Moderation in moderation

June 30, 2014 at 7:57 pm (Islam, islamism)

Guest post by Pink Prosecco

Nathan Lean is the author of The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims (2012). His latest post, “Stop Saying ‘Moderate Muslims’. You’re Only Empowering Islamophobes” is characteristically frustrating, leaving the reader (or this one at least) uncertain whether he is (mostly) making sense or succumbing to a dangerous moral relativism.

After sketching events at a recent Heritage Foundation panel in which Brigitte Gabriel clashed with a young student, Saba Ahmed, Lean explains:

That prompted much hand-wringing, primarily on cable news, about the supposed silence of “moderate Muslims” in this supposed age of Islamist extremism. What no one on either side of the debate questioned, though, was the legitimacy of the phrase “moderate Muslims” itself.

Fair enough, I think. Most Muslims will tell you that their version of Islam is simply correct – not “moderate Islam’, just Islam. The Muslim whose views will probably strike most non-Muslims as “moderate’, because broadly compatible with secular and liberal norms, is unlikely to see herself as following a watered down version of the faith. Instead she will view both violent extremists and theocrats as wedded to a perverted and distorted form of Islam.

You could argue that “moderate Muslim’ has a subtext of “doesn’t take her religion seriously, thank goodness’. I believe that’s what Baroness Warsi was getting at in her rather incoherent 2011 speech on Islamophobia. (Obviously many “moderate Muslims’ will have no special problem with that label, but you can object to it and still be perfectly “moderate’.)

Nathan Lean then makes some points it seems easy to go along with. Brigitte Gabriel thinks no practising Muslim can be moderate, Sam Harris asserts that moderate Muslims are those that “express skepticism over the divine origins of the Quran and “surely realize that all [sacred] books are now candidates for flushing down the toilet”, and Pamela Geller thinks that today’s moderate is tomorrow’s mass murderer.

But just when I’m feeling perfectly well aligned with Lean against a bunch of bigots he says this:

To be fair, it’s not just the wackos. [M]any have used this phrase to describe Muslims who fit a certain preferred profile. Many Muslims themselves have bought into this dichotomy, if only to distance themselves from the so-called radicals and extremists to assure paranoid non-Muslims, in other words, “I’m not “that” kind of Muslim.”

Now, even the most irreproachably moderate Muslim might feel irritated at being constantly required to condemn things which have nothing whatsoever to do with him. But what on earth does Lean mean when he refers to “so-called radicals and extremists’? Does he mean terrorists and those who believe adulterers should be stoned to death? Lean’s failure to define his terms makes it impossible to know what he is actually arguing here.

This passage is very satirical, but I don’t mind admitting that I feel implicated in his sketch of the Buffalo wings customer.

How is it that we talk about Muslims much like we talk about Buffalo wings, their “potency” being measured not by some objective rubric but rather by our personal preferences? It’s the mild ones that we seem to search out: not so spicy in their religious practices that they burn us, yet not so bland that they dilute our religious diversity altogether.”

I feel no compunction in condemning those who think apostates and blasphemers should die. But I have no problem with Muslims who pray, fast, and choose to conform to their own understanding of sexual morality and modesty. (Later in the article Lean sets up a straw man, implying that that Muslims who observe Ramadan are viewed as “flirting with extremism’. This – unless you are some kind of counter-jihadist wingnut – is rubbish.)

Lean completely occludes non-violent extremism in his analysis, even though the views held by some entirely non-violent and law abiding Muslims are more extreme than those of the most lurid far right parties.

Even if a mere 1 percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims is committed to violence, why is it that we haven’t seen 16 million violent attacks?

With rhetorical sleight of hand he darts back to those who set the bar unfairly high for “moderation’.

Proving one’s “moderation” is a trap, anyway. The only way to do it is to meet the criteria set forth by the person making the demand. For Gabriel and others, it’s by supporting Western foreign policies in the Middle East, cheering continued military aid to Israel, and even rejecting certain Islamic tenets. It’s why a figure like Zuhdi Jasser, a darling of the Republican Party and Peter King’s star witness in the “radicalization” hearings, is held up like a trophy while Saba Ahmed is mocked.

What does “rejecting certain Islamic tenets’ mean? There is little consensus about what Islam “is’ so I am completely at a loss as to whether Lean has in mind lashing blasphemers or believing there is no God but Allah. There’s an awful lot of middle ground between Zuhdi Jasser, who opposed the so-called Ground Zero mosque, and the terrorists who created Ground Zero in the first place. As Lean fails to acknowledge this, his post is ultimately meaningless.


  1. Moderation in moderation | OzHouse said,

    […] Jun 30 2014 by admin […]

  2. Mike Killingworth said,

    Well, I suppose there are nominal Muslims as there are nominal Christians – who never go to a religious service, pray or follow the other rules of their religion. But that is not the straw man who is being set up here.

    Let us be quite clear: Islam is not only a confessional practice, it is also a judicial system. As such, it can only be practised in a Muslim country, even if that’s one with a secular judicial system as well.

    “Moderate” Muslims are those who reject terrorism (although some of them, at least, will be open to a change of heart if ISIS does find a credible Caliph somewhere near the headwaters of the Tigris). This does not mean that they prefer secularism as a means of making and applying laws. Rather it means that they prefer to be patient, and to rely upon demography rather than bombs and bullets.

    Before too long they will, I doubt not, ask for Arabic to be made an official language, just as Welsh is in Wales.

    It will be amusing to see how the sundry Trotskyist groupuscules position themselves when this happens: will they reject Enlightenment values, or will they line up in solidarity with white neo-fascists?

    • Pink Prosecco said,

      Of course there are nominal/cultural Muslims – but there are also observant Muslims (who might or might not care to be termed ‘moderate’) who are secular and genuinely non-extreme – they will not support, for example, penalties for apostasy even in an ‘ideal state’.

      Yes, Nathan Lean allows the reader to infer (whether he meant to or not) that any Muslim who rejects terrorism is ‘moderate’ even if s/he subscribes to chilling theocratic views. But as well as violent and non-violent extremists there are genuine Muslim secularists – for example I think Ahmadi Muslims are secular by default (this doesn’t mean they are all incredibly progressive, but they are not theocratic or violent).

    • Marxist said,

      Arabic an official language in Wales? Unlikely that I think.

  3. Robert R. Calder said,

    What a wise person!

    “Moderation in everything,” silly folk say.
    Would they like to be praised for being moderately honest?
    Then there’s the matter of excessive prudence.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: