Via Dean and INDC, he're is a website in which Muslims say they're sorry for the cartoon jihad. The problem with the website is that a) it assumes collective guilt b) it is registered anonymously through Domains by Proxy.

a) All of us should reject the primitive notion of collective guilt. The cartoon jihadis are holding an entire country, Denmark, responsible for the act of a single newspaper. This is collectivism at its worst. Similarly, we should not not hold all Muslims responsible for the acts of the religious fascists wishing to impose their system on the West. Muslims who believe in freedom of expression have nothing to apologize for.

b) If it is so important for a group of moderate Muslims to apologize for what other extremists are doing, why cover the domain's registration information? One only pays a third party to cover your registration information when one has something to hide. Could it be that they are afraid of revealing who they are? I think that it is very likely.

But, besides this website, there is also a serious problem in the way other Muslims are reacting. The main problem is in differentiating between moderate Muslims and radical, extremist, or conservative Muslims. What is the definition of a moderate vs. a radical? And in Islam, is there no such thing as a liberal Muslim?

Dorkafork and Dean Esmay have been trying to argue that there is nothing inherently antiliberal in Islam. I address that here. Their other point, that Muslim countries are becoming more liberal is well taken and spot on--especially given that this liberalization comes after the Bush Presdency, negating criticisms that the Islamic world would be better if America retreated from the war on terror.

However, if there is no connection between Islam and repressivenes, then how do they explain the statistic that

for each increase of 1% in the percentage of Muslims in the population the level of freedom goes down by 0.031 points on a scale of 7. (Roughly 1 in 200.) The relationship is also highly significant

For instance, much of what Dorkafork links to here, is a rejection of violence as a reaction to the Danish cartoons. Should I consider a Muslim who rejects violence, yet who still believes that such cartoons should be banned based on Islamic law a moderate?

And if a moderate Muslim can believes that the press ought to be censored so as not to violate Quranic injunctions, then what do we call a Muslim who disagrees and is fully secular in legal orientation? If the former is the mainstream view, wouldn't this make that the moderate view? And if the latter is the minority view, would not this mean that the secularist is a liberal among the greater Muslim community? For instance, take Dorkafork's first link which is to CAIR, which rejects violence as a method of acheiving the ends of imposing Islamofascism, but not those ends themselves. CAIR wishes to:

reiterate the Muslim communityÂ’s strong belief that the controversy is not an issue of free speech, but is instead based on concerns over hate speech and incitement .

Walid Phares has an excellent discussion today on how Muslim immigrants in Western countries continue to struggle with Islam's rejection of the separation of church and state--in the most literal meaning--and being a minority community unable to affect the larger legal structure. CAIR and MAS (the Muslim American Society) are much like their European counterparts in that they support a dual system of law: one secular in the West and one religious in Muslim countries. Such dualism, however, is conditioned on Muslims being unable to affect the larger political system. Once Muslim populations are large enough, they envision a peaceful transition to sharia through legal means.

Moderation is usually ascribed to those Muslims that subscribe to this dualism of secular law in the West and religious law elsewhere. Rarely does it enter into the mind the inherent contradiction that a 'moderate' might believe that it is okay for the 'moderate' country of Malaysia to jail people for the crime of giving a Bible to a Muslim.

And what about that 'moderate' Shia leader the Grand Ayatollah Sistani, cited by Dorkafork, who has condemned the specific violence around the cartoon jihad, but also believes blasphemy laws should be enacted wherever Muslims have power:

Sistani is strongly in favor of the blasphemy laws that have been so useful to Middle Eastern despots in squelching political reform. He declares that the ruling on those who "slander Allah, the Prophet, the Imams, religion or schools of law (madhhab)... is death." This penalty could be imposed on any Muslim who "slanders," that, is criticizes, an Imam's interpretation of the law, as has occurred in Iran and Afghanistan.

* Compared America To Saddam: MPAC director Salam al-Marayati wrote (MSA News, Sept. 5, 1996): "Saddam Hussein's behavior in and around Iraq has been reckless. The same can be said about U.S. policy as a result of its reactionary mode."

* Condemned America's Strikes On Bin Laden: The MPAC condemned America's strikes against Bin Laden terror bases in Afghanistan and Sudan in August 1998, on the grounds that "violence emanating from a superpower, bypassing due process and legitimate international channels, against poor countries is illegal, immoral and illogical..." (MPAC press release, August 24, 199

* Claimed Israel May Have Carried Out The 9/11 Attacks: Speaking on the Los Angeles radio station KCRW a few hours after the 9/11 attacks, MPAC director Salam al-Marayati said: "If we're going to look at suspects we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies." (New York Times, Oct. 22, 2001) The Anti-Defamation League's Los Angeles director responded by announcing that he is severing his contacts with Marayati. (L.A. Jewish Journal, Sept.28, 2001)

* Compared Muslim Terrorists To America's Founding Fathers: MPAC director Salam al-Marayati wrote (The Minaret, June 1996): "Most Islamic movements have been branded as terrorists as a result of the rising extremism from a handful of militants. American freedom fighters hundreds of years ago were also regarded as terrorists by the British."

* Praised Hezbollah: At the National Press Club on June 18, 1998, MPAC Senior Adviser Maher Hathout said: "Hezbollah is fighting for freedom...This is legitimate." Hezbollah murdered 241 U.S. marines in a 1983 car-bomb attack near Beirut.

* Justified Suicide Bombings Against Israelis: In a panel discussion on Capitol Hill on June 18, 1998, MPAC Senior Adviser Maher Hathout said: "The only thing [that Arab terrorists in Israel] can do is throw a bomb in a market or send somebody to suicide, we don't have enough ability to target real targets in Israel."

* Called For The Destruction Of Israel: The MPAC co-signed a public statement on September 17, 1993, which called for Israel's dissolution by stating that "The establishment by force, violence, and terrorism of a Jewish state in Palestine in 1948" was "unjust" and "a crime," and vowed to "work to overturn the injustice."

The governments must be pressured to demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets - to the prophets of the Lord and His messengers, to His holy books, and to the religious holy places....

"The second warning I direct at the Westerners, the Americans, and the Europeans who follow them, who claim to be fighting terrorism, and struggling against violence throughout the world.

"I say to them: Your silence over such crimes, which offend the Prophet of Islam and insult his great nation, is what begets violence, generates terrorism, and makes the terrorists say: Our governments are doing nothing, and we must avenge our Prophet ourselves. This is what creates terrorism and begets violence."

Other links provided by Dorkafork aren't to moderates at all. In fact, they are to liberal Muslim groups such as to The Free Muslims. It is groups like The Free Muslims that we all ought to be supporting. They reject both the means and the ends of Islamic law. They are true secularists in the Western sense of the word.

But just becaue I support them does not mean that they represent anything like the moderate wing of Islam. They understand this and readily admit that their positions are controversial within the Islamic community at large.

We need to distinguish them and other Muslim secularists as what they really are: liberal reformers.

Many have fallen into the trap of assuming that moderates are basically the same across the world. However, liberal, moderate, and conservative are all relative terms by definition. When applied to the Muslim world they mean something entirely different then when they are applied to Westerners.

Regardles of whether or not a Muslim cleric is deemed a moderate and condemns terrorism or acts of violence, that does not make him a friend to liberal democracy. As long as 'moderate' Muslims wish to impose sharia law--or base secular law on sharia principles-- in any country, they remain my ideological enemy.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:21 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 1762 words, total size 12 kb.