But I’m sure the government has already planted enough moles in such places of worship to make sure that the impressionable youth would not step out of bound.

So, self policing, in the vigilant meaning of the word, is not the answer here. But self policing could be enormously useful in a symbolical way. If the Muslim community and its leaders were to make a firm and honest stance against terrorism, that action would effectively isolate the terrorists and their agenda. So, it seems more productive to me if the Muslim community were to speak with a united voice against acts of terrorism and to reinforce peaceful values of their religion. Many Muslim leaders argue philosophically about the meaning of terrorism. Even the United Nations considers the philosophical argument that “one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter!” I think any argument that legitimizes or tries to explain the killing of innocent civilians should be rejected at once by the Muslim leaders and a consensus has to be reached that defines any deliberate, and politically motivated act of murder against civilians as an act of terrorism and morally wrong.

Not until the Muslim community separates itself clearly and decisively with the extremists, fundamentalists, and the terrorists can there begin an honest dialogue that encompasses trust and understanding among those communities hurt directly by such unforgivable acts of violence.

In mosques that preach militancy-say in Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.- standing up and objecting to a sermon will likely get you beaten if not killed. As for monitoring the local mosque in America, it would still be difficult to stand up and voice your objection against a fiery speech. Culturally, you would not stand up in the middle of a sermon and object but rather take up the issue offline with the imam.

My own feeling is that fiery speech bordering on hate speech, should be nipped in the bud.

But this raises a more difficult question for me, and that is what is fiery speech vs. hate speech. Non-muslims like to point to “preachers of hate” but Christian, Jewish, and Hindu fundamentalists spew the same hate speech with little censure. Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham and others regularly demonize Muslims, Islam, the Prophet Muhammed. Conservative pundits and terrorism “experts” like Anne Coulter, Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson impute the evil deeds of terrorists to Islam through generalization and lazy logic, and they are lauded as experts.

What constitutes fiery speech? Severely criticizing the policies of governments that for all intent and purpose wage a war of destruction on local populations because such governments qualify as democracies or respectable governments? Is dissent against the government not the hallmark of our democracy? In this case, we are not even talking about our own (America) but other countries actions. Under Tony Blair’s edict, will such speech qualify you as an Al-Quaeda sympathizer, and get you deported?

Curiously, there are Americans who emigrate to Israel to fight in the Israeli army against Palestinians, out of religious kinship. What if some muslims feel the same religious kinship with muslims in Chechenya, Kashmir, Palestine, etc. and they go to fight- why are they terrorists? Is it because they fight against a state actor who identifies themselves as a democracy? I know some muslims who feel exactly this way, but they would never pick up arms and kill someone, but they feel just as passionate about this as the Israeli-American. There are other muslims who don’t identify at all with muslims living in other countries because they view themselves as Americans and not as Chechens or Kashmiris.

Theologically, the vast, vast majority of muslims don’t believe that Islam condones violence or agression-but self defense is permitted and justified. One wonders, if the Iraq war was predicated on false causes (no WMD), and it was manufactured to overthrow Saddam, then is the war one of aggression? Is self-defense justified?

On the other hand, Islam mandates that if one sees oppression, then one has a duty to rid oppression from the land. It can be argued that is what America did in Iraq in overthrowing Saddam. Shouldn’t muslims be content?

The Economist has this interesting articleabout the eight major sects of Islam coming together in Jordan to present a unified theological front agains violent extremism.