Islam's future: Daniel Pipes defends his position that the religion must adapt to modern mores

'I am surprised at your lack of courage, Mr. Pipes," one reader scolded me. "Your point of view is for people who believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus," opined another. "You really dropped the ball on this one!" "I hope you are not beginning to lose your nerve." "Totally wrong." Or, more charitably: "Maybe your hope is overshadowing your understanding of the truth."

Those are a sampling of the many negative responses (found on the comments section of my Web site) to my column two weeks ago arguing that Islam is not evil. "Rather than rail on about Islam's alleged 'evil,' " I wrote, we all need to pitch in and "help modernize this civilization." By about a 5-to-1 margin, my readers disagree. Three main points emerge from their letters.

* Islam has always been on the warpath. "The violent conquest against the infidel was present at [Islam's] inception," writes one respondent. It "is based on war, conquest and forced conversion," asserts another. "The war, declared by Muhammad in [the year] 600 . . ., continues to this day," notes a third.

* Militant Islam is Islam. The readers insist that the evils I attribute to a modern, radical utopian ideology inheres to the faith at large. What I call militant Islam, they say, "should properly be called, 'real Islam.' " One writer asks, "what exactly is it that the Wahhabis and other Islamic extremists are doing that is not in accord with Muhammad's doctrine?" She then replies: "The answer is they are behaving very true to Muhammad's doctrine!"

* Mild Koranic verses were abrogated. They argue that the Koran contains contradictory passages that Muslim scholars handled by deciding that chronologically latter verses superceded earlier ones. Specifically, the conciliatory verses I quoted ("There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" and "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another,") were voided by one of the aggressive ones I cited ("Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them").

My response, however, is that no matter what Islam is now or was in the past, it will be something different in the future. The religion must adapt to modern mores.

This can be done. One recent example: In May, the Turkish religious authorities ruled - completely contrary to Islamic custom - to permit women to pray next to men and to attend mosque services while menstruating. The High Religious Affairs Board decided this on the (distinctly modern) basis that men and women are "equal and complementary beings." Next month, this same board takes up the extremely delicate topic of permitting Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, when it will perhaps again rule against centuries of practice.

If Turkish theologians can execute such changes, why not theologians in other countries, too? And if practices concerning women can be changed, why not those concerning jihad or the role of Islamic law as a whole? Islam can adjust to modernity no less than have other faiths.

Conversely, if one sees Islam as irredeemably evil, what comes next? This approach turns all Muslims - even moderates fleeing the horrors of militant Islam - into eternal enemies. And it leaves one with zero policy options. My approach has the benefit of offering a realistic policy to deal with a major global problem.

In conclusion, a reflection: Americans have acquired an impressive knowledge of Islam. Contrary to the incessant bleating by apologists for militant Islam about American ignorance of this topic, my readers know what they are talking about. Their critiques are sometimes erudite (for example, on the subject of Koranic abrogations, sometimes eloquent ("The next time you watch a film clip of the miniscule and microscopic body parts of Israeli citizens being scraped from the streets, sidewalks and buildings, just think about what is truly evil").

These readers, surely, are not typical of American opinion, but their informed antagonism to Islam bears remarking. It is likely to have a larger political role as Islam ever-more becomes central a topic of discussion in the West.

Whatever Islam may or may not have been in the past, in the future it will be something else...

Current trends continuing, the author is correct, as the probability of Islam becoming extinct are large, and growing with each new outrage...

the infowarrior

Pipes and his readers both seem to be making mistakes about Islam.

Pipes, of all people, should realize the historic context of Islam's founding. It was a vehicle for conquest. The readers too ignore this in talking about forced conversions. To be sure, there are fanatics in their ranks who do seek to convert others by the sword, but the primary end of Islam is as a tool for political conquest. This was true when Mohammed began his wars and it is still true today. The religion is a pretext for conquest; not the other way around. Thus Pipes' readers are correct when they say that militant Islam IS Islam.

The readers, ignoring the example of the Turks, discount the idea that Islam can change. Since it started as a state-sponsored political device, it's prefectly reasonable to expect that states, such as Turkey, could modify it towards their own ends. Islam could be "suberted", as the mullahs might say, into something that doesn't have conquest as it's goal. The Islamic states could use it as a tool for purposes other than conquest. In this sense, Pipes is correct; Islam could be reformed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.