I meant to reply earlier to Michael’s post from this morning on the perils of Islamic reformation.  In response to this WaPo piece by Diana Muir, Michael had the following to add:

Those who say that the reformation brought science and progress are, thus argues Mrs. Muir mistaken: as Ed Morrissey explains - it was the Enlightenment which accomplished that, not the reformation.

When we look at the above quotes, and read Muir’s article, one thing becomes clear: the reformation is already going on in the Islamic world. In fact, it is one of the main causes for the present Islamic violence.

What the Islamic world needs, both convincingly explain, is not a reformation, but an enlightenment.

This is, by the way, what most European experts such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali say as well. They talk about the need for an Enlightenment: Ayaan often said “give us our own Voltaire!” She did not say “give us our own Luther!”

And for a good reason.  

Maybe this is all semantical, but I think this argument is backwards.  Yes, the Protestant Reformation was bloody, but as Michael notes above, we’re already seeing the results of sectarian disdain and religious division in the Muslim world. 

Also, I think some are missing the point when people talk about the concept of “reformation.”  It wasn’t necessarily Luther’s literalism that changed the world, but rather, the use of the printing press and the “Gutenberg Revolution” that changed the face of Christianity.  For the first time, Christians could actually read the Bible in their native language, and not have their faith dictated to them by a monolithic Church.  This conflict, which led to blood and violence for many reasons, was mainly about access and the democratization of the faith.  Protestantism promoted the literal word, because it had been assumed that Christianity had lost its way at the hands of Rome.

The dissemination of print led to the devolution of control over time.  The reason this parallel doesn’t have a nice fit is that the notion of a distinct “Church and State” is a very Judeo-Christian one.  The “Church” is the product of a movement once outside of government.  This distinction has never truly been made in Islam, which can be seen even today throughout much of the Middle East. 

So, I think reform is the right idea.  There are already plenty of moderate and “enlightened” Muslims around the world, and the Qur’an already promotes concepts of independence and enlightenment, such as Ijtihad.  There are mystical sects of Islam, such as Sufism, that buck much of the conventional orthodoxy. 

The problem is that the extremists control the state power, in addition to the means to disseminate the teachings of the religion (see Saudi Arabia).  Wahhabism is a fairly recent and modern bastardization of a faith that has already produced science, art and culture.  We’ve seen enlightenment and silent moderatism, but what Islam needs today is reform.  Or as Irshad Manji puts it:

“Moderate Muslims denounce terror that’s committed in the name of Islam but they deny that religion has anything to do with it.  Reform-minded Muslims denounce terror that’s committed in the name of Islam and acknowledge that our religion is used to inspire it.”

Hal G. P. Colebatch writes for The American Spectator that the decision to grant knighthood to Salman Rushdie was a major mistake. Firstly, he does not deserve to be knighed for his literary work (he is not that great of an author), secondly, the reasons Blair wants to see Rushdie be knighted is probably not so honorable:

THERE ARE ONLY TWO POSSIBLE explanations for the knighting of Rushdie: either those responsible for the recommendation were ignorant of the inevitable political consequences — fury against Britain by Muslims around the world, attacks on British interests and quite likely on British people in Muslim countries — or they knew those consequences and did not care.

Further, if it is meant to be a hit at Iran, from whence the original fatwa against Rushdie originated, perhaps in retaliation for Iran’s recent seizing of British sailors, it seems not only particularly feeble and ineffectual but actually counterproductive. The government in Iran is facing growing popular discontent and this is the sort of emotionally charged slap in the face that could rally support behind it.

Britain has several thousand troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In both countries they are trying to win over the support and friendship of the population and to be regarded as friends and liberators rather than invaders, oppressors and infidels.

Britain has spent billions and strained its defense budget to the limit to put those troops there. Quite a few have died. The knighting of Rushdie has made their task unnecessarily harder, has made the chances of failure greater, and has put their lives that much more at risk. Because of the Queen’s direct involvement with knighthoods, it has also put the Queen at risk to a new degree.

Hal’s major problem with the decision to knight Rushdie, therefore, is that it hurts the war on terrorism / extremism. The major flaw in Hal’s reasoning is that those who hate Britain do not need more excuses. They have ‘reasons’ enough to hate Britain, most notoriously the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, o, then there is also this little thing called the British Empire.

Having said that, there certainly is some - perhaps even a lot of - truth to Hal’s point that if we want to win the war against Muslim extremism, we should not insult moderate Muslims. We need their support. This does not mean that we should listen to what extremists say - I’d tell Hal to please ignore whatever it is that comes out of Iran - but that we should listen to what those moderate Muslims actually have to say about this matter. I have not read reactions from these moderates yet - lets first wait and see how they’ll respond before we say that the decision to grant knighthood to Rushdie was a mistake.

An interesting discussion about the hijab.

Bahija Hussein: Allow me to finish. No one is entitled to criticize me for not wearing a hijab. It is between me and my God.

[…]
The hijab of our times – which is prevalent in Egypt – does not just erase the girl’s mind, but also her humanity. It erases the humanity of the girl by viewing her as merely ‘awra [parts of the body that must remain covered], and the cause of all disasters and calamities, and by believing that having her wear this all-encompassing tent is what the religion is all about.

Watch the video - one of the other participents, Su’ad Saleh, compared a woman who does not wear a hijab to “an unwrapped piece of candy.”

It is interesting to see that these kinds of discussions take place in Muslim countries like Egypt right now. On the one hand, it is an encouraging sign - moderate Muslims are not letting fundamentalists take over that easy; on the other hand, it is also quite worrisome that it is necessary, especially because of something the moderator said: “But this school of thought which you oppose is the one that prevails, while moderate Islam is nowhere to be seen.”

In other words, moderate Muslims themselves fear that they are losing.

Shiites in Bahrein “marched through the streets of the capital Manama Wednesday night in protest over the bombings at Iraq’s Golden Mosque.”

The pro-peace and anti-terrorism protestors shouted: “No to Terrorism”. Sadly, their second favorite slogan was “Death to America.”

One can of course only wonder how they hope to accomplish the second without using the first, but doing so would be arguing about semantics I am sure.

H/t Robert Spencer.

Michelle Malkin has a post up about a Church in Spring Hope, North Carolina, about a Church sign that has caused quite some controversy. The sign:

(’Don’t be deceived, the message of “Islam” is submit - convert - or die. Not salvation in Jesus Christ.’)

Michelle defends the sign, I have absolutely no intention of doing so. Firstly: it’s stupid (somehow I don’t think you’re winning over moderate Muslims if you put up signs like this); secondly, it’s not true; thirdly, I thought that Christianity was about love, not about trying to insult as many people as possible.

Roger L. Simon reviewed the documentary “Islam vs. Islamism” (Islam vs. Islamists), which was ‘commissioned by PBS for its “American Crossroads” series, but never shown by the network.’ Roger wondered, before watching the doc.: “Quality control or censorship?”

The answer: censorship. According to Roger, the documentary is ‘a riveting and creatively made film about the most important subject of our time: what to do about radical Islam? It confronts this dilemma in a sly, novelistic manner, inter-weaving the stories of good, moderate Muslims with the Imams and supposedly “true Muslims” who, not surprisingly, accuse the moderate Muslims of not being Muslims at all. Soon enough we learn these Imams are apologists for terrorism and for the worst kind of medieval religious sadism.’

So, then, what was / is the problem?

But it does have a strong point of view – and therein lies the rub. PBS, clearly, does not like what this movie says. And I suspect it likes it less because the film is well made (the reverse of what the network originally claimed).

PBS’ views seem particularly troglodytic today in light of recent events at Fort Dix. But that is the least of it. What is far more important to our country is that our Public Broadcasting network, an organization supported by taxpayer money, is practicing the most obvious censorship. PBS is operating here in the manner of similar institutions in the former Soviet Union and in modern day Iran – financing artists and then withholding distribution of their work when it is not deemed ideologically “correct”. It’s a form of though-control and it’s unconscionable.

He then calls on his “fellow Motion Picture Academy members, whatever their political leanings, to protest this cowardly and un-American act of censorship.”

Sadly, it is difficult for John Doe, like me, to watch this documentary himself right now, so he has to rely on the reviews of people like Roger L. Simon (who is, of course, an expert and very trustworthy). Hopefully, we’ll be able to judge for ourselves very soon.