Over at the NewsReal blog they've been arguing for several days, while I was flying through the air in a tin can, giving a talk, flying elsewhere in another tin can, etc., over whether or not I am right about the non-existence of moderate Islam. And so now it is time for a Marshall McLuhan moment. If you don't know what I mean by that, watch the clip above.
Here's the latest: "David Swindle's Complaint is a Diversion," by John R. Guardiano at NewsReal, March 15. In it, Guardiano takes issue with Swindle, a fellow NewsReal Blog writer, for saying that he "'viciously' and 'harshly' attacked Robert Spencer" by apparently calling me "ignorant," "caricaturing," and "right-wing." And Guardiano says:
The bottom line is this: Robert Spencer is a big boy and an accomplished scholar. Surely, he can handle a little mild-mannered criticism. I certainly have nothing against him.In fact, I respect Mr. Spencer and his work, even if I think (as I do) that he is ultimately and profoundly wrong or mistaken about Islam and the war against radical Islam.
And he adds: "My hope is that we can discuss substantive issues without all this Sturm und Drang over hurt and bruised feelings."
Absolutely, Mr. Guardiano. My feelings are not now and never have been hurt. I appreciate David Swindle's defense of my work, but I don't care what anyone calls me, and I've been called far worse than anything John Guardiano has said here. If such things bothered me, I would never have lasted so long doing this work publicly, especially given the viciousness, dishonesty, and taste for ad hominems of the Leftist/jihadist attack machine.
Anyway, to the point: does a moderate Islam -- by which I mean a version of Islam that does not teach that believers must make war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law -- exist at all?
Perhaps Mr. Guardiano would take issue with that definition of moderate Islam. He says here:
But the idea that Islam is inherently threatening and irredeemable also isn't true. This charge, in fact, is a dangerous and malicious lie. In reality, as Dinesh D'Souza observes in his excellent (albeit much misunderstood) book, The Enemy at Home: the Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11:The Koran, like the Old Testament, has a number of passages recommending peace and others celebrating the massacre of the enemies of God.
D'Souza doesn't mention, of course, and probably doesn't know, that the Qur'an's violent passages are presented as open-ended commands for believers to wage war against unbelievers, while the Old Testament's violent passages are specific to particular individuals and situations, and are never presented as open-ended commands to all believers.
Nor does D'Souza ever manifest any awareness of the fact that the Qur'an is not simply a book containing passages with different emphases that are more or less up for grabs as to how believers interpret them. In reality, in stark contrast to the Jewish and Christian traditions that have worked to spiritualize in various ways the violent passages of the Bible, the literal understanding of the violent Qur'anic passages has always held sway in Islamic theology -- and they have been considered binding. They are also considered to take precedence over the Qur'an's more tolerant passages.
Don't take my word for it. Let's see what Muslim authorities say.
1. Muhammad's earliest biographer, a pious Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur'anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah's last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur'anic verse: "Then God sent down to him: 'Fight them so that there be no more seduction,' i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. 'And the religion is God's', i.e. Until God alone is worshipped."
The Qur'an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until "the religion is God's" - that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.
Question for John Guardiano: I take it you believe that Ibn Ishaq was wrong, and misunderstood the true, peaceful teachings of the Qur'an and Muhammad?
2. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh 'Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, "at first 'the fighting' was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory." He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: "(1) against them who start 'the fighting' against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur'an)."
Question for John Guardiano: I take it you believe that the Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia also was wrong in thinking that warfare against unbelievers was obligatory, and that he misunderstood the Qur'an?
3. The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) outlines the stages of the Muhammad's prophetic career: "For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God's religion was fully established."
The idea that one must fight the "polytheists" until "God's religion was fully established" was understood throughout Islamic history as referring to a responsibility Muslims had as an umma to wage war against unbelievers until Sharia was established over them. This was the impetus for the jihadist incursions into North Africa, Europe, Persia, India and elsewhere. Question for John Guardiano: I take it you think that all that was wrong, and was based on a mistaken understanding of the Qur'an and Islam?
4. Al-Suyuti says that the Verse of the Sword (9:5) abrogates no less than 124 more peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur'an. Tafsir al-Jalalayn asserts that the Qur'an's ninth sura "was sent down when security was removed by the sword." Ibn Kathir declares that Qur'an 9:5 "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term....No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah [the ninth sura] was revealed." Ibn Juzayy agrees: the Verse of the Sword's purpose is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur'an."
None of them say that the Verse of the Sword applies only to the seventh century.
Question for John Guardiano: I take it that you believe that all these Islamic scholars misunderstood the Qur'an and formulated Islamic teaching incorrectly as a result?
5. A Shafi'i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo's Al-Azhar University, as conforming "to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community." This manual, 'Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), spends a considerable amount of time explaining jihad as "war against non-Muslims." It spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: "the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax." It adds a comment by a Jordanian jurist that corresponds to Muhammad's instructions to call the unbelievers to Islam before fighting them: the caliph wages this war only "provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) . . . while remaining in their ancestral religions." Also, it says if there is no caliph, Muslims must still wage jihad.
Question for John Guardiano: I take it you believe that the imams of Al-Azhar were wrong and misunderstood Islam when they certified this book as a reliable guide to the true teachings of Sunni Islam?
But perhaps Mr. Guardiano will dislike those questions, for he goes on to say this:
This is not to say that Islam is a religion of peace. Rather it is to say that Islam is far more rich and complicated than the simple caricature of Islam created by vehement right-wing critics like Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch, Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online, and yes, my colleague here at NewsReal Blog, John L. Work. [...]A better approach would be to follow the counsel of Islamic scholar Daniel Pipes. Pipes urges Western leaders to encourage and promote moderate Islamic thinking and scholarship. This to help promote a moderate reformation of Islam.
But to follow this approach, you first have to believe that Islam has an inherent truth which is worth explicating and developing. I believe that it does; my right-wing critics believe otherwise; and therein lies the crux of our dispute.
Islam has an "inherent truth"? I can't see anyone but a believer in Islam affirming that, so Mr. Guardiano and I do indeed part company on that one. But in any case, he seems to be saying that Islam is not a religion of peace, but that he thinks it can change, and that I think it cannot change. Actually, I have never said that it cannot change, but any realistic appraisal of the prospects for Islamic reform has to take into account such impediments to change as the content of the Qur'an and Sunnah, its traditional interpretation by the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the death penalty for those who engage in heresy or innovation, and the closure of the gate of ijtihad.
For example, Guardiano quotes Daniel Pipes invoking the Sudanese reformer Mahmud Muhammad Taha, but fails to add that Taha was executed for heresy. In fact, all of the quotations he uses from Pipes show Pipes arguing that moderate Islam can exist, not that it exists now. Guardiano also apparently doesn't know that Pipes has said: "Robert Spencer and I have discussed the perceived differences in our view of Islam. He and I concluded that, although we have different emphases - he deals more with scriptures, I more with history - we have no disagreements."
Anyway, I hope Mr. Guardiano can handle a little mild-mannered criticism, and look forward to his substantive response to these points.
A better approach would be to follow the counsel of Islamic scholar Daniel Pipes. Pipes urges Western leaders to encourage and promote moderate Islamic thinking and scholarship. This to help promote a moderate reformation of Islam.
........................
Pipes never claims that there has been a "moderate reformation" of Islam, just that he would like to see it and that it should be encouraged.
I imagine all of us here would like to see a moderate reformation of Islam—I know I would. An end to Muslim supremacism and Jihad violence?—I'd certainly support that.
But with no indication that Islam is "moderating", that "reformers" are making any headway, or even exist in significant numbers—I'm also not going to hold my breath waiting for it, either.
In fact, the big danger with John Guardiano and those like him is that his ideas leave us vulnerable to listening to Taqiyya artists—Muslims who have no intention whatsoever of attempting to "reform" Islam, but just sugarcoat Islam for Infidel consumption, and thus lull us into a false sense of security.
Extraordinary. May I ask if any of these critics are ever heard from again once Robert has answered them? Do they ever try to match this kind of reasoned and fully informed discourse, or take point by point what Robert says when he demonstrates that they are wrong? I can't follow this stuff religiously and in every forum, but, from the way they are quoted in articles like this, I get the impression that Robert's detractors make a habit of talking emotionally and rather vaguely, and then just disappear into the sunset when he joins battle. Which may be a victory, but it's also frustrating, because the "watch me be liberal by pillorying Robert Spencer" crowd seem to have a headlock on the public ear, if I may mix my metaphors creatively.
"I imagine all of us here would like to see a moderate reformation of Islam—I know I would. An end to Muslim supremacism and Jihad violence?—I'd certainly support that."
I would too, Gravenimage. And one thing that muslims could do is to come alongside their Jewish cousins in support of allowing them shared access to pray on the Temple Mount. Just today Jews, and others, peaceably gathered in Jerusalem outside the Temple Mount requesting permission to simply go up to the Temple Mount to pray, but once again they were refused access. The Temple Mount should be a place where men and women of all faiths can gather and pray -- but no, only muslims are allowed to pray up there. This is wrong and it needs to change.
Ouch. That's gotta sting.
"Spencer fended-off several low-blows in that first round and looks none the worse for wear.
Here come the pugilists for round 2...
Spencer moves in & scores with a crisp combination. Now a stiff jab & ohhhh my, he lands a big right, another right...a veritable flurry of truth-punches...and Guardiano is down...he's on the intellectual canvas and the referee has stopped the fight! Just too many punches from the...RIGHT!"
Hello Robert (or anyone else), I have one or two questions I will be grateful if you could help me out please -
1 Didn't Mohd. start his prophecy after he married that wealthy widow, i.e. after his first marriage?
2 If the first question is true, that means no one noticed there was a 'Al-Ha's Avatar' present till he got wealthy with the money from his wife, so he could hire someone to write what he would call Quean for his submissive obedients right?
3 If he paid someone to write his 'visions' of 'Al-Ha', how could he had ever verified the writer was writing the exact stuff that he had in mind, rather than what the writer thought that he may have in mind, because he was illiterate?
My feelings are not now and never have been hurt.
Well, it does help to have factual reality on your side.
*** Bukhari Vol 6 Bk 60 Nbr 662 ***
But it must be painful to speak into a world where so very few have it on their side.
*** 4:142 ***
Was that really Marshall McLuhan? My hero. Whole fictive realities have been built since he explicated how dangerous things were made newly possible by the emergence of electronic media.
As others have pointed out, those Muslims who non-Muslims view as radical are not radical at all, they are simply doctrinaire Muslims doing precisely what the tenets of their faith commands. Many Muslims are not all that doctrinaire just as members of other faiths are as well. These are the Muslims that get defined as moderate. However, no other faith has such a frightening dividing line between the doctrinaire and the not so doctrinaire.
Yea, what KrazyKafir said.
Interesting. Daniel Pipes' examples show that moderate Islam "can be possible", not that it actually exists.
This is a point that needs to be made more often.
I consider this article the definitive debunking of the "Islam is a religion of peace" BS that the Government, from George Bush after 9/11 on, and the muticultural liberals have been more-or-less successfully been pushing on the American people.
I will be referencing it often during the information war we find ourselves in.
Robert Spencer seems to be much closer to the position of Bat Ye´or than Daniel Pipes, according to this interview:
“Question: Daniel Pipes’ slogan is “Fundamentalist Islam is the enemy; moderate Islam is the solution.” But do you think there is hope for change?
B.Y.: I know moderate and brilliant Muslims, but I do not know of a school of thought, represented by teaching and publications, followed by millions of Muslims, called “moderate Islam.”
Everyone hopes for a change, including Muslims. I never say “never.”
But I think that changes will emerge if we start discussing these issues instead of hiding them under the carpet, and if we take measures to protect ourselves and become aware of language manipulation, like, for instance, pretending that jihad means peace and justice.
We should also support secular and modernist Muslims who are also targeted and hope desperately for our help and encouragement."
(Quoted from "Time of jihad", Interview of Bat Ye'or by William F. Katz, Dallas Morning News, June 18, 2005).
And that is exactly what Robert Spencer is doing here on JW.
Thoughtful article on the whole issue, by David Solway, in open letter to Geert Wilders..
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/15/a-profile-in-courage/
@Hugh
“I do not object to the occasional use of the word "Islamism" by those who, in their use, so clearly mean simply: Islam when it is taken fully to heart, taken seriously.”
So you don’t object to Bat Ye’or, who uses the term numerous times in Eurabia? And you wouldn’t object to me using it if in the same breath I acknowledged that “Islamism” is not a separate doctrine from that at the heart of orthodox Islam? For I do acknowledge that. “Islamism” is surely not something entirely distinct from “Islam,” but the two terms are not synonymous either.
“You also talk about the "modern revival of Islam," and I believe -- but correct me if I have misunderstood -- that you think of this as a new ideological phenomenon.”
No, I don’t think it is “a new ideological phenomenon.” Like I said, ““Islamism” explicitly refers to Islam’s central political and supremacist nature as embodied within the revivalist movement in the 20th century – which is certainly “Islamic” too” But I also said that “”Islam” can be, and is, used to refer to doctrines and practices that may lie outside the phenomenon of 20th century “Islamism”.”
When I mention the “modern revival of Islam” it is just to acknowledge that Islamic doctrine has periods of abeyance, as you yourself have noted many times, and that with the creation of the Middle East in the wake of the collapse of the caliphate, the advent of the Muslim Brotherhood, the jihad waged from organized political Islamic movements against secular Muslim states, and the backlash against them, and the subsequent rise of transnational Islamic movements – this refers to a revival of an ancient ideology (hence a “revival”) not the creation of a new one.
Again you point out to the practical things that have facilitated the resurgence of Islamism, political Islam, or as you would have it, Islam. But that doesn’t affect the dispute (since it is not whether Islam contains the seeds of supremacism; it clearly does) over what defines “Islam.” For you it is the unchanging doctrine of supremacism. Your view is doctrinally reductionist: Islam for you is all about the doctrine and nothing else.
@sonofwalker
“If we really believe in an intelligent public discourse on Islam, shouldn't people like Hugh be arguing that "Islamism" is one interpretation or movement of Islam, rooted in a rather obvious reading of the canonical texts, and engendering a political movement that is responding to modernity and the limits of the Arab nationalist movement in a rather totalitarian, violently Utopian, and nihilistic manner. And then one can point out that those who wish to say "that's Islamism, that's not real Islam" are expressing their fond wishes but that Islamism is just as much part of the Islam phenomenon …”
An intelligent comment on the issue. Yes, Islamism is a core part of, and genuinely grounded in, Islam, but that doesn’t mean that Islamism is Islam. These are two entwined but different concepts. But Hugh’s argument – if I understand it correctly – is that there can be no other “interpretations” of Islam, since that would contravene the orthodoxy. The orthodoxy, according to Hugh, is what defines Islam. And this cannot be questioned because it has never been successfully questioned. Thus Islam is defined by a doctrinal orthodoxy that not only sanctifies violence but has been maintained by actual violence or the threat of violence throughout history. Islam has never contained any non-literalist, non-supremacist movements, since these were always marginal because of their oppression and thus “heretical”.
For Hugh and others, and indeed literalist and supremacist Muslims, there is only one Islam and that is the orthodox Islam: pro-jihad for universal shari’a. Anything that doesn’t conform to this ancient ideology just isn’t Islam. Anything that tries to claim Islam as anything else – non-literalist, non-supremacist – cannot by definition be Islam. Thus Islam is no longer defined by what has come to pass, but by an unchanging ideology.
@Hesperado
“Hugh isn't doing that [arguing tautologically]. He is merely noticing that Muslims do that and have done it for 1400 years, and do it on the basis of their central texts and tenets.”
Fantasizing about some alternative Islam is not only silly, it is positively reckless and dangerous for our safety, if pursued and concretized in various policy we might adopt. In fact, the West has been adopting such reckless policy based on such silly notions. And we keep seeing the terrible consequences, only getting worse.
I am not “Fantasizing about some alternative Islam”. My point has nothing to do with the likelihood of the emergence of a truly progressive Islam. I don’t hold out for that. I acknowledge that orthodox Islam contains jihadist, irrendentist, separatist, literalist, supremacist doctrines. What I am saying that whilst these may be orthodox, there have existed and do exist unorthodox teachings that – by virtue of “Muslims” expressing them – ought to be considered as part of “Islamic” culture or practice.
“Islam” to many Muslims in the West is a private matter, even though the allure of the “authentic” Islamic teachings – of jihad etc – may tempt them to relent these unorthodox leanings. The fact is that such secular understandings of Islam can never amount to a political rival to “Islamism” because by virtue of being secular such Muslims do not want to create an “Islamic” political movement. To do so is to become “Islamist”.
If “Islam” is simply what Muslims practice—ranging from war on infidels and apostates to following only the personal articles of faith—then “Islamism” is certainly useful to be explicit about its political and supremacist nature. Not all Muslims want to make Islam a political thing and do not want to live under shari'a but by limiting your definition of "Islam" to its orthodox jihadist teachings such Muslims are told that they are not Muslims and thus have nothing to reform or progress. For how can anything evolve - regardless of the likelihood of it happening - if it is logically impossible for something to change?
Oops, wrong thread ...
You are just confusing the matter. Islamism is not an ideology but just an empirical description of the extent to which individual Muslims or groups of Muslims adhere to the unchangeable theologically defined basic tenets of (Sunny) Islam.
This is similar to saying that an islamic country implement a more or less strict version of Sharia.
We should not mix up the ideological/theological level with the empirical level in discussions about Islam.
That is exactly what Bat Ye´or warns us about as quoted above:
"I know moderate and brilliant Muslims, but I do not know of a school of thought, represented by teaching and publications, followed by millions of Muslims, called “moderate Islam.”
Everyone hopes for a change, including Muslims. I never say “never.”.
I also know islamists who are more or less islamistic ;-)
Anyway, to the point: does a moderate Islam -- by which I mean a version of Islam that does not teach that believers must make war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law -- exist at all?
And then: But to follow this approach, you first have to believe that Islam has an inherent truth which is worth explicating and developing. I believe that it does; my right-wing critics believe otherwise; and therein lies the crux of our dispute. (my bold)
These two go together hand in glove. There is a war against the West in the Islamic mind because they believe in their (7th century, pagan god Al-Ylah renamed Allah) superstitious Mohammedan "inherent truth" that they are morally superior to the West. The Arab mind, and by extension the Islamic mind in all non-Arab countries, believes it has a lock key on "inherent truth" of how society should be structured for the moral benefit of mankind. But this is a false belief built up on centuries of superstitions dating back to the early Koran and Hadiths, that Mohammad as messenger was bringing a "superior" truth for mankind.
The corollary to this is that the non-Islamic world is terribly disadvantaged morally because it fails to understand and accept (submit to) this "inherent truth" of Islam. This in the Arab mind gives them a sense of superiority to the West, that their morality is better than our secular (non-Islamic, non-religious) moral values. Leaving aside the West's primary religion of Christianity, we have a morality base built up on the value of the individual, of liberty and equality, rule of law, and of reciprocity. These are very powerful values on which to build our democratic constitutional forms of government, which exist not only to maintain social order, but also to validate the sanctity of the individual. In this respect, our moral values are far superior to the Arab morality. Their societies of Islam are mired in recidivism, primitivism, official corruption, dogmatism, child abuse, institutionalized pedophelia, abuse of women, 'honor killings, public stonings, public amputations, bigotry, mass rage, suicide murders, economic and developmental poverty, scientific under achievements, and in some cases slavcry. The opposite is true for the West, but the Arab mind cannot understand that the reason our achievements are great, and theirs so retarded, is because we have a morally superior system of governance than their regressive Medieval sharia law.
This is our "inherent truth" that we are superior morally to the Arab mindset of Sharia, and it is time for them to finally understand in the 21st century that we, the West, do not exist in a "moral vacuum" they must fill with their primitive, superstitious driven Sharia, but must learn to adapt and understand the values upon which our superior civilization is built upon. Then their choice is either to conform, or leave. There are no "moderates" in this choice, it is either or.
All good points!
But I have to come to MR. Guardiano's defense. David Swindle seems to me to be very thin skinned. How many political blogs are not content with warnings about personal attacks but feel they must caution their commenters to be "polite" in their passionate arguments lest they be deleted and forever cencored in true LGF fashion for the crime of being too sarcastic.
Mr. Swindle needs to go live in an 18th century English drawing room with rigid rules of etiquette; he just doesn't seem to have the confidence to deal with freewheeling opinion.
I myself ma banned from even commenting in his little kingdom for not being willing to "humble" myself to him and admit error on some inflated past disagreement.
To not have my pieces accepted, though my opinions and his match more often than not, is one thing. He is the editor; but to be so childish as to ban comments on articles because of an "attitude" that existed BEFORE he INVITED my to writer for him?
Go Guardiano! Oh, You ARE STILL wrong, as Robery pointed out.
46 is too young for "the arthuritus"; my typing ain't what it used to be.
so Robert, has Mr. Guardiano made any attempt at rebuttal? since u pretty much pointed out his inconsistency and duplicity here in this posting, might he reconsider? if he does read it, and backs off his personal attacks, would u mind sharing that with us? thanks.
by the way, semantically, the term "moderate Islam" implies that there is a middle ground in their thought.
ergo, 3 types of Islamics, not just 2: soft, medium, hard.
all of which is just silly, eh?
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
We welcome you to follow many of the Priests and Pastors to understand the Almighty Creator and embrace Islam
Quran, Surah 5:Ayat: 82-83 "And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud. When they listen to that which hath been revealed unto the messenger, thou seest their eyes overflow with tears because of their recognition of the Truth. They say: Our Lord, we believe. Inscribe us as among the witnesses"
A Christian Minister's Conversion to Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKXKKyyXG4g&feature=related
http://www.usislam.org/converts/converts.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j-kMfA2x8w&feature=PlayList&p=A6F1B1A59147F69D&index=6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnsIeh_s05g&feature=PlayList&p=47B2E6598D683780&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=83
May Almighty God the Creator please with you, for all you have done helping mankind and will give you peace and happiness in this world and Jannah in the hereafter.
AMEEN
Ladies and gentlemen
observe the Mohammedan dementor, 'Janeabraham', crowing over a few heretical and foolish clergy from non-Muslim faiths who have supposedly become Muslims (in this case, their prior faith was 'Christian' [IF, indeed, these little propaganda videos are telling the truth...one never can tell, with anything a Muslim presents, since after all, 'War is Deceit'] and in another case, also carefully planted by the same poster at the end of another recent thread here, a 'Jewish rabbi').
All this shows is that the world is full of fools - for any free person who 'embraces Islam' without having been bribed or threatened into so doing, is either evil, or a fool. (There is no guarantee for the Muslims, boasting of such conversions, that the very same fools will not, if their 'conversion' takes place in the as-yet-relatively-free West where executing people for apostasy *is* still liable to incur a murder investigation, weary also of Islam and slide right back out of it).
Islam is about control. The continued pretense that Jihad is a notion practiced by an isolated number of radicals is nonsense. Jihad is a central plank in the advancement of Islam. The fear of Jihad is needed to suppress dissent of any kind. It creates a bully pulpit to advance Sharia Law into western culture.
Instead of pretending that radical Islam is a microcosm of the Muslim culture we should acknowledge that in fact the microcosm are actual those who do not advocate the subjugation of non-Muslims.
Western Europe is a fine case in point. They are not at war with Islam but the advancement of Sharia law and Muslim culture into the UK, France,Germany, Switzerland and the Scandinavian Countries at the expense of those cultures is painfully evident.
There is no assimilation. Islam does not want to be a separate entity in Western culture. It wants to dictate its will and rules on western culture.
It eludes me how the world refuses to acknowledge the similarities between Nazism and this awful religion. Racism against Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and any women is ok as long as you are Muslim? Seriously?
On FOX News, in reference to the "Jihad Jane" incident the newsperson made the comment that now that blue eyed, blond women were being recruited there was no way to tell who was a terrorist anymore.
I thought this was odd considering the fact that the common thread linking all these idiots was their adherence to Islam.
Is cognitive dissonance so pervasive in our culture that we have to have a 911 every week before someone connects the dots?
Islam is already at war with the west. And if we don't destroy political correctness and pay attention to the facts we are going to lose.
Islam is a global, totalitarian political system. Only the emperor (caliph) has rights in the Islamic govenment. His rights trump those of all others.
Robert Spencer is quite correct. There is no 'moderate' Islam as there is no democratic dictatorship.
Dictatorship does not require free expression or the ballet box.
Political Islam is a one-party state ruled by a strong-man. We see this system in all Islamic countries, save where the ruling party is synonomous with the army. The army chooses the figure head leader, in such a case and a show of democracy is made.
There may be a 'moderate' dictator of an Islamic state (compared to, say, Stalin), but the Islamic system itself is not 'moderate' or democratic and is obviously open to abuse under a toxic dictator.
Islam is perfect and cannot change.
Islam is a global, totalitarian political system. Only the emperor (caliph) has rights in the Islamic govenment. His rights trump those of all others.
Robert Spencer is quite correct. There is no 'moderate' Islam as there is no democratic dictatorship.
Dictatorship does not require free expression or the ballot box.
Political Islam is a one-party state ruled by a strong-man. We see this system in all Islamic countries, save where the ruling party is synonomous with the army. The army chooses the figure head leader, in such a case and a show of democracy is made.
There may be a 'moderate' dictator of an Islamic state (compared to, say, Stalin), but the Islamic system itself is not 'moderate' or democratic and is obviously open to abuse under a toxic dictator.
Islam is perfect and cannot change.
It's the political aspect that makes it dangerous, and is the reason why Islam cannot be moderate.
Many Muslims may be non-political and want nothing more than to practice a personal religion - there may be moderate Muslims - but other Muslims will claim that this particular kind of moderate Muslim is not Islamic.
The political aims of Islam are clearly stated by any authoritative Muslim. The tactics used in achieving their aims are deceiptful. In the London, UK, an Islamic organisation has taken control of a Labour run council, using democratic processes to infiltrate and overturn democratic rule - see the references here. Islam is a danger to democracy.
Some Muslims will tell you Islam is democratic. Democracy in Islam doesn't mean what most Western states mean by democracy. Islamic democracy applies only to Muslims. Despite claims to the contrary it's obvious too that women do not have full access to the Islamic democratic process. You can hear what Muslim leaders in Britain think of democracy here (9 February 2004 episode).