but I still think he's wrong...

Glenn Reynolds makes an extremely good point about the apparent increase in anti-Islamic sentiments which appear in comments around the blogosphere...

As I was posting shortly after September 11, there are lots of different flavors of Islam. It's actually playing into the hands of the Ladenites to assume that Wahhabi extremism represents the authentic face of Islam. Islam has many traditions, and Wahhabism is actually a fairly recent one, and it is rather more extreme than it is authentic.

I agree with his analysis on this point: These comments do play into the hands of the extremists -- at least a bit -- by pushing moderate Muslims away, and possibly into the hands of the Islamists. People should avoid making them.

Yet there are three problems I can think of with Glenn's apparent take on this:

The first is that these are simply individual readers sharing their comments, not a carefully-crafted message from "the blogosphere". It takes a long time to herd the cats into some kind of strategy like this. (On the other hand, I think the Bush administration is doing the smart thing by being clear this is not a war on Islam, and praising sympathetic Muslims whenever possible.)

The second problem is that, as Glenn even admits, the allegedly "moderate" contingent isn't being vocal enough:

That said, it would be useful if those more moderate Muslims would take a more aggressive role. Some are -- see, for example, the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism -- but we could use more of that, no doubt. But to the extent that these people encounter comments urging that Islam be "banned," they're likely to feel less, rather than more, motivated toward reasonableness.

Well, yes. Us common folk are tempted to think perhaps the entire Islamic world feels antipathy when, say -- for example, almost no Muslim sources loudly condemned 9/11. Now, it might be that said potential moderates were stifled by a climate of fear and intimidation, but that doesn't exactly speak well for the way Islam plays out when writ large.

Which brings me to the third point: Saying "the issue isn't with Islam" might be good strategy, but I fear such a statement is untrue in the long run. Yes, there are moderate Muslims and yes, there are extremists. The latter emphasises certain violent scriptures or precedents from the life of Mohammad while the latter deemphasises, neglects, reframes, or negates them. Who is "authentic"?

By way of answering, consider this first: A moderate form of Islam can never remain dominant indefinitely, as long as infidels exist. Why? The texts themselves give grounds for would-be radicals to claim "authenticity" by pointing out the disconnect between the scripture itself and moderate practice. This will always remain a problem. Even when moderates dominate, the scriptures will continue to generate radicals, because it gives them a powerful weapon and justification with which to start new movements and usurp political power. Witness the shah of Iran. Witness even Saudi Arabia today.

And "infidel" opinion -- Glenn and I, for example -- will be of very little weight in helping a young Muslim to decide whether such movements are indeed what Allah desires.

So in the long run it doesn't matter who are the "authentic Muslims" -- moderates or al-Quaeda types. What matters is that the scriptures themselves can easily be made to support (or seem to support) the al-Quaeda intepretation. And that problem cannot be solved as long as the Islam and "infidels" continue to co-exist, and human nature is as it is.

PS: The title is from the Kingston Trio's "Bad Man's Blunder". You're a music trivia geek than I if you know how that quote ends.