Pure Genius

I do not think that the religion is a problem. I think that it is the way in which we use the religion. Napoleon, it is made Moslem to overcome Turkish, then is become again catholic while returning to the hearth.

Corrupting religion and spreading heresy is indeed a useful tool for pacification. Consider how well it worked for Judaism. 2500 years ago the Jews were genocidal zealots (like many barbarians of that age.) But over time the original plain meaning of books like Leviticus fell out of fashion, and Judaism eventually evolved into the rather peaceable religion we have today (with the exception of a few rabid Zionists.)

Very few Jews would murder a convenience store clerk for working on Sunday, call for the liquidation of all Wiccans and homosexuals, etc., etc. Those few would be considered by the vast majority of Jews as lunatics, despite the rather straightforward statements in the Bible. Centuries of "interpretation" have led to a situation where the Bible means whatever the believer wants it to.

More recent documents like the Koran and the Constitution haven't had time to be as fully subverted. It's quite appropriate that a all-pro weasel and snake like Blair be assigned the task of warping the Koran.

T.J., T.J, T.J.

Warping the Koran? It's the very arrogance at the heart of one-language Islam that serves as its modern trap.

The Koran is subject to interpretation and may be best interpreted by non-Arabs and non-Pakistanis (which just so happens to be most Muslims) -- most of the world is beginning to see that probability quite clearly.

This War on Terror is multi-faceted and decades long.

Keep on keepin' on Tony Blair.

I find this odd

"Blair is telling us what Islam is and what it stands for - that man has never read Koran, not to mention spending years studying commentaries to it, the way Osama, Taliban scholars and plenty of terrorirsts (not all, of course) do and did. And yet, he believes he knows better than them what Islam is! :)""

after all there are hundreds, thousands of islamic scholars who have also spent years studying the Koran and commentaries, who completely disagree with Zawahiri et al (btw its Ayman whos the ideological thinker, NOT OBL - the quoted guy doesnt even know that) why do we privilege the terrorist's version of Islam? And indeed such Western, non-muslim scholars, as Bernard Lewis, and i think even Daniel Pipes, also share Tony Blairs view. So Blairs view IS largely a clinical description, and only in limited part a counter narrative.

The problem is NOT that most muslims support OBL, or that Islam as most widely interpretated supports OBLs ideology. Its that muslims have seen too much to lose, and to little to gain, in taking ACTION to counter it. After all, even if you hate qutbism, you can hope that to manipulate the response to terror for your own agenda. When someone says "I hate terror, but the real way to stop it is to give the Kashmir to Pakistan" - the first part, "I hate terror" is NOT NECESSARILY untrue, just because the whole sentence is cynical. Ditto for "I hate terror, but the real way to stop is to end support for Israel" at some level this is not more cynical than "I hate terror, and the real way to stop it is to speed military transformation, which ive called for anyway"
or "I hate terror, and the real way to stop it is to seal the Mexican border, which would alos keep my wage level up"

What Blair is saying, I think - is we KNOW already that this is not your RELIGION - but thats NOT enough - you have to DO something, and not just cynically shift blame and spin the situation.

So its not so weird after all.

TJ is ignorant of the tradition of Jewish interpretation. In normative Judaism, the bible does NOT mean whatever the believer wants, which is why Orthodox judaism is so different from reform. There IS a system for interpretation and change, but its NOT at the whim of the individual. Second, the rabbis had no choice but to interpret - texts REQUIRE interpretation - whenever you read a text you interpretate it - there is no literal interpretation - how can you say that the zealots were literalists? The bible said nothing about fighting Romans. And, to the rabbis, the text, being divine, required that every word, every punctuation mark, had to have meaning - which a shallow literalism does not allow.

This is not an artificial process, but a natural one, found in just about every religious tradition. Including mainstream Islam, I might add. Whats artificial, is the Protestant insistence on denying interpretation, and on "literalism". Whats absurd is the insistence of some Protestants, and some whove been culturally influenced by Protestants, on applying that approach to very different religious traditions, and to ignoring the actual history of those traditions.

"Very few Jews would murder a convenience store clerk for working on Sunday"

cause (among other reasons) 1. only a properly constituted court can render a death penalty
2. capital punishment for violating shabbat only applies to Jews, so unless the clerk is jewish, he can do whatever he wants on shabbat
3. TJ seems to know so little about judaism, he forgets that Sunday is NOT the Shabbos.

(there are of course many reasons why a Jewish court would NOT apply a death penalty to a Jew who worked on Saturday, but i wouldnt to give the more obvious problems with TJs discussion)

and again, thats the problem with the hunt for the elusive "moderate muslim"

Its not that there are no, or even few moderate muslims - its that so many moderate muslims are profoundly cynical, and are unwilling to take risks to fight the terrorists (though there are many honorable exceptions to this) and seem to focus on their own grievances first. Note Moderate Muslims does NOT necessarily mean GOOD muslim, or honorable muslim, or brave muslim. (but in fairness, plenty of westerners, and not just appeasers, are neither good, honorable, or brave)

Human, all too human.

Very few Jews would murder a convenience store clerk for working on Sunday, call for the liquidation of all Wiccans and homosexuals, etc., etc.

I've got news for you, TJ: very few Muslims would approve of, much less commit, such acts either.

Muchos dittos to what liberlhawk says. I would add that if we cede the "authenticity" high ground to the jihadists (who, in reality, are a minority within a minority) and view ourselves as "corrupting" a religion, I don't see how we're going to win over too many Muslims.

And Joe, I believe it's Mahmood, not Chanad, who championed the "bearded monster" term. jBut speaking of Chanad, he did recently write this excellent post on Badshah Khan, a pacifist Muslim leader -- and a Pashtun, no less -- I hadn't even heard of.

It seems like followers of Islam have disagreements among themselves about what it is. That's fine with me. I see that in the diverse branches of Christianity. The only branch of Islam I have a big problem with is the one that wants to kill people. The task is rewarding peaceful Muslims, and punishing violent ones. Otherwise, I could not care less what anyone believes.

Whats artificial, is the Protestant insistence on denying interpretation, and on "literalism".

Protestants are not literalists -- though they claim their interpretation of the Bible is more scripturally based than Catholics'. Fundamentalist protestants claim literalism, but this is a 20th century movement and does not explain such non-textual fundamentalist beliefs as "the rapture." Fundamentalist Protestants may take a more literal view of Leviticus than Jews, but that book conveniently does not apply to Christians.

And now for something completely different.

pd shaw

Thanks, point taken.

Blair does claim to have read the Koran several times. I'd love to hear someone call him on it, though.

Brilliant piece, Joe. Unfortunately, I've had one contact inside biotech tell me that my 20-25 year estimate of a homebrew biowar segue to a 3rd Conjecture scenario was too long. Only good bit is I think he was talking about a 'first feasible' timing, rather than a 'nearly inevitable' level of technology spread.

Like the man said: Faster. Please.

>>There IS a system for interpretation and change, but its NOT at the whim of the individual.

Oops. You are quite correct. I was being insufficiently cynical. Let me try again:

Centuries of "interpretation" have led to a situation where the Bible means whatever the current religious authorities want it to.

There, that's better.

>>This is not an artificial process, but a natural one, found in just about every religious tradition.

Indeed. When certain passages in the original source material get awkward or uncomfortable for those in power, they will tend to get interpreted and distorted. Belief systems also tend to mutate in ways that allow them to spread more effectively through the population. Like a virus.

>>3. TJ seems to know so little about judaism, he forgets that Sunday is NOT the Shabbos.

DOH! I'm terribly sorry about that one. I'm especially shamed since I'm usually the one ranting about how the Seven Day Adventists have a point about arbitrarily moving the Sabbath around, etc. Again, my apologies.

Let's talk specifics. Many of the more troubling statements in the Koran are found in the ninth chapter, The Sura of Repentance, with verses like "slay the pagans where you find them." Some arab scholars have looked to the historical context of Chapter 9 and found that it describes an initially failed attempt by the Prophet to establish a state in the Arabian Peninsula.

Now, its literal to describe these events as having happened as described. Its literal to describe these events as being inspired by God. But its a subject of interpretation as to whether the commands in Chapter 9 govern all Muslims for all time or should be isolated to its historical context. The notion that one interpretation is mandated over another does not appear to derive from the text, so much as tradition or older interpretations.

Islamic States: Saudi, Yemen, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Taliban-Afghanistan, various Gulf states, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria.

Please explain where the "moderate" accomodation to western modernism/secularism lies?

Blair is on a fool's errand. There are no moderate Mohammedans, only folks like this.

Or this:

"In a separate move, Anjem Choudary, the UK leader of the militant Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, interviewed for BBC Radio 4's Today programme said Muslim leaders should not meet Mr Blair.

"The British Government wants to show that they are on the side of justice and of truth, whereas in reality the real terrorists are the British regime, and even the British police, who have tried to divide the Muslim community into moderates and extremists, whereas this classification doesn't exist in Islam," he said.

"Either you are a practising Muslim or a non-practising one, and I cannot envisage that any practising Muslim would sit with the Government, especially with the blood that they have on their hands and the atrocious foreign policy they have and the aggression they are committing against the Muslim community in Britain."

He added: "We need to see what caused this particular effect, otherwise we are going to continue in a cycle of blood and I believe another 7/7 is a very real possibility."

Another radical Muslim, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, said British voters were to blame for the London attacks for not making enough effort to stop the Government committing its own atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I take these fellows at their word. You are either a practising Mohammedan, and you follow Islam which in the end leads to jihad and destruction of Western Secularism in favor of the Universal Caliphate, or you are not a practising Mohammedan but an apostate (and therefore worthy of death like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Salman Rushdie).

This is Islam. It has not changed at all since the Sixth Century and it's unlikely in the extreme to change now, even after nearly 200 years (Napolean's invasion of Egypt) crashing up against the superiority of modern Western secular rationalism.

Moderate Mohammedans is a western construct; this is why seemingly westernized and secular people like the London bombers would willingly kill their fellow nationals. Nationality, western secularism, and other constructs of Western identity don't exist. Only Islam, the Ummah, and the duty for Jihad.

The only way that will be broken is to treat Mohammedans in the West as the media, government, and public opinion treated White Southerners, the Klan, and Segregationists during the Civil Rights struggle. Not by appeasing them but by clearly defining them as the enemy of all that was good and decent, and being comprised of evil, ugly, and stupid people. Superman fought the Klan, news media painted Faubus and Wallace as monsters, NY and DC elites shunned southerners, and White Southerners were on probation until the "New South" proclaimed itself "too busy to hate." It was no accident that Jimmy Carter proclaimed himself as the moral, love-thy-neighbor Southerner who completely rejected Segregationism and the Klan.

In foreign policy more action to show the total failure of Islam and Mohammedism as organizing principles of society is needed (on a military, propaganda, and economic level) so that societies themselves demand modernization and dump Mohammedism into a box on Fridays.

>>There are no moderate Mohammedans, only folks like this:

BZZZT. Try again.

Gene Thug's Uncle, a Sufi Muslim, was working at the Pentagon on 9/11. His office and co-workers were obliterated. He was lucky enough to be in the parking lot at the time.

He's quite eager to help get the terrorist scumbags that trashed his employers and drug the name of his religion through the mud.

I'd say that qualifies him as a Moderate Muslim.

TJ is correct.

We would be foolish if we did not acknowledge that the folks Jim Rockford quotes are numerous and mean every word. Bluntly, we need to kill them wherever they are; the job of hateful jihadi preacher advocating violence needs to become the most dangerous job in the world, all over the world. And yes, those in the West who support them or even remain silent before them need to be treated with pressure and strong social disapproval.

We'd be worse than foolish, however, if we couldn't understand that other Muslims might exist with different opinions. Like Gene Thug's uncle. These are, of course, the people al Qaeda worries about per the quote in the post. We need to give them the tools to help them take effective action, kill or otherwise incapacitate the people who would kill them, and encourage them to the extent that we can in their expression of "the true Islam".

Until it becomes so.

Or until the sands of time run out on our options, and force us into more classic forms of historical threat elimination and attitude alteration.

There are many moderate Muslims.

Equally, there were and are many moderate Communists. I used to know bunch of them - really lovely people.

One of them, a great teacher I will always be deeply grateful to, explained to my satisfaction, then and now, that it was unfair to say someone was a good person "despite" being a Communist, when from their point of view they were doing good things precisely because they were a Communist.

Love me, love my class struggle - and eventually, if I win, my dictatorship of the proletariat.

I'm sorry, but my love for people who are personally moderate and decent doesn't extend that far. I don't believe they'll always be the bosses if we let their side win. There's also the question of the value of the system itself.

I wouldn't believe Tony Blain on the essential decency the true ideology of Communism, nor do I believe him on the essential decency of the true religion of Islam. I don't think someone like Tony Blair winds up being the authoritative interpreter when Marx or Mohammed is implemented in full force. And I would not wish to live under full-on Socialism or Sharia.

I don't think it would have been a good idea to allow Communism to advance, yet praise it for its essential goodness and thus (cleverly?) put moral pressure on it to live up to that praise and be good.

In the same way, I don't think this is a satisfactory answer to Islam.

Those who defected from Communism lived under condemnation and danger. So do those who defect from Islam, though to a lesser extent, because Islamic organisation is less efficient. (For example: the death sentence on Salam Rushdie, though it persists, has not yet been executed.)

Regardless of what anyone said, the Berlin Wall told me what I needed to know about Communism. So does Muhammed's perpetual sentence of death on those who leave Islam inform me as to the essential character of Islam. ("Easily in but not so easily out," said the lobster in the lobster-pot.)

When Islam's Berlin Wall is down and every Muslim is forever free and safe to abandon the worship of Allah and instead take up the adoration of Jesus or Isis or a selection of Hindu idols of his or her choice, then we can talk about the value of Islam as a system of free belief, not of coercion. Till then, for that and many other reasons, we are talking about an aggressive anti-liberal ideology of domination, terror and death.

Islam does not deserve a free pass because its adherents, including of course moderate adherents, are numerous. Or, bluntly, because we are afraid.

Though there are numerous apostates. (link) Thanks there to Gene Expression. (link)

We can do this. There is a way: Whiskey, Sexy, Democracy and Apostacy. And killing as many hard core crazies as possible, both because it's necessary and "to encourage the others". And relentless, unsparing, consistent hostility, as much for Mohammed as for Marx, not for everyone unlucky enough to be born into the system but for the system itself. That's the winning formula, I think. Six points, just keep hammering them.

>>When Islam's Berlin Wall is down and every Muslim is forever free and safe to abandon the worship of Allah and instead take up the adoration of Jesus or Isis or a selection of Hindu idols of his or her choice, then we can talk about the value of Islam as a system of free belief, not of coercion.

I believe the Sufi response here would probably be to note that worship of Allah is of no value to Him if it was compelled. This is an important theological question about Sufism and Islam that should be clarified.

Jesus, to his credit, was rather more clear about such matters.

Moderate Mohammedans is a western construct; this is why seemingly westernized and secular people like the London bombers would willingly kill their fellow nationals. Nationality, western secularism, and other constructs of Western identity don't exist. Only Islam, the Ummah, and the duty for Jihad.

That has to be the most ignorant statement about the "Mohammedan" world I've read in quite some time. It even trumps your asinine statement about Islam not having changed since the 6th Century.

It's apparent that people like Jim Rockford can't be bothered to actually talk to any of the 1.6 billion or so Muslims who haven't been on TV spouting some virulent nonsense, so why don't you listen to someone who has?

I just spent a year in the Gulf involved in that whole "war of ideas" thing, and these are what I see as the greatest obstacles to defeating the jihadis:

There are still a great deal of Muslims -- approaching a majority if not actually being one -- who believe our war is not just against people like UBL and Zarqawi, but against all Muslims. And it's a bit difficult to convince them otherwise -- especially if they've read the kind of commentary like Rockford's or David Blue's, or have seen this kind of nonsense.

Most Muslims are also indeed clamoring for more of these "Western constructs" like freedom and democracy, but they don't really believe that the U.S. in sincere in wanting to promote these values, except where it is in line with our strategic or economic interests. Here too, it is not easy to convince them otherwise.

I cannot wait to return to the Gulf and get back into this fight, because it is undoubtedly the most important thing I will do with my life. But I don't want people like Jim Rockford or David Blue on my team.

Bill, I'm not convinced that it is entirely our responsibility to convince the majority of muslims that our war is not against them. I'm looking for a wider movement among them to go beyond feigning neutrality and victimhood to an active effort to isolate, expel and prosecute the extremists from their midst.

When we see things like the British muslim community reacting to the shooting of a possible bomber in the subway with comments about fearing a "shoot to kill order for muslims", that's not a reaction to Jim's comments. That's a reaction to the actions of a government, the British, that has gone out of its way to be too tolerant. And it reveals a tendency to identify with the extremists more than "moderates".

Lest you get the wrong impression of the Book of Leviticus, it also teaches us to:
Care for the poor:
Lev.19
9"When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest.
10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.
Treat workers justly:
[13]"You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning.
Care for the disabled:
[14] You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
Use reason instead of force:
[17]"You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason with your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of him.
Love your neighbor:
[18] You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
Respect senior citizens:
[32]"You shall rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
And treat strangers well, even love them:
[33]"When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.
[34] The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Bill Herbert: "There are still a great deal of Muslims -- approaching a majority if not actually being one -- who believe our war is not just against people like UBL and Zarqawi, but against all Muslims."

Yes. I'm aware that Muslims are structurally inclined - because of the mental maps that their religion favours - to see our war, and whatever we do, and indeed what we are, in negative lights, and as meriting non-cooperation, public and still more so private condemnation, active resistance and punishment. They are inclined to think badly of us, to take the most negative and hostile view of our motives and so on. They are inclined to ignore, take negative and cynical views of, or to forget whatever good we do for them. They are very, very inclined to define us as the enemy, and on a communal level (not as an individual duty except under some circumstances) to go along with any jihad against us. And of course, there are more specific biases, directed to Jews, Israel and so on.

I agree that this is one of the greatest obstacles to defeating the jihadis.

This all does nothing to show that I am wrong, to show that Islam is really a good thing and not a bad thing, or to show that what we should want is more Islam rather than less of it.

Bill Herbert: "I cannot wait to return to the Gulf and get back into this fight, because it is undoubtedly the most important thing I will do with my life. But I don't want people like Jim Rockford or David Blue on my team."

Sincerely, I thank you for your service, and though you may disapprove of me, I approve of you. May God bless and keep you, and may you always return home safe and sound.

Robin Roberts:

Of course it's not "entirely" our responsibility to convince Muslims of our benevolence. But surely you'd agree that we bear at least some responsiblity? Or do you think it't their responsibility to arrive at this conclusion all on their own?

Let's put it this way: judging by most of the ill-informed, and at time outright bigoted commentary I see in our media about what makes most Muslims tick, I would say that we have no right to expect Muslims to be that much more understanding of us than we are of them. Sound fair?

Before 9/11, our efforts at public diplomacy in the Muslim world were frankly nonexistent, and we've improved only very slowly since then. Without getting into too many specifics (or naming names), let's just say that there still too many people involved in this effort who are more interested in manipulating, rather than engaging these publics.

I'm looking for a wider movement among them to go beyond feigning neutrality and victimhood to an active effort to isolate, expel and prosecute the extremists from their midst.

With all due respect, Robin, you haven't been looking very hard. here's one example, and some more. And still more. Interestingly, you will not find too many "buts" in these examples. If you look beyond LGF, MEMRI, and other sites that cherry pick the ugliest rhetoric they can find from the Muslim media and pulpits, I'm sure you could find your own examples.

Here at WOC, I pointed to several more examples after the Beslan massacre, which was also followed by the usual "why don't Muslims ever condemn terrorism" commentary, by the usual people who, again, cannot be bothered to look very hard.

Yes, there are Muslim organizations who use the tragedy of terror attacks to push their own victimology, apologia, and other crass agendas. But why would you assume that they speak for all -- or even most -- Muslims, either in the West or in the Middle East/South Asia?

Well, why can't Tony Blair wax lyrical about Isludgelam?; the West is full of Islamshi(i)tes/sunnys[sic]/I-fascists etc., pontificating about the West. Swings and roundabouts, mate.

Robin, I'll actually agree a but with Bill here; talking people into not fighting you is always better than actually fighting them - as long as you don't get talked into surrendering.

So if a better infowar strategy came along and we could use it to isolate the nutball jihadis from the observant Muslims - bonus!!.

I have no problem competing with the Muslim world on the basis of ideas and social performance. It's just an unfair competition when they get to use physical violence to force people to convert to their beliefs.

A.L.