Despite Cartoon Riots, Moderate Islam Still the Answer

A common view on the problem of radical Islam holds that the solution is simply moderate Islam. According to those who espouse this theory, most notably Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, only a bit of Western pressure is needed, and then the militants will be defeated ideologically by the silent majority of moderates in their midst.

In light of the violent reactions to the recent Danish cartoons, however, many have begun to reconsider this belief. As Jim Geraghty of National Review today discussed, many of the Muslim protestors appear to be not just fundamentalists, but ordinary run-of-the-mill folk as well. Furthermore, very few self-professing moderate Muslims have condemned the violence. Unsurprisingly, many Westerners are now starting to consider whether the idea of Islamic moderates is just a myth, and that Islam itself, rather than just "radical" Islam, is the true problem.

Could this all possibly be? I agree that Islam itself is indeed the problem, but nevertheless, moderate Muslims remain the solution.

Radical Islam (or Islamism or Islamofascism or whatever you want to call it), as we all know, is the religion's fundamentalist strain. And as religious fundamentalism by definition equals a return to a faith's core observances, fundamentalist Islam is a throwback to the initial Islam that was practiced back in the 7th century.

This essentially means, then, that fundamentalist Islam is not "radical" per se - it is the true Islam as practiced by the first Muslims. If fundamentalism has caused the religion's problems, then the real culprit is indeed authentic Islam itself.

While that conclusion may seem sobering, nevertheless I don't believe that it disqualifies moderate Muslims (and by this I mean only true moderates, not pseudo-moderates who call for peace in English and jihad in Arabic) from being the solution. Literalist Islam clearly contains many violent elements, but still, certainly not all Muslims believe in or practice them. Indeed, many born Muslims have become apostates, while others live only by the religion's peaceful aspects while conveniently ignoring the violent ones. Exclude the apostates from the discussion if you want (they too are part of the solution but technically are no longer Muslims), but the latter group still can truly be defined as "moderate Muslims." The cartoon reactions have demonstrated that perhaps this group's numbers are slightly smaller than we thought, but nevertheless the group firmly exists.

In addition, we must recall the difference, as brilliantly eloquated by Natan Sharansky in his book The Case For Democracy, between free societies and fear societies. In open, free, democratic societies, people can voice their minds without worry of censure. In fear societies, however, where most Muslims live (including many Muslim neighborhoods in Western countries), this is not the case. Legions of moderate Muslims may want to speak out, but the radicals pressure them into staying silent. Look how apprehensive certain newspapers have become in the aftermath of the Danish cartoon affair. Moderate Muslims live under a similar fear (likely to an even greater degree) every single day.

So while the violence problem may stem from Islam itself, the solution indeed remains the same. We must empower moderate Muslims to the point where they can speak their minds without fear of reprisal by fundamentalists. Many moderates may seem to passively endorse the radicals, but remember that in the 1950s, virtually no Russians spoke out against the horrors of the Soviet regime. Only when the West began to encourage them did the moderates' genuine voices finally emerge.

I believe the same holds true with Islam today. While we must certainly still take further steps to stop the jihadists (such as continuing counterterrorism efforts, limiting Muslim immigration to the West, and deporting those who encourage violence), supporting the moderates also remains key to our success.

Comments

[Mini Me]

Well, if we want the moderate muslims to rise up and overpower the radical ones, the cartoons did not help the cause. It seems as though the cartoons somewhat united the radicals with the less, moderate muslims. But this makes sense, as the cartoons weren't just an attack on the radical muslims, but on all muslims, as it portrayed the prophet Muhammad, something that is against the religion. I wonder how we can empower the moderate muslims so that they won't want to passively support the radicals but rather eliminate them.

[Solid Surfer]

I don't think the cartoons necessarily allied the moderates with the radicals; rather, by creating a situation where Muslims essentially had to choose sides in their reactions to the piece (such as whether to peacefully protest or violently protest), it showed the rest of the world which Muslims *truly* are moderates and which ones were actually radicals all along no matter how "moderate" they may have previously seemed.

Also, I still the answer to empowering Muslims is by giving them freedom and democracy. Look at this article, where it says the one Middle East country where Muslims did *not* violently riot is Iraq: http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=99

[verdant]

I don't believe the problem is Islam or Radical Islam. The problem is fascism.

As you allude to in a portion of your article, much of Islam currently exists in a fear society. In a fear society, physical strength, as opposed to democratic values, is ascendant. Physical strength, through intimidation, prevails, and is eventually idolized and worshiped, initially by younger idealstic generations but eventually be a majority of the population. This worship ostensibly takes the form of extreme nationalism, racism, religiousness, etc. but it is fundamentally bottomed by a powerful group oriented narcissistic fervor that produces an overwhelming feeling of superiority coupled with anger in the affected group. This feeling of superiority overwhelms what often were previous feelings of inferiority felt by members of the group caused by actual physical events, and is perceived as a catharsis or transformation in the identity of the previously downtrodden group. The problem is that most members of the group, even apostates, at least secretly badly wish for and want the emotional release and identity reversal, even if those members rationally know their ostensible cause is immoral.

Islam is therefore not the problem in my opinion. Radical Islam is simply a form of fascism. Like Nazism, which a form of facism based on the narcissistic ideals of racist nationalism which dehumanizes members of other races, Radical Islam is based on the narcissistic ideals of religious nationalism which dehumanizes members of other religions. The problem is that stopping fascism requires destroying it. And destroying fascism requires inflicting sufficient pain upon it adherents that they become disabused of the notion that they are superior. Once fascism has reached a level of infection within the populace, its destruction can only be accomplished by force. Iran is becoming close to that level of infection and may have indeed reached it.

To summarize...any religion or philosophy can be twisted to accomodate fascism. Islam is simply the current superficial carrier of the fascist disease. The secret is to recognize the disease and not confuse it with its current manifestation.

[Mini Me]

I agree Verdant, I don't think the problem is Islam but the fascist twist that the radical islamics have established. Once that aspect is eliminated than peace with Muslims can exist.

[suwana]

I am afraid Islam is the problem. The religion directs violence on non- muslims. http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dashoura%26ei%3DUTF-8%26x%3Dwrt&w=440&h=284&imgurl=hicham.ali.tripod.com%2Fhussein%2Fn21.jpe&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhicham.ali.tripod.com%2Fhussein%2Fashourastory.htm&size=35.1kB&name=n21.jpe&p=ashoura&type=jpeg&no=1&tt=215&ei=UTF-8e

[Ed]

The Soviets fell because moderates were encouraged by the West? That's not true. They fell because they failed economically and they had lost the fear and respect of their own peoples because of the obvious economic failure and the military failure in Afganistan and in the arms race.

The Mullahs and other repressive regimes in the Islamic world will not fail until their populations no longer fear and respect them. Military defeats help, as does economic failure, both of which can be arranged if Western Chistiandom gains some willpower.

[SolidSurfer]

Ed,
I never said the Soviet Union fell directly because the West encouraged moderates; all I pointed out was that the moderates began to speak up way more once the West (particularly Ronald Reagan) encouraged them. Certainly the USSR's economic and military failures hurt them greatly, but Western pressure did play a large role too: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1296922/posts

That said, I agree that the Mullahs will fall once enough of their people no longer fear them. The number of Iranians who despise them is high, and all I think we need is more Western pressure to push it over the tipping point.

[Benny]

On Moderate Islam:

We need to take a closer look at the Islam practiced in European countries. From my experience, the European Muslims I saw were anything but moderate. People need to pay more attention to the fact that 70% of British Muslims said they wanted to live under Sharia law.

[verdant]

Hi Benny,

70%? I think the many group psychology studies that relate to fascism would be applicable to such a result. What persons would never do or ask of others they do or ask when part of a large group dominated by a dynamic and intrepid leader. Unfortunately some of those leaders are evil and narcissistic autocrats.