Moderate Muslim. Is that one who shoots his hostages in the head instead of cutting the head off?

Am I the only one who thinks the most interesting thing about Stephen Schwartz is the fact that his name is "Stephen Schwartz"? I've wondered for a long time about the need for the cultural reorientation that goes with Westerners' conversions to Islam.

To me, assuming an Arabic name as part of the process represents a choice of immoderation. We'll know when Islam has moderated here in the West when people keep their real names after a conversion.

My take in full here.

I'm a believing Christian. It is a great relief to see a moderate Muslim describing the faith of Islam and the attitudes of the vast majority of Muslims as moderate. This is consistent with my understanding of Islam and that of my wife and two daughters, who have studied Islam and regard it as a peaceful moderate faith. The East Romans, when they first encountered Islam, and in the succeeding centuries, regarded Islam as a Christian heresy,that is, akin to Christianity and so I do not believe that the likes of Al-Qaeda and their affiliates across the world speak for or are representative of the vast majority of Muslims.

Jeffrey Mushens

So, when muslims living in the U.S. and western Europe fail to speak out against islamist terrorism, should we consider them to be moderates, accomplices, or co-conspirators? It's been said before, and it's surely a generalization; nonetheless, why is it that not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists seem to be muslims?

"Why is it that not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists seem to be muslims?"

Probably because of the political/social/economic factors that go into creating the type of dynamic that spawns terrorists (a lack of social mobility being almost paramount) is prevalent in a Muslim populated part of the world.

Moderate muslims are practicing the islam of the meccan koran where allah makes nicey-nicey words, (obey and respect your parents, take care of the poor, etc.)

The so-called extremist muslims follow the medinan koran that exhorts the muslims to believe in mohammed as the final and last prophet for the world and model their lives after his words and deeds, ie., become jihadis and terrorize the unbelievers, cut off their heads, rape the women steal steal their wealth. The medinan koran is, in a large part, a war manual that describes the reasons and ways of war.

What non-muslims term "good" and "evil" are both represented in the koran and the believers can pick and choose their actions according to the situation. A moderate muslim can be practicing his faith according to the "good" parts of the koran and the sunnah, but at any moment, he can change his behavior to follw the "evil" parts.

Moderate islam is an imprecise, deceptive term. Islam is by definition a fundamentalist system or way of life that includes politics(war and law), religion and social customs(how to bathe, have sex, eat, drink, etc.) and if a believer tries to leave or deviates from the ideology, they become apostates and can be killed. I think Mr Schwartz is practing taqiyya(if you don't know this word, please google it, all non-muslims should understand it and its implications for national security). Or he is an intellectual lightweight who hasn't read his own religion's sacred texts.

DC: Schwartz did indeed convert his name. It is Suleyman Ahmad Schwartz. I don't know why he hides it.

And he isn't really all that moderate. His views tend pretty hard towards the neoconservative right on foreign affairs, and he has made angry threats at those with whom he disagrees. Personally, from conversations and from anecdotes from others, I think he's kind of a prick.

The saddest part is that he claims to be a Sufi, which leads me to believe he's learned very little from his religion. Sufi Islam is one of the most spiritual, peaceful, and loving traditions in all Western religion, and has a long history of beautiful artistic expression in poetry, dance, and music.

Napoleon Dolemite on January 13, 2006 10:26 PM: "DC: Schwartz did indeed convert his name. It is Suleyman Ahmad Schwartz. I don't know why he hides it."

Can you show this? He publishes under the name Stephen Schwartz, what evidence is there that his real name is anything else?

As to his definition of moderation - I think it works like this: Islam is always right, and problems, if there are any, must be with some faction other than mine. ("Splitters!")

This old game is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Stephen Schwartz (link): "Finally, some moderate Muslims may seek to “reform” Islam, but moderates are not required to be “reformers.”"

Given that Islam implies jihad and jihad implies terror (and even its suspension implies dhimmitude) I disagree.

Some moderates choose to voluntarily follow Sharia cultural traditions, which are comparable to Catholic traditions of not eating meat on fridays (although the Islamic tradition is a little more intrusive) However, hardly any moderates would want to live under Talibanesque government-enforced Sharia laws, nor would they want to force others to live under these laws.

All extremists support apartheid Sharia civil laws and the jihadist hand-chopping/apostate-killing hudud laws. If they support government-enforced Shariah, they're supporters of apartheid, genocide and slavery, and therefore are assumed to be bad.

The trolls on this site are dumb.
IRA - Irish, Catholic
ETA - Basque, Catholic
LTTE - Sri Lankan, Hindu
FARC - Columbian, Catholic

Generally, where ever you find a minority group that believes its land is 'occupied' you will find terrorists. The exceptions being the European leftists of the 1970's, the American ultra-right from the KKK to militia movement and numerous death squads tied to the governments of Latin and South America from the 1960's to the present.

David Blue: if you look him up on Wikipedia, it does list his Muslim name. It has also appeared on FrontPageMag and the Free Republic from time to time.

It is my understanding that he only uses the name among other Muslims. That's his prerogative, and I don't really hold it against him. He's still a grade-A sophist and a cantankerous cad.

Re: #11 from Napoleon Dolemite: By Stephen Schwartz's Wikipedia article (link) led me here (link) and from there here (link) to his article from the November 19, 2001, issue of National Review: Liberation, Not Containment How to win the war on Wahhabism.

This paragraph did not impress me favourably:

"Our task now is comparable to that which faced the World War II generation. We will have to fight Wahhabi terrorism-bin Laden, his Egyptian and Algerian allies, his stooges elsewhere in the Islamic countries, his backers in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, and Wahhabized fringe groups like the Taliban and Hezbollah-with the faith and firmness we drew on in beating the Nazis. And as part of that commitment we should directly and actively assist the millions of anti-Wahhabi Muslims."

Wahhabized fringe groups like the Taliban and Hezbollah - no, I don't think so.

I would not take Stephen Schwartz's word for anything.

He seems to think all Wahhabis are bad, and all anti-Wahhabi Muslims are good and deserving of active assistance. Or if they don't look like good guys deserving of American aid now - as Hezbollah terrorists may not look deserving - the fault must be Wahhabi influence.

This entire viewpoint strikes me as being wholly without merit. I have nothing more to say about it.

"Napoleon's" answer neatly illustrates a prevalent mentality. Notice that none of his comments deal in any way with the author's arguments re: terrorism, religious belief, etc. It would seem those are simply of no interest. Contrast with David Blue, not a fan either but he's engaging the author on the issues.

"Moderate Muslim", to our friend "Napoleon," can only mean whether or not Suleyman Ahmad Schwartz is a neoconservative... the thought that issues of faith or terrorism may enter into the equation never even enters this guy's head. Then throw in a bit of name-calling for good measure.

Because, as well all know, the real war is against the neo-conservatives and not al-Qaeda, Wahabbism, et. al.

Pathetic.

Oh, and DC... good comment on yout blog.

Joe Katzman:

Perhaps either I misread you or you misread me. I wasn't all too interested in doing much other than
1) answering the question about whether Schwartz has a Muslim name

2) whether he was a moderate. That's a pretty weak straw man you are making about "real war" and "only whether he is a neoconservative." I was pointing to the political views he holds, and whether they would be characterized as "moderate." Perhaps I wasn't looking closely enough within the context of public Muslims, and instead at the political spectrum as a whole. Sorry if that is "pathetic." I was also referring to his bad attitude and agressive tendencies, something inimical to Sufi Islam. That is indeed an issue of faith.

On the one hand, if taken politically, he is no moderate based on some of his views. Sorry if I didn't provide a dissertation on the specifics, but a simple read of his positions in his articles should illustrate that on its own. Whether one disagrees with them or not is inconsequential to the question of whether they are or are not moderate. IMHO, they are not moderate. Sorry if that is "pathetic."

As to the comments about his attidude, I have seen him "in action" against members of divergent Muslim sects. He is prone to raging like radio personality Michael Savage, spewing vituperative venom and whining like petulant child. Sorry if that is too anecdotal, but it is relevant to his faith and whether he can be considered "moderate." Furthermore, his authority to speak on Islam is also somewhat dubious. Here is a more descriptive fisking of his attitude and his work: http://www.atrueword.com/index.php/article/articleview/75/1/1

As to "he's engaging the author on the issues": it is kind of ironic to hear that, given a recent piece by Schwartz which condemns the Nobel committee for only liking anti-Bush writers, suggesting their awards be ignored without ever taking up the authors with whom he disagrees on the merits of their work. But whatever

Before Tech Central Station got their new website and erased their old forums, Schwartz had a couple of exchanges there with other forum posters about his writings for the site. He was at best terse and at worst unbelievably arrogant and rude. He has a firm belief that the Islam is perfect and has no need to change, it's only Muslims that need to change.

Fine, but then what do you do about all those suras and hadiths that extort Muslims to violence? Ask him that question, as some people did in these forums, and the response was essentially 'Your an idiot. stfu'

I used to have a postitive opinion of Schwartz, but after reading those forum exchanges, I'm convinced he's an arrogant prick. And it's certainly made me read his articles with a more discerning eye.

Well, in true form read these exchanges on TCS on his latest article at TCS. He's posting as karastjepan.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=7116&fldIdMsg=7844

"Napoleon", based on your last comment, I did NOT misread you. When looking at a religious issue, you literally cannot see or discuss it in any other way than the author's political views within the US spectrum.

That is indeed pathetic. No part more so than the complete non-sequitur at the end, which has nothing to do with the content of the article in question. Bush Derangement Syndrome obviously has you by the throat. Get help.

Note that Sufi Muslims are not pacifists. Nor are they necessarily friendly (to put it mildly) with the CAIR types, who are involved with "A True Word" - Winds has covered CAIR, the AMC and their ilk before, and Sufi organizations have been upset with them since before 9/11.

Nevertheless, despite CAIR's terror-supporting policies, debates with them on issues of faith and scholarship can be conducted on the merits. Once should, however, understand where they are starting from. Which is wise in all cases. Personal credibility filters are fine, so long as they are germane and the larger argument is still addressed. Your responses - again, unlike those of people like David Blue - are not germane, nor do they address the issue of religious moderation in the Muslim community.

What we're left with is the liberal left's answer to the question "what is a moderate Muslim?"

A: "I hate Bush and the [Zionist] neocons!"

Very enlightening.

With respect to personal temperament, I'll add that while it is a religious issue, and a definite area of focus in Sufi Islam, it has no bearing on the question of how moderate Islam is defined.

Rather, issues of personal temperament are a matter of personal development undertaken within the faith. This may surprise you, but religious belief is not in and of itself a panacea, and the items in our long-running Sufi Wisdom series demonstrate. If Sufi Islam did not acknowledge the presence of these traits in believers, why so many stories designed to mitigate them? See also Yosemite Sam's Comeuppance for another illustrative example. This flaw certainly does not disqualify one from sincerely holding that faith, nor does it speak to the moderation or lack thereof inherent in one's views. Hang out in any religious denomination long enough (moderate or no), and that little lesson becomes rather clear.

Does it affect their ability to persuade others? Yes, of course, when it is used.

As for the concept that a convert to Islam believes the religion is perfect... I mean, come on, is anyone even slightly surprised that this core doctrine of Islam would be part of his beliefs? In order to be true to that core Islamic belief and still be critical of Islam, the idea that Muslim tradition does not support the current death-cult idolatry advanced by the Saudi Wahabbis, Iran's pet radical Shi'ite terrorist groups, et. al. is the only possible response. "Islam is flawed" is a possible response, too - but only for a secular/disaffected Muslim or a non-Muslim, not a believer.

Those with more western secular mindsets, who find the idea of perfection in religion ridiculous even as an ideal, aren't going to see eye to eye with that - and may even see that belief as an evasion. Which means, of course, a major disconnect with even moderate Muslims, just as disagreement re: the concept of salvation through Jesus would leave a large disconnect with even moderate Christians. And secularists can have those arguments.

What they can't do, is profess surprise when a religious believer advocates them.

I don't hide my Muslim name. I use it among Muslims, including while in Muslim countries. I have a large body of work in several languages under the name Stephen Schwartz. There is no reason for me to pull a "Cat Stevens" because until 9/11 I was not public about my religion, which, believe it or not, I thought was my private business here in the U.S.

My personal situation may change. I have been invited to train as an imam in Bosnia and if I do that, or, as an alternative, become a full-time Sufi in western Macedonia, I will probably use my Muslim name only. But a lot of Muslims think I should keep my born name because they say Muslims are more interested in reading books by people without immediately identifiable Muslim names (and consider those by identifiable Muslims predictable and dull.) There are plenty of examples of this, like the noted expert on Sufism, William Chittick.

Also, new Muslims (we don't use the term converts) are not required to change their names unless their original names were pagan or polytheistic. "Stephen" is derived from the Greek for "crown" and is not considered a pagan name. I am not sure what some pagan names might be -- Venus, obviously. Thor? Some of the '60s names like Rainbow? Chandra, which is Sanskrit for moon?

As for being an argumentative prick, I have said from the beginning that not all Sufis are California-style huggy bears. I am not required to indulge insulting bigots, and I don't. Sorry about that. But not all that sorry. For me the main point is to unmask the Saudis and it does not help to have too friendly a personality when engaged in such an effort. And life over the past four years has not been particularly relaxing for me -- not that I would complain for even a minute.

I am also pretty tough in personal relations with a lot of Muslims in America, by the way, so nobody should feel they are the only victims of my irritability. Shias in New York call me Shaykh Kick-yer-booty because I spend so much time yelling at them to try to get them to understand their responsibilities in America right now.

But also, to paraphrase the late Milton Himmelfarb, those who know me personally are often struck by my pleasant and magnanimous personality.

And here's an example of me in nasty mode: re: Heloise and her unhelpful hints. "Taqiyya" is not practiced by any Muslims toward non-Muslims and is expressly forbidden for Sunnis, which is why Wahhabis make so little effort to hide their radicalism. Even in the U.S. they will make perfunctory statements of loyalty but seldom make a serious attempt to hide their real views, which may be exposed by anybody who knows what questions to ask, which I enumerated in my article.

Taqiyya is a practice limited to Shia Muslims who were persecuted by Sunnis.

Heloise, in her ridiculously ignorant misuse of a Muslim term, has in fact accused me of deceit, which could be considered libelous. Am I supposed to bend over backward to be polite about this? Why should I?

As for Napoleon Dolemite, is this a real person? Where has this person seen me "in action against divergent Muslim sects"? when did this person have conversations with me, and where? Bosnia, where I spend about half the year? Singapore, where I preach in mosques? I'd like to know. Also, Napoleon Dolemite cites ATrueWord, which is a Wahhabi site that was cofounded by a convicted terrorist, Randall Ismail Royer. I suspect Napoleon Dolemite of practicing a form of deceptive disinformation, although I would not dignify it by identifying it with the Shia practice of taqiyya. I sincerely hope Napoleon Dolemite is not a Wahhabi in disguise. We don't need Muslims of that sort.

Dolemite also lies when he says I do not take up the works of writers I criticize. I publish a lot of literary criticism under the name Stephen Schwartz, peculiarly enough, and I always discuss the content of the work. I challenge Dolemite to cite counter-exceptions but he has already admitted, sleazily, that he can't be bothered to back up his bogus charges... which finally rest on a "Fisking" by an extremist.

Regarding the dhimma, it exists in only one country in the world: Iran. "Dhimmitude" is a pseudo-historical hoax.

Don't depend on google and second-hand pseudo-knowledge from bigots and tricksters.

Last points.

I know the sacred texts of Islam a great deal better than non-Muslims depending on google.

The Taliban were originally Deobandis, and followers of Hanafi jurisprudence. They were Wahhabized by the Saudis in the same way the Castroites were drawn into the Soviet orbit. Nobody who knows the history of Afghanistan would argue with this.

The question of Wahhabi habits in Hezbollah is a complex one I have dealt with elsewhere and does not lend itself to blogging.