D^2 is a pretty interesting guy, even if it is possible that we have some philosophical differences.
Scanning the older posts there (Im behind, OK?), I come to this:
Interesting things of our time … many of my compadres in the weblog trade have been bemoaning the fact that “moderate Muslims” haven’t been vocal enough to condemn all those other Muslims, the ones who are regularly quoted in news sources not run by Muslims or in dodgy translations of quotations out of context as saying something really horrible. Why, oh why, oh why, is it that the comments pages of Little Green Footballs1 aren’t absolutely full to bursting point with well-educated, secular Western Muslims apologising in wailing tones and loudly condemning those other silly uneducated fundamentalist barbarians?
To ask this question is of course to answer it; the vast majority of people don’t behave in this way because it would be monumentally weird to do so, and the vast majority of Muslims presumably and correctly suspect that when you’re dealing with the kind of person who starts pointing at things you didn’t do and demands that you sign their statement condemning whoever did them, then nothing you say is ever going to be good enough for them. I’ve half a mind to create an educated-Muslim sock puppet character and put this thesis to the test …
But anyway, people like Stephen den Beste, author of the turgidly unreadable and unsettlingly technocratic attempts to recreate neoclassical economics without the benefit of reading a word of the literature which populate USS Clueless (he has a fine line of shite in talking about mobile phone standards too), regard the absence of moderate Muslims lining up to claim that numerically the majority of their religion is made up of horrendous halfwits and ogres, as a sign that Islam is an intrinsically warlike, barbaric and horrible religion. I’m using his piece on this subject as the example because I happen to have just read it, and as an associate of the dreadful Eric Raymond, he’s a target of opportunity. But such burnt-out old hacks, U2 groupies and writers of novels which have to be put in the “God this is shit compared to his earlier stuff” category as Salman Rushdie, have also written in similar terms. And even my old mucker Brad Delong, who seems to have developed an unaccountable blindspot when it comes to these matters, is quoting him approvingly.
This is an interesting point both in and of itself, and as an example of a broader issue that ties to, among other things, the topic du jour of race in the U.S.A.
The presence of moderate Muslims is important because if we are going to negotiate, we need to have someone on the other side whom we consider rational and trustworthy enough to be our negotiating partner.
I have talked about the role of honor and self-restraint in conflict; one of the major reasons for this, I will argue, is that most conflicts are settled short of the absolute defeat on one side by the other. And for that to happen there must be an element of trust, of some mutual boundaries, and of the feeling that the folks on the other side will agree to the basic steps that will lead to and past the cessation of hostilities.
In the case of the Muslim world, a generalized rage against the West, accompanied with actions based on that rage which violate the Western norms of war which have grown over a millennium of bloodthirsty conflict within the West sets the stage for a conflict. If we want the conflict to be ended, both parties have to create enough grounds for negotiation to induce the other party to sit down.
The PA has consistently failed to do this, which is a large part of what has led to the current situation between Israel and Palestine (Israel has done it primarily in continuing their political and financial support for the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza).
Now, not all conflicts can be settled without the absolute subjugation of one side by the other. But if this conflict isnt I think that well certainly regret it , but I can suggest to the author above that if the conflict between the Muslim world and the West isnt settled through negotiation and the growing rule of law, that there will likely be many fewer Muslims on the earth than there are today. This isnt a personal threat, nor is it even close to my desired outcome; its a simple problem in the arithmetic of mass destruction, factored with knowledge of the thin skin of civility over the bloody history of Western civilization.
To restate in simple terms, its important to see an emergent moderate Muslim world if we want to avoid a cataclysmic conflict, in which I have no doubt the Muslim world will lose. Id like to avoid that conflict, if we can.
This relates (on a hopefully less dangerous basis) to the politics of race as well.
Theres been a lot of discussion about left-wing triumphalism in the wake of laffaire Lott, and the appropriate next steps for those interested in racial justice. Some, like Atrios, argue that this is the time for standing firm; some, like Hesiod, caution about overreaching.
Without getting into the overall political morality or tactics on this issue (sometime soon
), Ill suggest that we remember that both positions are important the extreme and rigid to set the marker and provide the nudge to get things moving, and the moderate and trustworthy to actually sit down and make deals and get things done.
The issue is simply in the conflict between the importance of moral certainty and of remaining a member of ones political community.
It is clear that one feature of politics today is the rise in importance of one of certainty and the decline in the other willingness to be constrained by ones community.
Now there are clear points in history where the standards of the community are so far outside the pale that any moral person must stand outside them. And it is equally clear that the standards change over time. But, one thing to think hard about is the issue of whether every issue and subissue in todays politics is more important than the integrity of the polity, and one question to ask in general is how we move the polity without destroying it.
Or, how do we create a politics that doesnt rely on the expectation and rhetoric of absolute conquest and subjugation? Cause I sure hear a lot of that from all sides these days.
Steve Den Beste has actually, uh, *built* cell phones that actually can compete on the world market. D-squared hasn’t. But D-squared considers himself an authority on cell-phone engineering.
You know, I keep having moments where I see European people striking postures of complete irresponsibility … and every time I see it, I think, “I guess the U.S. is going to stay the one world hyperpower for a long, long, time.”
LOL…yeah, I noticed that somewhat snarky comment too…but it seems like a petty dig and not on the point of the major issue I have with the post, so I won’t completely judge him by that.
A.L.
When Trent Lott made his asinine statement, Republicans crawled out of the woodwork to say how Trent’s attitudes were not representative of their own. While moderate muslims might feel like they shouldn’t have to defend themselves from the wackos, it certainly wouldn’t hurt them to act a little more like the Republicans did. Hell, it might even help.
I’m not saying they have a moral obligation to disagree. Republicans certainly didn’t have a moral obligation to disagree with Lott. But pragmatically?
Building a cell phone isn’t that hard. It isn’t like DB “invented” the cell phone.
Why is it that we look back at our political history and think that politics were any less dirty and personal than today? I would argue that nothing’s changed except perhaps the volume — at least our elected representatives aren’t beating each other on the floors of Congress. And they share common assumptions about the political language and methods in use.
From what I’ve been reading, that’s not so in our relations with the Middle East, where our culture clashes with an Arab honor/shame culture in addition to the ravings of the Islamicists. Without a middle class, there is no voice of moderation in the Mideast to be had.
And what of North Korea, where the kindest thing I’ve read about Kim Jong Il is that he’s insane? Is there any point in negotiating with someone whose planet’s sky is evidently a different color than ours?
TL is a bad parallel for this, but let’s use him for comparison. It was a big deal that he sold out his principled opposition to affirmative action in order to gain forgiveness. However, when MMs say that they decry the methods, but still bring up their issues with American foreign policy, a lot of times they get slapped w/ the anti-American tag.
Am I expected to explain that I’m not homophobic everytime some straight guy kills a gay guy because of his sexual orientation? I don’t expect my white associates (friends or acquaintances) to tell me they’re nice when there’s a hate crime against Arabs or my black associates to say they aren’t criminals everytime there’s a crime perpatrated by another black person. My default setting is that these criminals are the exception, not the rule.
So why is it I have to explain myself about these MidEast murderers? I’ve said on multiple occasions how I feel and how Arabs I know feel, but I get tired of sounding like a broken record. “They don’t represent all of us …blah blah blah … They’re fanatics, just especially loud ones … blah blah … The thuggish, autocratic governments have a *wink* *wink* relationship with these guys in order to reduce internal dissent, which is why the media is so bad ….balh blah.” How many times do I have to say, “I love this country just as much as the next guy, probably more. I hate these bastards as much, possibly more, than most Americans because not only did they attack my country, but they made my country suspicious of my people, the vast majority who love this country and are law abiding, moral, good Americans/immigrants.” I’m sick and tired of apologizing for some crazy bastards!
If you need me to apologize, it means you think the default is hating America. Just like you can be not racist and oppose AA, you can hate Islamists and disagree with American foreign policy. Like many conservative have said for a long time, just because extremists agree with us or use them to justify their hatred or murder (abortion clinic bombings, lynchings, etc.) does not mean that our beliefs are less legitimate.
Yes, MM (I don’t exactly qualify, since I’m not at all religious, but I feel I have a duty to defend my culture and people) should speak out more. But even when they do, they’re drowned out by the loud, freakish rhetoric of OBL and AQ. The good ones are out there, they’re just easier to ignore. Sorry this was so long, I just needed to rant.
Oh, I understand the automatic inclination to not feel the need to defend oneself when someone from “your group” does something wrong. When the sniper was doing his thing before he got caught, people made jokes about how it was likely a pasty white guy who worked with computers and, yeah, I never felt the need to defend pasty white guys who worked with computers (even though I kinda fit in that category of people).
But I can’t help but see a significant pragmatic difference between that and something like what the Islamic Fascists are doing. For one thing, some of the loudest of the Islamic Fascists are claiming that all good Muslims are on board and also have a responsibility to carry on the Good Work.
None of the homophobes who are out there stomping gays are publically claiming that all good breeders have a responsibility to cleanse the world of the scourge of the poisonous homosexuals. Let’s assume that one of them actually does so: Within days I’m sure we would have seen some talking heads on Fox and CNN and MSNBC explaining how the gay-bashers were not speaking for the People For Having Tons Of Heterosexual Sex and the leadership of PHTHS decried the vile statements.
Morally the moderate Muslims have no responsibility to decry the morons out there. But there are a lot of Soccer Moms out there in Middle America who are a lot more likely to stumble across Little Green Footballs than they are a website dedicated to how “All Muslims Aren’t Like That.”
Pragmatically, the Moderate Muslims would benefit from being a little more high-profile in the eyes of people like those soccer moms.
While there is no moral reason for moderate Muslims to continually say that Islamofascists do not speak for them, there is a practical reason to do so.
We need to be sure they exist.
We need to know they can make a moral statement without “but” following the first couple of phrases, or without referencing Israel.
Anyway, while Christians are not required morally to publicly distance themselves from various wackos doing weird stuff in the name of Christianity (or not, maybe just being white will do it)there are always Christian so-called spokesmen doing the distancing act, as if it’s actually required. In fact, failure to renounce such goings-on is considered evidence of Something Bad and so renunciation is required.
I don’t see why moderate Muslims aren’t put into the same position.
Either that position is wrong, in which case none ought to feel required to take it, or right, in which case all ought to feel required to take it.
Fair enough Jay. But at the same time how many white supremacist groups claim they are preparing for a war between the races and the white man will prevail (which sounds very OBL like). No reasonable person lumps pro-life Christians as a group with abortion clinic bombers and Nuremberg Files fanatics even though they claim to be doing God’s work.
I know these guys aren’t anywhere near the level of Islamo-fascists, but the idiocy and fanaticism is similar. Moderates like myself say “we are not the same” plenty. I’ve even found some blogs saying as much linked from Instapundit. It’s just our words aren’t nearly as loud of the actions of the fanatics or the voices of some hawkish blowhards (not all hawks are blowhards, by this I mean the Coulter types). Plus, we’re at war with terror groups, lgf and other similar sites are bound to be more popular than AllMuslimsArentTerrorists.blogspot.com. How many different ways can you say, “I am a patriotic American?” Hell, it’s a lot more interesting to read stuff that says, “The blood of the infidels will flow from our scimitars under the crescent moon” or about how 10 were killed in a suicide bombing.
I admit a lot of moderates get defensive about the fanatics, but there is a great deal of shame at being associated with these fanatics. Plus, whenever criticism of American policy in the region is accompanies admonishment it’s seen as excusing the behavior rather than an attempt to explain it.
I could go on and on about this. And I concede you the political wisdom of it. But at the same time, when admonishments are made they are quickly forgotten because they don’t conjure the same emotions as an lgf article or obl tape.
Mostafa–
Actually, lots of people DO lump clinic bombers in with rational anti-abortion advocates. Which is why pro-life groups issue ritual denuciations every time a clinic bombing or doctor murder occurs. It has to be annoying for them, but they have to do it anyway. If someone claims to speak for you, you need to say loudly that they do not.
But I think the biggest problem is that so much of the criticism of American foreign policy is fundamentally flawed. Not that the U.S. has always been perfect, but that criticism is always negative (don’t do that) rather than positive (we should do this). When positive suggestions are made, they usually take the badly discredited “give more foreign aid” line.
More than ritual denunciations of terrorists, moderate muslims need to come up with practical, workable solutions which are not retreads of utterly failed policies. That is the path to both real and percieved patriotism.
Hell, we ALL need to do that.
Mostafa:
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough in making my point; I don’t feel that the (very real, I’m positive) MM community is somehow morally tainted by the actions of OBL and Co.; I’m not trying to make you personally ashamed or culpable in his actions.
I’m trying to see a path through this that doesn’t end in slaughter.
And, as I say over, and over, and over again; and I’ll keep saying over and over again, it takes two sides to negotiate.
It’s about figuring out who to negotiate with…
A.L.
Perhaps the amazingly infectious nature of American pop culture will provide that common ground for negotiating. If Iran finally undergoes revolution I think we’ll see an example of this — the majority living there want freedom and want the kind of freedom U.S. citizens have.
If our culture cannot achieve some kind of syncretism with radical Islam we will have to rely on the use of force. Why? Without a Muslim Reformation to challenge the fusion of political and religious power, there is no “middle” for us to talk to. Challenge the power of the clerics and their answer is…death. At least the Soviet Union had a gulag. How the hell can you open up a dialogue with people who want you dead because of who you are and what you represent?
To be honest, I think the reason no “moderate Muslims” in the Arab world want to speak up is because their fundamentalist brethren have them intimidated or because those moderates have no voice. The Great Satan may wind up forcing a Reformation through occupation — and moderates will be found. In droves.
The failure to speak up against fanaticism hasn’t been confined to moderate Muslims, by any means: consider the way Salman Rushie was left out on a branch when the Iranian fatwa was proclaimed — even the Archbishop of Canterbury just tut-tutted that one should be careful not to write offensive books.
That said, I take issue with D^2 assertion that “it would be monumentally weird to do so” — that is, openly disavow coreligionists whose extremism threatens to poison one’s own image.
When bin Laden published his 1998 fatwa declaring war against all Americans, all of the major Islamic religious leaders pointed out that he had no religious authority to do so and that his radical ideology was contrary to Islamic law. This occurred before bin Laden even acted on his declaration, and it was reiterated after the attacks on 9/11.
I’m not sure how much more plainly you want it stated. Bin Laden’s theology, although popular with an alarming minority of discontents, is nevertheless unequivocably contrary to mainstream Islamic theology.
The world of Islam is extremely diverse, but on the fundamental question of whether God approves of taking innocent lives, there is much agreement. Many Muslims like America, many others dislike America, but only a few wackos believe it is their religious duty to kill Americans.
For all the disagreement in the Islamic world, they are surprisingly uniform in their rejection of bin Laden’s theology. The grand sheikh of al-Azhar, the most respected Sunni authority, categorically rejects it. The ayatollah in Iran, the leading Shi’ite authority (who does approve of terrorism against Israel) also rejects it. Even Saddam Hussein, who hates Americans as much as bin Laden does, has nevertheless made it a capital offense to preach bin Laden’s doctrine in Iraq.
There is no failure of Muslims, moderate and otherwise, to speak out against bin Laden and Wahhabi — only a failure of non-Muslims to listen.
mdl
Unfortunately, most of the denials of bin Laden’s authority were immediately followed by a “but”.
“Osama bin Laden does not speak for all muslims and Islam does not teach that it is okay to fly planes into buildings. But you should realize that your foreign policy with regards to Israel is making a lot of people angry.”
It seems that every disavowal of bin Laden must be followed up with a “but even if he is wrong about X, Y, and Z, he’s got a point with W you know…”
And perhaps you’re right that it’s my own darned fault for focusing on the W than the X, Y, and Z.
A.L.
I can see your point, and it’s an argument I make quite often in debates with my family and their Egyptian friends (I’m the pro-Israel hawk of the group). It’s hard to the bloodshed stop until some peaceful alternative emerges from the Palestinian camp. Even if Israel would pull up every one of their settlements, I can’t see them handing the keys to the kingdom to a group/person who spent the last two decades pledging to “water the soil with Zionist blood” or some other similarly crazed leader.
Scarily, we’ll have to wait for them to let a peaceful leader emerge. Until then there will be quite a bit of bloodshed. Though a way I can see to limit the conflict to the major players (as opposed to having a bunch of the regional powers insert their own agendas into the talks) would be to encourage reform in their own countries. The Israeli-Palestinian situation provides a great smokescreen for the local dictators. If we can somehow force them to focus at home, ala Iran, a lot of financial support and rhetoric will eb lifted, leaving the key players, who suddenly have more to lose, to negotiate.
Unfortunately, it’s hard to force someone to want peace.
>
Sure, but the only bin Laden point I really care about is his crazy idea that it is the religious duty of every Muslim to kill Americans. And that’s the one that Islamic leaders of all stripes denounce.
If some of them agree with various auxiliary points like “we hate America”, “we hate Israel”, “we don’t want U.S. military bases in Arabia”, “we don’t want any McDonalds restaurants in Pakistan”, “we wish our kids didn’t like rock music so much”, or “we’re pissed off that you’re rich and we’re poor”, that’s OK with me.
If some Muslims hate America, fine, that’s their right. I’d rather they didn’t, but it’s OK if they do. What’s not OK is when they try to kill us.
mdl
D-squared considers himself an authority on cell-phone engineering.
No, he just has a finely-calibrated bullshit meter.