Winds of Change.NET: Religion, Terror & Our Future

March 29, 2004

Religion, Terror & Our Future

by Robin Burk at March 29, 2004 2:16 PM

Is the War on Terror really a war between the West (or at least some parts of the West) and Islam? Do the terrorists speak the true thoughts and aspirations of Muslims around the world? And can Westerners speak freely about the limitations of Islamic societies?

This is a sensitive and complex topic. My hope here is to begin a thoughtful discussion about the role that religion plays in international affairs, and how that role may impact us all in the 21st century. The issue goes well beyond Islam.

Last week the former (Anglican) Archbishop of Canterbury spoke out regarding Islamic culture, saying it was authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving:

"[Lord Carey] acknowledged that most Muslims were peaceful people who should not be demonised. But he said that terrorist acts such as the September 11 attacks on America and the Madrid bombings raised difficult questions.

Contrasting western democracy with Islamic societies, he said: "Throughout the Middle East and North Africa we find authoritarian regimes with deeply entrenched leadership, some of which rose to power at the point of a gun and are retained in power by massive investment in security forces. Whether they are military dictatorships or traditional sovereignties, each ruler seems committed to retaining power and privilege."

Dr Carey said he was not convinced by arguments that Islam and democracy were incompatible, citing the example of Turkey."

The former Archbishop also urged Europeans and Americans to resist claims that Islamic states were morally, spiritually and culturally superior:

"Yes, the West has still much to be proud of and we should say so strongly. We should also encourage Muslims living in the West to be proud of it and say so to their brothers and sisters living elsewhere."

Dr Carey said that, while Christianity and Judaism had a long history of often painful critical scholarship, Islamic theology was only now being challenged to become more open to examination.

"In the case of Islam, Mohammed, acknowledged by all in spite of his religious greatness to be an illiterate man, is said to have received God's word direct, word by word from angels, and scribes recorded them later. Thus believers are told, because they have come direct from Allah, they are not to be questioned or revised.

"In the first few centuries of the Islamic era, Islamic theologians sought to meet the challenge this implied, but during the past 500 years critical scholarship has declined, leading to strong resistance to modernity."

Dr Carey said that moderate Muslims must "resist strongly" the taking over of Islam by radical activists "and to express strongly, on behalf of the many millions of their co-religionists, their abhorrence of violence done in the name of Allah".

He said: "We look to them to condemn suicide bombers and terrorists who use Islam as a weapon to destabilise and destroy innocent lives. Sadly, apart from a few courageous examples, very few Muslim leaders condemn clearly and unconditionally the evil of suicide bombers who kill innocent people.

"We need to hear outright condemnation of theologies that state that suicide bombers are martyrs and enter a martyr's reward."

Christians, who shared many values with Muslims, such as respect for the family, must speak out against the persecution they often encountered in Muslim countries.

"During my time as Archbishop, this was my constant refrain: that the welcome we have given to Muslims in the West, with the accompanying freedom to worship freely and build their mosques, should be reciprocated in Muslim lands," he said.

Lord Carey's comments came on the eve of a seminar of Christian and Muslim scholars in New York, led by his successor as Archbishop Dr. Rowan Williams. Dr. Williams has been an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq.

Muslim leaders complained Carey was treading on 'sensitive' ground. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Anglican Communion world wide, including the Church of England and (in the United States), the Episcopal church. As Archbishop, Lord Carey initiated dialogues with Muslim leaders. It is significant, therefore, that he chose to publicly defend Western values and demand accountability from Muslim leaders. However, he is rare among high-profile Christian leaders in so doing.

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that (allegedly) 'thousands' of white British elites are converting to Islam after being disillusioned with Western values (See also the full post by Rev. Donald Sensing):

"[Jonathan Birt, son of Lord Birt] said he had no coherent reasons for converting, but "in the longer term I think it was the overall profundity, balance and coherence and spirituality of the Muslim way of life which convinced me," he said.

Meanwhile, it emerged last weekend that Emma Clark, the great-granddaughter of a British prime minister has converted. She said: "We�re all the rage, I hope it�s not a passing fashion."

Many converts have been inspired by the writings of Charles Le Gai Eaton, a former Foreign Office diplomat, it added.

"I have received letters from people who are put off by the wishy-washy standards of contemporary Christianity and they are looking for a religion which does not compromise too much with the modern world," said Eaton, author of Islam and the Destiny of Man."

Some might suspect that conversions like Birt's and Emma Clark's may indeed prove to be a passing fashion, much like the adoption of Hindu and Buddhist religous practices during the 1970s by some in my generational cohort. Many baby boomers also felt a spiritual vacuum and a desire to belong to a tradition that brings structure and meaning. Time will tell if the conversions in Britain and elsewhere of elite Westerners to Islam are a "passing fashion," or if a deeper movement is afoot.

The Question of Europe

Meanwhile, Lord Carey's criticisms of Islamic countries and societies raise important questions about the future of a Europe which is increasingly being influenced by Muslim immigrants and converts. Donald Sensing has a long discussion about the systemic problems in existing Islamic cultures and countries, citing Ralph Peters' prescient discussion of the characteristics of failed states. Is this the future for Europe too?

Some commentators see Europe as a civilization in decline, facing demographic collapse, unable to meet their economic goals and either weary of conflict or hedonistically self-absorbed. Whether that picture is accurate, or whether a consolidated European Union will increase peace and prosperity on the continent, EU countries are increasingly turning to Muslim immigrant workers to fill jobs - and through their taxes, keep social benefits programs afloat - as the post-WW II baby boom generation approaches retirement age.

What will happen to European cultures and legal structures as a result? It is not clear that Europe has successfully integrated her existing immigrants, as the experience of Germany with Turkish 'guest workers' and France with its Muslim underclass in les cites shows. Will increased Muslim immigration and the proliferation of fundamentalist mosques in European countries result in the imposition of militant Islamic mores and laws, with the passive acquiescence of demoralized or well-meaning Europeans? Will Europe continue to provide (perhaps increasing) support for militant terror attacks elsewhere, as with 9/11? Or will a more moderate form of Islam emerge in Europe, able to coexist with the modern world and to produce stable, prosperous and democratic countries?

Or - a perhaps more remote possibility - will Europe rediscover a pride in her own cultures and history and a willingness to insist that Western ideals and legal values be respected in her countries? Again, time will tell. It does not appear that change will come easily to many societies which are already Muslim. Consider the case of a moderate Imam in conservative eastern Turkey who finds himself boycotted after he suggested men help women carry water from the village wells. This is a trivial example, but it points to the inescapable fact - articulated by Lord Carey - that the chasm between Western and Islamic societies runs deep and will not be bridged quickly.

Beyond The West vs. Islam

Surprisingly, however, this chasm may not be the most significant religious issue of our time. The rapid growth and evolution of Christianity in the Southern Hemisphere may, as Philip Jenkins argued in the Oct. 2002 Atlantic Monthly, outweigh Islam as a factor in the 21st century [subscribers only - see book | alternate article source | Winds coverage].

That influence is already being felt. Anglican bishops from Africa and other countries strongly protested the decision to recognize the elevation of openly homosexual bishop Gene Robinson in the United States, arguing the action constituted a schism in the Anglican communion. Some third world churches have even begun sending missionaries to the United States and Europe. I leave you with Jenkins on the significance of what he calls "The New Christianity" (emphasis mine):

"Although Northern governments are still struggling to come to terms with the notion that Islam might provide a powerful and threatening supranational ideology, few seem to realize the potential political role of ascendant Southern Christianity....

Christianity as a whole is both growing and mutating in ways that observers in the West tend not to see. For obvious reasons, news reports today are filled with material about the influence of a resurgent and sometimes angry Islam. But in its variety and vitality, in its global reach, in its association with the world's fastest-growing societies, in its shifting centers of gravity, in the way its values and practices vary from place to place - in these and other ways it is Christianity that will leave the deepest mark on the twenty-first century.The process will not necessarily be a peaceful one, and only the foolish would venture anything beyond the broadest predictions about the religious picture a century or two ahead. But the twenty-first century will almost certainly be regarded by future historians as a century in which religion replaced ideology as the prime animating and destructive force in human affairs, guiding attitudes to political liberty and obligation, concepts of nationhood, and, of course, conflicts and wars."

Read the whole article for some challenging insights. If Jenkins is right, terrorism may be the least of the ways in which religious beliefs shape events around the world in this new century.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/2532

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"Religion, Terror & Our Future"

Comments

#1 from Beanie at 4:19 pm on Mar 29, 2004

This is a fascinating issue, I'm glad you've brought it up for discussion. As someone with a background in colonial/post-colonial history (especially of GB and the Islamic world) allow me to add a few thoughts of my own.

First, regarding the conversion to Islam of a largish group of British elites, I would just say: what else is new? This has been going on for at least a century and a half--some conversions were open, others fairly secretive. I'd offer the case of Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, an extremely colorful late 19th century poet from a very good family (married Lord Byron's only granddaughter, an excellent Arabist) who championed Egyptian independence, romanticized the Bedouin (dressed as one at home in England) and generally flew in the face of stuffy Victorian England. He was also, not incidentally, the grandfather of the master spy/traitor Anthony Blunt. Did the family's well-documented Arabphilia translate into anti-British treachery? A legitimate and pressing question.

Americans find it hard to relate to the penchant of rich Britons for Arab culture. Certainly, the old colonial ties still bind, plus we need to factor in the pull of all that oil money, the mutual interest of ME elites and British elites in hunting, riding, etc. In addition, it seems quite evident that for an elite class that has been all but shunted aside, the pull of an elite that remains both wealthy and powerful, seems utterly certain of itself, its faith, its social mores--this is all quite powerful.

But, it's hardly the end of the world. On the other hand, the creation of a truly global Islamic 'ummah (community) for the first time in real time--this IS a huge problem. Whereas before there was the IDEAL of the 'ummah, but in reality a very disparate agglomeration of very different, more or less "Muslim" countries and peoples, now you have a pan-Islamic appeal being made, and a powerful response coming back from previously isolated groups. This is revolutionary, and it has the potential to destabilize the world.

I applaud the former archbishop for raising the issue. I hope we may continue to discuss these matters in a rational but urgent manner. I'm not holding my breath, however.

#2 from Oscar at 9:33 pm on Mar 29, 2004

Of equal interest is the rise of Christianity in Southern areas that are far more "modern" than much of the Islamic world. Some of these Xian groups are conservative and have a millennialist, even apocalyptic bent. I can see a possiblity of some moderate Islamic groups siding with Northern secular groups against southern Xian groups at some point. Wouldn�t that be special?

#3 from Bob at 11:02 pm on Mar 29, 2004

"...terrorist acts such as the September 11 attacks on America and the Madrid bombings raised difficult questions."

[shrug] After viewing footage of the cheering throngs of these 12th-century mindset animals after each of these events, the only "difficult question" I ever had was "Daisy-cutter or napalm?"

Face it - 95% of Islam's identified leaders either directly or indirectly support/encourage these acts. Their stated intent, sounded many times in print and on TV has been (and has ALWAYS been) destruction of the infidels (USA). You don't negotiate with these people, you don't join hands and sing Kumbaya. You sure as hell do not debate that old "root causes" argument (Waahhh - why do they HATE us?).

You put political correction aside, state forcefully once and for all that "Religion of Peace" horseshit is out the door and start designating target-lists.

Genocide? Hardly, its called self-defense when an enemy states his intent to kill you ahead of time.

WWIV started in 1979 with the embassy seizure in Iran. (WWIII was the Cold War). Until you define Islam as a death-cult and treat it as such, we will be dealing with larger and larger pinpricks until they detonate a NBC/nuke on American soil.

THEN, folks will stroke their chins and and say "Hmmm, we may have a situation here..." Of course, the problem is by that time, it is too late.

Note that above, I did not say "Radical Islam"...like President Bush said, "you are either with us or the terrorists". "Regular" Islam with its continued refusal to condemn and/or reign in these maniacs just cements my perception of them as support troops for the front line. (which BTW is increasing, as Madrid, Bali, and others have shown).

If, by some miracle, these idiots actually do manage an NBC/nuke event, it will make the Japanese internment during WWII look like an Easter-egg hunt. Talk about a "target-rich" environment!

#4 from Robin Burk at 11:56 pm on Mar 29, 2004

Bob, I'm not willing to go quite as far as you do. I do think that moderate Muslims have a very very short time to speak up, as the senior minister of Singapore did this weekend.

Oscar, I could conceive of secular Westerners joining forces with Islamacists to try to thwart southern Christianity, which (because it is their own heritage that they reject) they will regard as more dangerous than even the murderous Islamacist networks. Sigh.

#5 from Joe Katzman at 12:16 am on Mar 30, 2004

Bob,

Islam as a whole is not a death cult, as we demonstrate every Saturday. Significant segments of Islam are, and it's more than a fringe, and it's a problem that cannot be addressed by law enforcement means.

That hate in the Islamic world is a problem. I've written about it. Why are you joining that game?

Let the hate go. That's their game, and taking it into the fight makes one stupid. Vid. the expanding front line you mention, a classically bad strategy on the part of our enemies.

You want to be that stupid, too? Why, so it will be a fair fight?

We have to get more serious about this war, no question. Force will be a part of that. But my definition of "serious" doesn't include the genocidal war or persecution your comment implies, and at this point no reasonable person's definition should.

#6 from Tom Holsinger at 12:17 am on Mar 30, 2004

The reaction of European Islamic organizations to the attempts of some Christian churches to get the former to denounce suicide bombings is not encouraging - for Arab Moslems.

Keep in mind that the "West" exclusive of the U.S. does have the power to commit genocide on Arab Moslems, both in Europe and in the Middle East. The "West" exclusive of the U.S. just lacks the will, and until now it looked like they were trying to surrender.

The latter might be changing.

#7 from Tom Holsinger at 12:42 am on Mar 30, 2004

Joe,

I just saw your most recent response. I mentioned genocide only to highlight the vast disparity in power here. The "West" has it and Arab Moslems don't. The only way Europeans can lose is by surrendering. Until just recently it looked like they were trying to do so absent American use of force, so any indication that they are developing a backbone is significant.

#8 from Bob at 3:17 am on Mar 30, 2004

Joe - I agree 100% with the first paragraph of your reply above. I think we can pretty much agree that regulating it to a "law enforcement" category is a moot point.

As for "hate" on my part, you are mistaken. I've identified a problem and one solution to fix it. The scope of that fix is what appears to get everyone's panties in a knot amid whines of "fair fight" and "don't be stupid". Dropping nukes on Japan was not a product of hate, it was a calculated way of ending the war early and forstalling an land invasion of Japan that would have potentially cost thousands of lives.

Eradicating Islam is in the same category. Either you address the problem now when its managable, or deal with the multi-headed dragon on multiple fronts 10 yrs from now. Remember, that "significant segment of Islam" is growing daily.

Europe's history of appeasement and surrender is apparently coming home to roost. Spain was just the opening chapter. Keep your eyes on France/England in the near future (my prediction).

You noted we do not agree on the definition of "serious". I can live with that. Perception is everything these days. I am curious however, at what point would you consider us to BE at that "serious" level I mentioned? Before or after a NBC/nuke event in the USA?

I will admit that last paragraph in my original post was probably a tad bit over the top in hyperbole...but that was written after a 45 min argument with a liberal coworker who would not recognize danger if it was painted cherry-red and whacking her on the foot with a 12 lb hammer. With that said, I can venture a guess that the general public (at least those with a clue) are still extremely angry over 9/11 and past escapades of Allah's merry little warriors. What do YOU think the response would/should be after another 9/11 event?

Robin - You mentioned in your reply that "moderate Muslims have a very, very short time to speak up". I agree - the powderkeg fuse has been figuratively lit and burning at a rapid rate of speed. My last CO introduced me to the concept of "OBE" (Overtaken By Events) many, many years ago. I fear that by the time moderate Muslims DO speak up in a large enough group to make a difference...it will be too little, too late. Would that be an unreasonable assumption on my part?

I guess at this juncture, I'm at the point where you throw up your hands in frustration: The UN has been demonstrated to be the impotent joke everyone knew it was, negotiation does not work, and ANY pullback on our part as a gesture of goodwill is immediately viewed as weakness by the Arab world - which then promptly redoubles their efforts.

So. What's left?

Force. There is an old saying: "After the first one, the rest are free". Like the spice level in spaghetti sauce, its all a matter of taste (or degree).

Finally, that article that Joe wrote was first-rate. Well done!

#9 from David Blue at 7:58 am on Mar 30, 2004

Hi.

Moderate Islam already has spoken up. This would be Dr. Mahathir Mohammed - Malaysia's former Prime Minister, speaking to his applauding fellow moderate leaders.

What I think people are waiting for when they wait for "moderate Islam" is an Islam centered on their own fantasies of easy (for them) coexistence, rather than being centered on Islam. This you can have, on one condition only: it's going to be a lie. It will probably be in English, not Arabic, and it will be for the consumption of stupid infidels only. You can have as much as you want of that.

It's unreasonable to expect a great and confident and fiercely advancing religion (with no means of redefining itself, even if its followers wanted to do that) to redefine itself to suit people who want it to be other than it is, precisely because they lack the courage to acknowledge let alone confront its challenge.

A fierce, divinely guided and youthfully numerous people virtually surrounding a decadent, morally and demographically impotent, post-faith vacuum like Western Europe (formerly Christendom) is not going to refrain from eating the whole thing.

This is not, or it should not be, about anger or hate. It is about dealing with what is. A dam is breached. Will water (Islam) act like water? It must, that is its nature. Will the land before the dam be flooded? Yes, it must be so, and nature abhors a vacuum. And so on. Should the Americans, rightly intent on self-preservation, make concessions to old Europe? No, because old Europe will not repay favors: if it wanted to, which it doesn't, it won't be there any more. And so on.

Thomas Andrews: The pumps will buy you time, but minutes only. From this moment on, no matter what we do, Titanic will founder.
Ismay: But this ship can't sink!
Thomas Andrews: She is made of iron, sir. I assure you, she can. And she will. It is a mathematical certainty.
-- Titanic (1997)

#10 from WhoMan at 4:44 pm on Mar 30, 2004

"Face it - 95% of Islam's identified leaders either directly or indirectly support/encourage these acts."

I would like to see some evidence backing up the statistics in the above statement.

#11 from Bob at 10:26 pm on Mar 30, 2004

Whoman - per your request:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/200312301906.html

http://www.memri.org/sr.html
(scroll down to the "Friday Sermons" links)

http://www.memri.org/sd.html
(scroll down to the "Friday Sermons" links

I did a generic Google search on "mosques sermons transcripts" and got over 370 hits - the above results were within the first page of 50.

Taking off the "transcripts" search criteria gives you 19,800 results.

Those imams/clerics are the "leaders" that the Muslim world looks up to and are the ones I referred to in my post. I did not say "all" because I figured someone would pull a name outa the air and see "See? He is a moderate!" If the 95% figure is too rigid, how about "the vast majority"

Finally, Charles Johnson at LGF publishes verbatim transcripts of these sermons as well - you cannot help but shake your head at the vitrolic that these clerics spew.

But the most scary part? Very little of this is reported in Western media. Why? It might constitute "racial profiling" or something?

#12 from Joe Katzman at 1:01 am on Mar 31, 2004

Bob,

Your contention that at some point, events will overtake us all and total war will follow is correct. I'm not sure the belief that "therefore we should go there right now" is as sound.

I don't quarrel with the stuff you're seeing. We don't ignore that here, nor do we dismiss it as fringe. It is not. But I think there's lots of stuff you AREN'T seeing - and a lot of that relates to the weakness of your enemy even in their own sanctums.

As Den Beste has pointed out before, that very weakness is part of the reason for the war. They're losing at home, and they know it in their bones. Violence and support of is the response... a dynamic very similar to the anti-globalist Left, which increasingly finds itself in sympathy with the Islamists.

On the other side, we have the subversion ongoing in THEIR countries, happening without even a lot of concerted effort on our part. The Saudis who live in gated communities with Westerners so the religious police don't hassle them. The Iranians who blandly 'opt out' of compliance with Islamic dictates in their private lives, and whose mosque attendance is down sharply. Etc. Etc.

That's why Islamists use force - not just against the West, but more often still against other Muslims, to intimidate or silence them.

So we take a page from the communists and socialists, and export revolution. Openly. While pursuing military suppression to keep their offensive component on the defensive, and taking out the state sponsors they rely upon, one by one. Engage with the hard force. Win with the other. Classic strategy.

Bomb them all? I think they're more afraid of this:

"Orlando used to have a military installation called McCoy Air Force Base, with long runways from which B-52s could take off and reach Cuba, or just about anywhere else, with loads of nukes. But now McCoy has been scrapped and repurposed. It has been absorbed into Orlando's civilian airport. The long runways are being used to land 747-loads of tourists from Brazil, Italy, Russia and Japan, so that they can come to Disney World and steep in our media for a while. To traditional cultures, especially word-based ones such as Islam, this is infinitely more threatening than the B-52s ever were." (Neal Stephenson, "In the Beginning, there was the Command Line...")

Some we will bomb, yes. But not most. Instead, we will do much worse to our enemies. We will make them live in our world, and they will watch the walls of hate and intimidation they have built crumble before them like Jericho. Accompanied, again, by the sound of joyful music ringing in their ears.

#13 from Bob at 4:08 am on Mar 31, 2004

Joe -

I hope you are right, I really do. I think we just disagree on the "timetable" aspect of it.

I keep thinking of the foreword in the hardcover edition of "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross - one line in particular where an entity (the US gov't in this case) is ignoring the waving warning flags of history and are again charging headlong towards the abyss.

I still think Islam is heading towards that same abyss, gaining speed, and has just hit the downward sloping part where more speed (and momentum) is inevitable.

Time will tell.

#14 from WhoMan at 2:19 pm on Mar 31, 2004

Bob,

I hadn't read your comments fully when I asked you for an evidence. And you brought up the internet? If it was to the internet, everybody would claim to be socialogist, historian, etc in the comfort of his or her home without making a trip to the nearest library. 95%? Based on a google search? And you have looked up all sermons of all mosques in all cities, villages, etc.

FYI I am orginally from the area that you want to declare a Total War on. Let me tell you this. WWIV didn't start by the occupation of the American embassy. Those who took part in that act of idiocy are now part of a reformist movement (Not all reformits are ex-radicals). You are trying so hard to find some links between some unrelated events here.

Now, I think you and I are very different, and further discussions are just useless. I cannot change you, nor you can change me.

#15 from Mandos at 10:28 pm on Mar 31, 2004

So people misunderstand the roots of the current situation in the Muslim world. They are modern and secular. Prior to a few decades ago, a lot of Muslim religious "leaders" were quietists. This can be seen in the foundation of Pakistan: Pakistan was founded by secular leaders as a secular state For The Muslims Of India (sounds like Israel, eh?); religious leaders either had nothing to do with it or were against it...

Post-decolonization (if that really happened), secular leaders in the Muslim world promised freedom and prosperity. They didn't deliver on their promises. "Religious" countries like Saudi Arabia became horribly decadent and hypocritical in many ways. Why? Rightly or wrongly, a lot of Muslims (including secular ones) believe(d) that the problem with the Muslim world was disunity, and from this foreign subjugation (symbolized by Israel). The secular leaders failed completely to resolve this issue. Worse, they often became brutal dictators--supported out of convenience by the West against the greater threat of Communism. Soon, the only area in which there was remotely any freedom was religion. Naturally, many people turned to religion to get them out of this, and violent religious radicalism came to real prominence.

Until the Muslim world can see itself as not-oppressed and not-subjugated by foreigners (or by puppet rulers) will this tendency abate. Unfortunately, I see the opposite to be the case. Really, a strong Muslim world is better for the world than a weak one. It is a weak Muslim world that causes this evolution into further and more dangerous radicalism. Al-Qaida and company are just another iteration.

#16 from Joe Katzman at 11:40 pm on Mar 31, 2004

Mandos, I could address your argument one of 2 ways:

[a] Only a free Muslim world will ever be strong, and Iran's experience has shown conclusively that political Islamism and liberty cannot coexist. I agree with your premise, but without big changes we'll never get there - and political Islamism is the impediment, not the solution.

[b] Now that violent religious radicalism IS prominent, a strong Muslim world carrying those violent memes is the LAST thing we need, unless your goal is a war that will kill 100 million+ people or so (q.v. Bob's comments above). Once these mindsets get going, hope and perceived strength only feed them. If we wish to avoid that war, only general acknowledgment of the Islamists' failure and/or defeat will work.

Either way, war against political Islamists is inevitable until and unless large sections of the Muslim religious establishment and ummah stop fomenting hatred, renounce the doctrine of dhimmitude in favour of greater inter-religious respect, embrace some form of a critical tradition and freedom to question on religious matters, and ceases harbouring or supporting attacks against the West.

On our side, we in the West (and most especially Europe) need to make the path toward liberty easier, not harder, for Muslims in many of these countries. While removing some of the key opposing forces, by force is necessary.

Failure has consequences that are almost too terrible to contemplate - and as Robin points out, Islam's problems may not be confined to the relatively restrained cadres of the modern West if current trends continue.

Come to think of it, Robin;s materials also suggest that if teror is seen to succeeed, it's possible that religious wars and terrorism here in the West could begin to involve other religious groups more prominently. One more reason to learn how to win this kind of war by fighting smarter... because it may not be the last one of its kind.

#17 from Mandos at 12:00 am on Apr 01, 2004

See, I disagree with you that Iran's problems are entirely its own fault. Iran is forced into a defensive posture which allows its leaders to justify themselves with enough of its population to prevent a counter-revolution. Bush didn't help--and neither did the US when it didn't celebrate the fall of its Shah... Aggressive religious radicalism in Iran was a symptom. Now it is partly a cause, but not the only cause of Iran's problems. Necessary but not sufficient.

I also disagree with you on another front. I believe that the "violent memes" of which you speak are directly related to the level of frustration. Yes, the longer it has to build up--through the weakness of the Muslim world--the riskier it is to wait for those memes to abate. But you have two choices:

1. To prosecute a physical war on a meme designed to feed on wars prosecuted against it. Thus the meme grows stronger.

2. To deal with specific threats as they arise, while starving the meme.

That's why I say you guys don't get it. The meme is specifically designed to feed on attacks against it. You can't violently fight a meme, because you would have to destroy every person who could potentially in the future agree with it! And that means all of humanity, basically. You have to fight specific threats to you when they arise--that's all you can do.

So what best starves the meme? That's the question that's not being asked.

#18 from Mandos at 12:09 am on Apr 01, 2004

I have to add one more thing:

There seems to be a general theme going on the current blog entries about wars on memes. I find this impulse curious. I don't believe memes can be "fought." Policies can be fought, behaviours can be fought, enemies can be fought. There are limits to this. When you talk about "fighting" a meme in one way or another, you're really walking down a dangerous road.

#19 from WhoMan at 3:17 pm on Apr 01, 2004

Robin and Joe,

With all due respect, I think you've got something wrong in your notion that Islam is practically endorsing a war on US or Israel by what may perceived as its intentional silence towards violence. I have put some of my thoughts on the subject in my blog. Here is what you may want to argue against:

"Almost every day there is a bomb going off in Iraq killing mainly Muslim Iraqis. Do you hear a wide spread condemnation? No. Is it the crisis-ridden region of the Middle East that desensitizes the populations towards the news of crisis? Whatever that is, it seems that what it is concluded by some from Dr. Carey's comments that Islam is at war with US and Israel is wrong."

The fact of the matter is that you may find many sermons that directly bashes US and Israel, but you won't easily find the number of people who attend those particular sermons versus the people who attend other sermons. I agree though that whatever this number is, it may be rising. I also agree that they should pull their head out of snow where they have buried it, but it just doesn't make them complacent to violence as some may want to conclude.

#20 from Simon at 10:05 am on Dec 19, 2004

All religions, even those like Buddhism which preach no harm to anyone are ultimately human attempts to control an uncontrollable world and because they are held by humans, they are subject to human corruption.

If you claim to be "spiritual but not religious" you are not saying anything about your beliefs but simply claiming to be less dependent on the arbitrary restrictions of others. How very superior of you.

If you claim that your religion is the one true faith or a "religion of peace", you are simply trying to dodge the fact that no religion is peaceful when confronted with doubt.

If there is a God he loves Atheists and Agnostics not in spite of their doubts but because of them. A God must be intelligent and wise so he must know that from a wise and intelligent human perspective there is no reason to believe in scriptures and prophets.