What to do about Islam

I was reminded of this post on reading Feith’s War and Decision.   The problem for him was:

    “Pres Bush … the United States was in no way at war with the religion of Islam. The extremist ideology we were fighting was that of an international network – in the nature of a political movement – that selectively uses Islamic ideas  and vocabulary to put itself at war, not only with all non-Muslims but with virtually all Muslims too.”

What a distortion of the truth!

Even so he realized as did Rumsfield that “ideas – information, influence ideology – could contribute decisively to our ultimate success, even more than military, intelligence or police actions could.” He asks “what could we do to encourage Muslims to speak openly against the extremists’ views and to make extremist ideology less attractive?” “Who were (or might become) the most influential voices to oppose Jihadist violence?”

They were on the right track about what was needed to be done, assuming such people could be found. But this was the responsibility of State and neither Powell nor Armitage had any interest in pursuing it. They said “nothing could be done to push back against Jihadist extremism until we resolved terrorism’s “root causes” defined as economic despair and the Arab-Israel conflict.” Is it possible to be so stupid in high places?

Nevertheless Feith created the Office of Strategic Influence to take up the slack but a turf war with State ensued and it died an early death.

By Ted Belman (written in June 11/11)

Four years ago I wrote America’s Limited Options. In it, I duscussed what I thought the US should do regarding moderate Muslims.

US Options

Bush has taken the first step by dropping the use of the phrase “war on terror” and now refers to the battle “as a global war of ideology against a network of terrorists”. He remains unwilling to finger the Saudi support for the Wahhabist ideology which leads to terrorism. To talk about root causes of terror, that has to rank way up there.

The Rand Corporation issued a major report, Building Moderate Muslim Networks in which they advocated that

“the United States must do more to develop and support networks of moderate Muslims who are too often silenced by violent radical Islamists.”“Instead of focusing on the Middle East, where most of the radical Islamic thought originates and is firmly entrenched, the report recommends reaching out to activists, leaders and intellectuals in Turkey, Southeast Asia, Europe and other open societies. The goal of this outreach would be to reverse the flow of ideas and have more democratic ideas flow back to the less fertile ground for moderate network-building of the Middle East.

“Partners in this network-building effort should be those who share key dimensions of democratic culture, the study says. The report recommends targeting five groups as potential building blocks for networks: liberal and secular Muslim academics and intellectuals; young moderate religious scholars; community activists; women’s groups engaged in gender equality campaigns; and moderate journalists and scholars”.Daniel Pipes has long insisted that “radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution”. In support of this report he wrote Bolstering Moderate Muslims and A Million Moderate Muslims on the March and he is joined by others in this opinion, including The Hudson Institute.

Having said that, there are many, including Andrew Bostom and Hirsi Ali, who discount the potential of this effort succeeding either because of intimidation or because the “moderates “ are so few in number. (See also Alyssa Lappen’s Moderate and Radical Muslims: the Confused PBS View )

Perhaps the last word goes to Fjordman who in his column, Do we want an Islamic Reformation? wrote

“The only way you could, even theoretically, create a peaceful, tolerant Islam would be to permanently ignore all teachings, contained in the Koran, the hadith and the sira, originating from the violent Medina period. I doubt whether this is practically possible, and even if it was, it would mean that Muslims quite literally have to get rid of half of the Koran, which again means that Mr. Wilder is correct.”Nevertheless, I submit that such an effort as laid out by Rand Institute must be encouraged and supported with billions of dollars. But nothing short of a reformation of Islam will do. Islam must excise the odious (to the western mind at least) elements.

Secondly, it stands to reason that if the US is going to work actively to support the reformation of Islam, it must at the same time work to undermine contrary forces and influences. Laws must be passed which outlaws Islamists and the preaching of political Islam as subversive. Anyone or group advocating for political Islam must be imprisoned or deported . Political correctness shouldn’t prevent honest criticism of the objectionable aspects of Islam. The exercise of free speech shouldn’t be restricted if it is offensive.

Given the threat Islam poses for Europe, Europe will no doubt be a positive force for this agenda. European officials have already backed a plan to profile mosques, It will now “map out mosques on the continent to identify imams who preach radical Islam that raises the threat of homegrown terrorism.”.. “The project, to be finished by the fall, will focus on the roles of imams, their training, their ability to speak in the local language and their source of funding”

The US must also stop playing footsie with Islamists in Kosovo, Chechnya, Gaza and elsewhere, where it uses them as proxies. The double game must stop.

Thirdly, the US must adopt a policy of containment of Iran. Iran must be prevented from developing nuclear bombs and expanding its influence. Furthermore the US must abandon the idea of getting the regime to change and instead, getting Iranians to change the regime.

Fourthly, Israel should be strengthened not weakened. Peace will only come by changing the paradigm. (See my article in Israpundit, The ‘peace process’ is in need of a paradigm shift ) Instead of clamouring for political rights, i.e., a two state solution, the US should pursue an humanitarian solution as described by the Jerusalem Summit. Such a solution would involve disbanding UNRWA and dealing with Arab refugees under UNHCR as all other refugees are dealt with. The former serves to perpetuate the problem whereas the latter solves the problem.

Fifthly, assuming a unified Iraq cannot be stabilized, the US should support a federated Iraq where oil revenues are shared but with considerable autonomy to each group. If not it should support independence for Kurdistan, including Kirkup. The US forces in Iraq should then be redeployed to Kurdistan. The US should work to achieve an accommodation between Turkey and the Kurds and make certain that Kurdistan is an ally of the US and not Iran. Furthermore the US should support the secularists in Turkey rather than Erdogan.

The debate currently in the US is about when to bring the boys home. It should be about how to win. The course of action I have laid out has a reasonable chance for success. It should be pursued with resolve.

November 1, 2012 | 24 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

24 Comments / 24 Comments

  1. @ Michael Devolin:

    When I was around 10 my dad bought me BOXING GLOVES, Then started to give me lessons, at our local JCC they had a weight room with a rowing machine a heavy bag and a speed bag. I was, for a kid of ten not bad with the speed bag. I did a lot of fighting as a kid ( no choice) but not much formal boxing although I have always loved the sport and while since moving to Israel my interest has waned for baseball and football, Boxing is still my favorite sport.

    I am not being judgmental of you. dweller is another story. 😉

  2. Thanks, Yamit. Watched this this morning with my son Aviel. No more Jake LaMottas out there, or so it seems. And even less Sugar Ray Robinsons.

    A problem I have is that I am always in a hurry so I cannot spend enough time trying to articulate my thoughts. I have been doing firewood for the winter for the last 3 months whenever I get time from work. I try to put articles together, but lately I haven’t had the time, and I do not like writing them when I’m in a hurry as they turn out disasterous. So please forgive me if I sound like I’m “out there”. I’m not. I have lots of Jewish friends I see and hear from all the time. They keep me in line. One of them told me that if I ever decide to become Jewish, he would hang himself. So please don’t give up on me, Yamit. I am kept in line, it’s just that, as I mention above, I have a difficult time explaining myself at the best of times, and even more difficult when I’m in a hurry. Right now I have to run to work! Like I said…

    Hope you had a good Shabbos.

  3. “Judaism can survive quite well without either Christianity or Islam, but you need Judaism to substantiate your beliefs. That said, is there then any better proof as to which religion is true?”

    Well said, Yamit. Left hook to the body.

  4. “This idea is central to the Noahide understanding of God,, which is unfettered by a faith having no proven relation to reality.”

    Thankyou, Yamit. My belief is my faith (if that makes sense). I trust that HE is helping me, but that is as far as my belief can take me. I’m no Abraham, although I do argue with G-D (you have no idea!).

    I KNOW G-D is there, but I cannot know so many other things. It’s like the Yiddish proverb, “G-D loves the poor and helps the rich.” If being successful and powerful were indications of G-D’s love, I’d have to believe HE hates me. But I “know” HE doesn’t.

    One thing I do know, and that is that I am not a theologian, nor should you expect me to explain “faith” to anyone, let alone myself. I am quite often “stumbling”, as Dweller pointed out to me. All I know is that I only believe in the G-D of the Jewish people. Jews are my teachers. I think that’s what the Torah prescribes for Noachides. I depend on my Jewish friends to kick my ass when I need it. Your post above is proof that all is working well for me.

    Thanks again, Yamit.

  5. @ Eric:

    Both Islam and Christianity have Always sought to graft themselves into Judaism.

    First of all, you didn’t ask us for permission.

    Permission denied!!!

    Note: Islam resembles and relates to Judaism much more than Christianity. There is much commonality between Islam and Judaism and there is virtually nothing common in Christianity with Judaism.

    Judaism can survive quite well without either Christianity or Islam, but you need Judaism to substantiate your beliefs. That said, is there then any better proof as to which religion is true?

  6. @ Michael Devolin:

    On another thread you were discussing concepts of faith with dweller. You are both incorrect I think insofar as Judaism defines the concept..


    In Genesis, Abraham’s belief in God is not that of blind faith, but rather it is a certainty that is substantiated by a direct knowledge of God. This idea is significant, since God first promises, and then He acts. Thus certainty on the part of man is a requirement for incipient performance by God.

    Torah is the pursuit of truth reinforced by fact. This idea is central to the Noahide understanding of God,, which is unfettered by a faith having no proven relation to reality. This difference in outlook is what sets apart the Jewish conception of God versus the Christian imperative of absolute faith.

    Abraham spoke directly with G-d so his belief was not based on faith and certainly not blind faith. Christians attribute the seeming obedience of Abraham to G-d’s order to sacrifice Isaak to blind faith. In truth..The Abraham narrative has already shown that Abraham has consistently argued with G-d and held G-d to his own promises and covenant with Abraham, they had a mutually binding contract. If man is created in G-d’s own image, a creative creature himself and master of all Being, how could G-d accept a human being as a sacrifice unto Him? We saw how much Abraham resembles his G-d and how much Abraham’s G-d resembles Abraham; it is this G-d that Abraham deals with here and does not argue with because he had reasoned it out beforehand. In this greatest test in which G-d tempts Abraham, reasonable faith becomes a faith which keeps reason. Abraham does not “believe” and does not argue, because now he knows. He now knows his G-d, knows that this G-d cannot accept human sacrifices and therefore he does not lie to Isaac when he tells him: “My son, G-d will provide himself a lamb for the burnt offering.” (Gen. 22, 8); he knows that lambs and rams roam the countryside in this land of shepherds and one will be there. The situation, therefore, is this: G-d tempts Abraham and Abraham tests his G-d, and Abraham knows beforehand that both will stand the test. Thus, he lets a “miracle” happen, gives a sign to his son and the other members of his tribe to show them who G-d is, the living G-d, the Creator of free creative creatures.

  7. “But Christians are
    grafted into to the root…”

    Christians are NOT grafted in. You are sorely mistaken. That is Pauline BS.

  8. “What we need is a Muslim Martin Luther”

    That’s the last thing we need. That’s like saying we need another Adolf Hitler (G-D forbid!).

  9. Bert Said:

    Even worse Islam is spreading in Europe and the U.S.

    Not to forget in Africa, Asia, Australia and even in South-America. In short, the whole word is in trouble.

  10. As long as the USA depend on the ME for energy, there is very little hope for any significant change for the economy of the US. With a weak economy and the infiltration of the country by the MBs, the influence of the US will decrease dramatically.
    For Islam it is reform or perish. Humanity has no other choices

  11. Protestant Christianity must be reformed to correct the blasphamy of the Catholics creating 3 persons of G-d.
    That theology is not in the New Testament but has been passed down to Protestants through the Catholics. See James 2.
    Once G-d is one again, then Christianity can conquer Islam without bombs. Otherwise we have massive war on our hands
    as Muslims will continue to force their domination on the world and especially Israel as Israel is forever G-d’s chosen
    (unless you believe the ” Protestant reformed” replacement theology which also originated in the Catholic church which says
    Christians replace Jews and Israel as G-d’s chosen. (they never seem to study Romans 9,10,11).
    Some Muslims do convert when shared the truth and then they are outspoken against Islam as the death cult. But Christians are
    grafted into to the root from Israel, according to ROmans 9-11. A muslim who finds acceptance from G-d, which their religion will never offer, no longer has a need for jihad.

  12. It took WWII and the brutal destruction of Germany and Japan plus years of military occupation to reform their ideologies. Today Islam influences 1.4 billion people and commands vast oil resources plus a huge military with nukes in Pakistan and soon in Iran. Even worse Islam is spreading in Europe and the U.S.
    We are clearly in for big trouble. In the Torah the Jews were told that when entering the ‘promised land’ to totally eliminate the pagans and destroy their idols or else they will remain a danger to you. That advice was ignored back then and we still have not learned.

  13. The “Moderate Muslim” is an unadulterated fiction. There are only Muslim – period. Those that are “moderate” are not true believers and are Muslim in name only. Those that are “good” Muslims are the evil that must be entirely eradicated from the face of the Planet if civilization is to be preserved.

    Political correctness is suicide.

  14. Steven,

    I agree with you completely.

    But how about the human spirit that is not free?
    The spirit that is fettered from birth by an ideology that commands total obedience and submission (Islam), that does not permit free thought or fresh ideas or change of any kind?

  15. Islam must reform or be reformed. Sharia must be cleaned up.
    Muslims are enslaved into an organization that imposes dependence from the moment they can read (early childhood).
    To reverse this is humanly almost impossible.
    Communism was defeated, why not Islamism.
    The free human spirit can do ANYTHING!

  16. Where are all these “moderate” Muslims hiding?
    Why are they silent instead of crying out in anger and anguish over the atrocities committed by their fellow Muslims?

    I believe that with very, very few exceptions the “moderate” Muslims are sitting on the fence waiting to see on which side of it to climb down. Their silence leads me to believe that they are hoping for an ultimate Muslim victory. Silence connotes consent not disapproval.

  17. I was talking to a moderate Pakistani Muslim at a university foreign students luncheon who wanted to play rock guitar and I told him that If the Pakistani Taliban and whatever Fundamentalists won he would not be considered a Muslim but more likely a Kufar. He agreed. I then asked him would Islam ever reform like other religions adapt to the modern world and his answer was, “Never.”
    Another Pakistani this time Online in a chat room sent me a PM and he said the only thing that I agree with you about Israel is that they have the right to exist so I asked why and he replied, “because they can defend their borders.” I asked him if Jihad means inner struggle like some Muslims claim or Holy War. He answered, “Holy War.” I asked him if “kill the non-believer wherever you find him,” was only referring to the time of Mohamed or for all times. His answer, “For all times and you have been warned.”