What is Islam?

[cbayer]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/07/06/what-islam-what-muslims-make/YOAquX6W1rTyoaqldpMBtI/story.html

By Jeff Jacoby | GLOBE COLUMNIST JULY 07, 2013


FOR YEARS, terrible and violent crimes have been committed in the name of Islam. Does that mean Islam is inherently a religion of terrible violence?

The scholar Daniel Pipes has long argued that it is a mistake to attribute the evils committed by Muslim supremacists and jihadist killers to Islam itself, or to the text of the Koran and the hadith, the religion’s sacred scriptures. Like every great faith, Islam is what its adherents make of it. Today, many of those adherents are influenced by Islamism, the militant totalitarian version of Islam that emerged in the 20th century. The Islamist ascendancy is reflected in the savageries of Al Qaeda, the brutal misogyny of the Taliban, the apocalyptic hostility of the regime in Iran.

But just as the nightmare of the Third Reich was far from the totality of German culture and character, so Islam’s 1,400-year history is not encapsulated by the violent ugliness of the present moment. In other eras, Muslim society was known for its learning, tolerance, and moderation. “If things can get worse, they can also get better,” Pipes writes in the current issue of Commentary. As recently as 1969, when he began his career in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, Islamist extremism was all but unknown in world affairs. “If Islamism can thus grow, it can also decline.”

Since 9/11, Pipes has summarized his approach to the threat from Islamist terror and oppression with the maxim “Radical Islam is the problem; moderate Islam is the solution.” Not everyone accepts such a distinction. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has been widely held out as a model of moderate political Islam, has insisted that “Islam is Islam, and that’s it.”

more at link

[Jim__]

1. A different view of Pipes.

From wikipedia:

In The Nation, Brooklyn writer Kristine McNeil describes Pipes as an "anti-Arab propagandist" who has built a career out of "distortions... twist[ing] words, quot[ing] people out of context and stretch[ing] the truth to suit his purpose."[19] James Zogby argues that Pipes possesses an "obsessive hatred of all things Muslim", and that "Pipes is to Muslims what David Duke is to African-Americans". Christopher Hitchens, a fellow supporter of the Iraq War and critic of political Islam, has also criticized Pipes, arguing that Pipes pursues an intolerant agenda, "confuses scholarship with propaganda", and "pursues petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity." [42]

Pipes's views gained widespread public attention when they triggered a filibuster in the United States Senate against his nomination by President George W. Bush to the board of the United States Institute of Peace.[14] Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) explained that he was "offended" by Pipes's comments on Islam, and that while "some people call [Pipes] a scholar... this is not the kind of person you want on the USIP."[43] While defending Pipes's nomination, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer distanced Bush from Pipes's views, saying that Bush "disagrees with Pipes about whether Islam is a peaceful religion."[33]

In addition, Pipes sparked a controversy when he was invited to speak at the University of Toronto in March 2005. A letter from professors, staff and students asserted that Pipes had a "long record of xenophobic, racist and sexist speech that goes back to 1990."[44] but university officials said they would not interfere with Pipes's visit.[45] Pipes would later write an article recollecting his experience with the incident at the University of Toronto.[46]

[cbayer]

2. Interesting. He appears to have rather radically changed his position.

I wonder how that happened.

[Jim__]

3. I don't think he has.

In that wikipedia article, Jeff Jacoby is listed as one of his defenders. Here's a list of his articles on his website. I haven't read these articles, but note where he is published. Stating that 10 - 15% of Muslims are radical can give him the appearance of moderation (although that figure is considered wildly exaggerated by many people) while maintaining a radical stance on policy recommendations.

Pipes has been around for years, and is generally (at least to my knowledge) considered to be radical right.

[cbayer]

5. Looks like he writes primarily for right wing publications.

Interestingly, he has a pro-Hillary Clinton ad appearing at the link.

I am not familiar with his previous positions on Islam, but this does appear to be a softening. I agree with him about needing to separate radical islamists whose goals appear to be primarily political from all others.

At any rate, you have given me a whole new perspective on the article.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. I think almost totally for RW publications

He was pushing "is Obama a Muslim?" before he was the candidate:

In a December 30 post titled "The Muslim smear, version 2.0," Politico writer Ben Smith criticized the Pipes article, writing: "Keep an eye on this one, because if Obama's the nominee, this Front Page magazine piece by the conservative writer Daniel Pipes is likely to be the template for a faux-legitimate assault on Obama's religion." Smith wrote that Pipes' article is "pretty stunning in the twists of its logic," adding: "But the political impact of the piece isn't the tortured argument. It's branding Obama a Muslim, by a subtler means." In an update to his post, Smith wrote: "Pipes is reportedly advising Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign, but he said in an email he hadn't discussed the column with the campaign or heard from them about it. Giuliani spokeswoman Katie Levinson noted that he's not ... a part of the campaign's formal advisory structure."

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/01/02/daniel-pipes-relied-on-disputed-la-times-articl/142032

"In 2002, Pipes launched Campus Watch to monitor professors and academics that deviate from Pipes’ political ideologies.

This website inspired the creation of David Horowitz’s Discover the Networks, established in 2003 to track the political left, and both sites have subsequently shared content. Pipes’ 2003 book, Militant Islam Reaches America, was one of the earliest to hype the threat of “militant Islam” infiltrating America. He observed that “all immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”

A 2007 Pew Research Center report found just the opposite, concluding that “a comprehensive nationwide survey of American Muslims finds them to be largely assimilated, happy with their lives, and moderate with respect to many of the issues that have divided Muslims and Westerners around the world.”

In 2006, Pipes launched Islamist Watch, which “combats the ideas and institutions of lawful Islamism in the United States and throughout the West.” It then attempted to document the threats. His Middle East Forum published CAIR: Islamist Fooling the Establishment, in which he argues that a stealth movement of “the Wahhabi Lobby” will take over our nation. Without corroborating evidence, Pipes smeared the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, whose sole purpose as an organization is to “challenge the stereotypes of Islam and Muslims” and to “provide an Islamic perspective on issues of importance to the American public.”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daniel_Pipes

Continue reading the Sourcewatch entry. it's eye-popping.

Pipes was a prominent voice inside the Bush administration ("on the Special Task Force on Terrorism and Technology at the US Department of Defence&quot urging the invasion of Iraq: http://www.danielpipes.org/479/the-iraq-dilemma , though as Sourcewatch points out, he advocated arming Saddam in the 80s. If Pipes appears to be saying he can accept some form of moderate Islam, we should just assume he has a new trick up his sleeve.

[cbayer]

8. Once again, I am learning something by putting up a post about someone I was

not previously familiar with.

That includes both the author of the article and Pipes.

[trotsky]

4. Islam is indeed Islam, just like Christianity is Christianity.

And efforts to distinguish between "true" or "good" adherents of any religion will always be futile, and generally just causes more conflict.

[el_bryanto]

22. Do you believe that there are different philosophies or faiths or movements with in Islam

and Christianity? Or when you cut these religions open is all pretty much the same to you?

Bryant

[trotsky]

23. Oh there are absolutely different branches and sects and divisions.

To me, each interpretation looks about equally justified though. Thus the futility of trying to argue over who's the "real" adherent of a particular religion.

[el_bryanto]

24. FDR and Stalin and Clinton and Mao - all left wing politicians.

I've heard plenty of conservatoids make this argument - is it a fair one in your opinion? It is probably factually accurate, but is intended to imply that Clinton and FDR are kind of the same as Mao and Stalin.

Bryant

[trotsky]

26. Hard to break politics solely into left-wing vs. right-wing

The two-dimensional "Political Compass" (http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2) probably does a better job at describing where politicians or other individuals are with respect to each other.

Do all four of those mentioned "politicians" lie on the left half of that graph? Yeah, pretty much. As you say, factually accurate. Doesn't make them the same, but of those four men, who do you think is the "true" or "genuine" left-wing politician?

[el_bryanto]

28. I would argue that FDR is closest to what I believe

But they are all genuine left wing politicians. Factually.

In the same sense that Francis of Assissi and Pat Robertson are both Christians.

Bryant

[okasha]

6. "scholar Daniel Pipes"

*koff* *koff*

It looks as if the Randies suddenly feel the need to make nice to the guys with the oil. How horrible if they had to take the bus, or even walk a block or two!

[dimbear]

9. Radical Islam is the problem; moderate Islam is the solution.

Interesting logic. It resembles "a fatal car wreck is the problem, a fender bender is the solution. "

I have another alternative.

[cbayer]

10. And what would that be?

[dimbear]

11. In my comparison, a wise driver would avoid the accident completely.

It showed limited imagination on the part of the cited author to not see the alternative "none." Folk don't have to choose some kind of Islam. One suspects a purposefully limited imagination.

[Promethean]

13. Just like moderate Christianity does so much

to stop the excesses of radical Christianity. I think we all know what happens. "But they are good followers of (insert religion here), why would I naysay them?" Of course that is if you even get a response at all, most just shrug and change the subject.

Since people seem to the miss the point I'll disclaim here. I am supporting your supposition Dimbear.

[dimbear]

12. For some reason, I get flak when I say serious stuff about Islam.

After all, they form the world's second largest religion. I encourage everyone here to consider a Muslim designed and manufactured automobile for your next transportation purchase. It should go nicely with the gas you'll use.

[cbayer]

14. Maybe you get flak because you talk in this rather obtuse way that

could be interpreted as islamophobic speech.

I don't get what you are saying about a muslim designed and manufactured automobile at all.

[dimbear]

15. My negative attitude toward religious sects is capacious.

It reaches out to almost all of them. Shakers excepted. BTW, the only way to be completely fair to religions is to reject them all. Anything else is favoritism, since it's impossible to accept them all.

No one should be surprised that I have a negative general evaluation of Islam.

[cbayer]

16. Why do you exempt Shakers?

Isn't that favoritism?

And why is it impossible to accept them all, or at least accept that people may hold different beliefs. If those beliefs do not infringe on your rights or the rights of others, what difference does it make to you?

[dimbear]

17. It is favoritism, due to their fabulous furniture, their open handed giving, and their

being all gone, at least for practical purposes.

By accept (of course) I mean to give some reasonable credence to their beliefs. Since the various religions are all mutually contradictory in spades, that just can't be done.

Accept as in tolerate, treat evenhandedly, isn't a problem.

So, all in all, are you willing to consider a Muslim automobile for your next transportation choice? They must make some fine ones, since their technology isn't challenged by making atomic bombs.

[cbayer]

18. You still haven't really explained why you care.

Why dismiss (or worse) all muslims? all christians? all jews? just because they hold religious beliefs.

I have no idea what you are going on about the automobiles. Are you saying that muslim nations don't produce anything you would buy?

Again, the obtuse way in which you sometimes communicate makes it hard to understand what you are really trying to say.

[cleanhippie]

19. Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Why dismiss (or worse) all muslims? all christians? all jews? just because they hold religious beliefs.

Where did he EVER say that? What led you to the conclusion that he EVER said that?

What makes me really question your reading comprehension, or your interest in having honest conversation and debate, is the fact that in the post you replied to he stated

By accept (of course) I mean to give some reasonable credence to their beliefs. Since the various religions are all mutually contradictory in spades, that just can't be done.

Accept as in tolerate, treat evenhandedly, isn't a problem.

So what gives, Madam? Do you really have a reading comprehension problem or did you just make that up just for fun?

[dimbear]

20. I'm a little reluctant to accept obtuse, since that means stupid, see any dictionary,

would prefer obscure or indirect.

A simple answer to my question would run something like, "no, never considered a Muslim made auto." There aren't any available here that I know of. The Muslim nations don't have much manufacturing. They are either mostly farmers or engaged in extractive industries, especially oil. This fact looms large for the future of Islam. But, nevertheless, they do have atomic weapons and are busily seeking more. I have heard their atomic weapons aren't much good, but with an A bomb it doesn't make much difference.
Pakistan makes and peddles small arms too.

That's the state of affairs; no arguments there, but the question is "why? why should it be like that?" Now that's a million dollar question, and the answer would seem to revolve around a design flaw. I believe there's a grave fault (the design flaw) at the heart of Islam: tribalism.
That's why Islam has been in a slump since roughly 1492.

My friends, look around your house. How much of your stuff comes from the 1/5 of the world that practices Islam? Now how much from atheist China or Europe? Something wrong there, something wrong.

[cbayer]

21. Obscure is a better word, I agree.

Israel has nuclear weapons as well. How does Islam fit into that?

Most of my stuff is made in the USA. How does atheism fit into that?

I think you make connections between religion (or lack thereof) and other things when no connection really exists.

[okasha]

25. I think I understand him.

All good and happy things come from societies that have majority or growing populations of atheists. (Of course, China has also given us melamine in pet food and cadmium in kids' toys, both poisonous.)

All bad and unhappy things come from societies that are majority religious.

Unfortunately, both types of society have a wide streak of laissez-faire capitalism, and are quite willing to manufacture and sell goods at a profit regardless of their effect on living beings or the rest of the environment. Money talks louder than Dear Leader or God.

[cbayer]

27. That is pretty much my takeaway as well.

I fail to see a correlation with religion.

Some of the wealthiest countries in the world are very religious. Some of the poorest countries in the world are very religious. And vice versa.

Some of the most productive countries in the world are very religious. Some of the least productive countries in the world are very religious. And vice versa.

While I have seen studies that substantiate a correlation between poverty and religiosity, I think that's a complex question and a case for causation is not easily made.

Saudi Arabians don't make cars, as far as I know, but they produce oil. And every single one of us is buying that.

[dimbear]

29. Evidently you also take me for a simpleton.

I must be slipping faster than I thought.

IIRC, I started out by remarking that trying to say something serious about Islam was perilous.

QED.

[edhopper]

31. Well let's be glad

there are "moderate" Islamic countries like the UAE.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/marte-deborah-dalelv-sentenced-norwegian-rape-dubai_n_3624867.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

"DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- A Norwegian woman sentenced to 16 months in jail in Dubai for having sex outside marriage after she reported an alleged rape said Friday she decided to speak out in hopes of drawing attention to the risks of outsiders misunderstanding the Islamic-influenced legal codes in this cosmopolitan city."

Of course they are not any worse than when Christianity was the law of the land in Western nations.

But I would say that this is the result of when religion has it's true impact on the lives of people.
The only answer is a secular government with peoples religious beliefs having no input into it's laws.