One article after the next, in such places as National Review, repeats the message: Islam is not a \u201creligion of peace\u201d but\u00a0it is the very nature of Islam and its scriptures (both the Qu\u2019ran and the hadith) to be intolerant, to seek expansion by violent means, to treat women unjustly, to sow hatred towards non-believers, etc.<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s an example from just today: \u00a0\u201cThe Problem with Islam Is Aggressive Scripture, Not Aggressive \u2018Traditionalism\u2019<\/a>\u201d by Andrew C. McCarthy. \u00a0Repeating a theme he\u2019s expounded elsewhere, he says that the aggressive, intolerant Islam we see is not just a matter of a few bad apples perverting Islamic doctrine, but comes directly from Islamic doctrine itself. \u00a0Referring to an article by a Cheryl Bernard (link here,<\/a> and it\u2019s actually a pretty good article), he says<\/p>\n Alas, they [undesirable elements of Islamic culture] are direct consequences of Islamic scripture and sharia, the law derived from scripture. She can\u2019t go there. She wants Islam to be moderate, but its scriptures won\u2019t cooperate. She must rely on tradition and culture because traditions and cultures can and do evolve. Scripture, by contrast, does not \u2014 not in Islam as taught by over a millennium\u2019s worth of scholars and accepted by untold millions of Muslims. Mainstream Islam holds that scripture is immutable. The Koran, the center of Islamic life, is deemed the \u201cuncreated word of Allah,\u201d eternal. (See, e.g., Sura 6:115: \u201cThe Word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and justice: None can change His Words: For He is the one Who heareth and knoweth all.\u201d) . . .<\/p>\n Doctrine is the answer to virtually every immoderate instance of aggressive \u201ctraditionalism\u201d Bernard complains about: the separation of men from women in the mosque, and the decidedly poorer accommodations (\u201coften unacceptable and even insulting,\u201d as Bernard describes them) to which women are consigned; the separation of the sexes in work and social settings; the instructions not to trust or befriend \u201cunbelievers\u201d; the admonitions to resist adopting Western habits and developing loyalty to Western institutions. There is scriptural support for every one of these injunctions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And, to be sure, he\u2019s right. \u00a0Muslims who support polygamy, veiling\/covering of women, and more, find support not just in obscure verses in the Qu\u2019ran but in the normative interpretation, as well as hadiths (stories of the life and sayings of Muhammad, considered as authoritative as the Qu\u2019ran itself) accepted as authentic\u00a0universally across Islam.<\/p>\n But if that\u2019s true, well, what\u2019s the solution? \u00a0It\u2019s a dead end.<\/p>\n It provides no answer other than to seek to quarantine the Islamic world, cordon it off, keep their destructive notions from contaminating the rest of the world. \u00a0And that\u2019s not even a solution anyway \u2014 both due to the pre-existing immigration of Muslims to the West, and the globalization of the world.<\/p>\n Or perhaps we imagine that this knowledge that Islam is fundamentally a seriously flawed religion, in its very nature, means that\u00a0individual Muslims should\u00a0abandon their faith, in favor of another religion or none at all. \u00a0Not gonna happen.<\/p>\n No.<\/p>\n The answer is this: there is a\u00a0true<\/em> \u201cmoderate Islam\u201d that says \u2014 based on my reading of moderate Muslims (see here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>) \u2014 \u201cat its core, Islam is about a merciful God and the equality of all; any part of the Qu\u2019ran which appears to contradict this is either being misinterpreted, its original meaning being lost in the old Arabic it\u2019s written in and an unknown context, or was intended as a temporary concession to the patriarchal Arab world Muhammad inherited.\u201d<\/p>\n The \u201cSword Verses,\u201d for instance, that Islamists use to justify attacking infidels? \u00a0The reformers say those were about self-defense. \u00a0(Were they really<\/em> about self-defense? \u00a0It doesn\u2019t matter, does it? \u00a0All that matters is that the reformers believe it, and perhaps might persuade other Muslims of such.)<\/p>\n And there are plenty of Muslims who believe this. They\u2019re just not organized into a community \u2014 which prevents them from spreading their message. \u00a0Bernard\u2019s article describes moderate Muslims who are misfits in their mosques, and simply walk away, saying their prayers at home, rather than getting involved in building a community of fellow-believers.<\/p>\n Hence, the only path forward that I see is for us, that is, both the American government, and we, as individuals, to support these \u201creformers\u201d (both those who see themselves as reformers, and those who quietly go about their day without engaging in the discussion), help them build a community, and give them the tools they need to counter the Saudi money that\u2019s spreading the extremist message.<\/p>\n True, they may be small in numbers. \u00a0But giving them a voice is the only way forward that I can see.<\/p>\n