Why Johnny Can't Be a Vocal Muslim Moderate
Those of us who do believe that moderate Muslims exist but confused about their perpetual silence now have an answer. It turns out that moderate Muslims can't take a stand against rioters who threaten to behead infidels because... infidels prevent them from doing so:
The problem with Benedict's speech, and it's illustrated perfectly by the quotation I cited above, is that it gives moderate Muslims no option other than to renounce our faith. When Benedict approvingly cites a source who says that Islam is "evil and inhuman", he's not offering a bold challenge to moderate Muslims, he's alienating them. There is a profound difference between, on the one hand, endorsing what Benedict said, and on the other, calling the enemy "militant Islamists", "Islamofascists", "Islamobolsheviks" (my personal favorite), or whatever. It's the difference, I suppose, between Robert Spencer and National Review, JihadWatch and AEI.
And Robert Spencer explains why this is a stupid position:
The Pope is not giving, and I'm not giving, peaceful Muslims a chance to fight the "bin Ladenists" because we point out that that is happening? Just the opposite, Velshi. The Pope is showing the way, and since you mention me also I'll say that in my small way I am also trying to show the way, to the only truly viable path to genuine Islamic reform. But only showing the way: of course, that reform can be accomplished only by Muslims, if it can be done at all. Do I think that reform is likely? I don't, and for two reasons: 1. Because the texts to which I refer do actually exist, and jihadists can and do use them to paint any Muslim reformer as a heretic or apostate - thus putting his life in danger. And 2. Because of denial from moderates, such as I have been discussing: If you won't even admit there is a problem, Velshi, you will never, ever, be able to fix it.
Is it an exaggeration to suggest that the apologist position precisely collapses to "if you close your eyes and don't look at them, maybe they'll go away". Is there nuance that we're missing?
The problem with Benedict's speech, and it's illustrated perfectly by the quotation I cited above, is that it gives moderate Muslims no option other than to renounce our faith. When Benedict approvingly cites a source who says that Islam is "evil and inhuman", he's not offering a bold challenge to moderate Muslims, he's alienating them. There is a profound difference between, on the one hand, endorsing what Benedict said, and on the other, calling the enemy "militant Islamists", "Islamofascists", "Islamobolsheviks" (my personal favorite), or whatever. It's the difference, I suppose, between Robert Spencer and National Review, JihadWatch and AEI.
And Robert Spencer explains why this is a stupid position:
The Pope is not giving, and I'm not giving, peaceful Muslims a chance to fight the "bin Ladenists" because we point out that that is happening? Just the opposite, Velshi. The Pope is showing the way, and since you mention me also I'll say that in my small way I am also trying to show the way, to the only truly viable path to genuine Islamic reform. But only showing the way: of course, that reform can be accomplished only by Muslims, if it can be done at all. Do I think that reform is likely? I don't, and for two reasons: 1. Because the texts to which I refer do actually exist, and jihadists can and do use them to paint any Muslim reformer as a heretic or apostate - thus putting his life in danger. And 2. Because of denial from moderates, such as I have been discussing: If you won't even admit there is a problem, Velshi, you will never, ever, be able to fix it.
Is it an exaggeration to suggest that the apologist position precisely collapses to "if you close your eyes and don't look at them, maybe they'll go away". Is there nuance that we're missing?
