December 2, 2003
IS IT REALLY THAT FEEBLE?:
No use preaching to the converted (Phar Kim Beng, 12/03/03, Asia Times)
[A]sking preachers to denounce Islamic extremism will not be successful, in either the short or the long term. In fact, it may only amount to a strategy of false reassurance that at least something is being done. One reason this approach will fail is because in modern times, the link between Muslims and their preachers has not been as strong as in the past. As a mosque may often accommodate literally thousands of worshippers, not all worshippers know the preacher who makes the traditional sermon on Friday; not even the worshippers in the front row of prayer. Lacking any intimate link to a their preachers, the personal appeal is therefore lost.Nor are these worshippers even obliged to know the iman, or the leader of prayer, as the identity of the preacher is not crucial to the performance of the obligatory Friday prayer. On other occasions, there are also no public sermons, known as khutbah, in mosques. So, the critical impact a preacher's speech could have is blunted. In fact, many worshipers' anger and their tenacity to challenge the authorities are gained outside a mosque, rather than in it.
Research done by Patrick Gaffney, an anthropologist at the University of Notre Dame, has shown that while fiery preachers in Egypt, for instance, do inflame the feelings of Muslims, there is no indication that they possess the moral authority to douse their seething anger with the West or repressive regimes. Thus, while preachers can go on record to denounce terrorism and declare it an aberration of Islam, their actions have no strategic deterrent value. Nor can they decisively alter the behavior of those Muslims who are already sympathetic to the causes of radical Islamic groups; or those on the verge of contemplating suicide attacks.
It's a curious sort of argument that the nature of Islam itself doesn't influence people, except to incite them to violence. If Islam serves nothing but negative purposes then the only reasonable Western course of action is to make war against the faith and replace it with a more productive theology. One doubts that's what's meant here. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 2, 2003 8:54 AM
What this piece does point out is that in many places, Islam is driven by the most fearful, angry, and radical voices, and everyone is afraid of the next successive level. So they conform to the worst. This is why a 'reformation' is probably extremely unlikely: there is no formal standard to keep the path illuminated. The screamers make up their own paths as they go.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 2, 2003 9:43 AMReminds one of the Red Guard, doesn't it?
Posted by: ratbert at December 2, 2003 1:00 PMCurious it may be, but it's been my argument all along.
To say that what happens in the mosque is crucial seems to miss a big point. Khomeini was not known to the Shia revolutionaries; he was in Paris. His message was spread through cassette tapes.
It's proven that charismatic Islamic preachers can inflame, if not the masses, then enough crazies to be dangerous to the infidels. It has not been proven that the opposite can happen -- that even a charismatic preacher can dampen the ardor to follow the Koranic command to spread the faith.
Here Islam's decentralization works against it. There seems no way to convene a Council of Niceaea to enunciate a general doctrine and then organize all the assets of the religion to put it into effect.
The moderates would have to achieve huge market penetration (80-90%?), while the crazies need mobilize only a vanguard.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 2, 2003 4:31 PMHarry, good points. I wonder if the only solution might be to, shall we say, quietly ensure that the most radical and violent Muslim preachers do not live long lives....
Posted by: PapayaSF at December 2, 2003 5:08 PMOJ -- Are you sure your interpretation isn't what Phar Kim Beng intended? As far as I can tell, he's saying that Islam has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. And he may be right, at that.
Posted by: Josh Silverman at December 2, 2003 5:39 PMPapaya, at the time we entered Baghdad, I advocated hanging select imams from lampposts.
I still think it would have been a good idea.
I also still advocate the Bonifacian approach. He cut down the holy tree and defied the gods to punish him. They couldn't and the religion collapsed.
We should have gone in daring Allah to succor his faithful servants. He'd have a lot fewer faithful servants now if we had done it that way.
Would have saved Islamic lives in the long run, too, which is not one of my priorities but not a bad side benefit.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 2, 2003 8:54 PMHarry:
Your conclusions are unpleasant to contemplate, but your reasoning is hard to fault.