« IEA Ready To Compensate Iran's Cut In Oil Export | Main | Undeniable Reality »
February 10, 2006
On Krauthammer's 'The Curse Of The Moderates'
Topics: Understanding IslamLeave it to Charles Krauthammer to hit the nail on the head, and go right to the heart of the "moderate" Muslim reaction to the Muhammad cartoon issue - "that the Islamic "moderates" are the (raging) mob's agents and interpreters, warning the West not to do this again (publish caricatures of Muahammad), and the "Western "moderates"" are their terrified collaborators who say: Don't worry, we won't. It's those Danes. We're clean. Spare us. Please."""
What passes for moderation in the Islamic community -- "I share your rage but don't torch that embassy" -- is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means. It is fraudulent because, while pretending to uphold the principle of religious sensitivity, it is interested only in this instance of religious insensitivity.Krauthammer suggests in his piece that a true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths, and there are many such Muslims in the world today - it's just hard to get genuine Muslim moderates to speak out in favor of human rights.Have any of these "moderates" ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis? The sermons on Palestinian TV that refer to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys? The Syrian prime-time TV series that shows rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy to ritually consume his blood? The 41-part (!) series on Egyptian TV based on that anti-Semitic czarist forgery (and inspiration of the Nazis), "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," showing the Jews to be engaged in a century-old conspiracy to control the world?
A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who don't are not moderates but hypocrites, opportunists and agents for the rioters, merely using different means to advance the same goal: to impose upon the West, with its traditions of freedom of speech, a set of taboos that is exclusive to the Islamic faith. These are not defenders of religion but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West.
And these "moderates" are aided and abetted by Western "moderates" who publish pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung and celebrate the "Piss Christ" (a crucifix sitting in a jar of urine) as art deserving public subsidy, but who are seized with a sudden religious sensitivity when the subject is Muhammad.
While I believe an affirmative answer to Krauthammer's question regarding one's attitude on human rights can be an indication that a Muslim is moderate, I disagree that it is sufficient to be assured that a Muslim is indeed moderate. To be sure, one would need to know the answer to a few more questions:
Daniel Pipes suggests that some useful questions might include:As Pipes says in his article, distinguishing between real and phony moderation, obviously, is not a job for amateurs like US government officials.Violence: Do you condone or condemn the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians?
Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such organizations as Abu Sayyaf, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Groupe Islamique Armée, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and al-Qaida?
Modernity: Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony)?Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's world? Do you accept the validity of other religions? Do Muslims have anything to learn from the West?
Secularism: Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims? May Muslims convert to other religions?May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men?
Do you accept the laws of a majority non-Muslim government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government?
Should the state impose religious observance, such as banning food service during Ramadan? When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for drivers' license pictures), which should give way?
Islamic pluralism: Are Sufis and Shi'ites fully legitimate Muslims?Do you see Muslims who disagree with you as having fallen into unbelief? Is takfir (condemning fellow Muslims with whom one has disagreements as unbelievers) an acceptable practice?
Self-criticism: Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam?Who was responsible for the 9/11 suicide hijackings?
Defense against militant Islam: Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Islam, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)?
Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism should be shut down, or do you see this a symptom of bias?
Goals in the West: Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian and secular or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries ruled by Islamic law?
It is ideal if these questions are posed publicly - in the media or in front of an audience - thereby reducing the scope for dissimulation.No single reply establishes a militant Islamic disposition (plenty of non-Muslim Europeans believe the Bush administration itself carried out the 9/11 attacks); and pretence is always a possibility, but these questions offer a good start to the vexing issue of separating enemy from friend.
Posted by Richard at February 10, 2006 7:19 AM
Articles Related to Understanding Islam:
- On Krauthammer's 'The Curse Of The Moderates' - Feb 10, 2006
