why that piece of evidence is not a critical piece of this discussion. Thankfully, fatwas of that nature are an uncommon decree, but such a decree is doctrinally valid as a method of sanction.

Yes, pandering to terrorists is wrong. But alienating and promoting hatred/intolerance of people who could be our allies is just about the stupidest policy I can imagine.

In principle I agree with you, but you seem to make a mistake similar to the mistake Earthborn makes in this remark.

The problem with this concept is: Islam is not a group. It is a religion

Islam is more than a religion, it is a community. So too is Christianity, in very broad terms of a shared group identity. None of these "identity" functions scale easily, neither up nor down. Nor does the more nebulous "secularist" identity scale easily.

The presumption of a universal, artificial separation of religion from life is a perceptual error. Some people have removed religion from their lives, or have decoupled it from formal political positions, but to assume that all people look at the two elements of public life in the same fashion is a profound error. On this forum, the non-stovepipe approach is continually labeled "woo woo" and thus dismissed out of hand.

I think this is a symptom of intellectual blinder donning. JREF has posting on its forums some very bright "wise fools," too many of whom are blinded, if the arguments posted here can be considered evidence, by their confidence in their own world view.

If I learned one thing from my associates among the Arabs and South Asians, it is that the Ummah generally do not separate religion, faith, and life artificially as many Westerners do. Those who grasp how many in the West make that separation, among those I worked with, were people who had been educated in the West. Their guidance to me was that the average cloth merchant didn't "get" the common Western schism between religion and the rest of life. Without their bi-cultural perspective, I'd have never understood the mental trip snare involved in thinking that an Egyptian grocer would see the relation of society and religion as I was brought up to see it.

To disagree with Earthborn, since it relates to your concern for the greater bulk of Muslims, the Ummah are indeed an identifiable group and far more than "a religion." Like most really big groups, the Ummah is not the monolith that some presume, whether viewed from within or without, as Art does.

This variety in world view provides some hope for finding allies among the Ummah, while it also feeds the civil war in Iraq at the moment. I do not share your optimism that the sheep, those not driven by hard ideology, will be empowered any time soon to make a change in the direction that the True Believers are hijacking Islam toward. "We," the Western World, do a poor job of providing a path, or an enticing social model, to drop their comfortable, and useful, social model for. I'll call the barrier by an old term, Fear of Future Shock. I suggest the root cause is social inertia, far more than the political rhetoric originating in the West, that acts as a dampener to societal change. The energy to break that inertia must come from within. Who are the movers in the Islamic world today, Wolfman? Who is out there with the long stick and the rock, trying to move that huge rock of an Ummah in a particular direction?

The war in Iraq certainly does little to help change in "our" direction. I think it is seen by the bulk of the Ummah as an attempt to force change in their world from outside in, rather than from inside out. This symbolic cultural coercion gives the hard core Islamist more grist for the mill, beyond the usual anti Western rhetoric before the Iraq War. All that has changed, is the intensity of the perceived cultural invasion, not the kind, for Islamists to use as ideological leverage.

Small, hard charging, dedicated ideologues tend to make a difference in this world. The birth of my nation, the United States of America, is clear testimony to that, as was the birth of the USSR under the leadership of a small, dedicated band of revolutionaries led by Lenin. If Art is wary of, or fearful of, Islamism moving Islam by the actions of a dedicated group of visionary and bloody handed leaders, he has reason to be.

I'll counter your historical reference with a reference to history that I find more applicable than your Golden Age of Islam reference. Historically, significant changes tend to be made by people of a certain character, the energetic few with an attitude and ruthless devotion, not by the masses who they move via rhetorical and physical leverage. Even Ghandi, changer via less violent means (who was lucky to have a weakened and benevolent British Empire as a foil) had a dedication and ruthlessness of purpose that the much cited moderate Muslims lack. Where are the True Believers among the Ummah who see a secular world with the passion of a Lenin? Of a Bolivar? Of a Garibaldi? I don't think they exist. Gamel Nasser and Saddam Hussein are dead.

I hope I am wrong, but Hope is not a sound basis for policy.

DR

ETA: FWIW, regarding your coment on the US as a threat to Iran. The USA is, and has been, a threat to Iran's ambitions, the Islamic Republic's ambitions, of regional hegemony in the Persian Gulf since the mid 1980's. The US more or less backed Iraq versus them. Since then, with direct intervention and in a few cases armed skirmishes, contested control of the Persian Gulf sea lanes. If you sit in Teheran, the US regional policy is a threat to Iran's policy aims, and so the US can rationally be seen as a threat. The trick is to find common ground, which has been rather tough to do for the past quarter century.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And it's even better than that, Skep- many leaders of Islam, in both the Sunni and Shi'a traditions, are biased TOWARD us. They live here, after all.

How do they lead a change "over there" from "over here?"

Chalabi for fifry, Alex. (Yes, that's a bit of a cheap shot.)

DR