The Jihad Against The Jihadis

[Hassan]

The Jihad Against the Jihadis

How moderate Muslim leaders waged war on extremists—and won.
By Fareed Zakaria

September 11, 2001, was gruesome enough on its own terms, but for many of us, the real fear was of what might follow. Not only had Al Qaeda shown it was capable of sophisticated and ruthless attacks, but a far greater concern was that the group had or could establish a powerful hold on the hearts and minds of Muslims. And if Muslims sympathized with Al Qaeda's cause, we were in for a herculean struggle. There are more than 1.5 billion Muslims living in more than 150 countries across the world. If jihadist ideology became attractive to a significant part of this population, the West faced a clash of civilizations without end, one marked by blood and tears.

These fears were well founded. The 9/11 attacks opened the curtain on a world of radical and violent Islam that had been festering in the Arab lands and had been exported across the globe, from London to Jakarta. Polls all over the Muslim world revealed deep anger against America and the West and a surprising degree of support for Osama bin Laden. Governments in most of these countries were ambivalent about this phenomenon, assuming that the Islamists' wrath would focus on the United States and not themselves. Large, important countries like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia seemed vulnerable.

More than eight eventful years have passed, but in some ways it still feels like 2001. Republicans have clearly decided that fanning the public's fears of rampant jihadism continues to be a winning strategy. Commentators furnish examples of backwardness and brutality from various parts of the Muslim world—and there are many—to highlight the grave threat we face.

But, in fact, the entire terrain of the war on terror has evolved dramatically. Put simply, the moderates are fighting back and the tide is turning. We no longer fear the possibility of a major country succumbing to jihadist ideology. In most Muslim nations, mainstream rulers have stabilized their regimes and their societies, and extremists have been isolated. This has not led to the flowering of Jeffersonian democracy or liberalism. But modern, somewhat secular forces are clearly in control and widely supported across the Muslim world. Polls, elections, and in-depth studies all confirm this trend.

The focus of our concern now is not a broad political movement but a handful of fanatics scattered across the globe. Yet Washington's vast nation-building machinery continues to spend tens of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are calls to do more in Yemen and Somalia. What we have to ask ourselves is whether any of that really will deter these small bands of extremists. Some of them come out of the established democracies of the West, hardly places where nation building will help. We have to understand the changes in the landscape of Islam if we are going to effectively fight the enemy on the ground, rather than the enemy in our minds.

Once, no country was more worrying than bin Laden's homeland. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, steward of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, had surpassed Egypt as the de facto leader of the Arab world because of the vast sums of money it doled out to Islamic causes—usually those consonant with its puritanical Wahhabi doctrines. Since 1979 the Saudi regime had openly appeased its homegrown Islamists, handing over key ministries and funds to reactionary mullahs. Visitors to Saudi Arabia after 9/11 were shocked by what they heard there. Educated Saudis—including senior members of the government—publicly endorsed wild conspiracy theories and denied that any Saudis had been involved in the 9/11 attacks. Even those who accepted reality argued that the fury of some Arabs was inevitable, given America's one-sided foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli issue.

America's initial reaction to 9/11 was to focus on Al Qaeda. The group was driven out of its base in Afghanistan and was pursued wherever it went. Its money was tracked and blocked, its fighters arrested and killed. Many other nations joined in, from France to Malaysia. After all, no government wanted to let terrorists run loose in its land.

But a broader conversation also began, one that asked, "Why is this happening, and what can we do about it?" The most influential statement on Islam to come out of the post-9/11 era was not a presidential speech or an intellectual's essay. It was, believe it or not, a United Nations report. In 2002 the U.N. Development Program published a detailed study of the Arab world. The paper made plain that in an era of globalization, openness, diversity, and tolerance, the Arabs were the world's great laggards. Using hard data, the report painted a picture of political, social, and intellectual stagnation in countries from the Maghreb to the Gulf. And it was written by a team of Arab scholars. This was not paternalism or imperialism. It was truth.

The report, and many essays and speeches by political figures and intellectuals in the West, launched a process of reflection in the Arab world. The debate did not take the form that many in the West wanted—no one said, "You're right, we are backward." But still, leaders in Arab countries were forced to advocate modernity and moderation openly rather than hoping that they could quietly reap its fruits by day while palling around with the mullahs at night. The Bush administration launched a series of programs across the Muslim world to strengthen moderates, shore up civil society, and build forces of tolerance and pluralism. All this has had an effect. From Dubai to Amman to Cairo, in some form or another, authorities have begun opening up economic and political systems that had been tightly closed. The changes have sometimes been small, but the arrows are finally moving in the right direction.

Ultimately, the catalyst for change was something more lethal than a report. After 9/11, Al Qaeda was full of bluster: recall the videotapes of bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, boasting of their plans. Yet they confronted a far less permissive environment. Moving money, people, and materials had all become much more difficult. So they, and local groups inspired by them, began attacking where they could—striking local targets rather than global ones, including a nightclub and hotel in Indonesia, a wedding party in Jordan, cafés in Casablanca and Istanbul, and resorts in Egypt. They threatened the regimes that, either by accident or design, had allowed them to live and breathe.

Over the course of 2003 and 2004, Saudi Arabia was rocked by a series of such terrorist attacks, some directed against foreigners, but others at the heart of the Saudi regime—the Ministry of the Interior and compounds within the oil industry. The monarchy recognized that it had spawned dark forces that were now endangering its very existence. In 2005 a man of wisdom and moderation, King Abdullah, formally ascended to the throne and inaugurated a large-scale political and intellectual effort aimed at discrediting the ideology of jihadism. Mullahs were ordered to denounce suicide bombings, and violence more generally. Education was pried out of the hands of the clerics. Terrorists and terror suspects were "rehabilitated" through extensive programs of education, job training, and counseling. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus said to me, "The Saudi role in taking on Al Qaeda, both by force but also using political, social, religious, and educational tools, is one of the most important, least reported positive developments in the war on terror."

Perhaps the most successful country to combat jihadism has been the world's most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia. In 2002 that country seemed destined for a long and painful struggle with the forces of radical Islam. The nation was rocked by terror attacks, and a local Qaeda affiliate, Jemaah Islamiah, appeared to be gaining strength. But eight years later, JI has been marginalized and main-stream political parties have gained ground, all while a young democracy has flowered after the collapse of the Suharto dictatorship.

Magnus Ranstorp of Stockholm's Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies recently published a careful study examining Indonesia's success in beating back extremism. The main lesson, he writes, is to involve not just government but civil society as a whole, including media and cultural figures who can act as counterforces to terrorism. (That approach obviously has greater potential in regions and countries with open and vibrant political systems—Southeast Asia, Turkey, and India—than in the Arab world.)

Iraq occupies an odd place in this narrative. While the invasion of Iraq inflamed the Muslim world and the series of blunders during the initial occupation period created dangerous chaos at the heart of the Middle East, Iraq also became a stage on which Al Qaeda played a deadly hand, and lost. As Al Qaeda in Iraq gained militarily, it began losing politically. It turned from its broader global ideology to focus on a narrow sectarian agenda, killing Shias and fueling a Sunni-Shia civil war. In doing so, the group also employed a level of brutality and violence that shocked most Iraqis. Where the group gained control, even pious people were repulsed by its reactionary behavior. In Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni insurgency, Al Qaeda in Iraq would routinely cut off the fingers of smokers. Even those Sunnis who feared the new Iraq began to prefer Shia rule to such medievalism.

Since 9/11, Western commentators have been calling on moderate Muslim leaders to condemn jihadist ideology, issue fatwas against suicide bombing, and denounce Al Qaeda. Since about 2006, they've begun to do so in significant numbers. In 2007 one of bin Laden's most prominent Saudi mentors, the preacher and scholar Salman al-Odah, wrote an open letter criticizing him for "fostering a culture of suicide bombings that has caused bloodshed and suffering, and brought ruin to entire Muslim communities and families." That same year Abdulaziz al ash-Sheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudis from engaging in jihad abroad and accused both bin Laden and Arab regimes of "transforming our youth into walking bombs to accomplish their own political and military aims." One of Al Qaeda's own top theorists, Abdul-Aziz el-Sherif, renounced its extremism, including the killing of civilians and the choosing of targets based on religion and nationality. Sherif—a longtime associate of Zawahiri who crafted what became known as Al Qaeda's guide to jihad—has called on militants to desist from terrorism, and authored a rebuttal of his former cohorts.

Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the oldest and most prestigious school of Islamic learning, now routinely condemns jihadism. The Darul Uloom Deoband movement in India, home to the original radicalism that influenced Al Qaeda, has inveighed against suicide bombing since 2008. None of these groups or people have become pro-American or liberal, but they have become anti-jihadist.

This might seem like an esoteric debate. But consider: the most important moderates to denounce militants have been the families of radicals. In the case of both the five young American Muslims from Virginia arrested in Pakistan last year and Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, parents were the ones to report their worries about their own children to the U.S. government—an act so stunning that it requires far more examination, and praise, than it has gotten. This is where soft power becomes critical. Were the fathers of these boys convinced that the United States would torture, maim, and execute their children without any sense of justice, they would not have come forward. I doubt that any Chechen father has turned his child over to Vladimir Putin's regime.

The data on public opinion in the Muslim world are now overwhelming. London School of Economics professor Fawaz Gerges has analyzed polls from dozens of Muslim countries over the past few years. He notes that in a range of places—Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh—there have been substantial declines in the number of people who say suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam. Wide majorities say such attacks are, at most, rarely acceptable.

The shift has been especially dramatic in Jordan, where only 12Â percent of Jordanians view suicide attacks as "often or sometimes justified" (down from 57Â percent in 2005). In Indonesia, 85Â percent of respondents agree that terrorist attacks are "rarely/never justified" (in 2002, by contrast, only 70 percent opposed such attacks). In Pakistan, that figure is 90Â percent, up from 43 percent in 2002. Gerges points out that, by comparison, only 46Â percent of Americans say that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24Â percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

This shift does not reflect a turn away from religiosity or even from a backward conception of Islam. That ideological struggle persists and will take decades, not years, to resolve itself. But the battle against jihadism has fared much better, much sooner, than anyone could have imagined.

The exceptions to this picture readily spring to mind—Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen. But consider the conditions in those countries. In Afghanistan, jihadist ideology has wrapped itself around a genuine ethnic struggle in which Pashtuns feel that they are being dispossessed by rival groups. In Pakistan, the regime is still where Saudi Arabia was in 2003 and 2004: slowly coming to realize that the extremism it had fostered has now become a threat to its own survival. In Yemen, the state simply lacks the basic capacity to fight back. So the rule might simply be that in those places where a government lacks the desire, will, or capacity to fight jihadism, Al Qaeda can continue to thrive.

But the nature of the enemy is now quite different. It is not a movement capable of winning over the Arab street. Its political appeal does not make rulers tremble. The video messages of bin Laden and Zawahiri once unsettled moderate regimes. Now they are mostly dismissed as almost comical attempts to find popular causes to latch onto. (After the financial crash, bin Laden tried his hand at bashing greedy bankers.)

This is not an argument to relax our efforts to hunt down militants. Al Qaeda remains a group of relentless, ruthless killers who are trying to recruit other fanatics to carry out hideous attacks that would do terrible damage to civilized society. But the group's aura is gone, its political influence limited. Its few remaining fighters are spread thinly throughout the world and face hostile environments almost everywhere.

America is no longer engaged in a civilizational struggle throughout the Muslim world, but a military and intelligence campaign in a set of discrete places. Now, that latter struggle might well require politics, diplomacy, and development assistance—in the manner that good foreign policy always does (Petraeus calls this a "whole-of-government strategy"). We have allies; we need to support them. But the target is only a handful of extremist organizations that have found a small group of fanatics to carry out their plans. To put it another way, even if the United States pursues a broad and successful effort at nation building in Afghanistan and Yemen, does anyone really think that will deter the next Nigerian misfit—or fanatic from Detroit—from getting on a plane with chemicals in his underwear? Such people cannot be won over. They cannot be reasoned with; they can only be captured or killed.

The enemy is not vast; the swamp is being drained. Al Qaeda has already lost in the realm of ideology. What remains is the battle to defeat it in the nooks, crannies, and crevices of the real world.

[Ed Normile]

A few things struck me as odd in this article, this seems to be a piece by a muslim to downplay muslim terrorism. He applauds Indonesia for stopping terrorism, cites it as a shining example while discounting the July 7 2009 deadly blasts that ripped two hotels Jakarta hotels the JW Marriot and Ritz-Carlton. Kudos to the Indonesian government, how did they address thisnterrorism which struck at the icons of western capitalism that employed and bosted the economy of Jakarta, they hunted down and killed every member of the terrorist cell. It seems they have no reservations about how to effectively handle extremists there.

[b] Republicans have clearly decided that fanning the public's fears of rampant jihadism continues to be a winning strategy.[/b] This line from the article said too me that the author was trying to fuel a political blame game, its a well known fact that many liberals feel we provoked these attacks, some even going so far as to suggest we deserved this treatment. It follows that a good muslim sympathizer would love to spread the Republicans bad - Liberals good mentality, as this would further the abilities of a jihad minded terrorist to ply his jihad less restrictred by the mean Republicans whoi have kept the US basically safe since 9/11.

The author tries to assert that Saudi was once the most worrysome nations, what a croc, they have been our allies for years which is why it was shocking so many were involved in the 9/11 attack. He then praises the parents of the american terrorist bombers for reporting their kids and calls it "an act so stunning that it requires far more examination, and praise, than it has gotten. What does this jerk live on pluto?, who among you would not report your children if you had any inkling that they were about to take even ONE human life? These nuts wanted to take down planes and kill many innocents, surely these parents knew this wrong had to be stopped and if they were silent they would be complicent in the act. What does this say about the author who feels its stunning that a parent would report their child for considering a cowardly mudreous act? It says to me clearly that this man has been desensitized to terrorism to the point where he may actually be a symphathizer or an outright proponent of their cause. What other reason could you offer for such a ludicrous statement that the act of these parents was anything above the realm of normalcy, or what any rational civilized person in any civilized state would be expected to do. For my part I hope they toss the authors apartment and look for bomb vests and bullets, this guy seems too pro terrorist to me.

ed

[Ed Normile]

A few things struck me as odd in this article, this seems to be a piece by a muslim to downplay muslim terrorism. He applauds Indonesia for stopping terrorism, cites it as a shining example while discounting the July 7 2009 deadly blasts that ripped two hotels Jakarta hotels the JW Marriot and Ritz-Carlton. Kudos to the Indonesian government, how did they address thisnterrorism which struck at the icons of western capitalism that employed and bosted the economy of Jakarta, they hunted down and killed every member of the terrorist cell. It seems they have no reservations about how to effectively handle extremists there.

[b] Republicans have clearly decided that fanning the public's fears of rampant jihadism continues to be a winning strategy.[/b] This line from the article said too me that the author was trying to fuel a political blame game, its a well known fact that many liberals feel we provoked these attacks, some even going so far as to suggest we deserved this treatment. It follows that a good muslim sympathizer would love to spread the Republicans bad - Liberals good mentality, as this would further the abilities of a jihad minded terrorist to ply his jihad less restrictred by the mean Republicans whoi have kept the US basically safe since 9/11.

The author tries to assert that Saudi was once the most worrysome nations, what a croc, they have been our allies for years which is why it was shocking so many were involved in the 9/11 attack. He then praises the parents of the american terrorist bombers for reporting their kids and calls it "an act so stunning that it requires far more examination, and praise, than it has gotten. What does this jerk live on pluto?, who among you would not report your children if you had any inkling that they were about to take even ONE human life? These nuts wanted to take down planes and kill many innocents, surely these parents knew this wrong had to be stopped and if they were silent they would be complicent in the act. What does this say about the author who feels its stunning that a parent would report their child for considering a cowardly mudreous act? It says to me clearly that this man has been desensitized to terrorism to the point where he may actually be a symphathizer or an outright proponent of their cause. What other reason could you offer for such a ludicrous statement that the act of these parents was anything above the realm of normalcy, or what any rational civilized person in any civilized state would be expected to do. For my part I hope they toss the authors apartment and look for bomb vests and bullets, this guy seems too pro terrorist to me.

ed

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='24 February 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1267036604' post='2062455']
A few things struck me as odd in this article, this seems to be a piece by a muslim to downplay muslim terrorism.[/QUOTE]

Fareed Zakaria does have a Muslim-Indian name. That is the one and only thing in this article which would give you any reason to believe he was a Muslim trying to insert a political agenda in virtue of that characteristic. There is a term for making such sweeping judgments of an individual's character based purely on his or her ancestry. It's called racism.

Fareed Zakaria comes from a Muslim family, but has publicly stated his lack of personal religiosity.

[QUOTE]He applauds Indonesia for stopping terrorism, cites it as a shining example while discounting the July 7 2009 deadly blasts that ripped two hotels Jakarta hotels the JW Marriot and Ritz-Carlton. Kudos to the Indonesian government, how did they address thisnterrorism which struck at the icons of western capitalism that employed and bosted the economy of Jakarta, they hunted down and killed every member of the terrorist cell. It seems they have no reservations about how to effectively handle extremists there.[/QUOTE]

Unless you read into this article a claim that Zakaria categorically did not make, that terrorism was defeated or otherwise incapeable of enacting violence on its political enemies in the countries her pointed to, I fail to see how this affects his point.

[QUOTE][b] Republicans have clearly decided that fanning the public's fears of rampant jihadism continues to be a winning strategy.[/b] This line from the article said too me that the author was trying to fuel a political blame game, its a well known fact that many liberals feel we provoked these attacks, some even going so far as to suggest we deserved this treatment. It follows that a good muslim sympathizer would love to spread the Republicans bad - Liberals good mentality, as this would further the abilities of a jihad minded terrorist to ply his jihad less restrictred by the mean Republicans whoi have kept the US basically safe since 9/11.[/QUOTE]

He didn't praise liberals, he made an analysis of the tactics being employed by the current republican party. I don't know what you mean by 'Muslim sympathizer'. Fareed Zakaria is certainly not a terrorist sympathizer. If he were I doubt he'd be witing an article praising the dismantling of radical Islam's ideological foundation and increased lack of material means to engage in terrorism.

Zakaria doesn't fit neatly into either party. Considering he wrote a book proclaiming how essential free markets are to political freedom, and the need to have institutional restraints to temper brief, uncoordinated majority whims (pointing to the failed liberal experiment in California with referendum democracy as a key example), I doubt he fits into neatly into todays firm liberal base. If anything I'd consider him a conservative in the older sense of the term. He promotes free markets and constitutionally limited, institutionalized government.

[QUOTE]The author tries to assert that Saudi was once the most worrysome nations, what a croc, they have been our allies for years which is why it was shocking so many were involved in the 9/11 attack.[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding me?

[QUOTE]He then praises the parents of the american terrorist bombers for reporting their kids and calls it "an act so stunning that it requires far more examination, and praise, than it has gotten. What does this jerk live on pluto?, who among you would not report your children if you had any inkling that they were about to take even ONE human life? These nuts wanted to take down planes and kill many innocents, surely these parents knew this wrong had to be stopped and if they were silent they would be complicent in the act. What does this say about the author who feels its stunning that a parent would report their child for considering a cowardly mudreous act? It says to me clearly that this man has been desensitized to terrorism to the point where he may actually be a symphathizer or an outright proponent of their cause.[/QUOTE]

I think here is about when your tain of thought became to incoherent and slipshod to be worth seriously responding to.

[QUOTE]What other reason could you offer for such a ludicrous statement that the act of these parents was anything above the realm of normalcy, or what any rational civilized person in any civilized state would be expected to do. For my part I hope they toss the authors apartment and look for bomb vests and bullets, this guy seems too pro terrorist to me.

ed
[/quote]

And here is where I need to stop responding to this post before I start using language that's going to get me into trouble. Have a nice day.

[Ed Normile]

[b]Fareed Zakaria does have a Muslim-Indian name. That is the one and only thing in this article which would give you any reason to believe he was a Muslim trying to insert a political agenda in virtue of that characteristic. There is a term for making such sweeping judgments of an individual's character based purely on his or her ancestry. It's called racism[/b].
Sorry sport, I actually read every line of this artcile before I came up with that idea, so you have immediately resorted to calling me a rascist to nullify my opinion? Well if you have no other weapon available I guess use whatever you can.


[b]He didn't praise liberals, he made an analysis of the tactics being employed by the current republican party. I don't know what you mean by 'Muslim sympathizer'. Fareed Zakaria is certainly not a terrorist sympathizer. If he were I doubt he'd be witing an article praising the dismantling of radical Islam's ideological foundation and increased lack of material means to engage in terrorism.

Zakaria doesn't fit neatly into either party. Considering he wrote a book proclaiming how essential free markets are to political freedom, and the need to have institutional restraints to temper brief, uncoordinated majority whims (pointing to the failed liberal experiment in California with referendum democracy as a key example), I doubt he fits into neatly into todays firm liberal base. If anything I'd consider him a conservative in the older sense of the term. He promotes free markets and constitutionally limited, institutionalized government.[/b]
I never said he praised liberals, I did say he was blaming republicans, its a fact that republicans are firm in the idea of defense and offense on terrorism, while liberals have the lets just leave them alone so they won't hurt us mentality, as far as the authors political idealogies I will take your word as I have no idea what they are, this is what I gathered from his article.

[b]Are you kidding me?[/b]
No my ill informed friend I am not joking with you, Saudi Arabia has been our allies for a long time, the first and second wars against iraq we actually staged our military there. During the Persian gulf war Saudis contributed 40-60 billion dollars towards the effort.


[b]I think here is about when your tain of thought became to incoherent and slipshod to be worth seriously responding to
[/b]Again with the insults tsk-tsk. My train of thought was just what I wrote, how could any rational , sane, civilized human being find it above the norm to turn in your child who was planning a terrorist attack on innocent people? That is why America is so great, we have decent people, who know a wrong and act to make it right. A parent who would hide their childs plan to kill innocent people are as sick and cowardly as that child.

If you can only respond with "language" that would "get me in trouble" then I feel sorrow for you, have a blessed day.

ed

[Apotheoun]

Islam needs a reformation of sorts, a reformation that will help it to renounce the violence inherent in its "theology," while also repudiating all the past wars of aggression against non-Muslims (e.g., the wars that brought about the destruction of Christian cultures and Churches in Northern Arabia, TransJordan, the Holy Land, Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia - [i]modern day Iraq[/i] -, Antolia - [i]modern day Turkey[/i] -, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, Sicily, Iberia, Southern Gaul, etc., etc., etc.; and also against non-Christian areas, e.g., Persia - [i]modern day Iran[/i] -, and India, etc.), and its ongoing violence against the Coptic Christians of Egypt and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, for as the Ecumenical Patriarch recently said: "In Turkey I feel as though I am being crucified every day."

The renunciation of Islamic violence, which was advocated by Mohammed and his early followers, will bring true peace to the world.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 February 2010 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1267040556' post='2062492']
Islam needs a reformation of sorts, a reformation that will help it to renounce the violence inherent in its "theology," while also repudiating all the past wars of aggression against non-Muslims (e.g., the wars that brought about the destruction of Christian cultures and Churches in Northern Arabia, TransJordan, the Holy Land, Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia - [i]modern day Iraq[/i] -, Antolia - [i]modern day Turkey[/i] -, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, Sicily, Iberia, Southern Gaul, etc., etc., etc.; and also against non-Christian areas, e.g., Persia - [i]modern day Iran[/i] -, and India, etc.), and its ongoing violence against the Coptic Christians of Egypt and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, for as the Ecumenical Patriarch recently said: "In Turkey I feel as though I am being crucified every day."

The renunciation of Islamic violence, which was advocated by Mohammed and his early followers, will bring true peace to the world.
[/quote]
Alas, even if you get rid of violence committed by Muslims, you will still have violence committed by Christians. The violence done by Christians throughout the centuries need not be catalogued here.

I trust Christians in power even less than I trust Muslims in power. Christians know the Gospel, so when Christians commit violence in the name of Christ, they pervert and dim the light of the only thing that can actually save the world (i.e., the Gospel).

[Varg]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 February 2010 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1267040556' post='2062492']
The renunciation of Islamic violence, which was advocated by Mohammed and his early followers, will bring true peace to the world.
[/quote]
Yeah, right.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='24 February 2010 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1267041217' post='2062498']
Alas, even if you get rid of violence committed by Muslims, you will still have violence committed by Christians. The violence done by Christians throughout the centuries need not be catalogued here.

I trust Christians in power even less than I trust Muslims in power. Christians know the Gospel, so when Christians commit violence in the name of Christ, they pervert and dim the light of the only thing that can actually save the world (i.e., the Gospel).
[/quote]
I never said that you have to trust Christian leaders (although I suppose you would have to trust the Pope, after all he is a "Christian leader"). As I told Lilllabettt the difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christ never advocated violence in order to bring people to faith, while Mohammed did.

As I said in another post: "Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament, unlike Mohammed and his followers in the Quran and the Hadith, never advocated violence. Thus, taking into account this vital difference, it is clear that Christians who have acted violently in history, i.e., in cases where they were not simply defending themselves from unjust aggression, were acting in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ, while Muslims who have acted violently in history (e.g., by initiating aggression against Christian regions like the ancient Byzantine Empire, Christian Iberia, Christian Egypt and North Africa, and the Merovingian and Carolingian kingdoms) were acting in conformity with the religious teaching of Mohammed."

P.S. - I do not know of any Christian leaders in the Western world today. Western culture is post-Christian.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 February 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1267041712' post='2062508']
I never said that you have to trust Christian leaders (although I suppose you would have to trust the Pope, after all he is a "Christian leader"). As I told Lilllabettt the difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christ never advocated violence in order to bring people to faith, while Mohammed did.

As I said in another post: "Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament, unlike Mohammed and his followers in the Quran and the Hadith, never advocated violence. Thus, taking into account this vital difference, it is clear that Christians who have acted violently in history, i.e., in cases where they were not simply defending themselves from unjust aggression, were acting in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ, while Muslims who have acted violently in history (e.g., by initiating aggression against Christian regions like the ancient Byzantine Empire, Christian Iberia, Christian Egypt and North Africa, and the Merovingian and Carolingian kingdoms) were acting in conformity with the religious teaching of Mohammed."

P.S. - I do not know of any Christian leaders in the Western world today. Western culture is post-Christian.
[/quote]
It is a sophistic argument to dismiss violence by Christians just because they are not following Christ's teaching. Christians who committed violence very often thought that they were acting fully within Christ's teaching. It doesn't do much good to the native peoples of America that the European Christians were not actually following Christ's teaching.

How useful it is. Christians can destroy peoples, wage war against them, colonize them for centuries, and then dismiss it all simply by admitting that they weren't acting according to Christ's teaching.

Regarding the idea that modernity is post-Christian, I tend to disagree. In fact, I think modernity can be seen as the consequence of what Christians have sown for centuries. The Gospel was perverted and institutionalized by Christians for centuries. It may be true that modernity no longer acts in the name of Christ, but modernity is still working within the broken shell of civilization built by Christians.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='24 February 2010 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1267042110' post='2062516']
It is a sophistic argument to dismiss violence by Christians just because they are not following Christ's teaching. Christians who committed violence very often thought that they were acting fully within Christ's teaching. It doesn't do much good to the native peoples of America that the European Christians were not following Christ's teaching.

How useful it is. Christians can destroy peoples, wage war against them, colonize them for centuries, and then dismiss it all simply by admitting that they weren't acting according to Christ's teaching.

As far as today being post-Christian, I tend to disagree. In fact, I think modernity can be seen as the consequence of what Christians have sown for centuries. The Gospel was perverted and institutionalized by Christians for centuries. It may be true that modernity no longer acts in the name of Christ, but modernity is still working within the broken shell of civilization built by Christians.
[/quote]
No it is not. Christians constantly fail to live up to the Gospel, and there is nothing sophistic in saying this, but you are being sophistic by failing to distinguish between the teaching of Christ, which is true and non-violent, and the failure of His followers to always exemplify His doctrine in their lives. The difference between Christ and Mohammed is that the former never told His followers to kill non-believers, while the latter did.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='24 February 2010 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1267042110' post='2062516']
How useful it is. Christians can destroy peoples, wage war against them, colonize them for centuries, and then dismiss it all simply by admitting that they weren't acting according to Christ's teaching.[/quote]
Where did I advocate this in my post? Who exactly are you talking to, me or to yourself?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='24 February 2010 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1267042110' post='2062516']
Regarding the idea that modernity is post-Christian, I tend to disagree.
[/quote]
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that topic, because I do not see either Europe or the United States as "Christian societies." They may have large numbers of people who profess - in varying degrees - the Christian faith, but that does not make them Christian cultures. In fact, Europe is probably one of the least Christian regions on earth at the present time.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 February 2010 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1267042433' post='2062523']
No it is not. Christians constantly fail to live up to the Gospel, and there is nothing sophistic in saying this, but you are being sophistic by failing to distinguish between the teaching of Christ, which is true and non-violent, and the failure of His followers to always exemplify in their lives His doctrine. The difference between Christ and Mohammed is that the former never told His followers to kill non-believers, while the latter did.
[/quote]
It is true that Christ never told his followers to kill non-believers. Christians just take it upon themselves to kill non-believers, and they do so by claiming that somehow they're acting within Christ's teaching. Then after a few centuries, after they've taken your land and subjugated your people, the Christians tell you to forget the past. Unfortunately, the past goes on repeating itself (e.g., by modern Christians who hide their desire for a "holy war" behind a veneer of American patriotism).

At least the violent Muslims admit to their violent intentions. Christians will destroy you in the name of Christ and tell you that they're only trying to help you. With friends like Christians, who needs enemies?

[dominicansoul]

i find it absurd that "Christians" on phatmass are quick to criticize Christians and Christianity in the hopes of defending muslim violence...


...weird...

I agree with both Ed and Apo...the article does seem to be slanted in a political way...if muslim leaders really want to end the violence of their more extremists bretheren, they need to address and repudiate the violence advocated by their founder...which in a sense will never happen, because then, islam will truly cease to exist...