I would say that it is -it eliminates the young, fringe, wahabi muslims and gives the established moderates a monopoly on islam. What say you though?
Well as a Muslim myself here. I would say, no, absolutely not. It does the complete opposite of what you said it does. It turns those who were passive into those who want to fight. When your family is killed(and their bodies mutilated) by some random US predator drone- what reason is there to live except for vengeance? Especially when your standard of living was terrible in the first place.
When the most powerful country in the world invades and occupies 2 pre-dominantly Muslim countries(and now seems to be encroaching on Pakistan, although they've always had their hand in that pot), what are the others supposed to think except "I wonder when we will be next?" When the people who began the "War on Terror" completely support some of the most corrupt and disgraceful "Muslim" countries on earth such as Saudi Arabia, how can they possibly be trusted to be the ones to remove oppression? Especially when its common knowledge the US has the largest prison system in the world.
Islam includes well over a billion people. All of these people have different views on what Islam is. "Wahabis" don't walk around with signs that say that they're wahabi. Taliban or Al-Qaeda don't walk around with uniforms and flags that tell you that they're "extremists". How do you know who you're killing? Simple, you don't. All the American intelligence operations to find out who the "real bad guy" is mean nothing because they still kill innocent people all the time anyway. Don't think for a second that the families of those who've seen their wives and children die are just sitting by idly and only think of the deaths of their loved ones as "accepted Collateral damage". They will live for revenge.
To me asking this question is similar to asking if Hitler's war on "subhumans" was good for Jews, and that it would've eliminated the young, fringe Jews that wanted their own country and give the Jews that fall in-line to whatever Nazi Germany's demands were a chance to establish a monopoly on Judaism. Maybe this analogy fails but I'm going to guess most Muslims see themselves as being persecuted the same way.
Although honestly its a bit difficult for me to even come to terms with these definitions of "extremist" and "moderate" Muslim. Is the extremist the one who's violent and the moderate the one who is peaceful? Or is the moderate the one that acts like he's American and rejects his own culture whatever it may be? To me, personally, a real Muslim is one that follows everything in line with Quran. A Muslim that does so, is against the slaughter of innocents, or forcing people to believe in his religion, or "stoning" to death, or any of those nasty things which by and large pre-date Islam(such as honor killings). Once someone has accepted that violence on innocents is ok, they've rejected Islam.
The war on terror and everything about it has everything to do with political agendas with all the parties involved and a hell of a lot close to nothing regarding spirituality anyway. Islam is just a real powerful way to get all kinds of emotions involved. From Americans thinking that we are strange foreign freedom haters that seek to take away their way of life, to Muslims thinking that Americans are strange foreign freedom haters that want to take away THEIR way of life. Or perhaps, as inaccurate as it may be, see it as an old White/European obsession with eliminating or controlling everyone who's skin color is different.
Not directly related to the U.S.'s war on terror, but applicable, is Fareed Zakaria's thoughts on Israel's 2008 invasion of Gaza. The invasion was probably a huge success for Hamas, and even Iranian extremists with ties to Hamas, because Israel's war drove more Palestinians to Hamas's arms. I'm not one to compare the pros and cons of Israel's war in Gaza, but at least in this sense Israel's 'war on terror' has been a huge blunder.
The fact that you pointed out that there are different catagories of Muslims refutes your own answer. That being said, assuming you are talking about Near East Muslims, not even remotley. The area is getting targeted, bombed, and starved; usually that sort of thing is not good for anybody.
I would argue that your experience is not incompatible with my theory. Once you restrict the supply of anything there is a greater incentive to do that thing (price rises). So if you restrict islam, there will be a greater incentive to circumvent those restrictions and boost the supply (of terrorism?). So if I'm right, the monopoly of "moderates" is simply attracting more competitors due to this very monopoly. And further, just think of the saudi royal family as a monopoly and etc. This monopoly was going to be, in time, challenged by someone -muslim or not.
Personally, I would define moderate muslims as those who are willing to "act western" and extremists as "those who don't want to act western". Also, the extremists are most likely a minority and are violent while the moderates are most likely a majority and are not violent towards the west.
Quote by Fakename:"I would argue that your experience is not incompatible with my theory. Once you restrict the supply of anything there is a greater incentive to do that thing (price rises). So if you restrict islam, there will be a greater incentive to circumvent those restrictions and boost the supply (of terrorism?). So if I'm right, the monopoly of "moderates" is simply attracting more competitors due to this very monopoly. And further, just think of the saudi royal family as a monopoly and etc. This monopoly was going to be, in time, challenged by someone -muslim or not.
Personally, I would define moderate muslims as those who are willing to "act western" and extremists as "those who don't want to act western". Also, the extremists are most likely a minority and are violent while the moderates are most likely a majority and are not violent towards the west."
Well I'm a bit confused on how you're coming to the conclusion that moderates, or anybody, could have a monopoly on Islam. Nobody does. Islam is practiced differently by everyone, even among families. Maybe you could elaborate or dumb it down for me? Or perhaps you are saying that maybe the war on terror is encouraging more people to be Muslim and show that Islam's true purpose isn't violence? If that's the case, I'd still say the war on terror is not good for Muslims because its causing needless deaths. For me, there's nothing that could ever balance out as a positive if the cost is human lives.
So when you say moderates are those who are "willing to act western". What does that even mean? Would you paint a sister who wears Hijab as an extremist until she decides to wear a mini-skirt? What's your definition of western? Keep in mind that I don't think a belief in free-trade or freedom of speech is something western culture has sole ownership of.
Well I'm a bit confused on how you're coming to the conclusion that moderates, or anybody, could have a monopoly on Islam. Nobody does. Islam is practiced differently by everyone, even among families.
So when you say moderates are those who are "willing to act western". What does that even mean?
I could not agree more with your sentiments. I do not think the poster realizes he is asking a complex theological question (that a forum like this simply is not equiped to even discuss) which probably has nothing to do with the point or message he is trying to convey, which is (I think) political. I also do not think he realized he refuted himself when he himself pointed out various divisions in Islam.
The point still stands though when people in a territory are being targeted, vilified, bombed, and economically depleted it is usually not good for anybody (outside of government). I would imagine this fact would be compounded when another nation in the region is almost always subsidised at the expense of all the other nations.
Basically, I'm trying to analyze the war and its effects on islam like how one would anaylze a regulation and its effects on business. In business, the most popular lobby for laws to keep out the least popular and people are told that this is against business. In war, the most sympathetic (the moderates) lobby for an invasion to keep out "the perverters of a great faith" or "the fanatics who use islam as a political tool" and politicians think that this is against islam. But here I argue that like in business, it isn't against islam at all but rather it secures a rent to some members of that religion at the expense of other members. In both the realms of business and in ideology, the end result is a monopoly.
"But here I argue that like in business, it isn't against islam at all but rather it secures a rent to some members of that religion at the expense of other members. In both the realms of business and in ideology, the end result is a monopoly."
If I were to use your example, we'll say that ok Alcohol and Tobacoo industries lobby so that other drugs such as cocaine and marijuana are illegal. Is this a gain for the Alcohol and Tobacco industry? Yes.
But if I were to compare it the war on terror and its effects on Islam.. The war on terror kills all kinds of people.. So who is winning here? Is the moderate Muslim father who lost his children a winner because the same rocket that killed them may have also killed one extremist?
Could you be more specific on how you think it helps moderates or secures rent to any member of the religion? I'm not seeing it.
If hypothetically I had a family member that is radical but he gets killed in the war on terror, that doesn't count as a plus for me or for Islam. Perhaps his heart could've been turned in the right direction. But that choice was taken away. Muslims don't like those that use Islam as a political tool, but being Muslim, they believe that the punishment for them is with God. Not by some Army that has its own agenda.
I would like to know what your definition of "acting western" is by the way