Five solutions to Islamic violence – almost all of them non-violent

Now that it is clear that the underlying cause of the mayhem we see across the world is the same source (Quran, sunna) that caused mayhem in the past centuries, the question is: what can be done about Islam?

1. Never hide from the truth – that this is about Islam, not “Islamism”

There is nothing called Islamism. This is about Mohammed’s violent Islam. No Western leader should obfuscate this basic truth.

Directly challenge ANY Muslim or Muslim leader who suggests this is not about Islam (e.g. that this is about US foreign policy), or that Islam is a religion of peace. It is NOT (e.g. see this, this, this, this, this.). And be very aware of the requirement for deception imposed on Muslims (taqiyaa: see this, this and this). Do not trust ANY Muslim who claims that Islam is a religion of peace – unless that Muslim is deeply ignorant about his/her own religion (as many are).

Comments by an ex-Muslim here, show one example of such deception (in relation to actions of some Muslim women who participate in staged demonstrations – “A Muslim woman cannot even think repeat cannot even think of going out and be part of a demonstration even if it is for religious purposes. They would go out and demonstrate only repeat only when commanded by their men to do so.”)

The real enemy is Mohammed. Recognise this basic fact. His violent approach towards “infidels” should be diligently studied and “outed”.

If Western leaders obfuscate matters by calling Islam a religion of peace, then expect the common man to be confused, becoming susceptible to far more violence, for much longer. The Western leaders do no one a favour by misleading their citizens about Islam.

Let the detailed study of Islam’s PRESCRIBED violence towards “infidels” become a part of school curriculum in the West. Know your enemy, or your enemy will overcome you.

Know that your enemy will not die till there remains any follower of Islam. This is not a battle of one or two decades. It is a battle for the centuries, even millennia. Be prepared. Let children in the West learn why some Muslims will always seek to kill them, and that you can never known in advance which Muslim will do so, just like you can never know in advance who suddenly give up his/ her family commitments and become a sanyasi.

When Islam is pinned down globally as the world’s most violent religion ever, Muslim leaders – particularly in the West – will be forced to do something about it. Currently, they are having a jolly good time by pointing fingers at the victim (West), even as they take advantage of the freedom of speech guaranteed in the West.

2. Demonstrate to Muslims the many problems with Quran and Sunna

There other day I proposed a possible solution, here: Not bombing the ISIS but demonstrating the problems with Quran and the sunna, might help.

This post summarises the many other problems with these books, not just about violence: Three conclusive proofs that God had NOTHING nothing to do with Mohammed’s Quran.

This DIRECTLY attacks the assumption of Muslims that God created the Quran. Now, in the liberal tradition of separation of church and state, this information should be propagated mainly by private individuals in their private capacity.

However, there could be some role for the Western governments in this regard, as well – particularly Western leaders in their private capacity. They could potentially help fund the republication of the blogs and writings of “apostates”. Get these writings widely translated into English, French and other Western languages and circulate within the West, so Muslims born in these countries there can understand why “apostasy” is the only sensible solution to this false and violent belief system.

3. Export liberalism to Muslim majority nations

Islam is hard work, and requires constant violence. Such violence on a daily basis is not sustainable, so over time in every Muslim society gets smothered by laziness and becomes benign – till a fundamentalist ruler revives violence once again.

Today the Saudis are funding and exporting Wahhabism throughout the world, supporting the revival of the real Islam.

To retaliate, the West needs to actively export liberalism to the middle-Eastern nations. We need evangelical liberalism.

At its core, this is a battle between Islam and liberty. Let’s identify that as the key issue.

How can this be done? It is worthwhile funding a range of institutions and individual writers to tailor the message of liberty and critical thinking and spread it to Saudi Arabia and other Muslim majority countries (particularly Pakistan and India).

The cost of such a strategy would be small, possibly just a hundred million dollars each year; but its benefit would be huge, as people across these countries learn something useful about mankind’s struggle for liberty. My manuscript, The Discovery of Freedom is the kind of material that could be customised for such purpose.

How do we reach out to these countries?

a) I found that it is relatively cheap to reach out to a lot of these countries through Facebook. But that’s just one example. Anyone can reach out through social media to these countries.

b) Massively funding honest Muslims who live in the West (such as the Muslims mentioned in this article) AND who understand liberty, would be another strategy.

4. Make foreign aid conditional on generating public support for the US and the West

Syed F. Hussaini’s solution (I quote directly):

In the history of international relations, the present and the previous US administrations would be logged as utterly incompetent in making use of the dozens of billions of dollars they doled out to Pakistan.

The US ambassador can simply tell the prime minister and the military that all TV channels and the newspapers from now on would have to be praising The United States of America as The Greatest Friend Of Islam And Pakistan In The History and, only then, Pakistan would get the aid–strictly on the basis of the performance and on monthly basis and subject to penalty in case of poor performance.

The anti-American sentiment in Pakistan would calm down in 29 days and would disappear in 90 days.

My question: I think your solution is innovative – quite innovative. It is based on incentives. It could very well work, although I suspect any Islamic government that tried this solution could be thrown out by the organisations of mullahs.

Syed Hussaini’s response: The mullahs, historically, are employees of the rulers. They have no power to throw out a ruler. It is the rival Power, with a P-Cap which takes over. The mullah simply changes the allegiance and collects his stipend.

I think this solution must form part of the toolkit of the West to reduce the spread of the real (fundamentalist) Islam.

5. Use violence when absolutely necessary

This is an ideological battle. Violence is almost counter-productive.

When the enemy is diffused and sprouts right below one’s nose, there is no hope of success through widespread violence. The West lost Vietnam despite massive carpet bombing, so also the West will lose the ideological battle if it sends drones or otherwise uses violence.

Someone mentioned to me that shooting thousands of Sikhs (including hundreds of innocents) demolished the Khalistan movement. That was a terrible way to do things, but there was a fundamental difference between the Khalistan movement and Islamic terrorism: Khalistan was a fight for separation from India; Islamic terrorists want to take over the minds of people across the entire world – it is far more ideological than geographic, although there is the issue of a Caliphate.

Having said that, violence can be used in highly restrictive circumstances, e.g. to take down key leaders of the terrorist movement. But only these leaders. That involves James Bond-type solutions (i.e. killing specific individuals). Such solutions are very challenging but effective, when carried out well.

Other potential solutions

What about arming the people in the West, so they can defend against attacks? I’ve not formed a clear view on this at the moment, given pros and cons. Let me not advocate this solution at this stage.