Steve in post #6, you said,

There should be some form of a NATO-like Arab organiization - with some US and some European contributions that took over as the area's police force, tasked to stop in actions by any government or private organization from violating boundaries or engaging in training for or engaging in terrorism.  Theocracies should be banned and religious freedom enforced.

    Which countries should be part of that NATO-like Arab organization; Lebanon? Iraq? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Jordan? I'm not familiar with any secular arab majority nation, nor even any arab majority nation which doesn't have some law against religious conversion or atheism. Should objectivists support any nation in which a John Galt could be jailed or executed for his beliefs?

    The rest of your post was great, so you get my sanction.

Steve you said,

But as the last stage in the war, after fighting the ideology by helping extremely influential moderate Muslims to reform the religion, which gains the moral high ground in the muslim world, by shearing Shiria and Jihad off of Islam*

 

*Imagine what would happen if the most respected religous authorities in the muslim world, including the keepers of Mecca and all of the other holy sites in their religion, loudly and firmly declared that continued forced Sharia, or any use of force in a Jihad would prevent those people from ever entering heaven.  And that anyone who helped these foul goats who soil Islam with their false claims would also be denied entry to any mosque in this life and heaven after this life.

    That would be equally as unlikely as the Pope telling catholics that if they believe that Jesus was the son of god they will go to hell. When it comes to religion there is always allot of room for interpretation, but not for a complete rewrite of their holy book. Sharia law is to Islam what the ten commandments is the Judaism and Christianity. And yes, force is a key part of Sharia and Jihad. Muhammad himself serves as an example to all muslims who view force as justified.

    Most muslims in the western world would say that sharia shouldn't be enforced by law or otherwise by force. Mainly this is because using force in the western world to enforce your religious ideology is not tolerated, and strengthens the backlash against Islam that they don't like. That's not to say that they are not genuine moderates, as they usually become very fond of western freedoms and culture, but it is to say that that kind of moderation is not possible where conversion by the barrel of a gun is the norm.

    The only suggestion I have is to strengthen the non-muslim opposition in the middle east. The Israelis gave weapons and funding during the Lebanese war to christians who wanted their own state. There are also nationalists who care more about their nation then their religion. The west have been funding the Kurds, in Iraq and Syria, for the last decade or more. Here is a list of groups and nations that I think western foriegn policy ought to be focused on:

-Israel.

-Turkey, depending on whether or not they continue on their path towards islamitization and opposition to Israel.

-Kurdistan (in Iraq, Syria and Iran, but maybe not in Turkey).

-Syrian and Lebonese christians. Christians make up ~50% of Lebanon's population and ~15% of Syria's.

-Nationalists in Belochistan explicitly believe that their ethnic issues are more important than Islam. But the State Department of the United States has already appeased Pakistan by declaring the nationalists as terrorists.

-Christians in Egypt who constitute ~10% of Egypt's population. While no christians in Egypt are engaged in any violent conflict, we should still give them out moral support against religious laws in Egypt.

-Christians in Pakistan, who constitute ~3% of the population. They have suffered the most under Pakistan's Islamic legal system, and should be given moral and even financial support to fight those laws.

-Azerbajani nationalists in Iran. They may not necessarily be moderates however.

-And all other religious minorities in the middle east.

    You want to give support to influential moderate muslims in the middle east? Well there truly are no influential (real) moderate muslims in any muslim majority country (except Turkey, but only for nationalistic reasons). If you want to fight Radical Islam, you should do it the way we fought Communism and Fascism, by first and foremost helping those who are already fighting radical Islam, and then negotiating. There is no way the religious leaders of meca or any other holy city will appose Islamic violence if they don't think anyone will stand up to them. Any moderation will only come from external pressure, not from appeasement.

On top of that we should:

-Cut all funding to governments with any form of Islamic law (Iraq, Afganistan, etc.) as well as withdraw our ambassadors.

-Aggressively bomb all terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq, not just ISIL. This includes Al Nusra and Hezbollah. In fact, declare war against Hezbollah and fight them in Lebanon too.

-Declare war on all islamic groups in Lybia and engage in a new Lybian bombing campaign to end only once the radicals are destroyed.

-Double, triple or quadruple our military support to Kurdistan and support their independence from Syria, Iraq and Iran.

-Pass a trade embargo on Iran and Saudi Arabia for all goods, services and transfers of funds, until they agree to appose Islamic violence against the United States and its allies, to end Islamic law, and to stop funding any islamic organizations violent or not.

-Give moral support to Israel and religious minorities in the middle east, through the UN and otherwise.

(Edited by Liam Joseph Thornback on 10/09, 10:16am)

Steve you said,

That's true.  And it is true almost everywhere that they get a taste of freedom.  I don't agree that it is somehow impossible for Islam to reform.  Christianity went through reformation.  Human beings can accept new ideas.  And the vast majority of muslims are not fanatics, don't want violence, and accept Sharia when it is what they are used to in their country.  Only those who are psychologically twisted into wanting to force their views on others with violence are the ones who would never change.  It is much like racial bigotry was here in America.  In the South, you would have come to believe that it would never be posssible that the people would give up their jim crow laws.  Think of that as a kind of Sharia, forcing blacks in burkas, if you will.  But it changed - totally. 

 

I've known several people who came here from Lebanon and were heartbroken when their nation was overun by fanatics.  Beirut was a highly cosmopolitan city and becoming a world banking center.  Lebanon had been a country where the vast majority of the muslims did not want Sharia.  I knew a Muslim family that moved here from Egypt - the woman was a medical doctor in Cairo and became licensed to practice here.  They were muslim but had absolutely no truck with Sharia.  I used to live in Los Angeles, and there are a great many people who came from Iran when the Shaw was deposed.  They were muslims but abhorred Sharia and that's why they left.

 

I believe you have to separate motivations. There is the psychological drive some people have to practice their religion in a deeply spiritual way which usually leads to lots of rituals (like praying 5 times a day, never trimming their beards, etc.) and those who for very different psychological reasons want to use violence on others.  That latter is dressed up as religion but it is really just an expression of a psychological disorder.

    I didn't suggest that there are no moderates in the middle east. What I was suggesting was that  almost all islamic leaders in the middle east are no where close to moderate. And secondly, I believe you have to look at what factors lead to or increase moderation. Lebanon for example is half christian and very westernized while the religious extremists are actively fought by the government and by Israel. Now look at Saudi Arabia, all religious texts are banned except the Qu'ran, apostasy and blasphemy are punished by death and radicalism is state policy. On the one hand you have a nation that has been under pressure by and the influence of the western world (Lebanon), on the other hand a nation appeased by the west (Saudi Arabia). That's not to say there are not some moderates in Saudi Arabia, but do you really think the religious leaders of Meca will fight Sharia anytime soon?

What about the President of Egypt - who publicly calls for the reform of Islam?

    Yet he still enforces religious laws. In Egypt, blasphemy is illegal, the Qu'ran is taught in all schools to all citizens, and apostasy is punished by jail time and loss of child custody. Hardly a real moderate.

If Islam can't be reformed, then we (or somone else) will have to be the prison keepers, and at war, around the world... FOREVER.  And it isn't just that it would never end, but also that it is spreading in territory and in numbers and in intensity of the threat.  That is why that issue of reform of Islam MUST be pursued.

 

Saying that Islam will never  be reformed is like saying that libertarian principles will never be  accepted.  It ignores the fact that people have a rational capacity and volition.

    I didn't say that no reform is possible. If you read my post again, you will see that I acknowledge the moderate muslims in the west and even in the middle east. What I challenge is the notion that some kind of coalition can be formed with the very Islamic nations that spread an enforce radical islam. Islamic LAW must be challenged if you want to fight islamic violence, as the misuse of the law for religion is violence and the main form of it in the middle east.

    Imagine if the founding fathers of the United States attempted to passively reform the british system of government? Even suggesting the form of government they fought for would be treason. And I find it hard to believe that the British Empire would have changed very much had the United States not violently fought for its independence.

I'll repeat what I said before:  "If Islam can't be reformed, then we (or somone else) will have to be the prison keepers, and at war, around the world... FOREVER.  And it isn't just that it would never end, but also that it is spreading in territory and in numbers and in intensity of the threat.  That is why that issue of reform of Islam MUST be pursued."

We do not disagree on the need for reform, but on the means on achieving it. I wouldn't suggest for example policing the whole world against communism.

    Thanks to Will Scherk for providing us with some data for Lebanon's demographics. It seems from the data he provides that Christians have been emigrating from Lebanon at a rapid pace, and the Christian population declined (at least as a percentage of the total population). I would argue that Lebanon has been declining all around, with Hezbollah, influence from the Syrian government, spillover from the Syrian civil war, and refugees (which will make the Christian population an even smaller percentage and maybe tip Lebanon over the edge into an islamic government).

    Tunisia might be an example of a muslim majority nation approaching moderation and secularism, but blasphemy is still illegal (however, it is treated as a form of libel in some western countries) and islamic law still influences family law. Apostasy is not illegal, which is rare for a muslim majority nation. In fact, I don't know about any other muslim nation where apostasy is legal except Turkey. Looking back at my discussion with Steve, Tunisia could be part of a sort of muslim-NATO, with Turkey and Lebanon. But it probably wouldn't get anywhere without western aid (and we're to busy appeasing the Iranians and Saudis).

    But even those three secular muslim nations (how secular they are can be argued) are still heavily influenced by the more radical muslim nations. I still stand by what I said when I said there are no real influential moderate muslims. None of the leaders of those three countries really stand for human rights in the international sphere or strongly stand against radical islam in their own nations, and nether do we. Let me put it like this, there are moderate muslims with influence, but they never use it to fight radical islam. In fact, the President of Turkey is an apologist for radicals and a "critic" of Israel and supporter of the palestinians. Lebanon receives aid from Saudi Arabia, so their leaders never stand up to them. As for Tunisia, the second largest party in their parliament is an islamist party. The only other muslim majority nation (but not arab) that is in any way secular is Indonesia, and Apostasy is still punished there.

It is easy to criticize Israel. That is why I point out that the Knesset seats three opposition parties, all of them advocating for "Arab rights."  Historically, at least one of the delegates is a woman. Show me an Arab/Islamic country where a Zionist woman sits in parliament.