Crazy Sissy talks with the Harvard man*

Raphael's "Saint George Slaying the Dragon," a parable of good destroying evil (first published here two years ago in a post where we quoted a Syrian filmmaker who said after the fall of Saddam, "The myth of having to live under despots for eternity collapsed.")

"On the right wing [crazies like Sissy Willis are] easy to pick out, writes Markus Kolic of Dem Apples -- 'Love the name! -- the official blog of the Harvard College Democrats, standing up for fellow DA blogger Josh Patashnik, who was the object of spirited criticism here the other day for his pre-emptive dhimmitudinous surrender in the Cartoon Wars. While we admire Mr. Kolic's loyalty to his friend, we are disappointed -- if not surprised --  at his professed disloyalty to his own ideas in the name of winning access to power:

And after spending some time arguing with radicals [Kolic's term for "crazies" like us. --ed], I’m beginning to realize why: unlike them, my goal is not to enforce my principles on everyone else. My goal is to do good for my country, by getting my party elected. Thus, no matter how fervently I might believe some of my radical ideas, I don’t want my party to recognize them if they would alienate large portions of the American people. I might have an extreme or unusual view on 9/11, or drug policy, or taxes, or religion. But I will keep those ideas to myself, because I know that the vast majority of Americans do not and probably never will think that way. This is what differentiates us from authoritarian ideologues on both wings, who have no qualms about condemning the masses. (”Sinners!” “Consumers!” etc.)

'Reminds us of Hillary Clinton's modus operandi, pandering at will. We always wonder if such persons realize how condescending their approach is to "the masses" -- what we would call "fellow citizens" -- whose votes they seek. Unlike Hillary, however, Markus Kolic wins our heart if not our mind with the civility and humor of his comments on our blog:

As a friend and fellow blogger of Josh Patashnik, naturally I'm irked at your characterization of him, but I respect your right to that opinion. (Thanks for the link back, by the way -- no such thing as bad publicity and all that.)

We especially like that parenthetical comment, a sentiment we've often blogged here. But so much for hearts. What about minds? Markus -- may we call you Markus? -- continues:

What gets me, both with your reasoning in particular and so much of the right's reasoning in general, is how you so easily throw out words like "enemy" and "adversary." Now, there is no doubt that we are in a war and there is an enemy (OK, a few of my radical-lefty friends doubt that, but that's beside the point). But you seem to have forgotten: Islam is not our enemy . . . I fail to see how these Danish cartoons are even remotely productive in the war on terror.

Did we ever say or even imply that Islam is our enemy? Never. Some of our best blogfriends are believers, fergossake. It's the dragon of Islamist terrorism and its fellow travelers that we battle with our words here. And what about those cartoons? If our new blogfriend fails to see how they "are even remotely productive in the war on terror," perhaps it is because those presumably utopian ideas he says he keeps to himself have blinded him to the lessons of history and the imperatives of human nature. We'll let longtime blogfriend Teresa, who responds to Mr. Kolic in the comments, have the last word:

There is a reason for talks about slippery slopes. Appeasing violence rather than confronting it -- has never ever worked. It always ends with the appeaser having to give more and more -- until they are useless -- then they end up despised and dead. It's a losing proposition with extremely dire consequences for our country and our way of life.

As we've said before, we love it when our commenters, disagreeing with each other's ideas, engage in civilized debate. It gives us hope that freedom of speech will prevail.

*Title refers to the syntax of the title of W.B. Yeats's "Crazy Jane talks with the bishop."

Comments

[goomp]

Teresa said it well in her reply to Dem Apples. What seems strange to me is the lack of understanding by so many intelligent people of how usurpers of power such as Hitler, Stalin, Saddam and now the leaders of the dictatorial Muslims cannot be allowed to retain their growing power if the free countries of the West are to survive.

[Orson Olson]

Markus Kolic says Islam is not our enemy - Sissy replies never said so. Some of our friends are Muslim. True.

Fair enough - but the underlying question is not confronted in this exchange: can Islam reform compatibly with the modern secular, fast globalizing, world? Can Islam be "made safe" for the planet's other six billion people?

The late Ernest Gellner revisited that question throughout his long and influential career as a philosophical anthropologist and could not answer it affimatively. Apparently Pope Benedict XVI agrees: Islam can't (see spengler at Asia Times) change - as does Dutch MP and Muslim dissident Hersi Ali. Robert Spencer at www.jihadwatch.org also. And in a sotte voce way, so does Dennis Prager, the only talk show host I know of who is fluent in Arabic. (A recent addition to the list is Diana Hsieh at noodleblog http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/)

The above are pessismists and doubting Thomas's, but Prager is also among the least dogmatic, suggesting more of a continuum of thought than outright categorical differences on the right on this issue. The supporters of Bush's Iraq policy are optimists with more delicate shades than the pessimists are. They are therefore much tougher to pin down. A positive future for the Muslim world depends upon so much, upon so many diverse conditions in civil society being met! Therefore all progress is highly contingent upon numberless people and events.

There are two kinds of changes needed in Islam. Turning away from theocracy, and changing the doctrine of jihad - "warfare with spiritual significance" - which Walid Phares calls "the unofficial sixth Pillar of Islam."

Fortunately for Bush and the US, many Muslims want to try some form of government other than theocracy or dictatorship. Many, however, like Michael Totten, are convinced that as in Palestine and Algeria, Iran, and some say Shi'ite dominated Iraq, theocracy or Islamist party's will have to be elected, tried, and failed first. But the happy hope is that many Muslims are willing to try method of government that challenges their ancient religious tradition. According to Ruel Marc Gerecht, the Shia clerics of Iraq know that democracy is contrary to Islam, and yet they are going there all the same. If it works, optimism about Muslim reform and adaptability grows.

But now lets face the pessimistic side, especially that drawn out by the Mo'toons war. Why is changing jihad necessary? Because if this doctrine alone disappeared, the GWOT could end today. But because, as Robert Spencer and others like Martin Kramer explain, Islam is very much insulated from change, this may be more than difficult - it may be impossible! (See philosophy PhD student Diana Hsieh's post here briefly making the dour case that a "moderate Islam" is impossible http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/02/faith-in-moderate-muslim.html)

What I'm reading and hearing from Turkey, for instance, is that because of the content of the Danish cartoons, the fear that the West is at war with Islam has spread, provoking shock, recoil, and rage. Whoever holds the One True Religious Faith (which can't be changed) is going to agree that profound change is necessary? Impossible. Thus in Turkey, this is how the cartoons have been grasped: an affront! A rude outrageous offense. (And Turkey is where, unlike most in the Muslim world, most people actually have access to print or TV media from which to view the Mohammid cartoons and judge them.)

Challenging theocracy among Muslim's is doable. The examples of democracy in Turkey, Indonesia, India, and now Iraq, provide powerful positive examples of mass social success lacking in the rest of the Muslim sphere. But challenging jihad? This may be a doctrine too far - or else with the blessings of experience with the open society, reform may spring naturally through time.

Jihad has always justified aggression, violence, and conquest (see University of London Middles East historian Efraim Karsh's "Islamic Imperialism: A History" April 2006), albeit no only violence. It justifies terrorism today, as it has for centuries. Rice University's David Cook writes in "Understanding Jihad" (2005), that while a peaceful doctrine of jihad is possible, apart from apologists (like CAIR), there is no sign of such reform within Islam yet.

With the problem of jiahd for Islam minimally explained, the next question is how honest and direct American's ought to be about this? How can we help? Clearly, Bush uses euphemisms like WOT and GWOT and even just "terrorism" to elide the fact that it is the doctrine of Jihad that must change. But what are the intellectual supporters of Bush to do? To say and not say? And how far do we go with airing these debates in the public square?

It's on questions like these that I could use help! Or do you, Sissy, simply disagree with Diana above: there is a moderate Islam (which Daniel Pipes believes) which must be protected and nurtured away from a distinct and evil Islamism?

[Scott]

"This is what differentiates us from authoritarian ideologues on both wings, who have no qualms about condemning the masses. (”Sinners!” “Consumers!” etc.)"

(..."Radicals!" - oh wait I guess that makes me an "authoritarian ideologue" too. nevermind...)