Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Oh! I nearly forgot! We have five copies of Andy's broadside to give to you. They go to the authors of the best five comments, as measured by the "like" button, and you're on the honor system--one vote, one member, and not for yourself.
In response to my posts about the Muslim Brotherhood, his new broadside, and the Ricochet Book Club, Andy McCarthy has kindly offered to join us for a discussion. You have all done the reading, I presume? I warned you the test was coming.
Let me start by saying that in response to my post--in which I agreed broadly with much of what Andy said in the broadside, but faulted him for not drawing a sufficiently clear distinction between Islam and Islamism--Andy asked Encounter Books to send me a copy of The Grand Jihad, for which I thank him and thank Encounter Books.
Whether or not you agree with his arguments, it's a surprisingly great book--great, in the sense that Andy's a natural writer: It's gripping, it's dramatic, and in places very funny (where it is not absolutely horrifying). It was a bestseller and now I see why. It deserved to be.
I must say that Andy in fact takes pains in his book to draw at quite some length exactly the distinction I faulted him for not drawing clearly enough in his broadside. He devotes an entire chapter to it. I'll leave it to him to explain why this important distinction--the case for which he makes extremely well--was elided in the broadside.
By the way, the reception to The Grand Jihad is an object lesson in the importance of reading a book before criticizing it. Conor Friedersdorf, you know I like you, but you got suckered on this one. You should have read it before writing this; you'd see that you're missing his point.
Also by the way, Andy, while I was all too aware of much of what you discuss, the chapter on Kenya was new to me, and very disturbing. That should be better known.
Anyway, to the broadside. The first meeting of the Ricochet Book Club is convened. Questions for Andy? He's right here. I have quite some number, but I'll let you all start first.
- Comment (81)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
I have a question for Andy: I keep hearing that we need to make a distinction between Islam and Islamism, in order to avoid provoking the majority of "moderate" Muslims.
But if that supposed majority is so readily provoked - and so unwilling to speak out against the radicals - then where is the distinction?
Edited on Dec 15, 2010 at 11:14amSep '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
I have not seen Conor since my Stay Puft Marshmallow Man comment.
Edit: Oops. Sorry. This is supposed to be questions.
Question: For historical reasons that I hope are obvious, the Catholic and Orthodox worlds have an interest in the future of Islam and whether there is a thawing of relations or an unavoidable clash. Are there any Catholic or Orthodox thinkers whose writings have either influenced your current thesis or that you are eager still to read? And I'm curious as to whether you are more or less optimistic after reading them?
Edited on Dec 15, 2010 at 11:39amMay '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Is the Muslim Brotherhood an enemy of the United States? How do we fight against an organization which has as its main tactic making donations to Universities? Are they an organization of peace? Is there any evidence of violence? I confess I have not done the reading, but I will over my upcoming break. Thanks Andy.
Nov '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
The distinction is that there's still a lot of daylight between "don't want to destroy our culture" and "are willing to stand with us."
To use an analogy: I don't want to blow up the SPLC, or even get them shut down, but I'll be damned if I'm going to support an organization that calls the Center for Immigration Studies and the National Organization for Marriage "hate groups."
It's not a question of turning moderates into radicals, it's a question of moderates thinking the radicals are the lesser of two evils.
Jul '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Charles Lavergne
The distinction is that there's still a lot of daylight between "don't want to destroy our culture" and "are willing to stand with us."
To use an analogy: I don't want to blow up the SPLC, or even get them shut down, but I'll be damned if I'm going to support an organization that calls the Center for Immigration Studies and the National Organization for Marriage "hate groups."
It's not a question of turning moderates into radicals, it's a question of moderates thinking the radicals are the lesser of two evils. · Dec 15 at 12:00pm
Actually the distinction is choosing between good and evil. You not supporting the SPLC is not equivalent to "moderate Muslims" (those who agree with "radical Islam" but do not participate in their atrocious behaviors and activities) taking up arms against the western, enlightened world and thus becoming "radical Islamists." The "moderate Muslims" are already doing to the "radical Muslims" what you are doing to the SPLC: ignoring them largely. The only difference is you disagree with the SPLC.
Jul '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Charles Lavergne
The distinction is that there's still a lot of daylight between "don't want to destroy our culture" and "are willing to stand with us."
To use an analogy: I don't want to blow up the SPLC, or even get them shut down, but I'll be damned if I'm going to support an organization that calls the Center for Immigration Studies and the National Organization for Marriage "hate groups."
It's not a question of turning moderates into radicals, it's a question of moderates thinking the radicals are the lesser of two evils. · Dec 15 at 12:00pm
In what way are Americans who simply want to live unmolested trying to "...destroy (Islamic) culture"?
You seem not to understand the triumphalist nature of Islam. They don't hate us because we're free. They hate us because we are infidels.
May '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Claire,
I tend to think it's fair game to criticize an excerpt when the author publishes it (especially when it contains factual errors). So I'll stand by what I wrote about that chapter as a stand alone work, but affirm that the rest of the book may well be everything you say it is.
Edited on Dec 15, 2010 at 12:19pmOct '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
On page 8 of the broadside McCarthy writes about the lack of an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism, particularly when directed towards non-Muslim forces in Islamic countries. How do we overcome the obstacle of being perceived as a threat to the Islamic world no matter what we do? It seems to be a case of heads the terrorists win and tails we lose.
Also, how do we resist the encroachment of sharia into the US legal system in a constiutional way? As I ask this question I have in mind the proposition that Oklahoma voters passed in this last election cycle and the incident a couple years back in which a controversy erupted surrounding the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks about incorporating different religious codes into the legal system in the UK.
Nov '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm actually in very vocal agreement with Andy McCarthy that there's more to moderation than simple non-violence. Non-violent Shariists are not moderate, and not all Muslims are closet Shariists
There is a large population of true moderates who see the way some Westerners talk and think it's a choice between Muslim idiots and anti-Muslim idiots. You know and I know that westernism is good and sharia is evil, but people who have no experience with the former need to be convinced that it is not an anti-Muslim ideology, even if they are not particularly fond of sharia either.
Nov '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Kenneth
Charles Lavergne
The distinction is that there's still a lot of daylight between "don't want to destroy our culture" and "are willing to stand with us."
In what way are Americans who simply want to live unmolested trying to "...destroy (Islamic) culture"?
I was referring to those Muslims who have no interest in destroying our culture through the imposition of sharia.
Dec '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Andy, I caught a snippet of your conversation with Brian Sussman on KSFO this morning. You mentioned that jihad, whether the violent military form or the internal spiritual form, always has as its objective the political transformation of the jihadi's host society into an Islamic state under Shari'a law.
Isn't that by definition a program intended to subvert and destroy the Constitutional government of the USA and the similarly free types of government in all Western nations? And doesn't that make Muslims who subscribe to that program enemies of the Constitution, whether foreign or domestic, of the type all US office-holders take an oath to defend against? How does that square with the rights of Muslim Americans to exercise their religion freely under the First Amendment -- what are the limits of that exercise and can it be squared with preserving our Constitution?
Jul '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Charles Lavergne
Kenneth
Charles Lavergne
The distinction is that there's still a lot of daylight between "don't want to destroy our culture" and "are willing to stand with us."
In what way are Americans who simply want to live unmolested trying to "...destroy (Islamic) culture"?
I was referring to those Muslims who have no interest in destroying our culture through the imposition of sharia. · Dec 15 at 12:32pm
Gosh, I must have missed the huge popular anti-Sharia movement among Muslims.
Do not underestimate even "moderate Muslims'" adherence to the concept of taqiyya.
Nov '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Kenneth
Charles Lavergne
Kenneth
Charles Lavergne
The distinction is that there's still a lot of daylight between "don't want to destroy our culture" and "are willing to stand with us."
In what way are Americans who simply want to live unmolested trying to "...destroy (Islamic) culture"?
I was referring to those Muslims who have no interest in destroying our culture through the imposition of sharia. · Dec 15 at 12:32pm
Gosh, I must have missed the huge popular anti-Sharia movement among Muslims.
Do not underestimate even "moderate Muslims'" adherence to the concept of taqiyya. · Dec 15 at 12:39pm
And you shouldn't underestimate the tendency for good people in totalitarian nations to keep their mouths shut while under threat of violence.
May '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Here is one question I have for Mr. McCarthy. Throughout he seems to operate on the presumption that there is a correct definition of Islam we can arrive at if we study its scripture, listen to its imams, etc. For example, he says at one point, "Trapped in the Western progressive's hedonistic infatuation with personal fulfillment, today's opinion elites miss the essence of Islam."
I submit that Islam has no single essence to perceive. It is a faith more than a billion strong. The faithful are divided among Shia, Sunni, and Sufis, and spread across nations with hugely different cultures. It encompasses Kareem Abdul Jabbar, adherent of the skyhook, and Osama Bin Laden.
As lived by the faithful, the world's biggest religions have no single essence. Beyond the official divisions, Muslims, like people of all faiths, are often times inconsistent in their beliefs, ignorant about their own religion, prone to irrationally believe contradictory things all at once.
Given all this, how does it make sense to talk about "the essence of Islam" or the "true definition" of contested terms like jihad or sharia? The official answer doesn't necessarily correspond to how actual Muslims live. (It varies!)
Jul '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Charles Lavergne
Kenneth
Charles Lavergne
Kenneth
Charles Lavergne
The distinction is that there's still a lot of daylight between "don't want to destroy our culture" and "are willing to stand with us."
In what way are Americans who simply want to live unmolested trying to "...destroy (Islamic) culture"?
I was referring to those Muslims who have no interest in destroying our culture through the imposition of sharia. · Dec 15 at 12:32pm
Gosh, I must have missed the huge popular anti-Sharia movement among Muslims.
Do not underestimate even "moderate Muslims'" adherence to the concept of taqiyya. · Dec 15 at 12:39pm
And you shouldn't underestimate the tendency for good people in totalitarian nations to keep their mouths shut while under threat of violence. · Dec 15 at 12:42pm
What about Muslims in the United States? What's keeping them from speaking out?
Jun '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Where can we learn more about the US Treasury involvement in sharia compliant finance (SCF) through entities like AIG and the lawsuits to curtail the practice? What do you think is the magnitude of US taxpayer TARP funds that may be siphoned off to Islamic charities?
Nov '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Kenneth What about Muslims in the United States? What's keeping them from speaking out? · Dec 15 at 12:46pm
Probably the fact that their natural allies claim to know more about Islam than they do and dismiss them as liars. Which returns me to my original point: If moderate Muslims think anti-jihadists are actually anti-Muslim they aren't going to support us no matter how much they dislike sharia.
Oct '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Conor Friedersdorf: As lived by the faithful, the world's biggest religions have no single essence. Beyond the official divisions, Muslims, like people of all faiths, are often times inconsistent in their beliefs, ignorant about their own religion, prone to irrationally believe contradictory things all at once.
Given all this, how does it make sense to talk about "the essence of Islam" or the "true definition" of contested terms like jihad or sharia? The official answer doesn't necessarily correspond to how actual Muslims live. (It varies!) · Dec 15 at 12:44pm
A religion doesn't need to be monolithic to have an essence. The essence of Christianity, for example, is the gospel. Of course, there are many denominations that differ on nonesential doctrines, but the essence is what everyone has in common. I would think it's the same with Islam.
May '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Here is another question for Mr. McCarthy. He and I agree that many aspects of sharia are deeply problematic. Let's use stoning adulterers to death as a handy, crystal clear example.
But other aspects of Islamic law aren't in themselves objectionable. For example, there is nothing inherently wrong with financial instruments designed so that they won't transgress against prohibitions against interest bearing loans. Why is it problematic if AIG designs such a financial instrument for religious people engaged in voluntary transactions?
I happen to think there is a lot wrong with federal involvement in the financial sector generally, but why is it treated like a gain for sharia generally when the takeover of AIG for entirely different reasons incidentally led to federal holdings that included some of these instruments?
Jul '10
Re: Welcome, Andy McCarthy
Charles Lavergne
Kenneth What about Muslims in the United States? What's keeping them from speaking out? · Dec 15 at 12:46pm
Probably the fact that their natural allies claim to know more about Islam than they do and dismiss them as liars. Which returns me to my original point: If moderate Muslims think anti-jihadists are actually anti-Muslim they aren't going to support us no matter how much they dislike sharia. · Dec 15 at 12:58pm
If they can't tell the difference between anti-jihadists and anti-Muslims, it's because they are not disposed to make that distinction. To people like that, resistance to radicalism equates to Islamophobia. In which case, why should we worry about radicalizing them? They want the same sharia results as their terrorist brethren - they just don't want to risk their skins to achieve it.