Mere optimisme

I gårsdagens postering henviste jeg til et af Ronald Reagans yndlingscitater:

"you can go to live in France but you cannot become a Frenchman, you can go to Germany but cannot become a German[...]But anyone from any corner of the worldcan come to live in America and become American."

At den indstilling der underlægger citatet har spillet en afgørende rolle for den grad af loyalitet mod USA som også mange muslimske indvandrere føler, demonstreres i praksis af et par vigtige organisationer (der ikke står alene). Jeg har ofte henvist til Freemuslims. Men også American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) er værd at bemærke. AIFDs founding principles lyder som følger:

Mission: We proud citizens of the United States of America join together
as devoted and patriotic citizens and as devout Muslims in this forum in order
to serve as a vehicle for the discussion and public awareness of the complete
compatibility of America’s founding principles with the very personal faith of
Islam which we practice.
Core Principles and Goals:

1) To be a voice of

Muslim American citizenry in strong support of the following:

a) The devout practice of Islam and the Islamic concept of consultation and
consent (shura) as being wholly compatible with the American form of
democracy

b) The support of the separation of religion and
state as being perfectly non-contradictory with Koranic principles.

c) As United States citizens we support our American armed forces.

d) As United States citizens we support absolute and literal adherence to
our citizenship pledge.

e) We support our American interests,
domestic and foreign.

2) To raise the public consciousness regarding
the core principles above and the following additional goals and
beliefs:

a) We will promote tolerance in Islam as being a
fundamental principle of the Holy Koran.

i) We recognize the fact that there are no clergy in Islam and we accept the Koran as
our main reference for discussions regarding our faith.

ii) We as a group in recognition of democratic principles believe
that each Muslim is equally entitled to their opinion concerning the religion of
Islam.

b) We will work to educate the public regarding the
existence of a special relationship between Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam.

c) We will work to educate the public regarding the
current threat to America of radicals who exploit Islam through
militancy.

d) We explicitly refuse to acknowledge the
justification of any form of terrorism (the targeting of civilians and
non-combatants).

e) We believe in that religion is a matter for
individual beliefs without any role for the direct involvement of religion in
government.

f) We believe in the equality of the sexes which is
well established in the Koran.

g) We will work to promote and
enhance the understanding of Islam in America.

h) We will work
to express the consistency of the principles of Islam with economic principles
of free markets and capitalism.

i) We will work to promote and
enhance the education of Muslims in their history and development as it relates
to American democracy and freedom.

j) We will work to promote
the appreciation of the integral role of American patriotism and nationalism in
the life of Muslim youth in America.

k) We will work to
stimulate the principles which bring about increased understanding and
involvement of American Muslim citizens in American life

l) We will work to formulate expressions of positions on specific areas of American
foreign and domestic policy as they relate to American interests and as relevant
to the discussion of Islam and democratic principles

m) While as Muslims and American citizens we will take stands on many of the diverse foreign policy positions of our government, we feel it is necessary to make a
foundational position statement regarding the state of Israel. We stand in
support of the existing unqualified recognition of the state of Israel behind
internationally recognized borders.

n) We also separately stand in recognition of the need for the completion of the
formation of an independent Palestinian state on the current “occupied
territories” living side by side next to the established state of Israel.

Organisationer som AIFD og Free Muslims understreger klart behovet for at skelne mellem muslimer og bedømme det enkelte individ på dets handlinger og ord, ikke dets religiøse tilhørsforhold. Dette burde være naturligt for borgerlige, når man tænker på socialismens absurde opdelinger af mennesker i klasser og de blodige konsekvenser deraf. Men ak, der er desværre stadig ”socialists in all parties”, hvorfor der stadig er god grund til ikke at være konservativ.

En person der formår at skelne mellem fundamentalister og almindelige muslimer uden at ty til apologi, er Stephen Schwartz, der på Techcentralstation, har skrevet en glimrende artikel kaldet ”What is a moderate muslim?”.

Schwartz skriver bl.a.:

As we enter 2006, Islamic radicalism remains no less a challenge to the
world than it did four years ago. One of its chief aspects involves how
non-Muslims, who typically have little knowledge of Islam, may accurately
identify Muslim moderates.

Muslim moderation is defined by attitudes and
conduct, not by abstractions or historical precedents, which, as with all
religions, may be interpreted to support any ideological position. Observing and
analyzing Sunni Muslims by such positive, practical criteria is extremely easy.
There are more than a billion Sunnis in the world, and they are not all
jihadists or fundamentalists, so telling them apart should not be difficult with
a little effort. Identifying moderate Shia Muslims is harder, but one thing may
be said immediately: those who follow Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Iraq prove their
moderation daily, by their silent but effective support to the U.S.-led
liberation coalition.

[…]It seems unnecessary to add that those who
try to disclaim a link between Wahhabism and al-Qaida, or who blame al-Qaida on
American machinations, cannot be considered moderates. If a Sunni denies that
Wahhabism exists by saying “there is only Islam,” or tries to cover Wahhabism
with an ameliorative term like “Salafism” -- a fraudulent effort to equate
Wahhabism with the pioneers of the Islamic faith -- the individual is an
extremist. Such a radical will not, under any circumstances, declare his or her
opposition to Wahhabism per se. They may even claim that the whole concept was
invented by Westerners such as myself.
A parallel example may be cited from
the history of Communism. Stalinist Communists would repudiate the charge that
they were Communists, calling themselves progressives, liberals, or socialists.
They would deny that Communism intended anything malign toward the U.S.,
portraying America as an aggressor (something Islamists and Stalinists have in
common) but nonetheless claiming loyalty to it. They would often argue over
whether Stalinism even existed. And they would never denounce Stalin, even
though the entire planet knew about the atrocities of the Soviet regime. Neither
will Islamist radicals denounce Wahhabism.

Moderate Muslims may also be
identified by what they do not do, to contrast them with radicals. And at the
top of that list comes the practice of takfir, or declaring Muslims unbelievers
over differences of opinion. Takfir also includes describing the ordinary,
traditional Muslim majority in the world as having fallen into unbelief.
Takfir is used to justify the radical Sunni massacres of Shia Muslims in
Iraq. It underpins the ideology of the Saudi-Wahhabi sect, the extremist Sunni
Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, and the bloodthirsty Sunni jihadist movements in
Pakistan. It also serves to bind together Muslim extremists through the illusion
that they belong to a purified elite. Islam is not, and never was, a radical or
fundamentalist religion in its mainstream practice, regardless of the fantasies
of Islamist fanatics and Islamophobes alike.

Moderate Muslims do not engage
in takfir. Shias shun takfir, including radical Shias, and Shias fighting
against Sunnis who persecute them do not practice takfir against their foes.
Enemies of terrorist Wahhabis do not accuse them of unbelief, but of
criminality. Traditional Muslims avoid accusations of unbelief, as they were
counseled to do by the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet never anticipated that
Muslims would fall into unbelief.
Moderate Muslims, including Shias as well
as Sunnis, also do not refer to followers of other religions, especially Jews
and Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists, as unbelievers. The Koran
never refers to Jews and Christians as unbelievers, but as People of the Book,
worthy of respect and protection. Moderate Muslims adhere strictly to this
outlook.

[..]Moderate Muslims also do not reject allegiance to non-Muslim
governments. According to current interpretations of Shafi’i sharia, a major
school of Islamic jurisprudence through history, there are no countries where
Muslims are not required to obey local governments, for the security of their
communities. Moderate Muslims do not proclaim public loyalty to such governments
while privately counseling that Western governments are inferior to Muslim
religious decrees. They do not invent civil rights violations as a political
means of fighting Western authorities. Moderate Muslims recognize that Muslims
have more rights and opportunities for advancement in most Western countries
than in most Muslim lands.
Finally, moderate Muslims are not Arabocentric or
trapped in the rhetoric of Pakistan and elsewhere in the Indian subcontinent.
They recognize that the styles, idioms, and spiritual practices of Islam differ
considerably from Mali to Malaysia and from Bosnia to Botswana. Moderate Muslims
accept that such diversity should also exist among Muslims in the West; that
there can and will be an Islam that is fully American in its culture, as
Bosnians and Indonesians reflect the customs and cultures of their
lands.

[…]Is the Islamic establishment in the U.S. -- the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA),
and the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA) -- moderate?
No, it is not. Not one of these three groups has ever identified or criticized a
Muslim radical in the U.S., except to slander authentic moderates by trying to
portray them as extremists. To cite a few notable examples: the aforementioned
organizations, which I have called “the Wahhabi lobby.”

Jeg vil i øvrigt bestræbe mig på, at skrive om andet end Islam i det næste stykke tid. Debatten hænger mig rent faktisk ud af halsen. Men når nu så få borgerlige her i landet er tro mod egne principper når det kommer til dette emne, har det optaget mig en del. Der er rent faktisk mange andre emner, der interesserer mig langt mere og dem vil jeg søge at dyrke mere. Lars Hvidberg og jeg arbejder i øvrigt på et nyt koncept, som forhåbenligt bliver endog rigtigt spændende. Men mere om det på et andet tidspunkt...