Are you saying that because the Al-Saud paid UBL’s father (and hence family) lots of money, then he holds the Al-Saud responsible for whatever drift to liberalism other members of his family took?

In that context, I said nothing about terrorism per se'.

However, it cannot be denied that the Saudis have had a rather tight relationship, historically, with the US... Which by the way is the source of their wealth. In fact, the left here in the states is often bitterly complained about it, as regards George Bush. I merely suggests that Usama has made the same connection has our own left.

Irony abounds, there.

The Bible says a lot of things that most Christians don't take as matters of dogma anymore. Granted, some--usually termed "fundamentalists"--take the inerrancy of the Bible as, well, gospel. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are still parts of the Christian Bible. Contemporary Chistians do not, for the most part, consider any number of the laws spelled out in them to be pertinant to contemporary life.

As is the case with most Christians, most Muslims are not exegetes. They can not argue the finer points of dogma and interpretation. So they follow what they're taught, what they're raised with, what they learn through sermons and exhortation. Most imams do not preach violent jihad; they preach about how to get through the ordinary crises that complicate day-to-day life.

This is not to deny that there are those who will focus on the violent verses of the Quran, no matter the actual context, and try to use them to justify their own violent acts. Yes, you can find those very words, in black and white, in the Quran and various hadith of variable reliability. Does that mean that they need be acted upon in different contexts and circumstances? The moderate Muslims say not.

And it's clear that the majority of Muslims are, in fact, moderate. Were they not, then we would be seeing jihadist acts around the world--including in the US--daily, if not hourly.

There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslms, worldwide. If 10 million of them were jihadists, they would represent 0.625% of all Muslims. No one, Muslim or non-Muslim, uses a figure anywhere near 10 million for the number of jihadists. The number usually cited is in the low 100,000s.

That leaves 99.375% of all Muslims as non-jihadists. To lump them together not only does a disservice to them, it does a gross disservice to those attempting to deal with the real dangers. It also alienates those--the non-jihadist Muslims--from our goals. That should be the last thing we want to be doing.

Are you saying that because the Al-Saud paid UBL's father (and hence family) lots of money, then he holds the Al-Saud responsible for whatever drift to liberalism other members of his family took? The Bin Ladin/Laden family isn't notorious for profligate ways. Their reputation is as astute businessmen and women. I think that line of reasoning on UBL's part is more a manifestion of being nuts than anything else.

On your second point, I think only the Taliban and various Al-Qaeda spin-offs are more conservative than the hardline Wahhabis. The non-hardline Wahhabis are something else. As I noted, in Iran women drive and vote, compete in athletics, work side-by-side with men.

I have to say, though, that I’m hard put to find anyone (I mean anyone who claims that the Saudis are “the most moderate in Islam”. It’s nice to see a change from “It’s all about oil,” I’ll admit. But the Saudis are making considerable reform… it’s just that they’re starting from so far back….

As compared to what? The Iranians?

That’s not what the various biographies of UBL say. They all point to his break with the Saudi regime coming when his plan to raise an army if jihadists to expell Iraq from Kuwait in 1990 was rejected. UBL was on record before them decrying the crusader presence in Muslim holy lands.

.

True enough. But the argument was with his family. Consider; who was it who was leaning that country toward western ways? (Granted, incrementally)

I remain convinced, that the United States, and the west in general, are secondary targets. I agree there are psychological issues involved, but I suggest that most of those involved the family and what he perceives the demands of the religion to be.

That's not what the various biographies of UBL say. They all point to his break with the Saudi regime coming when his plan to raise an army if jihadists to expell Iraq from Kuwait in 1990 was rejected. UBL was on record before them decrying the crusader presence in Muslim holy lands.

I certainly don't know what personal demons UBL is trying to exorcise--"Daddy didn't love me", "Daddy didn't like Mommy", "Mommy's not really a Muslim" (apparently she's a Syrian Alawite)--but it's pretty clear that he got some deep ones. What's also clear is that he's using religion as his means of dealing with them. Maybe the Al-Saud are his most important target now, but that wasn't always the case, particularly when they were funding (with USG approval) his mujahidiin efforts in Afghanistan during the 80s.

Whether or not Luther's being German led to his success where Roman(ce) reformers failed is an interesting question. There certainly were efforts toward reform coming out of France and Spain. But geographical distance makes as good an explanation, IMO, coupled with different facts on the ground and historical traditions. I guess you might even call it "tribalism" of a different sort, for the Germans couldn't overcome their form of it until late in the 19th C. and arguably, until the end of WWII.

Literacy and Internet access are things that vary, depending on just what part of the Islamic world you're addressing. For the Gulf States, literacy is very high. The UN last year cited figures over 90% for male literacy and over 80% for female literacy in all of them. (Yemen, not on the Gulf, lags seriously.) Back in 2003, Saudi Arabia had Internet penetration of only about 2%. Last year, the figures were around 40% and rising. Take a look at Arab blogs and see how many there are. Look at the burgeoning of Iranian blogs. These are in addition, of course, to the older but still widely used bulletin board and chat facilities.

Most of these are being run by young people, from high school to first job after university graduation age groups. There are some, like the now-defunct "Religous Policeman" (a Saudi in the UK) and "Mahmoud's Den", a Bahraini in Bahrain run by older people, but it's primarily a younger group, as it is in the West. Reading Arabic is a big help, of course, but even such poor tools as Google's Arabic-to-English beta translator can give you an idea of what's going on.

Most of them, like most blogs elsewhere, are pretty vapid. But not all of them. Young Muslims around the world are stepping up to say what they think is right or wrong with their religion.

You might look at Etaraz or City of Brass. These are run, respectively, by Americans of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin. Their readership isn't all American, however. For that matter, about 20% of the readers of my blog are Saudis, with lots of others coming from other Muslim countries. There's a dialogue truly going on, but it's largely invisible unless you look for it; it surely isn't getting much press coverage.

I have to say, though, that I'm hard put to find anyone (I mean anyone who claims that the Saudis are "the most moderate in Islam". It's nice to see a change from "It's all about oil," I'll admit. But the Saudis are making considerable reform... it's just that they're starting from so far back....

As I look over Bin Laden’s various writings, I find that the Al-Saud are only one of his targets. He also targets all the heads of Islamic states that do not toe his line. He targets the US specifically and the West generally. He targets “bad Muslims” around the world. He’s got some serious issues of anger management.

I remain convinced, that the United States, and the west in general, are secondary targets. I agree there are psychological issues involved, but I suggest that most of those involved the family and what he perceives the demands of the religion to be.

His anger is so diffuse, in fact, that what he’s really railing against is modernity in all its forms.

True. However I suggest that the family arguments are were all of this started, they're at the root of it, and it is in fact the central theme of his anger.

Islam isn’t lacking a Luther, a Reformation.

You seem to be operating under a misconception about Luther; that he was the first of its kind in terms of challenging the catholic church. They sure you he was not. However, as I have said, what is necessary is for an environment to be developed wherein there Luther can stand forth. In the cases which you site, that hasn't happened. Nor did it happen with losers predecessors. Many of the attempts to reform the catholic church , the unsuccessful ones, at least, came from Rome itself. Thus, were they on successful.

I'd like you to notice something specifically about Luther; remember he was German, and not of Rome. I daresay that a Luther could not have come from the city and the environment and the cultural pressures that surrounded the Vatican in Rome of the day. No, Luther had to come from the outside of that environment to be effective. There also had to be significant distances to make it dealing with Luther out of hand problematical for the Vatican. The attack, had to come from the outside, and yet ironically from the inside. To the end of his days, Luther considered himself to be catholic.

Similarly, I submit that Islam's Luther will not arise from the ranks of the Iranians, the Saudis and their subjects, rather, he will arise from somewhere else in the globe.

I think you’ve correctly identified one of the major problems: lack of a central authority. Islam is, in fact, far more democratic than other organized religions. People follow the religious leader they wish to follow–in ideal circumstances. Modern Islamic states interfere with that process by imposing particular interpretations on major issues, but for most daily matters, Muslims go to the local imam or find one whose interpretations are more to their liking.

Indeed, before I close the book on Luther, he saw this situation rather clearly, saying the Quran only contained HUMAN reasoning, and was without God's word and spirit. which leads me to this conclusion about Luther's ability to sway the Pope; Luther could appeal to principle. A Luther in the Islamic world has no such advantage given the situation that you cite.

Luther had the printing press. Contemporary Islam as the Internet

Perhaps, you had better start redefining "has", given that many of the people under the sway of Islam have no access to the Internet, and for the most part are as yet unswayed by Luther's printing press, either.

I am just a bit curious. If Islam is a rising tide against us, if Muslims wish only to conquer or destroy us, convert us at the point of a sword, etc etc blah blah blah……

Then why is Bush so friggin’ tight with the Saudis?

Mostly because at the moment, they are taking on the appearance of , ironically, the most moderate in Islam. Which ought to tell you something about why I'm skeptical of the claim that there is massive change coming from within Islam.

Then why is Bush so friggin' tight with the Saudis?

His anger is so diffuse, in fact, that what he's really railing against is modernity in all its forms.

Islam isn't lacking a Luther, a Reformation. It's had several. Ibn Taymiyya, Abdul Wahhab, Sayyid Abu Ala Maududi, the Deobandis of the Indian sub-continent all sought to reform Islam by stripping its practice of the accretions and variances that developed over Islam's history as a world religion. Hassan Al-Banna, Sayyed Qutb, and others like Ayman Zawahari and even UBL (though he's not a religious scholar) seek to continue that work of purifying the religion.

What's lacking is an Enlightenment, when humanistic values--such as individual rights and freedoms--play roles equal or superior to religion in daily life.

I think you've correctly identified one of the major problems: lack of a central authority. Islam is, in fact, far more democratic than other organized religions. People follow the religious leader they wish to follow--in ideal circumstances. Modern Islamic states interfere with that process by imposing particular interpretations on major issues, but for most daily matters, Muslims go to the local imam or find one whose interpretations are more to their liking. As an example, Sunni Islamic jurisprudence allows one to choose which of the four "schools" of jurisprudence to follow on a particular issue. Call it "forum shopping" if you wish, but Sunni Muslims do have the right to find the religious authority who will best suit their needs and desires.

Attacking dysfunction within the system, though, gets difficult, as you say, because there's no one seat of authority to make universal judgments or declarations. It means changing minds, one mind at a time and that's a lot of work.

Don't confuse the various states that call themselves "Islamic" though. The issues in countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia are not at all those of countries like Syria or pre-war Iraq. Iran is certainly the more theocratic state, with one imposed religious interpretation of Islam. (I'll not address those who are not Shi'a Muslims in Iran.) Saudi Arabia has a preferred interpretation of Sunni Islam (Hanbali, with strictures coming through Ibn Taymiyya and Abdul Wahhab), but it must also deal theologically with two different groups of Shi'a. It hasn't done that particularly well, but gradually, beginning in 1979, but accellerating since 2003, it is making public and political space for variant forms of Islam. It's also opening space for Sufis. This isn't all that surprising to me because the government has had to make accommodation for other manifestations of Islam in Mecca and Medina, particularly during Hajj. There are certainly frictions, but it's being worked out.

Syria and pre-war Iraq, though, were secular states for the most part. The Baath Party tried to be inclusive to the extent that it invited followers of all or no religion as members. Neither, though for different reasons, wanted religion to play a role in politics, until it became useful to do so, anyway. At heart, they were/are Marxist states who disdained religion.

For the past 40 years, Syria has been ruled by members of a truly heterodox Shi'a minority, the Alawites. The government stays in power be combining all the religious minorities (Druze, Christians of about a dozen stripes, other Shi'a) against the Sunni majority. By permitting no one religion or religious interpretation to be supreme, it protected its own interests. It's reaction to Islamicism (see Hama) was always negative.

Similarly in Iraq, the government found its strength in playing one religious interpretation against the others. The Baath government included Christians. But the picture there is complicated in a different way. The real authority, rather than a religious point of view, was that of a family and region that happened to be Sunni. All sorts of prejudices against Kurds, on racial grounds, and Shi'a (of at least two different schools) on religio-ethnic grounds, played a greater role than did pure relgious POV. Only when Desert Shield/Desert Storm made it useful did the government "get religion", even to the point of putting "Allahu Akbar" on the flag.

Now, of course, without a strong central government, the frictions that had been suppressed are finding oxygen to fuel the flames.

I certainly understand your point about not cheer-leading ephemera. I do see real reform efforts taking place though. These efforts are taking place at the right level, too: civil society. Increasingly, Muslims are demanding transparency of government and the judiciary; they seek judicial reform and codification of laws so that the courts are no longer subject to the whims of any given judge; they are insisting on the protection of human rights, even if those rights cannot be explicitly found in the Quran. Women are demanding their own space in economic, social, and political life, and going back to early Islam to find their authorities.

There are still deep and important issues to be discussed that are not permitted to be discussed. "Deep criticism" of the Quran and Hadith, for instance, is needed. But it's very dangerous to do so right now. That some Muslims are willing to do so is noteworthy, even if it did lead to their having to flee the region. It is a clear step forward.

Because I lived and worked in the region for 25 years (and have lived in Islamic societies as far back as 40 years), I think I have a valid perspective on the changes taking place. Some things have clearly taken a step back, primarily since 1979. Some of that ground has been retaken by reformers. A lot of important new ground has been broken, too.

Luther had the printing press. Contemporary Islam as the Internet. And just as a lot of scabrous, contentious materials were circulated through the medium of books, so are jihadists and extremists making use of a newer medium. But it is an error, I think, to focus only on that. There are voices crying out, currently in the western media wilderness, for change and modernity within Islam. We need to at least acknowledge those voices and to help them when we can.

"Democracy" comes in many forms. The form that takes root in the Arab Islamic world probably won't be perfectly congruent ot American representative democracy. It's more likely to be akin to a British constitutional monarchy. It will also have a stronger role for relgion than most contemporary, European democracies do. Keep an eye on Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE for hints.

A few years ago, Bahrain changed its form of government from an imarate to a constitutional democracy. It's going through some ups and downs, for sure, but the trend is pretty clear. The same in Kuwait, which gave women the right to vote earlier this year.

Change is happening.

First, I’d dispute your characterization of the Al-Saud as scared of the terrorists. They’re no more or less scared than any heads of state in the region, even though they are a direct target. They believe they’ve taken appropriate precautions and they are, in fact, very popular among Saudis.

and

Second, UBL isn’t “one of their own”. His father certainly was; his siblings certainly are. But when Saudi governmental efforts to rein in UBL during the 90s failed, they dumped him. They stripped him of his citizenship in 94 and froze his bank accounts. In 96, they seized those accounts. That’s far beyond what they’ve done when “one of their own” (See Pr. Talal in the 60s) goes off the policy reservation.

I'm quite sure you would say so. I was quite sure of that when I wrote what I did. But the bottom line is, they are the only ones that are direct targets at the moment.

Disagree all you want; even you're forced to agree that they are direct targets specifically because of the familial involvement of BinLaden.... involvement that their stunning and "casting out", did nothing to assuage... and they know it, and so are reacting accordingly.

They realize, too, that UBL isn’t the only danger they need to worry about. Iran, for geo-political reasons, more than sectarian ones, represents what they see as their greatest threat.

Neither that fact, nor the perception of it has changed since Carter was being chased out of the pool by rabbits. Personally, I've always considered it possible, and nigh on likely that Saddam Hussein was waging war on Iraq because he was being aided in the doing by the Saudis.

I would say the majority of moderates are, in fact, intimidated sufficiently to avoid speaking out as much as we might like. There are several things at play here. First is a general cultural thing, where you don’t air dirty laundry so others (particularly those who might hurt you) can see. If Islam is under attack from the outside (which it is presumed to be), then you don’t want to attack it from the inside. That’s true treachery.

I would say that is an interesting comment, in light of the people here in America who were attacking it from the inside whilst it is being attacked from the outside. I would call that treachery, as well.

Second, religion is a trump card within Islamic societies. Most Muslims, as most members of any religion, are not really prepared to go to the mat with their understanding of “what the religion is really about”. Anyone who seems to know more, has accreditation or certificates in religion, will win the arguments, hands down. This is especially so when that “expert” can do serious damage to one simply by saying “He’s a bad Muslim”. In a shame/honor-based society, what the neighbors think and say about you is important on a daily basis.

Well, here, you've started the juices flowing. I'd advise you to strap yourtself in.

This is certainly typical fourteenth century thinking. It is, in fact, the kind of thing that Martin Luther had so much problem with as regards the catholic church. Hence, we have the question before us, "Where is Islam's Martin Luther?"

I bring this up, because prior to Luther's arrival, there was no such thing as a moderate catholic. Similarly, then, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim today. You'll see where I do agree with some of your observations, as I go on, here. However, it's that agreement on some individual points which causes me to disagree with your conclusion, as you'll see.

The more I investigate this the more I'm convinced that the Pope, of all people, got this one right. Islam, being Islam, simply cannot reform itself. Therefore I submit, that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. More correctly, that there is no such animal as a moderate Muslim.

At least, at the moment. Which, translates into "it may be possible to inject some change down the road."

I consider it an open question, whether or not reform can ever occur. But to the point we've been discussing, certainly, it has not, thus far... not in any truly significant way.

Consider the state of Islam vs the state of Christianity, so as to understand the relative timelines of each.

Most of these discussions come from perception of each side. From an objective standpoint Christianity at least has the advantage of viewing government and religion on two separate levels. It was Christ himself who urged us to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.

At least part of this is a problem of point of view from the average Muslim; The Islamic world looks forward to the 15th century. So, perhaps viewing it from this angle will help your overall perspective. If you were a citizen of 14th century Spain, let’s say... would you have been able to envision such a seperation between Rome and Madrid?

OTOH, and by the same token, the point of view differences from our standpoint...part of our inability to get our mental arms around this one is due to the fact that were as we deal with religion and social values on separate levels, those in the Islamic world do not, as a rule.... and that's not much different than the point of view of the denizen of fourteenth century Spain, is it?

Now, understand please, I still take the question of Islam's ability to reform within the bounds of the religion framework an open question. Mostly this is due to a lack of understanding of what the religion encompasses at it's foundations. But what if the problems of reforming Islam are due to a lack of understanding of the religion by its adherents, as you've suggested here? Once again I draw the parallel to Christianity;

Consider the state of the church in Martin Luther’s day, and before. Most of the people of that day you call themselves Christian really didn’t understand the religion they claimed as their own. That’s because the majority of them couldn’t read, and were therefore utterly dependent on what the priest told them the book said. I’m willing to bet that’s the case in Islam... who steadfastly refuses, for example, to provide education for it’s women.

Along comes Luther with his printing press, who teaches them how to read the Bible for themselves, and gain the needed understanding of it... who tells them that a personal relationship with God is necessary, and with that personal understanding comes the reform of tolerance, which over hundreds more years becomes the chruch we know today.

In light of this, I would suggest to you a trend.

Here in western society, people tend to be better educated than they are in everyday Iraq, or even Egypt and Turkey, for example. This results in vastly different perceptions of everything in the world, including religion. They tend to read more, for one thing, having the ability. While I am sure that the western civilization tends to breed more placid people particularly in regards to spiritual matters, because of cultural influence alone, I would also suggest that the violence we see inherent with Islam is directly connected to the education level and therefore the understanding of that religion by its adherents.

Muslims we see here in the west are at least somewhat more peaceful than what we’ve been seeing in the MiddleEast. Is this a result of their having a better understanding of the religion, I wonder?

This is one reason I’ve always been somewhat uncomfortable with the phrase "Islamic fundamentalism"; there is still a great deal of argument as to specifically what that phrase means, because the fundamentals of Islam are still in the discussion stage, even among its most adherent followers.

If greater understanding of the religion by the very people involved in it is the answer, does this suggest a path for us to take?

If it does, then that path is going to be made somewhat more complex by the fact that there is no real hierarchy within the Muslim religious world as there is in say the various offshoots of Christianity. Even the various Christian sects are not nearly as disperate in their beliefs (and thereby the definition of being within the religion) as Muslims would seem to be. This presents some complications in terms of getting the "true Islam" message out; the various leaders themselves because there is no hierarchy cannot seem to agree on the tenants of the religion; Without the strong leadership model, the messages being sent on mixed at best. In a very real sense, there’s nobody to question as regards religious tenants.

Think about this; when it came time in the Christian church for reform, Luther had the advantage of having a Pope to proverbally set on fire. A focal point, if you will, to aim at. I daresay that Luther would not been able to be nearly as effective had he needed to fight a decentralized authority.

OTOH in the Islamic world, there is no such person, no such leader, no such group, even, to ask such questions of. That makes the process of questioning these radicalized versions of Islam all the harder, even assuming one isn’t going to get killed for asking the questions, or rasing challanges. To whom does one go for an authority of view on what, specifically, Islam is? I have asked that question many times in the past and usually get referred to the Koran. That answer of course, is problematic, given the number of different slants on the meaning of the Koran that there are. Certainly there are a number of different slants as well on the Bible, as well. However I would point out that there is still an authority structure in place there, which tends to narrow the Interpretations down by quite a bit.

Without such a structure, all kinds of things pop up... The religion becomes whatever certain protagonists say it is... as you've suggsted here, John... such as the afore-mentioned Wahabi... And there’s nobody of authority within the religion to say ’no’.

The Catholic church certainly had its bloody periods. And why did these stop? Someone sitting in authority, was there to challenge, and once that authority saw the reason in the challenge that somebody within the church said "stop".

Who is of the like in the Islamic world? Nobody that I can see.
Yet.
And that's a problem. But more;

Islam is still waiting for its Luther.

I figure that was part of the idea, going into Iraq in the first place: Establishing a democracy in such a place, after all, would certainly lend itself to work toward altering, and, need I say it, pacifying, Islamic society, and controlling the more violent and radical elements. My take is that if such a person or group is to rise up against the Wahhabits or Salfi, they will be the product of a freshly reformed, and democratic Iraq. Which would do a fair job of explaining why the Syrias and the Jordans and the Irans are so very concerned, just now.

The very reason that hardline Islamic states are so concerned about the insertion of democracy into Iraq is because they see ....apparently more clearly than we... that democracy, for all its faults, has one major advantage ; That it by its very nature injects social change, by what I will call "Social Darwinism". Such evolution has no chance whatever under, say, a Saddam... but it DOES stand a chance under a Democracy. Under a democracy, the ideas and ideals of western culture will filter through, as they have every other place where Democracy has been installed. Japan, for example. South Korea. Etc.

This change will undoubtedly allow a more western attitude, and thereby will create the environment in which Islam's Luther can stand forth. But this isn't going to be a quck process. It's going to be along slow and likely (given whom we're dealing with) very bloody process, because changing hearts and minds is always the longest , slowest, hardest job there is.

We in the west, cannot expect that kind of seed change to occur overnight. What we're talking about, is dragging Islam and its followers fast forward from the fourteenth century. We cannot do that quickly, or by force and not expect violent reaction. Forced change, is never long lasting , and seldom satisfactory for anybody concerned. What needs to be done therefore, is to create an environment in which an Islamic version of Luther can stand forth, s that the culture chan change ITSELF.

And all of this is exactly why I've said that a democracy in Iraq is a good place to start.

As you have said, and correctly, John, this is going to be a slow process. However, that process is not being helped by jumping up like a man dying of thirst, when they see a mirage on the horizon.