Yeah...
Is Islam an evil empire?
No, but Islamism (radical, totalistic/totalitarian Islam) is.
Your analogy is like saying the evil nature of the Soviet Union was solely the consequent of its being a Russian empire, and therefore that all Russians, and everything Russian, is suspect. (Analogy being to: All of Islam is suspect, as are ALL Muslims, because Islamism is an Islamic movement.)
Now there may well have been (indeed I think there were and are) cultural characteristic of Russia that facilitated the development of the communist evil.
Likewise there may well be (indeed I think there are) characteristics of Islam that have facilitated the development of violent, totalitarian movements within it, and the grossly inadequate marginalization thereof.
But this does not mean that Islamism is a necessary or universal consequence of being Muslim, any more than communism (or being a communist) was a necessary or universal consequence of being a Russian.
There are many Muslims who are consciously and absolutely opposed to the totalitarian movements within Islam. All I'm asking is that we not nullify them, and undermine their efforts, and marginalize them thereby putting them at even greater risk, with the bigoted lie that they don't exist.
Great post. (#414)
In part it's the essential flip side of maintaining "moral clarity" in identifying, marginalizing and opposing evil. This entails that when we identify evil we identify it with clarity and with precision. IOW that we identify precisely what is evil, and not sweep up incidentals in our denotation. In can only weaken our claims against evil, and undermine our moral clarity, to confuse that which is essential concerning evil with that which is incidental. AND ALSO, I might add, to confuse that which is abstract with that which is concrete.
For instance Communism as a totalitarian system, and the Soviet Empire which embodied it, was evil. Nor did the Soviet Union, btw, "inherent" evil in some abstract form from the dry theory of the communism that it applied (or claimed to). It was evil because of what it did, and because of what it aimed to do. OTOH, it was not "the Ruskies" who were evil, even if and when evil might be relatively prominent among "Ruskies".
Conservative talk show host Dennis Praeger, a paragon of moral clarity, has commented, when asked about the implications of the evil currently prominent within Islam, that (as best I can paraphrase from memory) he judges an individual's religion just as he judges an individual's character: by individual actions. Therefore a Muslim who acts justly is good, and one who commits evil acts is evil, and the same standard applies to anyone of any religion or ideology.
This is my perspective as well. Maybe it's due to my being somewhat detached (as a nonreligious "philosophical theist") from any particular set of religious dogmas, but I think religion -- any religion -- is far more malleable -- more prone to diverse and various interpretation, and often to quite rapid evolution -- than do most religious adherents. (I'm often amazed that many religionists can look at their own tradition and see, overwhelmingly, a seamless continuity of doctrine; whereas I see in the same tradition awesome and audacious shifts, innovations and evolutions. The thing is these always get rationalized after the fact as having been part of doctrine and practice "all along".)
The embrace of suicide bombing by Sunni Muslims, and the elaboration of a detailed doctrinal rationale to justify it, is an example (even if an invidious one) of extremely rapid religious evolution. Only a single generation ago the idea of such planned and purposeful suicide (as opposed to mere carelessness of death in battle, which Sunnis did value) was a uniquely Shia doctrine. For centuries Sunnis viewed suicide martyrdom as a perverse doctrine, and one clearly countermanded by their religious texts. And yet, without a word of the Koran or the Hadiths being changed, and within the space of only two or three decades, millions of Sunnis came to approvingly accept suicide martyrdom .
(I haven't done a study of this or anything like that, but I'm certain this acceptance of suicide martyrdom among Sunnis began with the Palestinians, probably due to their sick joy in watching videos of Shia extremists in Southern Lebanon vaporize Jews during the 80's. I'm equally certain it spread to other Islamists, particularly Arab Muslims, with their obsequious and reflexive justification of every Palestinian atrocity.)
BTW, I'll hope you'll notice from my message so far, IG, that refusing to misidentify evil, and refusing to generalize it to a identity group (e.g. Muslims in general, versus violent Islamists) does NOT preclude identifying evil. Nor does it even preclude criticizing Islam for propensities, as frequently practiced, toward generating violence.
But of course the most effectual criticism of Islam will come from within. Yet this is precisely what you're undercutting when you claim that all internal critics (i.e. of Islamism and related tendencies) are phonies.
And to those who claim that all (observant) Muslims must be evil because their religious texts teach evil (and going back to Praeger's distinction) I'd ask the following.
Consider individual "A" and individual "B".
"A" follows a religion who's holy book (for whatever historical reason) includes a passage demanding: "Thou shalt rape thrice daily." Yet, for whatever reason, maybe because he has rationalized and reinterpreted that passage in some manner, "A" has never committed rape, and has no intention of ever doing so.
"B" follows a religion who's scriptures specifically list rape as a sin. Yet, again for whatever reason, "B" happens to be an inveterate rapist.
Now who is just (or "moderate") and who is evil (or "extremist")?
---Apologies for a somewhat rambling message. Could have used more editing but don't have the time just now.