This news story about an imam in Yemen who challenged al-Qa‘idah members to a debate over whose interpretation of the Qur’an is correct tells how he actually won them over to renounce violence through the use of reasoned argument.
It’s clear from the context that this gentleman equates “true Islam” with “freedom and democracy” as opposed to “terrorism.”
Well, big fat DUHHH. You just figured this out?
This example is an answer to the Islamophobes always accusing moderate Muslims of doing nothing to stop terrorism. I say your perception depends on where you choose to focus your attention. If you only look for the negative, you’ll miss the positive things going on all around you. I think the Muslim world still has a very long way toward getting its act together, and the results so far are mixed, but why not encourage all positive developments like this one? I emphasize the indigenous, autochthonous nature of this imam’s efforts. In other words, homegrown. It makes a big difference letting people who already know the local culture take the lead instead of sending armies to bludgeon the “natives” into obedience.
It is, and it’s a good one. His efforts and similar ones should be applauded and they should be showcased a lot more than they are. Unfortunately, I guess it doesn’t make exiciting news, because there’s not enough of this stuff on the front of the New York Times.
Heh. Seems to me a balanced approach is in order.
As a corollary, it has to be emphasized that the kind of thing Hitar is doing is something which we in the West can’t do. No one over there is going to buy an argument about Islam from an American, even an Islamic American. That person would simply be a CIA/Mossad tool. It has to come from inside the culture.
Islamophobes? Ahem. Must we tack a ‘ophobe’ onto every word these days?
Regardless, I have not heard the argument ‘always’ made that moderate Muslims are doing ‘nothing’ to stop terrorism; the argument I hear is that moderate Muslims are not doing enough to stop terrorism.
Snaps and propers to Hitar, but what he is doing is rehab. The morons he is ‘debating’ are already in prison. Let’s see it work on terrs in the wild.
Well, technically, moderate muslims are not responsible for terrorism, they have no more obligation than a pagan, a zoroastrian an atheist or a jedi to stop it.
Second, those lovable extremists (most of them not terrorists) tend to keep to themselves. I’ve personally never encountered a chance to debate Islam with them.
Third, even if I did get the chance, I am not a doctor in islamic studies nor a master debater so the chances of me convincing any of them are virtually nil.
Fourth, even if I was a doctor in islamic studies and an expert debater, the vast majority of extremists are not terrorists. Convincing them wouldn’t really help. The odds of me convincing a genuine strap-a-bomb-to-my-chest-and-lets-go-boom! are similar to winning the lottery. (I don’t play the lottery)
Please note that I understand this is just an argument you’ve heard and that you have not explicetly endorsed it. My answer is likewise directed at said argument, not at you.
There’s a big difference between the ideological “fundamentalist, taliban-style” muslims and the “strap-a-bomb-on-to-me” muslims. People can hold firm views on islam without necessarily being the “strap-a-bomb-to-me” types.
I only really realised this in the last couple of years. I know some fundamentalist muslims, I tend to laugh at them when they start ranting but they seem to take it in good heart - they don’t expect me to agree with them.
I don’t think any of them are the “strap-a-bomb-on-to-me” types. They just talk a good fight. But that doesn’t bother me because I also talk a good fight. I’ve never met anyone who was more radical than myself (speaking as a revolutionary anarchist) so all these people who think they’re “radical” just make me laugh.
Perhaps if someone on this thread had advanced such a view, this would be a meaningful point. As is, it’s definitely Old News debate-wise.
And once again Muslims use the Fallacy of Division argument to escape the point that an awful lot of Muslims approve of violent acts in opposition to those who hold differing viewpoints.
I’m not sure I understand your point. How does Fallacy of Division apply here? Who has “escaped the point” that there are Muslims who approve of the use of violence?
Well there is the point that the “strap a bomb” types get their philosophy from somewhere. If you convince exremist mullahs to not preach militant versions of Islam there might be a few less people willing to strap that bomb on.