An article from, quite possibly, the most intelligent man in the universe...

WHO ARE THE MODERATE MUSLIMS?
By Sam Harris
02.16.06


Ever since the atrocities of September 11th, 2001, there has been a lot of hopeful talk in the Western press about the vast majority of Muslims who are religious "moderates." Being moderates, they necessarily repudiate the theology of Osama bin Laden and disavow terrorism. Nor would they ever dream of killing another human being over a cartoon.

Where are these moderate Muslims? How many of them exist? And how can we best empower them? These are all questions of crucial importance to the future of civilization, and they are questions for which I do not have any answers. But there is another question worth asking in the meantime: How do we recognize religious moderates in the first place?

In May of last year, a report that a copy of the Koran had been flushed down a toilet at Guantánamo Bay sparked the largest protests that Afghanistan has seen in years. At least 16 people lost their lives. These rioters were not moderate Muslims. One sign of religious moderation is not being too sure about the divine origin of any book. Moderate Muslims, therefore, will understand that all texts and doctrines should be susceptible to criticism without fear of violent reprisal. Moderate Muslims surely realize that all books are now candidates for flushing down the toilet. Even conservative Muslims should have realized that the appropriate response to this mode of Koran desecration would have been to flush one of our books down the toilet. These rioters, therefore, were not even religious conservatives by our standards. They were religious lunatics. As are the people who have gathered by the tens of thousands in recent weeks to protest the Danish cartoons of Muhammad and to call for the literal slaughter of those who printed them.

An article in last Sunday's New York Times ("Images of Muhammad, Gone for Good", February 12th, 2006) helpfully observes that the current furor in the Muslim world has arisen, not because the Danish cartoons were especially derogatory, but because most Muslims believe that it is a sacrilege to depict Muhammad at all. Indeed, we tend to forget that protests of this sort are not new, and not, therefore, the result of our invasion of Iraq. How many of us remember that in 1977 a Muslim group took hostages, killed a journalist, and wounded 13 people -- in Washington -- for the high purpose of stopping the U.S. premier of the film "Mohammad, Messenger of God"? Then, as now, the issue wasn't the disparagement of Islam -- although this is also a killing offense -- the issue was the mere depiction of the Prophet. Then, as now, we allowed ourselves to be blackmailed by the petulance of religious maniacs, and the distribution of the film was halted. So let us put this fact on the table once and for all: anyone who thinks that non-Muslims should be obliged to conform to the religious taboos of Islam is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Muslim moderate.

On the subject of Muslim terrorism, what does a moderate Muslim sound like? He or she will sound something like this:

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims... We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds. These are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image. We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women." (Abdel Rahman al-Rashed "Innocent religion is now a message of hate." Telegraph. 05/09/2004)

While intelligent people can disagree about how "innocent" the theology of Islam is, a willingness to admit the obvious is a basic requirement of religious moderation. Any Muslim who will not concede that there is a death-cult forming in the Muslim world, is either part of that cult, or an obscurantist -- not a religious moderate.

How will Muslim moderates view women and women's rights? They will feel what any person who is reasonably free of medieval dogmatism now feels. Equal rights for women is not even a question worthy of discussion among religious moderates, and it is not a subject about which moderate Muslims will have the slightest caveat. Anyone who believes that men should determine how women dress, or whether they receive medical attention, marry, divorce, practice contraception, or do anything else with their minds and bodies is not a religious moderate. He (or she) is a religious demagogue on a collision course with modernity.

According to a literalist reading of the hadith (the literature that recounts the sayings and the actions of the Prophet) if a Muslim decides that he no longer wants to be a Muslim, he should be put to death. If anyone ventures the opinion that the Koran is a mediocre book of religious fiction or that Muhammad was a schizophrenic, he should also be killed. It should go without saying that a desire to kill people for imaginary crimes like apostasy and blasphemy is not an expression of religious moderation. A moderate Muslim will see no problem with another Muslim deciding to become a Christian, or a Jew, or an atheist. The essence of religious moderation is the understanding that a person should be free to interpret the data of the universe for himself, without fearing that he will be murdered for reaching an unpopular conclusion. We should note that this is a standard of enlightened tolerance that not even the former folk-singer Cat Stevens (now Yosuf Islam) could muster in response to the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses:

"Under Islamic Law, the ruling regarding blasphemy is quite clear; the person found guilty of it must be put to death. Only under certain circumstances can repentance be accepted.... The fact is that as far as the application of Islamic Law and the implementation of full Islamic way of life in Britain is concerned, Muslims realize that there is very little chance of that happening in the near future. But that shouldn't stop us from trying to improve the situation and presenting the Islamic viewpoint wherever and whenever possible. That is the duty of every Muslim..."

If even a Western-educated ex-hippie was talking this way, what do you think the sentiments were on the streets of Tehran? As it turns out, it matters if a person believes that the Koran literally emanated from the Creator of the universe. This belief is genuinely incompatible with religious moderation.

There are now 1.3 billion Muslims on earth, and Islam is the world's fastest growing religion. There is no question that we must give Muslim moderates every tool they need to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists. But we must be honest about what religious moderation actually entails. How else could we hope to find the moderates of the Muslim world?

You could substitute the word muslim for christian and have huge swaths of this article be relevant to the fundamentalist community in this country. They don't resort to terrorism, but that's because they have legitimate political weapons.

Moderate voices never make the news. News directors just don't see their views as interesting, as gripping enough to attract viewers/listeners/readers.

All religions call for the destruction of the non-believers. Those people who say that Islamists are highjacking the muslim religion to satisfy their love of destruction are flat out wrong - it is the Islamist who is actually following the orders of their religion - the moderate is the one who does not follow the orders of their religion. The Koran is, on almost every page, filled with reasons to kill the infidels. People are going to freak out over that comment, but it is the truth. The same can be said about christianity too. Religion has nothing to do with peace as a whole - it has to peace on its own terms. Religious tolerance and moderation blinds people into the true nature of religion. Keeping a "moderate" view about religion is very dangerous.
It is almost laughable how people believe in their holy scriptures. It is no less funny than someone praying to a toaster. Why is it that religion is the only aspect of humanity can be accepted with no form of proof whatsoever? Why is it that questioning religious belief is taboo? It blows my fucking mind that someone can have the scientific capability to build a nuclear bomb, but still believe that if it were to go off, they would be presented with 72 virgins in paradise. The same goes for those who believe that Jesus rose from the dead and will someday float down to earth to take his followers to heaven. The same can be said about any religious belief. It is utterly, undeniably, insane.

Good - because it is the extremists who show the true side of religion. They are the ones who actually follow their scriptures. Religious tolerance is dangerous because it gives a way to accept people's beliefs without actually being given any form of evidence or proof.

First, I'm going to guess that the Koran is a lot like the Bible in the fact that much of it's contents depends on how you interpret it. Such as many say the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. These people are usually are moderate compared to fundamentalists who are obviously conservative.

As for religion, I think it provides people stability in life. It gives them a way to live. I grew up Methodist, but I'm just about an athiest these days, but I still wouldn't completely say the are insane. Also, many people believe in their religion because they've been taught about it since they were born. They truly don't know better because they are typically not exposed to anything other than their religion.

It has nothing to do with religion, but I don't tolerate this view. Therefore, I'm not going to accept this statement without you offering any form of evidence or proof. In fact, I think I should kill you for holding this view.

The trouble with radical Islam is that its devotees gave up on the concept of Sufism, or internal discipline. That's where the definition of jihad splits, between one focused on the internal struggle for devotion to Allah, and one focused on converting/killing the unbelievers. That is what defines moderate Muslims. It takes time to explain, and more time to explain it enough so it changes widely held misconceptions. In this day of limited attention spans, people just are't going to bother with that.

Many people use that argument in favour of religion: "It gives people purpose", "it gives people direction", etc, etc. But why must it be like that?

Any kind of redemption people find through religion can be found in many other forms. Think about this fact: 44% of Americans (in 2004) thought that Jesus will return to the earth within the next 50 years. THAT is utterly insane. People would be committed to insane asylums if they said that about anything else. What if I went around telling people that I believe that within 5 years I think that JFK will return to the earth and kill non-Americans- and what if I truly (in the deepest sense) believed in it? That is fucking insane as anyone would attest to. It is the same with popular religion. You can't merely pass it off as just "something that gives people hope". It is more than that because it runs our entire life in every aspect. Christians who actually read the bible would probably wouldn't find it all that horrible if a nuclear bomb exploded in Israel because it would signal the second coming of CHrist. If you do not find solace in this fact, then it probably means that you don't follow the Bible.
What I'm saying is: extremists in religion are those that actually have read the scriptures (they aren't pretty). Those who call themselves 'moderates' are guilty of indirectly condoning this by practicing religious tolerance. It needs to stop. If religion can't provide proof, like any other theory, then it should be abolished.

If I recall correctly, the Temple has to be rebuilt before the second coming of Christ. So, if Israel were to be vaporized tommorow, it would be cause of sorrow for fundamentalist Christians, because it would mean the postponement of the rebuilding. Their fervent support of Israel is because they see at as a necessary party to the end times, and as such they need it to exist or Jeebus won't come back. This also explains their complete disregard for the plight of the Palestinians - all of Israel should be in Jewish hands because they are the chose people - the Palestinians are probably no better than minions of satan as far as they are concerned.

Mmmm... Christianity....

ACtually, the plight of the Palestinians can be attributed to the greediness of the Palestinian Authority and the complete lack of support from the neighbouring Arab nations. The arab nations do not want to help (and haven't) the palestinians because as long as they have no jobs they will blame Israel. This keeps things in balance with the Arab states because they want the attention on Israel. Therefore, they want the Palestinians to live in deplorable conditions so that Israel can be used as a scapegoat for their own wrongdoings.

Oh come now. Certain situations are so bad that there is plenty of blame to go around. The palestinians, isrealis, americans, EU, other arab nations. Everyone is entitled to some.

Nowhere in my post did I mention the cause of anything - I merely gave an overview of the apocolyptic outlook that is shared by a significant number of fundamentalist Christians. I didn't say that they caused the situation in Palestine, but merely that they don't care what happens as long as Israel remains a strong Jewish state.

OK, sorry 'bout that then. But yes, it is quite scary (and sad) that the major reason why the Republican party has interest in Israel is because they believe that it must remain a Jewish state so that Jesus can come riding in on his unicorn (or was it a dragon?) to send them to heaven. It's like they want the Jewish people to survive there just so that they can go to heaven, while the Jews go to hell (in their view). It's sad that they don't want to protect Israelis out of sheer morality.

Blame Canada!?

I do think that the Middle East needs a MLK/Gandhi for the Muslims to get things done in a non-violent matter, especially in Iraq, which has been set off for a civil war for a long time, whenever Saddam would be gone.

I agree--I think I made the same point in the other muslim thread floating around in here.

In several threads, you've demonstrated a strong hatred of religions, but so far you've not demonstrated any real understanding of the religions you denounce, nor of the human condition that leads them to religion in the first place. I think that you take the most absurd beliefs of religions, apply those beliefs to all members of the religions, and then translate it into "all religious poeple are stupid". That is far from the truth.

I think you ought to try what I did if you want to fight religious idiocy. Learn as much as you can about religion, and then you can understand why people believe things, and you can turn their own religions around on them when they become hypocritical.


Something that you have obviously not done.


Totally wrong. Religious moderates are those who are able UNDERSTAND the deeper messages of religious teachings, and not those simple-minded cretins who know only to follow directions and take words literally and at their face value. Religious moderates are those who do not hate those who are different from them, and contrary to your twisted and uninformed notion of the contents of religious scriptures, this is NOT what all holy books call for.


Yeah, good luck with that. Abolition of ideas, what a democratic notion.

I do not know if I can agree with the article, but the big problem is that the crazy portion of Islam seems to be in control. And you all can make Bush joke after Bush joke, but the crazy part of Islam is ruling, and it is much futher off of my conceptual radar then those crazy Christians here.

The nutty part of Islam, is something I cannot even begin to identify with. While the nutty part of Christianity, I see it as crazy, and I know next election we are going to pretty much elimante them as a factor, they are just cute and goofy.

There may be a moderate Islam, but they are not the voices winning this war, and they are not nearly speeking up enough. If I could find half a dozen Moslems who would straight up say that Israel is not the root of all their problems, then maybe we could get somewhere. And maybe it is a Western media thing that projects that image constantly, but I am starting to doubt it. I see Moslems constantly attacking violence, but in the next breath justifying it because of US and Israeli interfence in their homeland. Israel is going to remain, and America is going to continue to defend its right to exist, but we are willing to work towards a peace that does not involve the Jews being driven into the nearest giant body of water. And the truth is, and I think everyone knows this, that the Islamic world is not willing to allow the Jews to own or live peacefully on that plot of land that they are on. And it doesn't really matter how they react from one situation to the next. So maybe there is a moderate Islam, but I have yet to hear an actual voice coming from them that is at all reasonable.

Two plus two is five. I love big brother!

Just as much as Google Hindu or Buddhist religious texts and find me one sentence in it which preaches hatred. If you accept that these two religions in particular are completely benign and peaceful, the central thrust of your thesis falls apart.