Is terrorism a nuisance we should all just live with?

James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web has some fun with ridiculous comparisons.

I'm going to quote him at length here - but to get his often hilarious commentary in daily emails, you can subscribe for free here.

Lynching Was Bad, but . . .

Speaking of the Los Angeles Times, on Friday the paper printed an exceptionally idiotic column by Rosa Brooks titled "9/11 Was Bad, but . . ." Brooks suggests that people who worry about terrorist attacks are "irrational wimps":

The 9/11 attacks were appalling and tragic, but they did not threaten the survival of the nation. . . . Of course, 3,000 dead is 3,000 too many. But keep it in perspective. As a nation, we have survived far worse. We lost more than 100,000 Americans in World War I, more than 400,000 in World War II, 37,000 in Korea, 58,000 in Vietnam--all without allowing our national character to turn into quivering jelly.

Every year, we also lose millions of Americans to preventable accidents and disease. We're more likely to die on the road than as a result of Al Qaeda's machinations. Annually, we lose some 43,000 people to auto accidents. For the grieving families, that's 43,000 deaths too many. But, although we surely could reduce auto fatalities if we chose to make it our top national priority, the Bush administration has yet to announce a "War on Highway Deaths."

This is unoriginal as well as fatuous. It's not even original in the L.A. Times, which published essentially the same piece three months ago. But in the hope that our new friends at the Times won't make the same mistake a third time, let's repeat our analogy that shows why this is such a ridiculous argument.

According to this table, 4,742 people were lynched in America between 1882 and 1964. That's an average of but 57 people a year, and the number of annual lynchings peaked in 1892, at 230. By the standards Brooks applies to 9/11, lynching was not a big problem. It killed far fewer people than war, disease, accidents, etc.

Yet if someone were lynched tomorrow, would we shrug it off because the number of deaths is only 1/43,000th of the annual car-crash toll? Of course not. It takes a stunning degree of moral obtuseness to treat a murder in the furtherance of a hateful ideology--be it white supremacy or Islamic fundamentalism--as the equivalent of an accidental death.

A similar bit of foolishness comes from Ian Buruma, who won an award at the book festival. In yesterday's Times, he opines:

Just as Jews, during some traditional Passover feasts, ask God to bring down his wrath on the Gentiles who "don't know him," and many Christians believe that hell awaits those who don't subscribe to their faith, Muslims are led to believe that killing the enemies of Islam can be justified.

"Just as"? Surely there is a difference between believing or hoping that God will punish unbelievers and taking it upon oneself to do it. It doesn't speak well of the editors of the L.A. Times that they not only publish such nonsense but do so habitually.

"Moderate" versus "orthodox" Muslims

Asma Khalid, a Masters degree candidate at Cambridge University in Britain, has an interesting opinion piece in today's Christian Science Monitor, "Why I am not a moderate Muslim."

Here are some excerpts:

I am a Muslim who embraces peace. But, if we must attach stereotypical tags, I'd rather be considered "orthodox" than "moderate."

Why does she have a problem with the term moderate?

In the aftermath of September 11, much has been said about the need for "moderate Muslims." But to be a "moderate" Muslim also implies that Osama bin Laden and Co. must represent the pinnacle of orthodoxy; that a criterion of orthodox Islam somehow inherently entails violence; and, consequently, that if I espouse peace, I am not adhering to my full religious duties.

I refuse to live as a "moderate" Muslim if its side effect is an unintentional admission that suicide bombing is a religious obligation for the orthodox faithful.

According to Khalid:

The term moderate Muslim is actually a redundancy. In the Islamic tradition, the concept of the "middle way" is central. Muslims believe that Islam is a path of intrinsic moderation, wasatiyya.

To define what she means by orthodoxy, she quotes an Islamic cleric, one Abdallah bin Bahhay, who recently lectured at a conference hosted by a British organization call The Radical Middle Way:

He confronted inaccurate assumptions about Islam, spoke of tolerance, and told fellow Muslims an un­pleasant truth: "Perhaps much of this current crisis springs from us," he said, kindly admonishing them. He chastised Muslims for inadequately explaining their beliefs, thereby letting other, illiberal voices speak for them.

...The sheikh continued, challenging Mr. bin Laden's violent interpretation of jihad, citing Koranic verses and prophetic narrations. He referred to jihad as any "good action" and recounted a recent conversation with a non-Muslim lawyer who asked if electing a respectable official would be considered jihad. The sheikh answered "yes" because voting for someone who supports the truth and upholds justice is a good action.

As she concludes:

The sheikh, not bin Laden, is a depiction of true Islamic orthodoxy. The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the man trained in Islamic jurisprudence. The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the authentic religious scholar. But to call him a moderate Muslim would be a misnomer.

Rand's Blueprint to Strengthen Moderate Muslims

Rand Corporation, the think tank based in Santa Monica, California, has just released its study: Building Moderate Muslim Networks.

According to RAND, important lessons can be derived from the Cold War, but with certain caveats:

At the beginning of the Cold War, the threat was a global communist movement led by a nuclear-armed Soviet Union; today, it is a global jihadist movement striking against the West with acts of mass-casualty terrorism. In both cases, policymakers recognized that the United States and its allies were engaged in an ideological conflict that had to be contested across diplomatic, economic, military, and psychological dimensions. But unlike the Cold War, the current battle involves shadowy groups, not a single entity. The Soviet Union was a nation-state with a clear government structure and defined geographical borders. The radical Islamist threat is comprised of nonstate actors that control no territory, reject the norms of the international system, and are not subject to normal means of deterrence. These differences mean that the United States must develop a new networking strategy to meet the challenge.

So how does Rand propose the building this moderate Muslim network? Actually, Rand's researchers suggest that how is not the key question; rather the critical question is where to begin this effort:

RAND proposes a shift of focus from the Middle East to regions of the Muslim world where greater freedom of action is possible, the environment is more open to activism and influence, and there is a greater likelihood of success. The researchers emphasize network-building opportunities in the Muslim diasporas in Europe, among Muslims in Southeast Asia and Turkey, and in some of the relatively more open societies in the Middle East. Recognizing that radical ideas from the Middle East are being disseminated to the rest of the Muslim world, RAND recommends opening channels of communication that will encourage the dissemination of modern and mainstream interpretations of Islam back into the Middle East from moderate Muslims elsewhere.

The full report is available here.

Moderate Muslims in Pakistan, of all places, come out in droves to protest Taliban-styled radicals

From Reuters:

Tens of thousands of people rallied in Pakistan's biggest city, Karachi, on Sunday to show their opposition to a radical religious school which has begun a Taliban-style anti-vice campaign in the capital, Islamabad.

"The people of Islamabad are insecure and under threat due to the activities of these religious terrorists," said Altaf Hussain, head of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, addressing the rally by telephone from London.

Hussain was referring to radicals associated with Islamabad's Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, and the Jamia Hafsa madrasa which adjoins the mosque, according to the Reuters report. They are reportedly trying to enforce a Taliban-style social code in Pakistan.

The moderates are trying to pressure the Pakistani government to crackdown on the religious radicals.

Update: Check out Gateway Pundit's coverage of the protests here.

How to stop radical Islamists from taking power

The desert between Morocco and Algeria; Photo by Martin Destagnol

Sunday's New York Times reports:

Every country on the continent’s northern rim, from Egypt to Morocco, has outlawed extreme Islamist parties that would be likely to win large parliamentary blocs — if not majorities — were they allowed to participate in free and fair national elections. (Libya bans political parties altogether.)

But as the Times duly notes:

Each of those countries (again with the exception of Libya, where the small society is tightly controlled) has suffered terrorist attacks from local groups that have emerged from the repressed extremists.

What to do?

Unfortunately, so far no country has been able to find the solution. As the Times writes:

Clearly, the rise of conservative Islam won’t be turned aside by simply banning the veil, as Tunisia tried unsuccessfully to do.

Allowing carefully monitored, government-friendly Islamist parties into the political system hasn’t solved the problem either: neither the Movement for the Society of Peace and the Islamic Renaissance Movement in Algeria, nor the Justice and Development Party in Morocco, have successfully diffused the power of the underground movements.

According to the Times:

[Many] in North Africa’s elite circles of power argue that, given the conservative religiosity sweeping the Muslim world, it is simply too dangerous to allow essentially non-democratic movements to participate in fully democratic elections because they can’t be trusted to respect democratic principles if they come to power.

As the Times observes:

..the circumscribed democracy that exists throughout the region doesn’t only squeeze out Islamists; it prevents more liberal elements of civil society from participating in politics as well. That leaves most people without a political voice, caught between a distant, elitist and often corrupt government and a militant opposition rooted in fundamentalist Islam. Despite the periodic violence, the Islamist movement appears to be gaining ground.

How about an economic solution to this problem? Unfortunately, as the Times notes:

Many of the most active militants come from well-to-do families. Tunisia, for example, has a big, home-owning, mortgage-holding middle class but hasn’t escaped radicalism. In contrast to the Western-friendly face presented at North Africa’s tourist hotels, Al Qaeda finds many admirers in its capital’s narrow streets.

Given that none of the obvious solutions seem to work, as the Times reports, it's not surprising some experts are now asking:

What would happen if these governments let down their guard?

John Entelis, a political scientist at Fordham University in New York, argues that the demands of working within a pluralistic system — or the responsibilities of governing if an Islamist party came to power — would force those parties to change.

Let's hope he's right. But there doesn't seem to be much evidence to support this line of thinking - not if you examine how Hamas has handled its political power.

Australia "confronts" as opposed to co-opts radical Islamism

In the Times of London, Gerard Henderson, former chief of staff for Australian Prime Minister John Howard explains why Australia takes such a hard-nosed approach to Islamist extremism.

According to Henderson, this is because:

• Most radical Muslims in Australia are second or even third generation Lebanese- or North African-Australians

• Some are Anglo-Australians who converted to Islam

• Almost none are asylum seekers or illegal immigrants

In other words, almost all Muslim extremists in Australia are homegrown.

This means, says Henderson, that Australia cannot afford to be other than “direct, event blunt” when it comes to dealing with Islamic radicals down under.

Muslim leaders are advised, says Henderson, to keep their communities free of radicals as they are a threat to moderate Muslims as well.

Community leaders who adopt extremist viewpoints - deny the Holocaust or glorify those aspects of Islamic law that are inconsistent with Australian values- are advised to do themselves and Australia a favor by emigrating to a country that would be more supportive of theirs. The Australian government takes the position that any Australian citizen or resident ought to embrace Australian values and culture and hence, imams are advised to address their congregations in English.

And, as noted here earlier, Australia is no longer keen to allow more Saudi-funded mosques to be built.