Islam needs a civil war

[theoldwolf]

Finally. Someone's saying something without equivocation that I've been grumbling about since 9/11.

From Newser.com: "Islam has become corrupted by the ideology of a "violent minority," and it's long past time that the majority of Muslims take back their religion, writes Thomas Friedman. How? It needs a "civil war," just as America needed one to overcome the ideology of slavery. "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," he writes in the New York Times.

Islam must do the same. And to win this war, it must devote resources not only to the fight on the ground but the fight in "Virtual Afghanistan"—that "network of hundreds of jihadist websites that inspire, train, educate, and recruit young Muslims to engage in jihad." No military surge will succeed 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."

Huzzah, says I. If Islam is to take a place in the global community as a viable ideology for its billion adherents, it has to cleanse the inner vessel - and that can only be done from inside.

Comments

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Does that work with religions instead of geopolitical entities, tho? Seems to me they're more likely to have a schism followed by a reformation. Which could be violent, but opponents would not be subjugated like the Confederacy.

[dhlawrence.livejournal.com]

On their own, not usually, but it can happen without actually being a cover for secular political fighting. Take a good look at Belfast--citizens of the same country killing each other in the name of the same God and praying to Him in two different churches for his help in destroying the other.

With Islam it's already happening--Sunni and Shia killing each other in Iraq. And that conflict knows no border--it happens elsewhere, too.

[sleepyjohn00.livejournal.com]

Saudi Arabia has been allowing jihadism as a practical tool of politics for decades: as long as people are getting all worked up into violent action against the West, they aren't getting worked up into violent action against the ruling family. While they can export the crazies to London and Berlin, they can keep the lid on in their own country.

So don't expect a lot of force for change there.

[bayliss.livejournal.com]

I just heard something very similar on NPR.. ( I can't recall if it Morning edition or Talk of the Nation.) where the government was monitoring the Jihadist websites but not trying to stop them from spreading the ideology. the person they were interveiwing said that we should be using (like the Russians had) hackers to follow the money and start taking it from the Jihadists.

I don't know if it would work but it worked for a lot of other things, at least in Russia. *shrugs*

[canisrufus-uk.livejournal.com]

I rarely comment on religion, but.... I see Islam now as being at the point Christianity was during the crusades. This time however I don't think we want to wait several hundred years for it to grow up.

[stevenroy.livejournal.com]

They're just fortunate that we're smart enough to not blame all Muslims for the actions of the violent majminority. How much simpler would the war be if we didn't have that kind of respect?

Here's what they should really be worried about: What happens if the extremist and fundamentalist Muslims ever do become so violent and dangerous that our need to deal with them outweighs our need to respect and preserve the "proper" Muslims?

They need to make sure that doesn't happen. They need it even more than we do. Because the alternative is Islam being illegalized, just like pit bulls in some states, and for the exact same reasons!