Here is Mustafa Akyol's latest reply to my piece here, and my reply to his reply:
A Reply To Robert Spencer – And A Search For Creative TensionAfter my article on Frontpage, titled Still Standing For Islam – And Against Terrorism, Robert Spencer, the editor of the Jihad Watch website posted a rebuttal. He argued that Islam is indeed the legitimate source of terrorists such as al-Qaeda, and my arguments can't persuade those militants to stop their violence.
I wonder how the arguments of Mr. Spencer can help the same cause, but that is trivial for now. Let me explain what I really say and what I really want to do.In a nutshell, what I am trying to do is to show that the current terrorism under the name of Islam is not legitimate from an Islamic point of view. By doing so, I want to refute two diametrically opposing camps: Islamist terrorists and some of the harsh critics of Islam. Interestingly, both camps agree that Islam is a cult of violence, whereas for me, and for hundreds of millions of Muslims around the globe, Islam is a path to God. We just wish to cleanse that path from the distortions of the politically oriented radicals and intolerant bigots.
When I say terrorism (or authoritarianism) is not legitimate from an Islamic point of view, I mean the Islamic ideal that I believe in, and which is based on the Koran, besides everything else. Of course, there are Muslims who think that evils such as attacks against American or Israeli civilians, kidnappings, bombings, repressive regimes or anti-Semitism are legitimate. They are obviously out there, as we all know. I am trying to de-legitimize their doctrine. I am not trying to 'cover up' militant Islamists, as I have been accused for on the Jihad Watch.
Mr. Spencer also quoted the "Muslim Q&A" website, which promotes compulsion in religion. Well, I am horrified by such views, which I believe to be totally contradictory to the spirit of the Koran and I am ready to stand against them.
Yet Mr. Spencer insists that such efforts won't persuade the militants to have a farewell to arms or the fanatics to accept freedom of worship. He is right. I don't expect al-Qaeda militants to weep and repent when they read what I, or what many other moderate Muslims — most of them much more qualified then myself — write. But we can, Lord willing, persuade the Muslim masses that are confused about what to believe; confused whether al-Qaeda and its ilk are brave heroes of Islam or a bunch of bigoted zealots.
Moreover, while we moderates can't probably convert militants into peaceniks, it is very probable that portraying Islam as a cult of violence will help converting non-violent Muslims into militants. The majority of the world's Muslims, who believe that their religion demands peace, will be horrified to see what they will perceive as anti-Islamic propaganda and will be prone anti-Western sentiments. Please let's be careful about this.
Mr. Spencer also criticizes me for defining an Islamic case of just war. He writes,
Likewise, Akyol's contention that "the war verses describe only an abnormal state of affairs — in which the Muslim community faced an enemy that sought its annihilation — and verses that promote peace and tolerance describe the Islamic ideal" will do nothing to pacify radical Muslims, since they have argued again and again that today the Muslim community faces an enemy that seeks its annihilation.
Well, defining a concept of just war cannot prevent fanatics to distort the current reality and raise a false justification. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, for example, the justification was that they undertook military intervention in response to an official request for help by the Afghanistan government, and also fulfilling treaty obligations under the terms of the Soviet-Afghan Friendship Treaty. On paper, that could sound legitimate. In reality, it was an obvious distortion of facts. The problem was not the theory on paper, rather the Orwellian method of misinterpreting real events.What al-Qaeda and its ilk do is to distort both the Islamic doctrine of war (on paper), and the current events. In a forthcoming article of mine, I explain why it is a big distortion to present the U.S. as the enemy of Islam while it saved Muslims from slaughter or starvation in many recent conflicts, such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and Afghanistan (during the Soviet Invasion.)
In other words, it is not my fault if militants distort the doctrine of just war, but I am determined to stand against that, too.
Mr. Spencer also questions my opposition to the doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which holds that some Koranic verses are abrogated by the later ones. He says that doctrine is rooted in the Koran. That is a common view, but I and other critics of abrogation don't think so. As also explained in the article that I linked to in my recent Frontpage piece, that abrogation in question should be better understood as the abrogation of previous revelations by the Koran.Mr. Spencer also criticized me for quoting hadiths and sira, while I "rejected" them at the same time. But I did not say I reject these secondary sources of Islam; I said I "question" them. This means I believe that we can refer to these sources to learn about the works of Prophet Muhammad, but since they are very late collections, they might well include untrue stories and we can be critical and selective on them. And this is not a completely unorthodox view. As I pointed out in my recent Frontpage article, even the very conservative Al-Azhar is reconsidering to purify the sources of hadith from “the strange, the false and from forgery.”
Mr. Spencer also argued that I "dismissed the Armenian genocide... in order to avoid ten years in prison as mandated by law in [my] native Turkey." I don't know how Mr. Spencer can figure out my motives. In fact, I don't care about any penal law while building my arguments. If I had believed that the tragedy in 1915 was "Armenian Genocide", I would have said that. (Well, some people say that in Turkey, such as my university professor Halil Berktay, and they are obviously not in jail.) Mr. Spencer even used the horrific term "Holocaust denial" to describe my position on the Armenian issue. I am confident that in this "Holocaust denial," my references are not notorious pro-Nazis like Ernst Zündel or Arthur Butz, but esteemed historians such Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes.
However, despite all these, I should say that I appreciate Mr. Spencer's commentary on my writing. He has pointed out some points that I should have stressed more or clarified. Thus, I believe that all these rebuttals and counter-rebuttals I have with Mr. Spencer (and Mr. Bostom) and all the comments about me at Frontpage and Jihad Watch stirs a "creative tension", which is indeed fruitful, as long as it does not turn into to a blind exchange of accusations and counter-accusations.
I believe that Mr. Spencer's Jihad Watch will never decline to such a one-sided, bigoted point of view. After all, if you watch something, you have to look through a fair lens in order to see it right.
As far as it goes that way, I am glad to be "watched" — since my "jihad" (struggle) is focused on saving Islam from militancy and bigotry.* Mustafa Akyol is a political scientist, columnist and writer from Turkey. He is also a director at the Intercultural Dialogue Platform, based in Istanbul. He can be reached at akyolmst@superonline.com
And my response:
Jihadists 4, Akyol 0By Robert Spencer
Mustafa Akyol, in his fourth essay and latest reply to me, says that I “argued that Islam is indeed the legitimate source of terrorists such as al-Qaeda, and [his] arguments can’t persuade those militants to stop their violence.” Akyol adds: “I wonder how the arguments of Mr. Spencer can help the same cause, but that is trivial for now.”
Actually, it is not trivial at all. It is the core of Akyol’s objections to my arguments, and central to our differing perspectives. Akyol says: “In a nutshell, what I am trying to do is to show that the current terrorism under the name of Islam is not legitimate from an Islamic point of view.” I applaud any such efforts whenever they are genuine and effective; my objections to Mr. Akyol have nothing to do with the fact that he is trying to delegitimize the radicals. But for such attempts, whether by Mr. Akyol or anyone else, to be worthwhile, they have actually to refute the arguments from the Qur’an and Islamic tradition used by Islamic radicals. If they don’t do this, then they don’t show that terrorism is illegitimate from an Islamic perspective, and fail at Mr. Akyol’s stated purpose.
How, then, can my arguments help Akyol’s cause? By compelling him to make them stronger. If I can see holes in them from the standpoint of Islamic theology and tradition, Islamic radicals can see them too, and many more. If Islamic moderates wish to succeed, they simply must not leave these holes open.
Akyol adds: “I want to refute two diametrically opposing camps: Islamist terrorists and some of the harsh critics of Islam. Interestingly, both camps agree that Islam is a cult of violence, whereas for me, and for hundreds of millions of Muslims around the globe, Islam is a path to God. We just wish to cleanse that path from the distortions of the politically oriented radicals and intolerant bigots.” And later in his piece he says, “The majority of the world’s Muslims, who believe that their religion demands peace, will be horrified to see what they will perceive as anti-Islamic propaganda and will be prone [to] anti-Western sentiments. Please let’s be careful about this.”
So evidently Western non-Muslims must not point out the elements of Islam that give rise to violence, lest non-committed Muslims will perceive us as anti-Muslim and become violent themselves. This is, of course, self-contradictory (for if they are against the violence in Islam, they should not oppose someone who opposes it with them) and palpably absurd (for if they are really non-violent, how can nothing more than a perceived insult make them violent?).
Akyol acknowledges that his efforts “won’t persuade the militants to have a farewell to arms or the fanatics to accept freedom of worship,” but he says he is going after the silent majority of Muslims who are confused. Once again, I applaud his efforts — but he surely knows that Osama and other radicals use carefully constructed arguments from the Qur’an and Islamic tradition to buttress their views. The “Muslim masses” can read those as well as I can; if Akyol’s counter-arguments can be easily refuted by the radicals, how will they convince the masses?
Later, Akyol notes that I criticized him for quoting hadiths and sira right after rejecting them. He says: “I did not say I reject these secondary sources of Islam; I said I ‘question’ them. This means I believe that we can refer to these sources to learn about the works of Prophet Muhammad, but since they are very late collections, they might well include untrue stories and we can be critical and selective on them. And this is not a completely unorthodox view. As I pointed out in my recent Frontpage article, even the very conservative Al-Azhar is reconsidering to purify the sources of hadith from ‘the strange, the false and from forgery.’” That’s fine, but what Al-Azhar is doing is nothing new. The sifting of true ahadith from false ones has gone on ever since there have been ahadith. There are many ahadith among the Sahih Sittah, the collections generally accepted as most reliable by Muslims, that contain exhortations to jihad warfare against Jews, Christians, and others. Does Mr. Akyol think that these are all weak ahadith? If so, how will he convince Muslims to reject material from the revered collections of Bukhari, Muslim, and other respected sources? This is not a rhetorical question; I hope he has an answer, and am looking forward to seeing it.
As for the Armenian genocide, I believe that Bernard Lewis was justly prosecuted in France for his denial (although I abhor such speech laws), and I do not think he is an unimpeachable source, given his marked and uncritical affection for Ataturkism. I refer objective readers to The History of the Armenian Genocide by Vahakn N. Dadrian.
In sum, I appreciate Mr. Akyol’s efforts to oppose radical Muslims. But if he really hopes to delegitimize violence in Islam, he has to construct an Islamic argument strong enough to refute radicals — something he says he has no hope of doing. If he cannot do this, how can he expect Muslim moderates to follow him? I devoutly hope for fundamental and global reform in Islam, but it can only come from a definitive repudiation of everything Islamic that gives rise to terrorism. Mr. Akyol is not there yet; I do hope he arrives someday.
Mr. Akyol:
Nowhere in any of your articles have you publicly rejected any aspect of the Qu'ran, the Sharia or questioned the morality of anything that Muhammad allegedly did or said. And you know why you haven't? Because if you did, none of your fellow Muslims would listen to ANYTHING you said. They would just consider you a silly apostate like Irshad Manji. Consequently, you will never be able to convince Muslims to moderate their views because you cannot bring yourself to publicly criticize Islam. And I am not faulting you for that inability. Who would want to voluntarily aspire to the same fate as Salman Rushdie or Ibn Warraq, universally despised and hated throughout the Islamic world.?
And so it goes. At least you are not pretending that Islam does not have problems. You are just not willing to admit what they are.
Mr. Akyol:
I also applaud your efforts and hope that he is successful. BUT....as history has so often demonstrated, the head of violent jihad has risen time and time again over more than a thousand years to wreak havoc on the non-Muslim world in the name of Islam, taking its legitimacy from the Koran, ahadiths, and Sira. It will take a miracle for Mr. Akyol or anyone else to abrogate the violent passages and erase them from human custom, deed, and memory.
The truth is that a few hundred thousand Islamists that are intent on making their brand of Islam triumphant over the earth may, using advanced technology, be successful unless we counter them with more than words as words will never stop them. Keep talking, Mr. Akyol, but actions speak louder than words, and unless you take action against these people, they will overrun you and keep on going. We non-Muslims don't plan to be overrun and we certainly would like you to be with us. If you can't be part of the solution, don't be part of the problem.
Mr. Akyol:
I also applaud your efforts and hope that he is successful. BUT....as history has so often demonstrated, the head of violent jihad has risen time and time again over more than a thousand years to wreak havoc on the non-Muslim world in the name of Islam, taking its legitimacy from the Koran, ahadiths, and Sira. It will take a miracle for Mr. Akyol or anyone else to abrogate the violent passages and erase them from human custom, deed, and memory.
The truth is that a few hundred thousand Islamists that are intent on making their brand of Islam triumphant over the earth may, using advanced technology, be successful unless we counter them with more than words as words will never stop them.
Keep talking, Mr. Akyol, but actions speak louder than words, and unless you take action against these people, they will overrun you and keep on going. We non-Muslims don't plan to be overrun and we certainly would like you to be with us. If you can't be part of the solution, don't be part of the problem.
In a nutshell, what I am trying to do is to show that the current terrorism under the name of Islam is not legitimate from an Islamic point of view
The fact is that Islam, whatever it teaches, is the ideology of choice for terrorists.
The fact is the moderates Muslims are guilt by their silence in the face of the slaughter.
The fact is the even so called moderates still adhere to radical interpretations of the Koran.
And the fact is that Muslims have a historic inferiority complex vis-a-vis the west that leads them, deep in the psyche, to yearn for victories of any kind, however barbaric (the "osama complex").
"Moreover, while we moderates can't probably convert militants into peaceniks, it is very probable that portraying Islam as a cult of violence will help converting non-violent Muslims into militants. The majority of the world's Muslims, who believe that their religion demands peace, will be horrified to see what they will perceive as anti-Islamic propaganda and will be prone anti-Western sentiments. Please let's be careful about this."
I am confused. There appear to be three categories of Muslims here: "moderates" (Muslims who are absolutely committed to nonviolence and, I suppose, rejection of texts and doctrine that require violence. Or should we construe moderate in some other way?), "non-violent Muslims" (who are neither 'moderates' nor 'militants', those believe their religion demands peace, but who might become violent) and 'militants', who are violent and not tolerant. Moderates are those who will never be militants, i.e. 'violent' (is this correct?). And militants will never be moderate. But, 'non-violent Muslims', who are neither 'moderates' nor 'militants', stand a chance of becoming 'militant', that is, violent and nontolerant, if they get too upset by 'anti-Islamic propaganda'.
Furthermore the author seems to suggest that this middle group, the 'non-violent Muslims, who might get violent', is the 'majority'.
The whole passage seems to say that the majority of Muslims not moderate nor violent, but not really that committed to nonviolence, because they might get violent, if you say unpleasant things about their religion.
Is this it?
But if the majority of nonviolent, nonmoderate Muslims are not really that committed to nonviolence, because a little unpleasant talk might upset them, then shouldn't we suppose that other things will upset them as well? Why should we treat nonviolent, nonmoderate people who are not really committed to nonviolence nicely? Isn't it rational to treat such folks instead with suspicion and care?
Oh, but this might make them violent...yes I remember: well aren't they in fact already threatening violence? 'Watch out or I might get violent...' The real question then is not what to say to avoid making these nonmoderate, nonviolent Muslims violent, but how to handle an implied threat of violence. Why not be honest? Point out the principles, the texts, the practices of their religion motivating them to be violent, and then say, make a choice, who are you? What do you believe? Let's get it out there.
Mr. Aykol
The problem with Islam is that reform is unlikely if not impossible given both its nature and structure. Changes to any part of the Islamic body of belief will only be met with rejection and charges of apostasy, you know that.
Muslims around the world who commit murder and seek to overthrow non-Muslim governments do so with the belief that they are good Muslims following the tenants of their faith and the example of their prophet. They consider Muslims, such as yourself useful but not exemplary.
The fact that you choose to write "Jihad", followed by "struggle" in your reply to Mr. Spencer, appears to be an attempt to obscure and revise what Jihad is and has been since its inception, war.
My opinion is that Islam is divided much like our Armed Forces. We have an Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corp, all specialized to perform specific functions in a particular theatre.
In Islam, there are the "moderates", the "radicals", the "colonists" and the "apologists"(represented by people such as yourself). All are operating under the umbrella of Islam as part of what Muslims call the "Umma". Its objective can be seen by looking at any part of Islam’s bloody 1400 year history, marked by one dominant theme, warfare and conquest.
Thus, the objective of Islam according to the Quran is to win the world for Allah and Muslims are well aware of that fact. That some chose to ignore the actual warring aspects of this religion while apparently untold numbers in fact choose to answer the call of Jihad (war on the unbeliever), does not mean that most Muslims do not act in the spirit of Islam which means submission and try to spread their faith by using any of the options available to them under Islam.
Whether they insist on wearing a headscarf, not marrying "infidels", refusing to assimilate into our Western democracies or steadfastly trying to force a and promote a positive public image of an obviously deeply flawed belief system, Islam is a danger to our way of life.
Until Islamic leaders can honestly and objectively accept the truth, history and current state of Islamic doctrine and the backward societies it produces, the violence it inspires and the destruction it sows, no reform will ever occur.
On the point of reform, Muslims would almost certainly reject any modification to Islamic theology and would quite correctly point out that what is presented is not Islam.
We can intellectualize all day long about the nuances of the Hadiths, Shiria law, the Quran, and the long and "noble" history of Islam from its birth in the Arabian Peninsula to the current sorry state of the Islamic world. But the fact remains that Islam is a militant religion that seeks conquest and submission and will not rest until the last Pygmy in the last rain forest is a Muslim.
The current predictions for Europe all show an Islamic entity by no later than the end of this century. In America Australia and Canada, we are all marching down the road to dhimmitude and Islamification. Immigration and abuse of our system of government is making it possible for Muslims to aggregate in large enough numbers, where they quickly work to institute their culture upon the rest of us.
I don't know if Islamification can be reversed but it must be reversed. Any cursory look at any given Islamic country tells me that Islam will destroy modernity and revert us back to a new and violent Dark Age.
This brings me back to your pseudo attempt to engage in genuine discussions while all along white washing Islam and spreading more double talk, half truths and deception. Your complex arguments contradict all evidence to the contrary and convince me further that you, like most proponents of Islam, have proven themselves to be of a most deceptive disposition.
'non-violent Muslims', who are neither 'moderates' nor 'militants', stand a chance of becoming 'militant', that is, violent and nontolerant, if they get too upset by 'anti-Islamic propaganda'.
Aykol...you were saying?
In the west we would call Aykols commentary, damage limitation or spin doctoring.In Islam they call it Taqiyyah (effective dissimulation,or more accurately lying). Lying is forbidden of Muslims to save their own skin, but is authorized to protect the Ummah (community of believers) from fitnah (embarassing exposure).
He may of course be sincere, I am no mind reader, but I've been in arguments of a similar nature with other Muslims, each and everyone of them who,when it serves their purpose, denounce the Hadiths, and when it serves their purpose quote a Hadith.
(But is that any different than a Christian who cuts and pastes biblical text to suit his own purpose, or tries to spin biblical text to rationalize his beliefs and the status quo..After all Communism is in the Bible, Acts 2:43-45 and Acts 4: 32-35, for starters).
I once thought that Islam could go through a reformation process and become moderate. More than one Muslim convince me not. Because in their words Islam is Fundamentalistic, and Shari'a and the words of Muhammad are writ in stone. Any deviation or Hadith rejection, unless by a "learned scholar" is irritad (apostasy) and the rejector is murtadd (an apostate), the penaly for which is death.
If all of the Sunnah were disposed of and negated, there would be no Islam, all that would be left is the Quran, which makes no sense at all, since it's author was senseless.
But Islam is an ideology,as is all religions, but Islam is more complete and effective an ideology than any other religion, and besides the Quran, there are the sayings, doings,traditions of supposedly the prophet, and a whole superstructure of clerics (amirs, mullahs, mufti's, imam's, ayat allahs) built up on the accumulated works, which includes the huge amount of judicial rulings or fiqhs, so there is a whole bureaucracy of ventriloquists (clerics) who obtain very good socioeconomic status and rewards by claiming some special right (divine or bestowed via study).
Scrap the accumulated anecdotes (Sunnah-Hadiths) and the fiqh's, and you don't have anything but an incredulous book of disjointed writings, which display a tortured and sexually repressed/obsessed mind..the Quran.
There was no real written Islam, or even the Quran, until after the battle of Talas, in which some chinese were captured, whose lives were spared because they knew the secret of making paper.
The Bedouin, lacking literacy, pen and paper, committed everything to memory, and conveyed information not in prose but poetry. In fact poetry is still the intellectual life blood of the Arab mind.
Thus the hordes of Abu Bakr, and other "Caliphs" who rode forth to conquer the world, had no real doctrine, just a vague sense of this new ideology, and guided by the limited exhortations thrown at them by their leaders. If leader says they to paradise if they die in the way of the moon god stone, then they believe what leader says.
After all,that is exactly what their tradition says Umayr ibn al_Humam did at the Battle of Badr. He threw himself into battle and gave up his life because Mo told him he would go to Paradise if he died in Mo's battle (actually a raid on a caravan).
Islamics then and now do not question authority, or those whom they choose to acknowledge as authority (then again neither do Christians, spell Pope, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell here).
Anyway it was after the Arabs learned how to make Paper (so they could mass distribute the words of Muhammad) that the Quran came into being, and of course like all religions it took off with an evolving core and cadre of self appointed ventriloquists who added to the core, and claimed for themselves the divine (or credentialed) commission to speak for and interpret THEIR god.
A process not limited to Islam BTW. ;)
Muhammad created Allah in his own image, the juridicially appended Allah (Sunnah and Fiqhs) is a tour de force of the mind of the men who wrote those words, and a tour de force of the minds of men who interpret and adjudicate and define those words today.
That is true, in fact, of all religions and men.
Surely tis man that creates his god in his own image and not vice versa.
Andrew: My opinion is that Islam is divided much like our Armed Forces. We have an Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corp, all specialized to perform specific functions in a particular theatre.
In Islam, there are the "moderates", the "radicals", the "colonists" and the "apologists"(represented by people such as yourself). All are operating under the umbrella of Islam as part of what Muslims call the "Umma". Its objective can be seen by looking at any part of Islam’s bloody 1400 year history, marked by one dominant theme, warfare and conquest.
That is an excellent model for looking at the whole problem of islam and muslims. From this model, certain prescriptions for the defence of civilisation, automatically flow.
Jihad, the take over of the lands, and centres of infidel power, are the main reason of islam. If this can be done peacefully i.e., stealthily by demographic conquest, then fine. If not the violent option is always available. At present both options are being applied to the Western world.
As for Mr. Aykol, he clearly ignores the violent nature of the quran. Taqqiya is in operation, even though he knows that it will not get by Robert Spencer. Just force of habit I suppose, or he hopes that even though Mr Spencer will not fall for it, someone else will give some benefit to the Mr. Aykol himself, for being an upright muslim who is a moderate and non-violent.
When so called moderates in the muslim world, cannot bring themselves to confront the violence that is in the quran, it becomes increasingly difficult to credit any honesty to anything that muslims say.
My point in the above is that Aykol and other Muslims are no different than Mr Spencer and other Christians. They can't repudiate their scriptures and religion, without repudiating and leaving their religion.
All religions hold this in common, they are self righteous and mutually exclusive ideologies.
There is no such thing as "maybe" in religion, like "maybe yours is as valid and true as mine". Thus
there must of necessity exist tension, and tension leads inevitably to hostility, leads to war.
Thus perpetual war. The war for god.
I find it somewhat amusing that each religion and it's adherents claim that it is more benevolent, less violent more munificent than others.
I am also amused at how livid, obfuscatory, angry and ready to do battle religious believers are when the flaws in their own ideology are pointed out. Irrespective of religious ideology (Islamic, Christian, Jew, Hindu even Buddhist).
So much "love" and "tolerance" it overwhelms one.
There are battles and then there are battles...and where are these 'battles'...I mean battles involving indiscriminate mass murder, body parts, hundreds, thousands dead, 'planes blown from the sky kind of battles'...that are Jewish, Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist?
And no mountain vs mole hill analogies...
One more item Life for Iraqi Christians a Living Nightmare Oct 14, 2004.
I'm surprised Spence hasn't posted this, but our great President Liberated Iraq didn't he, and all that we are doing is fighting a few madmen and "insurgents".
We liberated Iraq so the minions of the Administration could create an Islamic State.
And for this our treasury, our future and the blood of our sons and daughters is wasted.
Extoll for me again the virtues of Bush and Company.
I call it treason and treachery.
Giaour:
I understand your frustration. Spending so much blood and treasure just to impose a sharia dominated islamic republic in Iraq, must be a Saudi/Wahhabi plan. It surely cannot be a US vision for democracy in the ME.
Exerpt From The Giaour:
"The crescent glimmers on the hill,
The mosque's high lamps are quivering still
Though too remote for sound to wake
In echoes of far tophaike,
The flashes of each joyous peal
Are seen to prove the Moslem's zeal,
Tonight, set Rhamazani's sun;
Tonight the Bairam feast's begun;
Tonight - but who and what art thou
Of foreign garb and fearful brow"?
You seem to express religious skepticism yet choose "Giaour" as your screen name.
I dont understand your comparison of Mr. Akol, Muslims and Mr. Spencer and other Christians. By this you seem to be implying that both groupings occupy a common and equal moral plane.
This claim is not supported by the facts.
Andrew-
Good comments!
Giaour-
Your comments are interesting if you can keep your politics out of them. I agree with much you say, but what is your plan?
Giaour says,
"They can't repudiate their scriptures and religion, without repudiating and leaving their religion.
All religions hold this in common, they are self righteous and mutually exclusive ideologies."
This is all absolute nonsense, of course. The majority of Christian and Jewish theologians active today and teaching in religious studies departments in the United States and Europe do careful historical research on 'scriptural traditions'; 'repudiating' the authority of religious texts is passe.
The generalization about 'mutual exclusive ideologies' is also absolute nonsense; reformed Judaism, Hinduism, and various interpretations of Christianity utterly reject this. Even the Pope has now acknowledged the legitimacy of the 'convenant' between God and the Jews and offically recognized that this suppose 'convenant' remain in force (whatever that means). And then there are Muslims like Ishad Manji who reject supersession in Islam.
These are illegitimate generalizations that reveal absolutely no understanding of what is going on in the study of religion today.
The primary issue for this Web site, which happens also to be an issue in this thread, is how to confront the violent, oppressive texts, principles, ideology, belief-system inherent in Islam. At least Mr. Akyol attempts to directly address this issue (with arguments that are problematic and confusing, but at least he gives it a try).
Giaour, on the other hand, dodges the issue with false generalizations and slips away to the argument against Bush and his policy in Iraq, a Red Herring as far as this thread is concerned.
Valknova
The children of Beslan and the people of Israel that you mention above are all the victims of a global Jihad.
"...and for hundreds of millions of Muslims around the globe, Islam is a path to God."
- According to the Middle East Forum there are as many as 150 million *radical* Islamic followers with seething hatred of the United States.
"We just wish to cleanse that path from the distortions of the politically oriented radicals and intolerant bigots."
- Intolerant? Ohh Okay, *we're* intolerant. Keep those false accusations and cards and letters coming.
"(for if they are really non-violent, how can nothing more than a perceived insult make them violent?)."
- Well said.
"...as long as it does not turn into to a blind exchange of accusations and counter-accusations."
- Speak for yourself Mr. Akyol.
"...since my "jihad" (struggle) is focused on saving Islam from militancy and bigotry."
- Again with the "bigotry" labelling. Good luck with that, since Islam was born of the sword, and the everlasting hatred is masked by the gracious democratic countries that it invades.
- This guy (Mustafa Akyol) speaks (both tone and content) like an Islamist at heart, period.
posted by Giaour
Islamics then and now do not question authority, or those whom they choose to acknowledge as authority (then again neither do Christians, spell Pope, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell here
Giaour
I really like how you put Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on par with the likes of
Omar Bakri, Abu Hamza, Zacharias Moussaoui, Asif Mohammed Hanif, Muhammad Abu Al-Hunud, Omar Abdel Rahman. Ect....
None of those Americans have beheaded or called for any beheading or suicide bombers
yet in your mind they are cut from the same cloth.
You live in America I would guess. You live in a Country founded on Judaeo Christian beliefs and are protected by them. Yet you think they are the worst of the worst..
You are living walking proof that Christians are different than Moslems.
If we where not, you wouldn’t have a head!
So you should thank your tolerant Christians neighbors for not beheading you!
And for putting up with your bold face lies.
This tells me that your agenda is the same as Islam.
Mohammad the prophet who never prophesied!
No Islam, Know Peace
Hi, I just popped in to your web site...
As a human born into turkish geography and islamic bureaucracy in the early 50s, I wish to make a tiny contribution to your website...
I like so many other millions of turks have been branded "muslims"...
Forefathers of mine and of so many millions of my countrymen have been converted forcefully, under the worst tortures to that "spiritual" level of "islam" - over a thousand years ago, in the district-lands of Talkan - tens of thousands of turks were crucified, tortured and faced holocast if they had not accepted "islam"..
Check out the necessarry web sites, contact historians and see that turkish "muslims", generally are not committed muslims, and quite ready to fid back to their roots..
Why am i writing all this? not because i wish to put the turkish muslims under a better light, no..
it is just because to give a little awareness that turks, although the Ottoman dynasty ruled the islamic world for a thousand years and did quite some warfare in the name of "Him", actually are, were the victims of that cruel, inhumane way of living called "islam".. Allthough Turks stood at the gates of Vienna and wore the "holy" banner of islam, please remember that almost all sultans' mothers were christians, greeks, poles, hungarians, italians, etc... and just like the forlorn monarchies of europe (a german being a greek king, a greek being an english prince, a french being a russian tsar etc etc etc..) it was all a play of power against eachother...
Ottomans did oppress the turks - never had any other use for the except for toiling the land and becoming cannonfodder in the "holy" quest of their tyrannical sultans. The family of OSMAN - the Ottomans used religion as a tool for their imperialistic ends - as did so many european rulers do exploit religion during their crusades some centuries ago. Remember, the crusader footfolks were promised paradise too..
Well now, chrisitian religion has undergone wonderfull renovation - renaissance - wiedergeburt, which the islamic religion has not undergone yet...
During the 1200s to 1400s christian religion was in their dark ages...it lasted quite some time...
Now, if you calculate correctly, islam is just about some 1300 - 1400 years old and has entered the dark age of its lifespan..
Unfortunately this has to be lived through and there is no way avoiding it... Muslim madmen will attack, muslim reformers will be persecuted, and unfortunately a messy fight will continue at least for one century.. Why is it a century i mention - it may be a little less or little more - whatever " a little" means .., it is because for the past 84 years turks have being trying to get away from that sharia islam, but for the past 64 years big brother america has been continuisly undermining these efforts started by the great Shaman Atatürk.. America - keen to control and rule the world tries to keep control over the world and has corrupted so many countries with "islam" (to keep them well obedient), that it may even take two centuries in order to correct their blunders.. Was it not the US who collaborated with Usame in first place...
While you keep djihadwatch, please remember not all turks are muslims - even though their identity cards read "islam" in the space provided for "commited religion". (turkish ID cards must show all main details of a person, and religion is one of them.. and it is not easy to have that space corrected not to read anything but islam..)
Remember and spread the word that turks can easily find their way back to their roots of centralasian Shamanism and that this a point worth working on... (provided you do not insist on a mono deity and do not reject worship of the powers of nature for a raligion, or at least for a way of living..)
Kindest regards,
Shaman Turk
Mr. Akyol can be successful at what he is doing -- if he can get enough Mullahs/Imams to join him. Most Muslims (like most Christians) don't read their religious texts. They go to Mosque on Friday and listen to the sermons and believe what is told to them. This is very strong in Islam because of the belief that the Quran can only be read in Arabic (and old Arabic at that) which most don't understand well.
Islam can be anything those preaching it want it to be. Change the preachers, change the religion.
And the Shaman Turk, above, has some excellent points as well. He isn't the only 'not really Muslim' in the world, nor is Turkey the only country where that is common.
Kathy seems to have lived in an islamic country, or at least in Turkey... A few additions to my previous statement:
1- muslims lack self confidence, they are shit scared that their wives may go astray.. So they cover them with garments for other "muslims and non-muslims" alike do not to take even a glance of them..they have no trust for eachother, the least for the giaours..a muslim distrusts a muslim...
2- muslims are sexually manic-depressive and schizophrenic - all they think about when they see a woman or a pretty boy, is below the waist-line and sex..
3- muslims still think that that arabic (especially that antique qoran arabic) is a holly language..
4- muslims are ill educated hypocrits - they have no self-realization and self respect - so they do not realize the true nature of man, nor the true nature of LIFE and do not respect others.. Therefore they attack everything which they do not understand (in the name of god..) but do drink, adulter, gamble, kill, hate, steal etc etc all hedonistic activities they pursue (all the sins prohibited by all religions..)...
5- muslims are week in character - they cannot tolerate anything outside their own views..they build a mega-superiority complex with which they try to cover up their inferiority complexes..
6- muslims are blind and stupid - they say all that you need to know is written in the qoran, hypocrits that they are though, they use all the inventions and technical tools of the giaour christians..
7- muslims have provocative, agitative ways of communication, they first start detailed and mind numbing discussions if they feel intellectual, spiritual and scientific weakness of their opponents, but if they finally find that words do not suffice to convince, they turn to power abuse quickly..
8- muslims are the worst chauvinist male pigs the world has ever seen.. adultery will be punished by death for a woman, and a few floggings for the male adulterer.. they have made their women believe that the best way for them is the sharia laws.. there are committed muslim women who go out to do muslim propaganda.. and one such sharia mad muslim "enlightened" woman was tortured to death by the turkish hizbullah some years ago because she took to "modern islam"..
9- mr. mohammed was a clever person and merchant, who saw that that drinking, warring, uneducated, filthy, stupid,corrupt people called the ARABS were not good for his trade and had enough of all that decadance and sick way of living of his people, and tried to impose some social rules, according which his community should prosper -
pork was forbidden as the hygiene conditions of keeping pigs in the desert was not healthy, wine and drugs were forbidden because in that desert heat it does not do good to man, upto 4 wives were permitted (to those of better material standing), in order to take care of the widows of friends fallen in war (so the social cost of looking after those women and their children would be not aburden to society)- but that marriage id not entitle the man for a sexual relation with those widows.., fasting was ordered in order to discipline the overfed, 5 times a day prayer was perscribed in order to get the asses of those lazy ARABS moving and make them stop to think whether they were doing the right things in life, prayer time was bodily and spiritually exercise time.. and of course time to clean oneself (those dirty bums had to be cleaned-mr mohammad could not stand the stench of his countrymen).. AND in order to make those rules obeyed to, he said "god has said unto me.." .. and thus his social rules were made a religion and he himself was made a prophet by those who saw an opportunity in using religion to oppress and exploit people.. you know every religion needs a prophet..
(at this point I wish to scratch the surface of our fellow religions - as mr moses was a good tradesman and mr jesus was a very good yogi..)(that was the scratch - like it or not..)
Thus spoke the Shaman Turk who is a muslim only by paperwork, who worships GAIEA, the elements, flora and fauna and who wishes that all people convert into lovers of nature and that ISLAM either be wiped out or reformed by courageous ARAB muslims who will stand up against those sick minded Osama (Usame) and Ez-Zerkavi psychopaths - just like did MARTIN LUTHER some centuries ago..
But unfortunately I have to re-state this process cannot reach success before one or even two centuries - so deep has sunken islam into its own dark ages...
Whilst mentioning the shortcomings and degenerate and inhuman aspects of islam, I must mention that big brother America has contributed so much to those killer psychopath animals, ever since the second world war the USA has supported them monsters of islam and now it is out of control..
The high and painfull price for these blunders of the Anglosaxon-LatinoAmericoEuropean-ChristoJudeo community called the U. S. of A. has to be paid by the whole world. This final battle of "wounded knee" , ooops, sorry of "9/11" was inevitable, and pray to all gods and buffaloes you know for deliverance..
Amen,
Shaman Turk