Daniel Pipes er kjent for å være kontant i sine kommentarer om Midtøsten og terror. Det er derfor bemerkelsesverdig at han trekkker et skille mellom dagens radikaliserte islam og tradisjonen, og sier at jihad-retningen ikke er representativ.

Den er et blindspor. Du finner både aggressive og fredelige utsagn i Koranen. Hva skal man legge vekt på? Det har variert opp gjennom historien. Kristendommen har ikke akkurat vært noen fredens religion den heller.

Hva er mest nyttig: en åpen, ærlig kritikk, eller en unnvikende? Pipes sier implisitt at det er å ta muslimene på alvor å støtte opp under en modernisering.

Five hundred years ago, Jews, Christians and Muslims agreed that owning slaves was acceptable but paying interest on money was not. After bitter, protracted debates, Jews and Christians changed their minds. Today, no Jewish or Christian body endorses slavery or has religious qualms about paying reasonable interest.

Muslims, in contrast, still think the old way. Slavery still exists in a host of majority-Muslim countries (especially Sudan and Mauritania, also Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) and it is a taboo subject. To enable pious Muslims to avoid interest, an Islamic financial industry worth an estimated $150 billion has developed.

The challenge ahead is clear: Muslims must emulate their fellow monotheists by modernizing their religion with regard to slavery, interest and much else. No more fighting jihad to impose Muslim rule. No more endorsement of suicide terrorism. No more second-class citizenship for non-Muslims.

No more death penalty for adultery or «honor» killings of women. No more death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy.

Rather than rail on about Islam’s alleged «evil,» it behooves everyone – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – to help modernize this civilization.

That is the ultimate message of 9/11. It is much deeper and more ambitious than Western governments presently seem to realize.

Flere av leserne hans reagerte. De mente at konfrontasjonslinjen har vært til stede fra år 600. Det kan diskuteres, svarer Pipes, som bemerker at mange lesere idag er godt informert om islam.

This can be done. One recent example: In May, the Turkish religious authorities ruled – completely contrary to Islamic custom – to permit women to pray next to men and to attend mosque services while menstruating. The High Religious Affairs Board decided this on the (distinctly modern) basis that men and women are «equal and complementary beings.» Next month, this same board takes up the extremely delicate topic of permitting Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, when it will perhaps again rule against centuries of practice.

If Turkish theologians can execute such changes, why not theologians in other countries, too? And if practices concerning women can be changed, why not those concerning jihad or the role of Islamic law as a whole? Islam can adjust to modernity no less than have other faiths.

Conversely, if one sees Islam as irredeemably evil, what comes next? This approach turns all Muslims – even moderates fleeing the horrors of militant Islam – into eternal enemies. And it leaves one with zero policy options. My approach has the benefit of offering a realistic policy to deal with a major global problem.

Hvis norske medier tok islams problemer på større alvor, ville de følge utviklingen i sentrale land som Tyrkia med større oppmerksomhet.

Daniel Pipes