View Full Version : FRIEDMAN: Islam needs a Civil War
Warrior-Mentor
12-16-2009, 10:50
Seems Friedman is slowly starting to realize the truth about islam...
Unfortunately, he doesn't realize that the civil war he calls for negates islam - which has been "perfected" by Muhammed.
December 16, 2009
OP-ED COLUMNIST
www.jihad.com
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Let’s not fool ourselves. Whatever threat the real Afghanistan poses to U.S. national security, the “Virtual Afghanistan” now poses just as big a threat. The Virtual Afghanistan is the network of hundreds of jihadist Web sites that inspire, train, educate and recruit young Muslims to engage in jihad against America and the West. Whatever surge we do in the real Afghanistan has no chance of being a self-sustaining success, unless there is a parallel surge — by Arab and Muslim political and religious leaders — against those who promote violent jihadism on the ground in Muslim lands and online in the Virtual Afghanistan.
Last week, five men from northern Virginia were arrested in Pakistan, where they went, they told Pakistani police, to join the jihad against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. They first made contact with two extremist organizations in Pakistan by e-mail in August. As The Washington Post reported on Sunday: “ ‘Online recruiting has exponentially increased, with Facebook, YouTube and the increasing sophistication of people online,’ a high-ranking Department of Homeland Security official said. ... ‘Increasingly, recruiters are taking less prominent roles in mosques and community centers because places like that are under scrutiny. So what these guys are doing is turning to the Internet,’ said Evan Kohlmann, a senior analyst with the U.S.-based NEFA Foundation, a private group that monitors extremist Web sites.”
The Obama team is fond of citing how many “allies” we have in the Afghan coalition. Sorry, but we don’t need more NATO allies to kill more Taliban and Al Qaeda. We need more Arab and Muslim allies to kill their extremist ideas, which, thanks to the Virtual Afghanistan, are now being spread farther than ever before.
Only Arabs and Muslims can fight the war of ideas within Islam. We had a civil war in America in the mid-19th century because we had a lot of people who believed bad things — namely that you could enslave people because of the color of their skin. We defeated those ideas and the individuals, leaders and institutions that propagated them, and we did it with such ferocity that five generations later some of their offspring still have not forgiven the North.
Islam needs the same civil war. It has a violent minority that believes bad things: that it is O.K. to not only murder non-Muslims — “infidels,” who do not submit to Muslim authority — but to murder Muslims as well who will not accept the most rigid Muslim lifestyle and submit to rule by a Muslim caliphate.
What is really scary is that this violent, jihadist minority seems to enjoy the most “legitimacy” in the Muslim world today. Few political and religious leaders dare to speak out against them in public. Secular Arab leaders wink at these groups, telling them: “We’ll arrest if you do it to us, but if you leave us alone and do it elsewhere, no problem.”
How many fatwas — religious edicts — have been issued by the leading bodies of Islam against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Very few. Where was the outrage last week when, on the very day that Iraq’s Parliament agreed on a formula to hold free and fair multiparty elections — unprecedented in Iraq’s modern history — five explosions set off by suicide bombers hit ministries, a university and Baghdad’s Institute of Fine Arts, killing at least 127 people and wounding more than 400, many of them kids?
Not only was there no meaningful condemnation emerging from the Muslim world — which was primarily focused on resisting Switzerland’s ban on new mosque minarets — there was barely a peep coming out of Washington. President Obama expressed no public outrage. It is time he did.
“What Muslims were talking about last week were the minarets of Switzerland, not the killings of people in Iraq or Pakistan,” noted Mamoun Fandy, a Middle East expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. “People look for red herrings when they don’t want to look inward, when they don’t want to summon the moral courage to produce the counter-fatwa that would say: stabilizing Iraq is an Islamic duty and bringing peace to Afghanistan is part of the survival of the Islamic umma,” or community.
So please tell me, how are we supposed to help build something decent and self-sustaining in Afghanistan and Pakistan when jihadists murder other Muslims by the dozens and no one really calls them out?
A corrosive mind-set has taken hold since 9/11. It says that Arabs and Muslims are only objects, never responsible for anything in their world, and we are the only subjects, responsible for everything that happens in their world. We infantilize them.
Arab and Muslims are not just objects. They are subjects. They aspire to, are able to and must be challenged to take responsibility for their world. If we want a peaceful, tolerant region more than they do, they will hold our coats while we fight, and they will hold their tongues against their worst extremists. They will lose, and we will lose — here and there, in the real Afghanistan and in the Virtual Afghanistan.
SOURCE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/opinion/16friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Unfortunately, he doesn't realize that the civil war he calls for negates {add belief of choice} - which has been "perfected" by {add deity of choice}.
This position has been used many times in aversion to such reasonably considered metamorphoses - however - there is always the chance that this time may be the exception to History's lessons on the matter.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
12-16-2009, 22:25
This position has been used many times in aversion to such reasonably considered metamorphoses - however - there is always the chance that this time may be the exception to History's lessons on the matter.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
That's baloney. The Catholic Church under went significant changes during both Vatican 1 and Vatican 2.
Islam, by comparison can NEVER CHANGE. To change islam is to become an apostate, therefore, an unbeliever, who MUST be killed and then will have his or her soul burn in hell for eternity. This has been footnoted here multiple occasions with specific references to Islamic Law.
And I don't care if there's ever a change in Hinduism, or Buddhism or any other religion for that matter... because their religions don't condone or justify killing, mutilating, terrorizing and coercing others to convert or die.
Come on Richard, you are using weak arguments. You have to do better.
Quit trying to feed us liberal talking points. We're not buying it.
Astounding - what a fine thing it must be to have such an intellect...and to live in an age which can technologically guarantee there will be room enough in the seat of ones pants to hold it all.
As for myself, after considering the labyrinthine issues related to Islam and modern society, I can't see it all so simply and have chosen to (1) side with History and (2) not feed The Narrative. However, YMMV...and so it goes...
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Islam, by comparison can NEVER CHANGE. To change islam is to become an apostate, therefore, an unbeliever, who MUST be killed and then will have his or her soul burn in hell for eternity. This has been footnoted here multiple occasions with specific references to Islamic Law.
And I don't care if there's ever a change in Hinduism, or Buddhism or any other religion for that matter... because their religions don't condone or justify killing, mutilating, terrorizing and coercing others to convert or die.
Warrior-Mentor, I have spent years living in a moderate Muslim country, Malaysia, that is tri-cultural: Muslim Malays, Chinese (mostly Buddhists), and Indian (mostly Hindu). That country operates more peacefully and is more stable than most Arab states. They do have their radical elements that pop up from time to time, including al Qaeda, but those are mostly squashed when they get out of control.
I understand your point on how Islam never changes. But what are your thoughts on how some of these countries are able to live by a more inclusive version of Islam. The entire time I was there (including during 9/11) I don't remember any stories of beheadings, torture, bombs etc. I felt very welcome there and never felt afraid to wander about in that country. It seems as if there are those Muslims who choose to operate by a softer standard - they might want to convert everyone to Islam, but in the meantime, they are not intent on killing everyone who disagrees.
Thoughts? Thanks...
Warrior-Mentor
12-17-2009, 00:45
Great question. Wafa Sultan explains better than I could.
From her book “A God who hates” pages 165-169:
Arab heritage has to be acquired from Arab books. Based on her conversations with non-Arab Muslims, she is convinced that there is a great deal of difference between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims.
“Arab Muslims have a more profound understanding of the Koran, and of the life and sayings of the prophet Muhammed and what has been written about him. As a result, they have been more exposed to the application of Islamic teachings than have non-Arab Muslims. When an Arabic-speaking Muslim Prays, he understands what the prayer means, while a non-Arab Muslim repeats the prayer without understanding it.”
“A Muslim PRAYS FIVE TIMES A DAY, and on each occasion he recites the Fatiha, the first verse of the Koran, a number of times.” In this prayer “Muslims execrate Christians and Jews a number of times in the course of a single prayer, which they REPEAT FIVE TIMES A DAY. Non-Arab Muslims are un aware of that they are cursing Christians and Jews, because they pray in Arabic without understanding what they are saying. This means that the quantity of the hatred they absorb from their prayers is less than that absorbed by Arab Muslims, who are aware of what they are saying.”
She explains that, “Islamic Terrorism is the product of the Arab heartland.”
And Wafa is very clear stating, “Islamic terrorism is led by Arabs, and those non-Arabs who aspire leadership are Arab trained.”
Wafa’s stories [throughout “A God Who Hates”] humanize the impact of the barbaric islamic laws that are sacrosanct in islam as codified in sharia.
GET “A GOD WHO HATES” HERE:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Who-Hates-Courageous-Inflamed/dp/0312538359/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
I largely agree with the Sir.
Islam, as it moves through the world, changed as it interacted with other cultures. It is a war based religion, the product of a brutal culture. However, SE Asia wasn't violently converted (at least not as violently as the Middle East) and the existent cultures (Buddhist, Hindu and animist) influenced its expression, namely tolerance. True, women wear the hijab and Arabic expressions have well made their way into Bahasa, but the Malay version of Islam is dramatically different that of the Arab world.
What does this really mean though for Islam? It means that the Malay version is essentially an apostate version of Islam (according to an Arabic perspective) in that it embraces (or allows) tolerance and coexistence. Obviously this is my read of the situation, but I think it bears up under scrutiny.
Just like there are folks born into a Catholic country who aren't really Catholic, there are Muslims born in an Islamic country who are only notionally Muslim. There are more of those in Malaysia than there are elsewhere. It is a lack of their "muslimness" that has largely enabled Malaysia to connect with the Western world and develop its people and infrastructure.
That said, one of the shitheads we were training there had a picture of OBL as his screen saver. Several of the good ones though came up and confessed that they were Christian or Buddhist. . . so it goes.
IMO, The narrative needs no feeding - it feeds itself - it’s Shariah. How else can one explain why it is that a million Muslims will pour into the streets to protest Danish cartoons, but not one will take to the streets to protest Muslim suicide bombers who blow up fellow Muslims along with innocent infidels…
In order to defeat the radical ideology of Islam, it must slowly be discredited in the eyes of the world and it will undoubtedly take a very long time. The solution to Islam will be exposing Islam’s narrative for what it is.
What we are witnessing is Shariah Law, and to “not” criticize or to not “feed the narrative” is tantamount to the enforcement of Shariah. Shariah Law forbids criticism of Islam and the politically correct path our politicians have taken is well beyond political correctness, in fact, we are enforcing Shariah law and we’re doing this by self-flagellation, denial, excuses, submission, and deceiving the American people to just what Islamic Shariah really is…do we disrespect ourselves and our nation so that we might respect Islam?
Not feeding the narrative is nothing more than Dhimmitude…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnOWgCz5fj4
A few quick points.
First, if someone abandons/renounces a faith, that's an act of apostasy. If someone decides to follow a different doctrine within the same faith, that's an act of heresy. Unless, of course, we're using both words from subjective viewpoints: Anne Hutchison was a heretic in the eyes of her supporters but an apostate in John Eliot's.*
Second, IMO there's a tension between posts #3 and #6. The former states "Islam, by comparison can [never change]." The latter states: "Based on her conversations with non-Arab Muslims, [Wafa Sultan] is convinced that there is a great deal of difference between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims." I suppose one could square the circle by saying that non-Arab Muslims are not really practicing true Islam, and are therefore "apostates." However, to do so would be to miss a good opportunity to vet the unspoken assumption that Islam is a monolith.
Third, the notion that nothing in history is inevitable is not a liberal talking point. If anything--and this point is developed in Herbert Butterfield's The Whig Interpretation of History (1931)--the notion is contrary to fundamental premises of liberal philosophy.
Fourth, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my objection to viewing any group of people through a lens crafted from knowledge of one aspect of their experiences to the detriment of other aspects of their everyday lives. I believe this objection reflects an approach to intellectual inquiry that is not looking to find answers to questions but rather to find questions raised by answers to questions. And also, there's something about the self being unknowable; there's that too.
Fifth, I do not care much for Mr. Friedman's views on most topics. This particular piece reminds me of some of the reasons why. Mr. Friedman's understanding of the causes, course, and consequences of the American Civil War is lamentably bad.:rolleyes: His notion that a civil war is a preferable mechanism for resolving any internal difference on any topic is--abominable. He tells us that "Arab and Muslims are not just objects. They are subjects." Yet he would move them around the chessboard like pawns to satisfy his vision of how the world should be.
Correction--several somewhat quick points.:)
_________________________________________
*But then, if one is going to make such a distinction, one is on the path towards the cultural turn. Traveling this path undermines the central premise of many of the discussions on this BB about the inherent nature not only of Islam but of language itself, to say nothing of language in translation. (Or, for that matter, to say nothing of knowledge.) That is to say there are huge trade offs if one uses "apostasy" from a subjective viewpoint without regard to the viewpoint of the heretic. I suppose one could square this circle by deconstructing it but that doesn't seem to be the intent behind the posts in which Islamic "apostasy" is discussed.
“I have spent years living in a moderate Muslim country, Malaysia, that is tri-cultural: Muslim Malays, Chinese (mostly Buddhists), and Indian (mostly Hindu).”
“I understand your point on how Islam never changes. But what are your thoughts on how some of these countries are able to live by a more inclusive version of Islam.”
Out of curiosity, did you have to pay the “Jizya” - (aka - "Bumiputra") ? :confused:
Interesting articles:
http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/sharia-and-dhimmitude-in-malaysia.pdf
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/02/fitzgerald-progressive-malaysia.html
Warrior-Mentor
12-17-2009, 08:04
A few quick points.
First, if someone abandons/renounces a faith, that's an act of apostasy. If someone decides to follow a different doctrine within the same faith, that's an act of heresy. Unless, of course, we're using both words from subjective viewpoints: Anne Hutchison was a heretic in the eyes of her supporters but an apostate in John Eliot's.*
Agree if you are using a Western definition. Haven't heard or read any mention of heresy in islamic law. It defaults to apostacy and it's death threat and eternal condemnation burning in hell...
Second, IMO there's a tension between posts #3 and #6. The former states "Islam, by comparison can [never change]."
By islamic law.
The latter states: "Based on her conversations with non-Arab Muslims, [Wafa Sultan] is convinced that there is a great deal of difference between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims." I suppose one could square the circle by saying that non-Arab Muslims are not really practicing true Islam, and are therefore "apostates." However, to do so would be to miss a good opportunity to vet the unspoken assumption that Islam is a monolith.
This is a matter of implementation. They are following the same islamic law and doctrine. And one other point about Malaysia and the Philipines, as islam takes deeper roots, it will grow more militant as Muslims grow in numbers. Hence the morality police's first case of caning a woman in the video T-Rock posted [HAT TIP].
Third, the notion that nothing in history is inevitable is not a liberal talking point. If anything--and this point is developed in Herbert Butterfield's The Whig Interpretation of History (1931)--the notion is contrary to fundamental premises of liberal philosophy.
Not sure where this came from. T.E. Lawrence discussed the Muslim belief in the concept and expression "It is written." in the seven pillars of wisdom, but I'm travelling and don't have it with me. Certainly you can understand the implications on individual thought if you subscribe to a militant ideology and combine it with the idea that you have no free will - that everything has already been scripted [or written] by the god of war and his warrior prophet.
Fourth, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my objection to viewing any group of people through a lens crafted from knowledge of one aspect of their experiences to the detriment of other aspects of their everyday lives. I believe this objection reflects an approach to intellectual inquiry that is not looking to find answers to questions but rather to find questions raised by answers to questions. And also, there's something about the self being unknowable; there's that too.
Agreed you can't know an entire culture or country through the stories on one person. Taken in their totality and the repressive nature of islam with specific respect to freedom of expression - and the risk she and others like her assume when doing so - and we have to take these accounts seriously.
Fifth, I do not care much for Mr. Friedman's views on most topics. This particular piece reminds me of some of the reasons why. Mr. Friedman's understanding of the causes, course, and consequences of the American Civil War is lamentably bad.:rolleyes: His notion that a civil war is a preferable mechanism for resolving any internal difference on any topic is--abominable. He tells us that "Arab and Muslims are not just objects. They are subjects." Yet he would move them around the chessboard like pawns to satisfy his vision of how the world should be.
Correction--several somewhat quick points.:)
Won't attempt to claim to be a civil war historian - so tagging out on this one.
_________________________________________
*But then, if one is going to make such a distinction, one is on the path towards the cultural turn. Traveling this path undermines the central premise of many of the discussions on this BB about the inherent nature not only of Islam but of language itself, to say nothing of language in translation. (Or, for that matter, to say nothing of knowledge.) That is to say there are huge trade offs if one uses "apostasy" from a subjective viewpoint without regard to the viewpoint of the heretic. I suppose one could square this circle by deconstructing it but that doesn't seem to be the intent behind the posts in which Islamic "apostasy" is discussed.
Thanks Sigaba....good discussion.
Paraphrasing George Orwell's "Politics of the English Language" which Newt quoted in his speech - How can we know anything we can't identify? This is the problem with not being able to call a jihadi, a jihadi...which is now administration policy!
From Wafa Sultan's book “A God who hates”:
Arab heritage has to be acquired from Arab books. Based on her conversations with non-Arab Muslims, she is convinced that there is a great deal of difference between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims.
“Arab Muslims have a more profound understanding of the Koran, and of the life and sayings of the prophet Muhammed and what has been written about him. As a result, they have been more exposed to the application of Islamic teachings than have non-Arab Muslims. When an Arabic-speaking Muslim Prays, he understands what the prayer means, while a non-Arab Muslim repeats the prayer without understanding it.”
“A Muslim PRAYS FIVE TIMES A DAY, and on each occasion he recites the Fatiha, the first verse of the Koran, a number of times.” In this prayer “Muslims execrate Christians and Jews a number of times in the course of a single prayer, which they REPEAT FIVE TIMES A DAY. Non-Arab Muslims are un aware of that they are cursing Christians and Jews, because they pray in Arabic without understanding what they are saying. This means that the quantity of the hatred they absorb from their prayers is less than that absorbed by Arab Muslims, who are aware of what they are saying.”
FASCINATING. Thanks for the explanation. You've already got me reading Oriana Fallaci's book "The Force of Reason" so it sounds like I need to queue up Wafa Sultan's book next! I am most curious to discuss some of Wafa's thoughts with my Malaysian friends. I seriously doubt they consider themselves apostates. I guess I should be careful what I stir up....
Islam, as it moves through the world, changed as it interacted with other cultures. It is a war based religion, the product of a brutal culture. However, SE Asia wasn't violently converted (at least not as violently as the Middle East) and the existent cultures (Buddhist, Hindu and animist) influenced its expression, namely tolerance. True, women wear the hijab and Arabic expressions have well made their way into Bahasa, but the Malay version of Islam is dramatically different that of the Arab world.
What does this really mean though for Islam? It means that the Malay version is essentially an apostate version of Islam (according to an Arabic perspective) in that it embraces (or allows) tolerance and coexistence. Obviously this is my read of the situation, but I think it bears up under scrutiny.
Books, your point on the tolerance of SE Asia makes sense. My perception, too. By the way, you probably already know this, but Malaysia is a huge vacation spot for Middle Eastern Arabs. It's quite a sight to see them at the beaches. The men are frolicking around in tiny speedos while their women are in solid black Boshiya (veil) & Abaya (dress). In 100 degrees. While swimming. Talk about double standards. The Malay (Muslim) women I worked with thought this was pure crazy.
Thanks, guys...great discussion.
frostfire
12-17-2009, 14:00
Good heavens! Great thread!
As for myself, after considering the labyrinthine issues related to Islam and modern society, I can't see it all so simply and have chosen to (1) side with History and (2) not feed The Narrative. However, YMMV...and so it goes...
Warrior-Mentor, I have spent years living in a moderate Muslim country, Malaysia, that is tri-cultural: Muslim Malays, Chinese (mostly Buddhists), and Indian (mostly Hindu). That country operates more peacefully and is more stable than most Arab states. They do have their radical elements that pop up from time to time, including al Qaeda, but those are mostly squashed when they get out of control.
I think one of the reason an explicit declaration of war on the religion of pieces cannot take place, is that we'll awaken the "Islamic giants" aka. Malaysia, Indonesia, and so on. As orion5 mentioned, right now AQ elements are being squashed in these places, but that is because they antagonize the population ie. Bali bombing, Marriott Hotel bombing, where local population were also killed in the process. If the US went all-out aggressive on Islam, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and these places may embrace AQ.
I largely agree with the Sir.
Islam, as it moves through the world, changed as it interacted with other cultures. It is a war based religion, the product of a brutal culture. However, SE Asia wasn't violently converted (at least not as violently as the Middle East) and the existent cultures (Buddhist, Hindu and animist) influenced its expression, namely tolerance. True, women wear the hijab and Arabic expressions have well made their way into Bahasa, but the Malay version of Islam is dramatically different that of the Arab world.
What does this really mean though for Islam? It means that the Malay version is essentially an apostate version of Islam (according to an Arabic perspective) in that it embraces (or allows) tolerance and coexistence. Obviously this is my read of the situation, but I think it bears up under scrutiny.
Just like there are folks born into a Catholic country who aren't really Catholic, there are Muslims born in an Islamic country who are only notionally Muslim. There are more of those in Malaysia than there are elsewhere. It is a lack of their "muslimness" that has largely enabled Malaysia to connect with the Western world and develop its people and infrastructure.
That said, one of the shitheads we were training there had a picture of OBL as his screen saver. Several of the good ones though came up and confessed that they were Christian or Buddhist. . . so it goes.
Excellent analysis, Books. In the wake of 9/11, many offices in Indonesia put OBL poster, admiring him as one who dared to stick it to the great satan, without knowing much of the AQ role in the assasination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, Lion of Panjshir, a true mujaheedin against the Soviets. Over and over again, ignorance plays role in radicalization of "moderate" muslims.
Out of curiosity, did you have to pay the “Jizya” - (aka - "Bumiputra") ? :confused:
Good catch! Yes, Islam has capacity for peace when everyone else is dhimmi. A Chinese-Malaysian back in college used to rant on and on about "Bumiputra". However, there is no jizya in Indonesia and despite 94% plus muslim population, it is "relatively peaceful" (Maluku, Ambon, and several other areas are exception). I guess Books covered the reason in his post. Islam was also the glue that formed that nationalistic sense in the resistance against the Dutch, the British, and the Japanese.
However, to do so would be to miss a good opportunity to vet the unspoken assumption that Islam is a monolith.
Sir,
I have a question in regards to this issue. I am in the early stages of learning about a lot of these issues and I'm attempting to correct that ignorance. So please forgive me if these questions are a bit basic. I have been reading alot of the things "Warrior-Mentor, and others" here have been posting and educating us all about in regards to the 'realities' of Islam.
As with most educated discourse however there seem to be some very disparent views in both the anecdotal and empirical realms. One seems to be in regards to whether Islam is a monolith? In reference to your statement above how would one go about vetting this in the face of the fact of so many differing viewpoints? Some are close and many are all over the map. So how are the warriors and educators vetting-setting their 'zero' on this issue?
Thanks in advance,
ACE844
Warrior-Mentor
12-27-2009, 17:53
Start by vetting your sources.
Is it written by Muslims for Muslims?
Probably a good source of information.
Islamic Law manuals fall into this category.
Fatwas fall into this category.
Is it written by Muslims for Non-Muslims?
Unlikely to be a reliable source of information.
Why? The Muslim is the Brother of the Muslim. He cannot, by islamic law, say anything offensive about islam or Muslims.
Is it written by Non-Muslims for Non-Muslims?
Reliability depends on the author.
Here's two examples, one from each end of the spectrum:
John Esposito,bought and paid for by the Saudis, is an apologist for islam.
Robert Spencer is a polemic who will tell you the ugly truth about islam.
Comparing Spencer and Esposito against the authoritative sources (specifically the koran, hadith and islamic law),
I find Spencer to be credible and Esposito deceptive at best.
Esposito can't even give an honest definition of the word Jihad. He's that bad.
GratefulCitizen
12-27-2009, 18:16
Out of curiosity, did you have to pay the “Jizya” - (aka - "Bumiputra") ? :confused:
This is something which piques my curiosity.
It would seem that islam needs to expand in order to fund itself.
Historically, how has the ratio of muslim/non-muslim (where they peacefully co-existed) correlated with economic growth/prosperity?
Once you run out of dhimmis to tax (due to conversion/emigration), local economic collapse would seem to follow.
Anybody know any history which would address this question?
Warrior-Mentor
12-28-2009, 07:32
This is something which piques my curiosity.
It would seem that islam needs to expand in order to fund itself.
Historically, how has the ratio of muslim/non-muslim (where they peacefully co-existed) correlated with economic growth/prosperity?
Once you run out of dhimmis to tax (due to conversion/emigration), local economic collapse would seem to follow.
Anybody know any history which would address this question?
This might explain it...
http://www.amazon.com/Middle-East-Oil-Exporters-Development/dp/1845429095
In reference to your statement above how would one go about vetting this in the face of the fact of so many differing viewpoints? Some are close and many are all over the map. So how are the warriors and educators vetting-setting their 'zero' on this issue?Ace--
As the discussion of Islamic theology and its role in GWOT reflects differing points of view, it remains up to each participant and each observer to judge for himself which views are more credible than others.
My perspective reflects the fact that I've spent a modest amount of time studying history. Three good rules of thumb in the study of history are:
no one is just one thing,
no one does anything for just one reason, and
the best answers to questions are those that
consider a multiple number of causal factors, and
raise additional questions.
Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to stipulate that Warrior Mentor and others were correct in their interpretation of Islamic theology*, the interpretation raises a number of questions worth consideration. These questions include (but are hardly limited to):
Is what is preached being practiced or are most Muslims picking and choosing which tenets of their faith to follow and which to ignore?
Are there significant dynamics of accommodation, resistance, and reform within the Muslim world?
What other factors (such as gender, race/ethnicity, social class, and politics) are shaping Muslim identity?
Can these dynamics and factors be 'harnessed' or 'exploited' as moderating/disrupting influences on Muslim belief and practice?
Are key philological issues being missed?
To what extent are our own (read: Western) preconceptions and assumptions shaping what we see and, potentially, preventing us from seeing what may be hiding in plain sight?
Is this struggle of civilizations essentially about religion or modernity or power (be it gendered, political, economic, or cultural)?
IMHO, this last question is critically important. I think the focus on religion comes at the expense of delving deeper into the issues of modernity and gendered identity.
__________________________________________________ _
* Please note that I'm using the past subjunctive.
* Is what is preached being practiced or are most Muslims picking and choosing which tenets of their faith to follow and which to ignore?
* Is this struggle of civilizations essentially about religion or modernity or power (be it gendered, political, economic, or cultural)?
When more people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined, the answer is easy for me.
Are not most Islamic scholars in agreement that Mohammed’s deeds and words are used as a standard of behavior, and are used as their moral compass?
How does one apologize for such a standard - an ideology - which allows misogyny, pedophilia, rape, theft, deception, enslavement, subjugation, terror, murder and genocide?
Can a Muslim change Sharia without leaving the faith?
I would like someone to explain to me how these terrorists are theologically violating the basic tenets of their faith?
Which is stronger, the bond of nationhood, or the bond of the ummah?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W0rGaLdcA4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fatlasshrugs2000.typepad.com%2F
When more people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined, the answer is easy for me.
Are not most Islamic scholars in agreement that Mohammed’s deeds and words are used as a standard of behavior, and are used as their moral compass?
How does one apologize for such a standard - an ideology - which allows misogyny, pedophilia, rape, theft, deception, enslavement, subjugation, terror, murder and genocide?
Can a Muslim change Sharia without leaving the faith?
I would like someone to explain to me how these terrorists are theologically violating the basic tenets of their faith?
Which is stronger, the bond of nationhood, or the bond of the ummah?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W0rGaLdcA4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fatlasshrugs2000.typepad.com%2FT-Rock--
First, understanding something in its own terms does not mean one is justifying it or apologizing for it.
Second, your application of terms including "misogyny, pedophilia, rape, theft, deception, enslavement, subjugation, terror, murder and genocide" is double-edged when one considers seriously what has been done in the name of religion in the history of Europe and the Americas. Similarly, comparing dysfunctions in the Islamic world to events in European religious history (like the Inquisition) places one on rocky historiographical terrain, especially when discussing the role of gender.
Third, I would point out that I did not employ the concept of nation in my post. IMO, nationalism is a concept of western modernity and it remains to be seen how modern the Muslim world wishes to be.
Second, your application of terms including "misogyny, pedophilia, rape, theft, deception, enslavement, subjugation, terror, murder and genocide" is double-edged when one considers seriously what has been done in the name of religion in the history of Europe and the Americas. Similarly, comparing dysfunctions in the Islamic world to events in European religious history (like the Inquisition) places one on rocky historiographical terrain, especially when discussing the role of gender.
There is a major difference between what's done in the NAME of religion versus what's dictated by religious DOCTRINE :munchin
As Christians are to follow the example of Christ - are not Muslims to follow the example of the prophet Mohammed? :confused:
As Christians are to follow the example of Christ - are not Muslims to follow the example of the prophet Mohammed? :confused:T-Rock--
Your placement of Christians under one banner suggests that you and I have fundamentally different understandings of the role religion has played European and American history. In a nutshell, the formulation that Christianity is simply following the example of Christ belies the historical evidence that there have been widely diverging interpretations as to just what that example was, who interprets it, and for whom it is interpreted.
In regards to your statement that "[T]here is a major difference between what's done in the [name] of religion versus what's dictated by religious [doctrine]," I invite you to elaborate with specific examples of how that "major difference" mattered to those on the receiving end in the New World. (I'd be most interested in reading your thoughts on the role of "Christian" doctrine in Spain's conquest of the Aztec empire during the sixteenth century and the efforts of many Americans to square the practice of Christianity with the "peculiar institution" of slavery during the nineteenth century.)
My broader point here is that I am dubious of the sustainability of comparing the Islamic world to the western world as part of a broader project to say that the former is dysfunctional in terms of the latter.
YMMV.
Sigaba, you still haven't answered my question, since it is relevant, not in history, but globally today - particularly this - can you explain to me how these current day Islamic terrorists are theologically violating the basic tenets of their faith?
Your placement of Christians under one banner suggests that you and I have fundamentally different understandings of the role religion has played European and American history. In a nutshell, the formulation that Christianity is simply following the example of Christ belies the historical evidence that there have been widely diverging interpretations as to just what that example was, who interprets it, and for whom it is interpreted.
We do have a fundamental difference in the understanding of Christian Doctrine - the banner of Christianity, is of course, carried by Christ. Christianity is not about religion, it is about a relationship. There are many standards people in the world use to develop and build character, but for the Christian, the only correct standard is that which is revealed in Christ, and I am sure you are aware of His example.
In regards to your statement that "[T]here is a major difference between what's done in the [name] of religion versus what's dictated by religious [doctrine]," I invite you to elaborate with specific examples of how that "major difference" mattered to those on the receiving end in the New World. (I'd be most interested in reading your thoughts on the role of "Christian" doctrine in Spain's conquest of the Aztec empire during the sixteenth century and the efforts of many Americans to square the practice of Christianity with the "peculiar institution" of slavery during the nineteenth century.)
The role of religion is huge, but which groups were/are actually violating the tenets of their faith?
I am fully aware of the role religion played in early America yet this day and age, as evidenced by observation, Replacement Theology for the most part has thoroughly been debunked - the cross did that you know - early Christians failed to grasp this concept.
Christians who carried out forced conversions were not following the example of their prophet.
Sigaba, you still haven't answered my question, since it is relevant, not in history, but globally today - particularly this - can you explain to me how these current day Islamic terrorists are theologically violating the basic tenets of their faith?Where have I said that the terrorists are or are not complying with the tenets of their faith?
Since you are apparently trying to make a point, I am afraid that my answer to your question is going to be a bit of a disappointment. I am not as confident in my understanding of Islamic theology and practice as you are confident in your understanding of Islamic theology and practice. At this point and time, my view is similar to that offered by Bush the Younger on those occasions when he spoke of Islam being "hijacked."
That is to say, the fatwas for jihad are being issued by individuals such as OBL who do not have the ecclesiastical authority to call for holy war. While OBL and other Salafi jihadists subscribe to the writings of Ibn Taymiyya, Mawlana Abdul A'la Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb, and Mohammed Abd al-Salam Faraj, it is my understanding that most Muslims do not recognize that cabal's critique of contemporary Islam nor its authority to launch what may be termed a counter-reformation with the objective of establishing a global caliphate.^
Here's the thing. The fundamental disagreement between the two of us is that I reject the notion that human beings are motivated to do anything for a single reason. Were human motivation so easily ascertained then there would be quite a few less biographies on Lincoln, more answers than questions about the motivation of Confederate and Union soldiers during the American Civil War, less controversy about what George F. Kennan "really" meant when he spoke and wrote about "containing" the Soviet Union,* and the question of questions (Why the Third Reich?) would not be driving the most vibrant trajectory of contemporary history.We do have a fundamental difference in the understanding of Christian Doctrine - the banner of Christianity, is of course, carried by Christ. Christianity is not about religion, it is about a relationship. There are many standards people in the world use to develop and build character, but for the Christian, the only correct standard is that which is revealed in Christ, and I am sure you are aware of His example.The very fact that you claim to understand the teachings of Christ--apparently without the mediation of an authority of one form or another-- and that Christianity is not about religion indicates that you are privileging your views over the millions of Americans who have different perspectives on issues of faith, worship, and religious education. While you are well within your rights to do so, and this observation is not a criticism, I suggest that this approach may inhibit a disinterested appreciation of the many ways faith is practiced in America both historically and contemporaneously. (A question: might you be mirror imaging your perception of the central features of a monolitich Christianity against a monolithic Islam?)Christians who carried out forced conversions were not following the example of their prophet.IMO, this formulation is ahistoric. It allows one to argue teleologically that people who pursued goals that we find abhorrent today were not really Christians. Such an approach invites one to decline opportunities to understand the role their faith played in the decisions that they made and the lives that they lived in their own terms. (To underscore a key point, understanding someone is not the same as justifying or apologizing for that person's actions or behavior. Empathy is not sympathy.)I am fully aware of the role religion played in early America.I respectfully suggest that you are slightly overstating your understanding of American religious history if not also the history of the early republic. Not even Sydney E. Ahlstrom (http://www.amazon.com/Religious-History-American-People/dp/0300100124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262247596&sr=1-1), Nathan Hatch (http://www.amazon.com/Democratization-American-Christianity-Nathan-Hatch/dp/0300050607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262247628&sr=1-1), Gordon S. Wood (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=gordon+s.+wood%27s+books&sprefix=Gordon+S.+Wood), or Jon Butler (http://www.amazon.com/Jon-Butler/e/B000APHNNC/ref=sr_tc_2_0) could make such a broad statement.
On the topic of your distinguishing between the study of the past and what is "relevant" in the world today. I would like to point out that positions on political, social, cultural, and religious issues often rest upon discussants' understanding not only of their present day situation but also upon their perception of the past.
As a convenient example**, the popular understanding of the history of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) and the Holy Roman Empire's conduct during that awful conflict shaped Germans' view of domestic politics in the mid-nineteenth century, Germany's nation's place in European geopolitics in the decades leading up to the First World War, and also their receptiveness to Nazism and to Hitlerian theories of machine warfare. It was not until after the Second World War that central assumptions of German historiography began to receive critical re-examinations that might have served Europeans well had they taken place decades earlier.***
Sometimes history matters.
__________________________________________________ _____
^ Here, I'm drawing from United States Joint Forces Command, The Terrorist Perspectives Project: Strategic and Operational Views of Al Qaida and Associated Movements (Annapolis: U.S. Naval Institute Press, 2008), chapter 1. My conclusion that most Muslims reject the Salafi critique and call to global jihad is based upon the fact that there are approximately 1.2 billion Muslims and several hundred million of this total are, at worst, sitting on their hands. Those who think that sitting on one's hands is a casus belli for a war of extermination today may have a bit of a hard time justifying the reluctance of the United States to intervene in European affairs during the Interwar Period and World War II.
* From the "Not That Anyone Asked" department, but until either John Lewis Gaddis or Anders Stephenson complete their long overdue biographies of Kennan, I am going to stick by my view that if anyone is responsible for the alleged co-option of the Long Telegram and Mr. X article into the militarized containment of Communist aggression it is Kennan himself. It does not take twenty years for a person as articulate as Kennan to pick up the damn phone, call someone, and say "Hey, this isn't quite what I had in mind." YMMV.
** Convenient because I have a couple of books by Peter H. Wilson within arms' length, not because he's particularly easy to read. (Just because he's apparently familiar with the 14,000 or so books on the Thirty Years' War and the equally voluminous historiography of the Holy Roman Empire doesn't mean everyone else is. I mean, sheesh.)
*** Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire, 1495-1806 (http://www.amazon.com/Empire-1495-1806-Studies-European-History/dp/0312223609/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_4), pp. 4-6; Wilson, The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy (http://www.amazon.com/Thirty-Years-War-Europes-Tragedy/dp/0674036344/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262247836&sr=1-1), pp. 4-5.
Where have I said that the terrorists are or are not complying with the tenets of their faith?
You haven't, that is why I asked the question - to solicit an opinion from a learned scholar - thank you for your response.
That is to say, the fatwas for jihad are being issued by individuals such as OBL who do not have the ecclesiastical authority to call for holy war.
But none of that matters does it? Does the Ummah need an ecclesiastical authority to issue a fatwa when the Qur'an is the ultimate source for legal opinions - concerning Jihad?
The Qur'an does lay out the guidelines, the ruling from Allah, for Jihad against the unbelievers...
Strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, - an evil refuge indeed. (9:73, 66:9)
Striving or "struggling", the Muslim's duty - occurs in the context of opposing, or striving against the unbeliever.
The purpose of Jihad is clear.
It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions, though the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).(9:33)
Fight [q-t-l] against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.( 9:29)
While performing Jihad, martyrs are guaranteed a fast track to Islamic paradise to have their sins forgiven, regardless of any debauchery they may have been engaged in.
You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph (61:10)
God has purchased the persons and possessions of the believers for the Garden—they fight [q-t-l] in God’s way: they kill [q-t-l] and are killed [q-t-l]—this is a true promise given by Him .... Who could be more faithful to his promise than God? So be happy with the bargain you have made: that is the supreme triumph.(9:111)
Here's the thing. The fundamental disagreement between the two of us is that I reject the notion that human beings are motivated to do anything for a single reason.
I do agree with you, but I think the zealots who do blow themselves up for the cause of allah, are doing it for what they perceive as a means of salvation - they believe they may even be able to bring 70 members of their family to paradise with them as well.
.http://www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_Hamas_suicide_Rajab.asx
http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=420&main_cat_id=18
For the Christian, it is by the Blood of Christ that enables salvation, but for the Muslim, it takes the blood of the martyr to be totally assured of salvation so that he or she may be afforded the opportunity to intercede for 70 members of their family. I would say the desire for salvation among a religiously inclined people is a pretty powerful motivator, one that shouldn't be discounted.
The very fact that you claim to understand the teachings of Christ--apparently without the mediation of an authority of one form or another-- and that Christianity is not about religion indicates that you are privileging your views over the millions of Americans who have different perspectives on issues of faith, worship, and religious education.
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all"...
The prophet of Christianity was truly anti-religion, He was rejected by the religious.
Jefferson summed it up rather nicely for me:
"Christian creeds and doctrines, the clergy's own fatal inventions, through all the ages has made of Christendom a slaughterhouse, and divided it into sects of inextinguishable hatred for one another."
...overstating your understanding of American religious history..
Self-flagellation in no way will discourage or deter those who have declared war on us, it's Sharia.....when current day Christians start inserting liquid explosives into their anuses in order to kill innocents, I will most certainly re-examine the violent history of Christendom with a fine-toothed comb...
Since you are apparently trying to make a point...
I'm certainly not a learned scholar but my point is that Jihad and Islam needs a reformation, but is it capable of doing so?
IMO, with its current teachings and doctrines - Dar al-Islam will always be ripe for civil war, yet there will always be war in the Dar al-Harb.
Declaring Islam as peace, and that Islam has been hijacked by just a few radicals will most certainly soothe ideological sentiments of many, nevertheless, doing this has failed us strategically. IMO, the refusal to call a spade a spade will do us in.
Should we reevaluate our threat doctrine as Stephen Coughlin suggests? I think so...playing the current appeasement card doesn't seem to be working.
http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf
http://wolfpangloss.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/malik-quranic-concept-of-war.pdf
Declaring Islam as peace, and that Islam has been hijacked by just a few radicals will most certainly soothe ideological sentiments of many, nevertheless, doing this has failed us strategically. IMO, the refusal to call a spade a spade will do us in.
T-Rock--
I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with you.:D
I don't know that the argument offered by Bush the Younger that Islam has been hijacked is appeasement or that the formulation has failed the United States strategically. In my opinion, the focus on behavior--the use of terrorism--allows the West freedom of action so the thornier issues of motivation do not gum up the works.
One of the risks of making GWOT primarily a war against Islam jihadism is the domestic political capital one would lose if an act of terrorism were committed by a more 'traditional' (at least in the western sense) organization. (Is the Cold War really over?)
I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with you
Likewise :D
I’m not so sure though - if we were to focus on the motivation, and include it in our war doctrine, wouldn’t it open up the unvarnished dialogue required which could thwart tolerance that tolerates the murderously intolerant?
I’m curious if a doctrine which takes into account the religious motivation could have prevented the outcome at Fort Hood?
IMHO, Islam is a religion which is totalitarian in structure and ideology, much like Nazism - are we, or should we exclude Nazism (Sharia) from the IPB?
To Coughlin, the IPB in the War on Terror is being thrown off by what he describes as the “Current Approach”: the view that Islamic-based extremism is aberrant and that Islam has become a “religion hijacked.” To Coughlin, this view is pernicious in part because it is being pushed by those who claim that Westerners should rely solely on Muslims to tell us what Islam is, much like how the late Professor Edward Said attacked the notion that Westerners could ever understand what people in the “Orient” thought and how they behaved. Coughlin argues that the Current Approach represents an outsourcing of the information requirements that the IPB process is not structured to answer, much like a defendant taking the prosecutor’s word that the statute is constitutional. In American litigation, the resulting strategy will be based on input from people not aligned with the interests of the defendant. Applying this problem to the military challenge and the IPB, “Inputs into the decision-making process from the Current Approach are the product of borrowed knowledge from individuals and entities that may be either unknown or unbeholden to American national security interests.”
The consequences of uncritically accepting the Current Approach is the unstated corollary that because extremists do not represent “true” Islam, Islamic law itself should be excluded from analytical processes that support threat development. This tendency is culturally enticing to us, for we come from a tradition where arguments over the merits of particular religions are considered impolite (and impolitic) dinner party conversation. This tradition undoubtedly reinforces our inability to look closely at Islamic religious doctrine, and to look elsewhere for help. To add to this, we have Muslim intellectuals like Tariq Ramadan telling us (as he wrote a few weeks ago in the New York Times Book Review) that one cannot truly understand the Koran unless one goes at it with faith (“the language of the heart”). For this task, we must trust people like him. No wonder Ramadan is in such high demand.
Coughlin uses the IPB methodology to ask why we are not bothering to ask, “What if?” It is a powerful argument, if one accepts the IPB process itself, since there is no harm in asking the question – just as there is no harm in the criminal defendant considering the constitutionality of the crime while simultaneously planning a full defense on the factual merits. If, in planning military action, intelligence analysts limit their focus to factors that contribute to understanding the enemy’s doctrine, then the result of a rigorous inquiry that supports the Current Approach would ultimately be neutral to the threat assessment. If, on the other hand, the result is a finding against the Current Approach, we ignore the result at our peril since the IPB-driven process will not based on the proper inputs.
Coughlin’s thesis would be powerful if he just ended there, but he it does not. Instead, he searches through the prevailing views of all major schools of Islamic thought to argue “true” Islam – the type taught in the U.S. to 7th grade Muslim-Americans – requires its adherents to engage in violent struggle for worldwide domination, a state of affairs that cannot be adequately explained by the Current Approach. To get there, Coughlin considers the most definitive sources of Islamic law, including what they say about how Islamic doctrine is to be interpreted. It seems that much is settled in Islam, including what the faithful are required to do in the face of non-Muslims with whom they interact. He concludes that the purveyors of the Current Approach are selling us a bill of goods.
No wonder Maj. Coughlin found himself a disliked character in the halls of the Pentagon among the Muslim advisors who have the monopoly on telling us what Islam represents. He threatens their authority, as well as their livelihood.
Coughlin’s arguments about Islamic mandates make up the bulk of his thesis, but are ultimately unnecessary if one accepts his premise – that we owe it to the system to question whether the Current Approach is supported in Islamic law. What are the stakes? Even if the “true” Islam is a religion of peace, we would still need to know the doctrinal basis for the actions of those who have hijacked it, as long as they in fact exist and are able to motivate fellow Muslims to act at their direction. Consider this argument:
For the “extremist” argument to succeed, it simply has to assert a claim that has some doctrinal basis that survives the ideological screen because any surviving portion of the claim still leaves the “extremist” with a validated argument in support of the jihadis’ agenda. Hence, exclusivity is not an essential requirement for the “extremists.” The Current Approach, however, must be able to demonstrate exclusive correctness to the exclusion of the “extremist” position because the success of their argument can only be measured by the extent to which it constrains the “extremist” doctrine.
The problem, as Coughlin describes it, is that when the purveyors of the Current Approach respond to inconvenient Islamic law doctrines by claiming that there are “thousands of different interpretations to Islamic law,” they are saying there is no point to looking to Islamic law for solutions. In their oft-repeated claims that “Islam does not stand for this,” they are necessarily agreeing with Coughlin that there exists such a thing as Islamic doctrine, which necessitates our rigorous examination of it. For Current Approach arguments to succeed at neutralizing “extremist” positions, they must establish that “Islam does not stand for this” in every situation ranging through all interpretations. What are the prospects of that?
So in the end, it does not matter whether Coughlin is right about Islamic doctrine, as much as that the questions are being asked by people who are practicing the appropriate professional standards (another one of Coughlin’s key points). The U.S. government needs to ask these questions, rather than blithely concluding that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by al Qaeda. Even if Coughlin is wrong about the big issues of Islam, he is certainly correct that military planners should be asking about the religious basis for al Qaeda’s actions, so we can better predict how the adherents of “radical Islam” can be expected to act. That is really what matters.
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/01/coughlin_for_beginners.php
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/strategic-collapse-at-the-army-war-college/?print=1
Seems to me as if it's about time Islam modernized its message and old world business practices, and came up with its own version of the New Testament before it runs out of adherants to tithe so they can keep all those gilted minarets polished.
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Seems to me as if it's about time Islam modernized its message and old world business practices, and came up with its own version of the New Testament before it runs out of adherants to tithe so they can keep all those gilted minarets polished.
I agree with you Sir but I think it already has, Islam’s New Testament is the book of Medina - aka “The Madinan Way”
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Madinan-Way-Soundness-Premises-School/dp/0953863905
-“We're now eight years removed from 9/11, and the only thing the last 3,016 days have taught us is that there is no Islamic reformation coming any time soon…And for the last eight years, unfortunately, the moderates have barely even shown up for the fight.”-
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/12/16/waiting-in-vain-for-the-islamic-reformation/