The WSJ asked Anwar Ibrahim, Bernard Lewis, Ed Husain, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Tawfik Hamid and Akbar Ahmed to reflect on the nature that ever-elusive unicorn, moderate Islam."A Symposium: What Is Moderate Islam?," from the Wall Street Journal, September 1 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia's opposition leader, makes this admission:
Skeptics and cynics alike have said that the quest for the moderate Muslim in the 21st century is akin to the search for the Holy Grail. It's not hard to understand why. Terrorist attacks, suicide bombings and the jihadist call for Muslims "to rise up against the oppression of the West" are widespread.The radical fringe carrying out such actions has sought to dominate the discourse between Islam and the West. In order to do so, they've set out to foment anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. They've also advocated indiscriminate violence as a political strategy. To cap their victory, this abysmal lot uses the cataclysm of 9/11 as a lesson for the so-called enemies of Islam.
Countering this, he invokes the undeniable existence of Muslims who are just trying to live ordinary lives:
These are the Muslims who go about their lives like ordinary people--earning their livings, raising their families, celebrating reunions and praying for security and peace. These are the Muslims who have never carried a pocketknife, let alone explosives intended to destroy buildings. These Muslims are there for us to see, if only we can lift the veil cast on them by the shadowy figures in bomb-laden jackets hell-bent on destruction.
In the end he does not posit the existence of a Moderate Islam, but calls for its creation:
Yet Muslims must do more than just talk about their great intellectual and cultural heritage. We must be at the forefront of those who reject violence and terrorism. And our activism must not end there. The tyrants and oppressive regimes that have been the real impediment to peace and progress in the Muslim world must hear our unanimous condemnation. The ball is in our court.
The renowned scholar Bernard Lewis makes a similar admission:
A form of moderation has been a central part of Islam from the very beginning. True, Muslims are nowhere commanded to love their neighbors, as in the Old Testament, still less their enemies, as in the New Testament. But they are commanded to accept diversity, and this commandment was usually obeyed. The Prophet Muhammad's statement that "difference within my community is part of God's mercy" expressed one of Islam's central ideas, and it is enshrined both in law and usage from the earliest times.
However, he then trots out the familiar claim that historically Muslims were more tolerant than Christians:
This principle created a level of tolerance among Muslims and coexistence between Muslims and others that was unknown in Christendom until after the triumph of secularism. Diversity was legitimate and accepted. Different juristic schools coexisted, often with significant divergences.
Even if this is true, and there is a lot of evidence that it isn't (why were 17 million Jews living in Europe and only one million in the Islamic world at the dawn of the twentieth century?), it establishes nothing. Laws of any kind can and will be relaxed, ignored, and broken. But if they remain on the books, they will likely be enforced again by someone with the will to do so. And so if Islam has no command to love one's neighbor, Muslims will generally not be loving to their neighbors, except when human nature gets the better of what they're taught.
Even after retailing this soothing nonsense, Lewis tells the truth:
For the moment, there does not seem to be much prospect of a moderate Islam in the Muslim world. This is partly because in the prevailing atmosphere the expression of moderate ideas can be dangerous--even life-threatening. Radical groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban, the likes of which in earlier times were at most minor and marginal, have acquired a powerful and even a dominant position.But for Muslims who seek it, the roots are there, both in the theory and practice of their faith and in their early sacred history.
In that, Lewis contradicts his earlier statement. Practice, yes. Theory, no. As Lewis himself pointed out.
Then Ed Husain, who is just another deceiver, chimes in with a tissue of detours entitled "Don't Call Me Moderate, Call Me Normal":
[...] The Prophet Muhammad warned us against ghuluw, or extremism, in religion. The Quran reinforces the need for qist, or balance. For me, Islam at its essence is the middle way in all matters. This is normative Islam, adhered to by a billion normal Muslims across the globe.Normative Islam is inherently pluralist. It is supported by 1,000 years of Muslim history in which religious freedom was cherished. The claim, made today by the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia, that they represent God's will expressed through their version of oppressive Shariah law is a modern innovation.
The classical thinking within Islam was to let a thousand flowers bloom. Ours is not a centralized tradition, and Islam's rich diversity is a legacy of our pluralist past.
Nothing about dhimmitude. Nothing about the deprivations, discrimination and harassment suffered by non-Muslims in Islamic societies for centuries. For a corrective, complete with numerous primary source documents showing what actually went on behind the facade of Islam's history of "pluralism," see Bat Ye'or's Islam and Dhimmitude and The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam.
Reuel Marc Gerecht then explains that "moderate Islam is the faith practiced by the parents of my Pakistani British roommate at the University of Edinburgh--and, no doubt, by the great majority of Muslim immigrants to Europe and the United States." They were very nice to him, you see, and were "devout Muslims." He confuses, as do so many, the individual practitioner of the religion with the teachings of the religion itself. Yet people behave in all sorts of ways for all sorts of reasons; the behavior of any given Muslim no more changes the teachings of Islam than the behavior of a non-practicing Catholic means that the Catholic Church doesn't teach what it teaches.
Only Tawfik Hamid gets to the heart of the matter:
Moderate Islam should be defined as a form of Islam that rejects these violent and discriminatory edicts. Furthermore, it must provide a strong theological refutation for the mainstream Islamic teaching that the Muslim umma (nation) must declare wars against non-Muslim nations, spreading the religion and giving non-Muslims the following options: convert, pay a humiliating tax, or be killed. This violent concept fuels jihadists, who take the teaching literally and accept responsibility for applying it to the modern world.Moderate Islam must not be passive. It needs to actively reinterpret the violent parts of the religious text rather than simply cherry-picking the peaceful ones. Ignoring, rather than confronting or contextualizing, the violent texts leaves young Muslims vulnerable to such teachings at a later stage in their lives.
Finally, moderate Islam must powerfully reject the barbaric practices of jihadists. Ideally, this would mean Muslims demonstrating en masse all over the world against the violence carried out in the name of their religion.
Moderate Islam must be honest enough to admit that Islam has been used in a violent manner at several stages in history to seek domination over others. Insisting that all acts in Islamic history and all current Shariah teachings are peaceful is a form of deception that makes things worse by failing to acknowledge the existence of the problem.
Ed Husain just above is an example of the tendency Hamid refers to here.
Akbar Ahmed, following Hamid, is smooth but empty. And so after all that, what is moderate Islam? None of these analysts seem to know, or to be able to point to it. One would think that would lead to some rather obvious conclusions for the WSJ, the nation, and the world. But it doesn't.
Mohammed said "I have been made victorious through terror"
Mohammed is the 'Perfect Man' and role model for all Muslims.
Therefore, Islam is an intrinsically terrorist cult. http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islam-terrorism.html
So the question could be rephrased as 'What is moderate terrorism?'
Does moderate terrorism only allow you to be involved in a maximum of four terror plots at any one time?
Again we see attempts to, in effect, ignore those parts of the Islamic theological blueprint which are a guarantee of 1) inequality between Muslim and non-Muslim, 2) war to be made upon the unbeliever until all the world is dominated by Islam, 3) no true freedom of any kind. Only Islam's theological blueprint is an enemy of freedom, peace and equality under the law. No other major religion's theory is a threat to democracy, freedom of all sorts and a source for virtually endless conflict in this world.
Islam itself is the problem. That's why it has to go. There's no reforming something which is wicked to its very core and Islam's wickedness goes straight back to Mohammed, one of the most malevolently influential persons of all time. It's the Islam, stupid.
There's an easy solution-
convert them all to other religions, there, done and done.
Mormons and Buddhists and Christians aren't blowing up **** and killing people nonstop in the name of their gods, and you can't change what Islam is. But you can change people believing in that nonsense and picking a less heavy alcoholic religious beverage to help keep them sane.
Radical groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban, the likes of which in earlier times were at most minor and marginal, have acquired a powerful and even a dominant position.
-- Bernard Lewis
Even if Lewis is correct about this, he would be overlooking the forest for the "radical" trees: In earlier times, Muslim societies had no need for an al Qaeda or a Taliban: they were far more able to flex their jihadist muscles formally, officially and militarily. The astounding reversal of Islamic power caused by the spectacular rise of the modern West, beginning in global earnest in the 17th century, has forced Muslims to pursue their perennial and essential jihad in paramilitary means, for they no longer have been able to wage formally military jihad except in certain primitive regions of the Third World (e.g., Africa).
By the way, Bernard Lewis's scholarly mentor in the 1930s was the Orientalist Louis Massignon (1883-1962). See my long analysis of a Massignon essay, and wonder along with me if Massignon's deformation was not at least in certain significant respects passed on to his pupil, Lewis.
Moderate Islam must not be passive. It needs to actively reinterpret the violent parts of the religious text...
Reinterpret them to what? Quran 8:39 1/2...'Don't fight them(kufr)until none worship Allah'? And Allah is not the god of the world?...That kind of talk gets Allah stoking up the furnace...
It's interesting that kufr taqiyya masters are slightly more masterful than Mahoundian taqiyya masters...But none of them is quite masterful enough...
Islam has a term to define moderates, they're called heretics.
A little more on Bernard Lewis:
A Tribute To Bernard Lewis:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/06/fitzgerald-a-tribute-to-bernard-lewis.html
Bernard Lewis's Ill-Considered Remarks:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/03/fitzgerald-bernard-lewiss-ill-considered-remarks.html
Bernard Lewis: All That Glitters Is Not Gold
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/6763
....a Moderate Muslim is one who kills the enemy quickly, rather than slowly..........
Moderate Islam?
Didn't I just see it riding off atop a unicorn so it could catch the newest "Elvis Performing Live" Show in Vegas?
Let Western Nations throw "moderate" islam out with the dirty bathwater, "extreme" orthodox islam.
Muslims suffer under islam/sharia. However nations that respect and protect human liberty must defend themselves first from assault. Only when we are secure could we offer much assistance, if ever requested, for freedom from sharia.
Ha,ha,....
These experts have clue what is "moderate" Islam!!!!
Maybe,it's because there is no "moderate" Islam nor a "moderate" Muslim. It's a mythical imaginary species/term coined up by Muslims themselves and their dhimmi clueless western supporters.
There is no moderate Islam nor Muslim. Got it??? If the experts don't get this simple fact, they are not the experts worth asking their opinion for!!!
Robert misses the mark this time. I don't think that he's right when he says that "none of these analysts seem to know, or be able to point to (moderate Islam)."
I think that Tawfik Hamid got it right. He says that a moderate muslim is one that confronts the jihadists and builds a theological case for living in peace with unbelievers on an equal basis.
But I am also sorry that they didn't invite Robert to contribute to the article.
Moderate Islam must be honest enough to admit that Islam has been used in a violent manner at several stages in history to seek domination over others. --Tawfik Hamid
That is the heart of the matter, that this Islamic Jihad had been going on for 1400 years, a very long trail of blood and tears, not theirs but those they conquered, for their evil 7th century barbaric Warlord's diktat to conquer the whole world for him, taking booty and slaves, especially women slaves, all in the name of his family's pagan moon-god Allah.
How do you fashion a "moderate" Muslim out of this woeful legacy of murder and rapine through the centuries, without deceit 'taqiyya' and without death threats raining down like a monsoon deluge? It can't be done. Might as well try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Islam is doomed by modernity, by investigation, by education, by humanity of the arts, by the internet; doomed to face itself in the mirror and see its true ugliness in the full light of reason. "Moderates" if they exist, have only one path open to them, to abandon Islam. It is a vile and ugly creed invented by a delusional and acromegalic megalomaniac. This cult is irredeemable, not a religion.
What is moderate islam? ...a lukewarm muslim!
If they talk about these minorty of 'radicals', 'extremists', 'fanatics', etc. they still can't explain nations that sponsor these programs. These 'minority' of radical muslims are sponsored by terrorist-states. Look at these nations that comes to mind: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Egypt et al.
Will they explain these nations? Yeah, I didn't think so.
The other day there was a discussion here along the same lines, and I think many then agreed that a moderate Muslim is a Muslim who hasn't been offended yet, or that a radical Muslim is a moderate Muslim who acts out what he is thinking.
The Wall Street Journal panel got it completely wrong. We are talking about a believing Muslim here, and as such one who believes in what is written in the Quran and we have to take into consideration that everything depends on how he intends to interpret what he is reading when he is brought to the question. We cannot rely on a hope it'll all be flower-power and love thy neighbor. The history of Islam - despite some of the odd assertions above - tells us otherwise, the claims for and by the Sharia tell us so to this day.
And so if Islam has no command to love one's neighbor, Muslims will generally not be loving to their neighbors, except when human nature gets the better of what they're taught.
In fact they have a command to do precisely the opposite -- to wit, Qur'an 48:29, which mandates that Muslims be "hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves."
Let us consider the hypothetical situation that ALL Muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call to clean up their communities of extremism, and became as moderate as we would like. They even went further and made the changes in their teachings of the Koran and the jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site, the government, the MSM, and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes, and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress. That future generation of Muslims in the UK and the USA will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam
Islamic ideologues take the long view - in several decades or centuries, or more. It is only right that we as well consider options keeping in mind Islam's long-term goals.
Islamisation of the West is a one-time deal. There is no turning back without a very nasty civil war.
How come they didnt ask Robert Spencer, Ali Sena, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, or Andrew Bostom, on the nature of 'moderate' Islam. The answer is, that there is no such thing.
historically Muslims were more tolerant than Christians
There is in fact evidence to suggest that this was true, centuries ago. Certainly the Jews were treated better by the Ottomans than by the Byzantines.
So what? It's obviously not the case now.
Is there anyone in the world who truly believes that the Islamic world today is more peaceful, more tolerant, and more progressive than The West? I doubt it.
Those who are searching for moderate Islam,moderate Islamic texts and moderate Muslims are only wasting time and resources to let Islamization of the West and the rest of non-Muslim world happen on a steady basis !
Those who have done extensive research on Islam's holy texts, its bloody history and everyday violence committed in its name stop searching for it !
Fitzgerald: Four questions in search of an answer
"We should also encourage the moderate leaders in the Muslim world -- and they're the majority -- to distance themselves from this extremism..."
-- from Jose Manuel Barroso's comment
Four Questions and No Answer:
1. Define "moderate leaders in the Muslim world."
2. Tell us how you know they are in "the majority."
3. Tell us why the attacks on the Pope can be described, without more, as "extremism."
4. Tell us why you think that "the moderate leaders in the Muslim world -- and they're the majority" -- have not once been capable of denouncing those who riot and agitate and utter death threats, not only now against the Pope, but in other incidents, such as those worldwide Muslim protests, presumably from those Muslims not in "the majority," over Danes daring to exercise in Denmark their right of free speech.
The very phrase "moderate Muslim" shows us what we all realize about Islam, even if we choose not to express it to others or even to recognize it ourselves. For a "moderate Muslim" is someone who is not too much of a believer, who may be largely unobservant, who may choose to ignore a large part of what the Qur'an, Hadith, and the example of Muhammad in the Sira all teach. In other words, a "moderate Muslim" is one who takes his Islam but only "in moderation." Ideally, from the viewpoint of Infidels, is that "moderate Muslim" who takes such a low dose of the belief-system that he becomes what one may call the "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim.
What does this tell us? It tells us that if the "moderate Muslim" is the good kind, the kind we wish to encourage, the kind we can work with, the kind we can trust to do battle against "immoderate" Muslims, then those who loudly claim to the contrary are in fact recognizing that there is something terribly wrong with Islam itself. We can only have hope, if we have any hope at all, in those who do not take the teachings of Islam too seriously, too much to heart. It is those who fully accept the teachings of Islam, and are not merely going through the motions out of filial piety or some vague sense of tradition, who are the greatest danger.
But the notion of "moderate" Muslims is too easily invoked and relied upon. In the archives at Jihad Watch (see the articles page) one can find my article "Ten Things to Think About When Thinking About Moderate Muslims." And among the points made in that piece is that those who fail to describe what Islam teaches, in their own attempts to deflect understanding and knowledge of Islam through the exercise of Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque, are not "moderates" in any helpful sense, for they are simply continuing to mislead unwary Infidels. And what is worse, they are more effective at it, smoother at it, than the wild-eyed attendees of the Finsbury Mosque. Omar Bakri Mohammed, when he was the talk of London, was not nearly the threat that the smooth Tariq Ramadan continues to be to Infidel understanding of Islam.
A true "moderate" must be defined as a Muslim who does not mislead in any way about Islam. He may be uncomfortable about telling the full truth, but he should not lie about what Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira teach, and about how those teachings are accepted by a great many, the overwhelming majority, of Muslims. He must not deny the reality of the example of Muhammad, and what that example of uswa hasana, the Model for All Time, means for Muslims -- and more importantly, for non-Muslims. He must not pretend that the many Jihad verses in the Qur'an do not exist, or that they can be interpreted away, or that the doctrine of abrogation is not accepted. He must not confuse Infidels by quoting Hadith that may be pleasing, but are also deemed inauthentic, and he must not ignore those Hadith deemed authentic. He must not selectively quote, with careful ellipses, certain verses in the Qur'an, or mislead as to the meaning of verses which, on first reading, might seem unexceptional.
Those true moderates are only those who admit that there is something naturally menacing about Islam. In order for Muslims to be accepted, or even tolerated, in the Lands of the Infidels, they should have to admit that there is something wrong both in the teachings of Islam, and in the treatment, in time and space, of non-Muslims by Muslims who conquered their lands, and proceeded to islamize, and in many cases as well to arabize, those lands -- and to force those who did not convert to endure the permanent status of degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity that all dhimmis, from Spain to East Asia, found was their common and immutable lot.
How many Muslims will qualify as "moderates" according to the minimal criteria offered above?
Very few."
[Posted by Hugh at September 24, 2006]
"Even if this is true, and there is a lot of evidence that it isn't (why were 17 million Jews living in Europe and only one million in the Islamic world at the dawn of the twentieth century?"
There were a lot fewer Jews in Europe at the end of the twentieth century.
No group has a monopoly on vileness.
Anyway,
You would not call me a moderate though I fully agree with the words of Mr. Hamid above, love my neighboors, and actively speak out against violence.
That's because in the West, the term "moderate" really seems to means "like us." For example, the Miss America (?) winner who called herself Muslim, while moderate, isn't a girl I want my daughter to emulate. My family is not like most are in the West. We pray five times a day, observe modesty (tudung and kopiah), avoid alcohol, and so on. Call me peaceful if you wish, but not moderate.
However, if moderation or assimilation means eschewing violent jihad, and working peacefully with non-Muslims to build a nation up, I pray for such a thing every day. My own country, Malaysia, struggles with this, but we are doing alright, but with much more room for improvement.
No group has a monopoly on vileness.
But your group has the lion's share, nowadays.
You would not call me a moderate though I fully agree with the words of Mr. Hamid above, love my neighboors, and actively speak out against violence.
And what's your Quran'ic justification for such a position? Also, I sense some kitman here: I have no doubt that you love your [i]Muslim[/i] neighbors, and actively speak out against violence [i]against Muslims[/i], but I wouldn't be shocked if you these didn't apply these actions to non-Muslims. Am I wrong?
That's because in the West, the term "moderate" really seems to means "like us." For example, the Miss America (?) winner who called herself Muslim, while moderate, isn't a girl I want my daughter to emulate.
If your daughter did emulate Miss America, would it result in an honor killing?
However, if moderation or assimilation means eschewing violent jihad, and working peacefully with non-Muslims to build a nation up, I pray for such a thing every day. My own country, Malaysia, struggles with this, but we are doing alright, but with much more room for improvement.
Kind of like how the Muslims are "working peacefully" in Europe to "build a nation up"? Flooding the borders with immigrants and then pumping out as many naturalized citizens as possible so that, in within 50 years, Muslims can be the majority?
It's great if you really are sincere in what you are saying, but you really don't have any Islamic justification to think the way you do. Your motivations and actions are outside of the Qur'an's prescribed attitude that you should have for non-Muslims.
definition of a moderate muslim
one that only holds a grudge for six generations
A moderate Muslim is one who hasn't killed you yet...
One can only marvel, Allah Snackbar, at your theological statements that you present here that seem to reflect no meaningful discernment pertaining to the spectrum of Islamic orthodox hermeneutics that exists today. I've met a number of Islamic jurists and theologians whose theological views are in line with what Yusef YK states here insofar as having mutually respectful and cooperative relations with non-Muslims. One can also see this in the writings of figures like Yusuf Qaradawi as well.
Are you claiming that your knowledge of and expertise in the Islamic theological sciences is greater than theirs, that you're so sure their theological position is so utterly untenable? On what basis, exactly? If you do have such towering credentials compared to such Islamic figures, then you should present them, and explain why their position is completely untenable.
If you are so concerned about the demographic trend that seems to suggest Europe may become an Islamic continent, then the first thing to do would be to take a look at what the West has become, and the incoherent liberal secular supremacism being peddled by Jihad Watch and various assorted types. The demographic suicide being committed by the West is the heart of the problem, as well as a religious indifferentism that provides no common societal vision of virtue, values, holiness, and sanctity, as well as directing men to their supernatural, beatific end.
I suspect that some "moderate Muslims" may be on the way to Christianity--and will get there, provided there is a good, respectful witness.
And I'm sure your personal anecdotes are enough to convince the average Westerner who is unfamiliar with what Islam really teaches, but for those of us who understand, it's a much harder sales pitch for people like you to make. I'm not sure if you are a Muslim or just another leftist Islamoapologist, but ultimately it doesn't matter, the argument is essentially the same.
Those "theologians whose theological views are in line with what Yusef YK states," with or without fancy credentials at (insert name here) University, still would have no Qur'anic based argument that supports their belief that they should respect non-Muslims as equals and live alongside them in peace. Muhammad made it very clear that Muslims are to convert, subjugate, or kill non-Muslims until the only practiced religion on Earth is Islam. The only way for a non-Muslim to live in an Islamic society is to submit to dhimmitude, and only Christians and Jews qualify for such an auspicious position. No "towering credentials" required on my part — just an understanding of the goals of Muhammad and his religion.
incoherent liberal secular supremacism
If, by that, you mean values such as freedom of expression, religion, the equality of all under the law, human rights, etc, then I'll take secular supremacism over Islamic fascism any day. I'm proud to live in a society where amputations, beheadings, female genital mutilation, are not the norm. It's great living somewhere where apostates are not murdered for leaving their religion, where a woman's testimony is worth as much as a man's in a court of law, and women are not forced to wear sacks covering their entire bodies in 104 degree heat. Of course, to a Muslim/apologist, I suppose these things would seem a bit "incoherent."
once again you are wrong and being condesending. and you are just whining instead of having an itellegent discusiion.
m
Oh, and as for the "spectrum of Islamic orthodox hermeneutics that exists today," unless something has changed very recently, all four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that apostates should be killed, that jihad against the unbeliever is a responsibility incumbent upon every Muslim, and that infidels do not have the same rights as Muslims under Sharia law. There is no established school if jurisprudence that contradicts these beliefs.
So much for a "spectrum" of interpretation. If an individual Muslim believes that non-Muslims should have equal rights, and that apostates should not be killed — great, I'm glad, however there is no Quran'ic justification for these beliefs. In fact, these beliefs are contrary to the commands of Muhammad.
Maybe once you learn how to spell the word "intelligent" and the word "discussion," we can have one.
my spelling has nothing to do with anything. i am working and blogging. some of the best minds in the world could not spell. but lets just have an intellegent discussion.
m
Fine. I already put out my argument, and you responded that it was condescending and not an intelligent argument. Well, care to elaborate on that? How was it wrong, in your opinion? The ball is in your court.
As one would expect, Dr. Tawfik Hamid gets a lot of death threats.
a muslim girl fell in love with my grandfather and convinced him to elope with her.. the girl's family of course was devastated and wanted to kill my grandpa.. they planted a bamboo tree (they don't die easily) and swore that as long as the bamboo tree lives, their hate cannot be quelled.. and so my grandpa skedaddled and didn't want to have anything to do with that girl.. she chased him to another city but he was nowhere to be found.. I say grandpa made a great decision, as I and his progeny are alive today because of him..
None of them address the central Problem with Islam: its AIM.
A global theocratic totalitarian tyranny.
A self-proclaimed "benevolent" dictatoriship is still a dictatorship.
The hell with submitting to that!
And I love how B. Lewis conveniently overlooks the Koranically-ordained genocidal extermination of ALL the OTHER peoples NOT "of the Book" whom he forgets ever existed: pagans, atheists, agnostics, polytheists, animists, tribalists, et al.
Islam had no tolerance, even reduced to second-class dhimmi status, for these fellow humans. They were wiped out with "holy" glee, their lands stolen, their artistry obliterated, their wealth plundered, their histories expunged and their memory eviscerated.
Islam is a Cosmic Locust pretending to be an Abrahamic Faith.
Lewis should apologize to the memory of the millions of "infidels" slaughtered by the Islamic Sword whom he blithely ignores in his apologetics for this deathcult.
@Ed Husain "The Prophet Muhammad warned us against ghuluw, or extremism, in religion."Either Mr Mohammed did not practice what he preached in which case he was a hypocrite or what he practised was not extremism in which case what he practised was normal, or what is called 'moderate' Islam. i.e. violence.
fairuzfan notes:
"
"I've met a number of Islamic jurists and theologians whose theological views are in line with what Yusef YK states here insofar as having mutually respectful and cooperative relations with non-Muslims. One can also see this in the writings of figures like Yusuf Qaradawi as well."
?.....from Yusuf Qaradawi....bwhahahahahahaha...
This guy wants Islam to have the nuclear bombs in order to destroy Jews....yep...He is always preaching that old time religion...you know, those old standbys...(5:82)which refers to Jews as "the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe" Qaradawi advocates war with the Jews and other infidels...often calling for the most vile of punishments to be upon them..amputations, cruxificions, death..expulsion from the lands....
This moonbat Qaradawi follows the Islamic guidelines by accusing the Jews of bringing all types of corruption to the earth....he praises Muslim martyrs who have died trying to kill Jews....He calls for all out war...."having mutually respectful and cooperative relations with non-Muslims" bwahahahahaha....
Let's not forget he is a senior member of the banned Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood...a sure-fire hate, death, kill all Non Muslim organization....but that's another story..
and the likes of fairuzfan and Yusuf YK like and admire him....Qaradawi..the death merchant...connect the dots folks...
Wow, ironic, but back in 1937 it seems they were trying to get a handle on what "Moderate Nazism" was... :D
http://eleanorruth.typepad.com/blog/2010/09/from-the-news-archives-of-history-1937-symposium-what-is-moderate-nazism.html
LOL!
"I'm not sure if you are a Muslim or just another leftist Islamoapologist"
And this conversation is over before it began. I usually don't agree with miriam but she was right in this case, casually calling your opponent a liar about the most important thing in their life is condesending in the extreme.
Sounds as if your family was from the lands of nice, tolerant, soft-edged "Monsoon Islam".
你家是否华人？
Yusef,I understand your patriotism and amour propre; and respect your admission that there are things with which Malaysia still struggles. In my travels, I've known patriotic people in many lands who nonetheless avoided an arrogant chauvinism.
One day, I'd be curious about your take on the troubles over your northern border in southern Thailand--especially since I can remember days when people pointed to the border of your two countries as giving the lie to Samuel Huntington's thesis of "the bloody borders of Islam".
These are interesting points.
Miriam, Fairuzfan, Yusef, have you considered, given that the Jews of Europe were decimated 1938-45, how the Mizrahim were driven from their traditional homes en masses in the 1940's and '50's? Iraq was the second homeland of the Jews, and in the 1940's, one in every four Baghdadis was Jewish? It was where the Talumd Babli was written, but its hundreds of thousands have dwindled to a handful. Similarly, the Jews of Egypt are all but gone, while those of the Maghreb are dwindling to a remnant in Morocco (where the monarch has tried to stem anti-Semitic attacks) and Tunisia. And despite tales of Turkish "tolerance", the Jewish community there has been being squeezed slowly out of existence. Further, the lands from the Zaghros Mountains to the Atlas heard prayers in Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Jewish form of Koine Greek back when Arabic wasn't even written.
And what of the Christians of those lands, who are being scapegoated in Egypt, Iraq, and Iran now that the Jews are gone?
I'm Malay, not Chinese la.
It does bother me a lot that Malays are so obsessed with Palestinians but ignore this issue so nearby to home.
Though the border with Thailand is I believe a historical accident, there's no real political way to integrate those lands into Malaysia yet. No Malay politician could afford to suggest so, because he would lose all coalition support.
I have great sympathy for the civilians in both sides and great anger at the fighting forces of both sides, but especially angry at the Malay "forces." They achieve nothing but pain for everyone. The Thais are happy to allow them to worship and participate in government to a limited extent, that should be enough.
Semi-autonomy would be the best solution, unfortunately, that will not end the violence I think. Anyone willing to commit such horrible actions, will not stop for that, he will simply change his stated motive. The only way to stop them is to kill them.
Ultimately the best we can hope for is the Thai military to provide protection for the innocent Thais and Malays caught in the middle, but really, who knows.
Anyway, all I can do is pray. There's no way for me to change anything by myself.
You are right. The problem is Islam. Islam is the problem.
In order to reform Islam you would have to edit the Koran and reject the example of Mohammad. Islam will never do either of those things. Therefore Islam cannot be reformed and must be banned.
Any decent society (with a backbone) would ban such a despicable ideology.
Screw the damn "Islamic theological sciences." Muslims account for almost all of the religious terrorism in the world today and I for one am not interested in what a bunch of lazy, coddled, deluded, badly educated, old geezer armchair Muslims have to say about whether proper respect for the kuffaar is sanctioned or not sanctioned and to what extent it is. Holy hell, can't you see that Islam is dysfunctional to its very core in a way no other major faith on earth is? Quit the games, will ya'?
And another thing, the term "Islamic theological sciences" is an oxymoron. Big time. You know this or should know it. Done here.
"Islam has been used in a violent manner" Tawfik Hamid.
Sounds a bit like "Isalam has been hijacked by people of violence." Isalm IS violent. Even Hamid stopped short of stating the case fully.
I suspect the reason why the Ottomans treated the Jews better than the Byzantines did, is that they needed the tax from the Dhimmis. The Byzantine empire was flourishing. Islamic empires have all been parasitic, as Robert pointed out. The Jews, being good hard-working people were often wealthy. Islamic societies don't thrive still today and yet muslims don't seem to be able to draw conclusions about Islam from this. Rather they blame everyone else.
Great reply to "fairuzfan", Wellington; and I am thoroughly convinced that he is either a muslim only *pretending* to be a "Roman Catholic", or he is a first-class dhimmi; either way he is dangerous, and not to be trusted or even taken seriously. He is only here to provoke people with his inane comments. Not once has he left a comment that 1) makes much sense, or 2) is in any way remarkable, kind, or supportive of the anti-jihad movement. He's always pushing some weird, nonsensical religious point-of-view designed to rile people up. I actually think he enjoys the sport ...
I think Hesperado makes an excellent point - well the one I was going to make i.e. Islam had no need of paramilitary terrorism as long as Shariah law held sway over the Umma. So Lewis is conflating extremism with terrorism with Shariah, whereas Shariah did not require terrorism when Islamic lands were broadly ruled on Islamic principles (under the Caliphate).
"Great reply to "fairuzfan", Wellington; and I am thoroughly convinced that he is either a muslim only *pretending* to be a "Roman Catholic", or he is a first-class dhimmi; either way he is dangerous, and not to be trusted or even taken seriously."
Well, saying names is easier than addressing my points. It's alright. You think I pretend to be Muslim because you cannot accept that a Muslim is anything but a child raping savage.
We call that the "No true Scotsman" error. Look it up.
because you cannot accept that a Muslim is anything but a child raping savage.
We call that the "No true Scotsman" error. Look it up.
And this is called a strawman argument. Look it up.
"You think I pretend to be Muslim because you cannot accept that a Muslim is anything but a child raping savage."
Au contraire! Not all muslims are child raping savages--only some, as practiced and exampled by your pedophile prophet muhammad (perdition is upon him). BTW, I was referring to "fairuzfan", not you ...
That's because in the West, the term "moderate" really seems to means "like us"
I have to disagree with your statement. When muslims choose to emigrate to the West, they should assimilate and accept our culture and government. I don't care how muslims live their lives in islamic countries but they shouldn't expect us to change to accomodate their retrograde culture and religion. And I would have absolutely no problem with muslim immigrants if they came to the U.S. for the right reasons. But they don't, they come here to change America, to turn it into a stinking cesspit like the one they left. Muslims are unlike any other group of immigrants; they refuse to assimilate and engage in voluntary apartheid---- except to greedily partake of every undeserved, unearned benefit they can find. Their 'sponsors', other muslims, give them lessons on how to work the system and exploit the infidels. It is BEYOND DISGUSTING. Muslims make more demands, create more contention, file more frivilous lawsuits, and engage in more grievance theater than any other immigrants, past or present. There are hundreds of muslim advocacy groups to represent a few million muslims, to 'empower muslims'. It's all about muslim 'empowerment', fortifying the umma, shoving islam in everybody's face until it becomes so annoying, someone shoves back. That's what they want---confrontation.
You seem to think that muslims are entitled to invade the West, exploit the natives for everything they can get, cause civil unrest and engage in jihad and terrorism, and we're supposed to coddle them, appease them, and allow them free reign to 'spread islam'. How would you feel if hordes of Americans came to your country and demanded that it become a replica of America? Would you like it if AMericans and Europeans invaded your country by the millions and built churches and synagogues in every town, accepted jobs from honest employers and then sued them for not respecting Christianity? How would you like for your kids to come home from school and tell you that they were no longer allowed to pray to allah but the Christians were allowed to pray to Jesus? Can you imagine what it's like to contend with millions of hostile, arrogant, supremacist aliens, all of whom have the potential to go on a terroristic rampage?
Thanks to islam and muslims, our public buildings, landmarks, and airports have become very unpleasant places where we and whatever we might be carrying are searched and x-rayed. Our entire way of life has changed because of muslims and islam. I'm surprised every American alive today does not utterly despise muslims. The fact that they don't is proof that we are the most tolerant people on earth, but our tolerance is not limitless and it's beginning to wane.
I wouldn't put up Anwar Ibrahim as an example of moderate Islam. He is an Islamist at heart. Right now in my native Malaysia there's a struggle between the ruling parties and the opposition. Anwar Ibrahim puts on his moderate face to win non-Muslim support but wastes no time smearing Israel to gain the support of Muslims. Both the ruling parties and opposition are trying to outdo each other in Jew-hatred as a way of burnishing their Islamic credentials. Mr. Anwar is also good pals with Turkey's Erdogan.
Yusef,
Maybe should explain to me, you know, a layman. You must follow Muhmmad, according to you and other muslim, the perfect man. Here is the perfect man; see if you agree with him:
1) Marry a six-year child and consumate the marriage when the child is nine-years old. Of course, you would follow him, right?
2) Muhammad executed Jews at Khaybar because they were the worse kind of people. The perfect man. Right?
3) He kept plenty of girl-slaves through war booty. He used them primarily for pleasure. He was, of course, the perfect man. You, of course, would follow him.
4) He slaugherted many innocent victims through beheadings. He was the perfect man. You would follow him.
5) All the non-muslims were require to pay him the jizya. You, of course, would follow the perfect man?
6) If they were not to choose the other 2 options the only choice was death (jihad). The perfect man. Right?
There is a lot more. I'm just a layman. Just an ordinary citizen. But, even I can see how evil islam is.
That's really what it all boils down to, for me.
There are many tu quoque arguments out there that try to make the Bible and the Torah just as menacing as the Qur'an, but the most indefensible aspect of Islam, to me, is the life of Muhammad. He is considered by over a billion people to be the perfect and blameless man in the eyes of God, and his example should be followed until the end of time. When Muhammad has done things like child rape and mass murder (see the Banu Qurayza example), it's scary to think of anybody following such an example, let alone a billion people.
Wasn't wellington replying to 'fairuzfan'. Why would Yusef comment this: "...It's alright. You think I pretend to be Muslim because you cannot accept that a Muslim is anything but a child raping savage."
Wellington was replying to fairuzfan as a handle. We already knew you to be a muslim by handle to be Yusef. Unless, you and fairuzfan are one and the same.
The media is ,foolishly, trying to prop up islam. Anybody, with a half-brain, can see the sick cult that islam is. Once the public knows how muhammad lived his life...I think that the 9/11 protest to the GZM is going to be a eye-opener for a lot of people.
Perhaps one reason why nobody on the WSJ panel knows what "moderate Islam" is is that the sponsors, like almost everyone in American government and media elites today, are clueless about anything theological.
Yusef K.--Thanks for your reply on southern Thailand. It sounds like the southeast Asia some of us knew and appreciated.
Wellington--still thinking of moving to Laos?
Yinyangsun--thanks for your perspective.
Any muslim who is not supporting publicly or prefers to be silent when terrorism strikes, he is moderate.
You ask some decent questions, but I'm sorry, I don't feel the need to answer someone who calls me "evil" when he admittedly doesn't know what he's talking about. Thanks for playing.
"Anwar Ibrahim puts on his moderate face to win non-Muslim support but wastes no time smearing Israel to gain the support of Muslims."
This is true and it is sick. I actively campaign for the rights of Jews and my neighboors are now aware. They don't like it but I don't care. Actually my tires were slashed after I gave a talk at Al-Azim, but it was worth it.
Anwar has naked political ambitions and I don't care what happens to him.
I suspect the reason why the Ottomans treated the Jews better than the Byzantines did, is that they needed the tax from the Dhimmis.
I expect that's probably true.
But I keep hearing this crap over and over again, that "religious minorities were treated better under Islam than under Chritianity", and "the headscarf originated with the Christians", the same tired old drivel about "Islam's many scientific and cultural achievements".
Well, some of that (maybe even all of it) was true hundreds of years ago but it's not the case now, nor has it been the case in centuries.
Islam was founded in the Seventh Century. Compared to other Seventh Century cultures it was fairly advanced in some ways. But Western culture has advanced quite a bit since 632 A.D. Islam has remained in the Seventh Century, and still today shows no sign of progessing.
Yusef, stop practicing taqqiua. I just want to know the plain and honest truth. Do you support the perfect man?
Thanks to islam and muslims, our public buildings, landmarks, and airports have become very unpleasant places where we and whatever we might be carrying are searched and x-rayed. Our entire way of life has changed because of muslims and islam. I'm surprised every American alive today does not utterly despise muslims. The fact that they don't is proof that we are the most tolerant people on earth, but our tolerance is not limitless and it's beginning to wane.
Spot on, Susan. Muslim gall, their insolence and threats, is over the top. They took away our freedoms and safety in what was a pleasant, civilized country, open and a fine place to live. Then we let them in... Our tolerance hit a wall. Now we live behind x-ray machines to protect us from them. Time to stop this.
Your anger is justified and the way you expressed your anger quite eloquent. Great comment, Susanp.
"There are many tu quoque arguments out there that try to make the Bible and the Torah just as menacing as the Qur'an, but the most indefensible aspect of Islam, to me, is the life of Muhammad. He is considered by over a billion people to be the perfect and blameless man in the eyes of God, and his example should be followed until the end of time. When Muhammad has done things like child rape and mass murder (see the Banu Qurayza example), it's scary to think of anybody following such an example, let alone a billion people."
Spot on, Allah Snackbar! ...the evil life of muhammad is central to this whole issue; and yet muslims pretend not to notice how evil mo was. It's like pretending not to notice the big white elephant in the room ...
HenryCrux says, "Champ, you are great - you wrote the truth of truths and made the truth so plain and clear that the just clear and genius way you wrote it will save the world! Bless you! Here is what you wrote "What is moderate islam? ...a lukewarm muslim!"
Champ, my wife has a better definition than even you of a "moderate muslim" She says, " a moderate muslim is one who is not quite ready to be a suicide bomber yet."
Akbar Ahmed likes to make things up. This anglophone zamindar, married to the daughter of the Wali of Swat, is presentable, most presentable. But behind the soft-voiced demeanor and the imitation of a Western man, there resides someone who has been permanently affected -- intellectually stunted -- by being raised up in Islam, and being incapable, even though he has experienced the best the advanced West has to offer, of criticism of Islam itself. Oh, he can denounce the Taliban, Al Qaeda, "extremists," until the cows come home. But he remainds an apologist, all the more sinister for his knowledge of how to talk to Westerners of a certain class (as long as those Westerners are sufficiently ignorant of Islam), his mastery of Taqiyya and Tu Quoque.
Akbar Ahmed insists that "the Framers read and honored the Quran." Did they? There is no evidence for this, none. There is evidence that in their dealings as diplomats with Muslims, both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson came to regard them with mistrust and alarm and also amusement at their pretensions. As for Benjamin Franklin, whom Akbar Ahmed insists is among those who "revered" Islam, his only known use of Islam was when, just before he died, he wrote, as "Historicus," a polemical work against slavery that mocked the arguments of defenders of slavery by putting the very same arguments in the mouths of a Muslim. It was well understood by the readers, and of course by Franklin, that the kind of thing Muslims would defend, and the arguments they presented, were preposterous and morally intolerable. By presenting such a verisimilar defense of slavery, and by ascribing it to a Muslim author, Franklin was mocking the Southern defenders of slavery. That does not sound to me as if Franklin "read and honored the Quran."
"Read" he may well have. And so may Jefferson, who had bought a copy of the translation by Sale. And so may John Adams, and certainly his son, John Quincy Adams, who was our most learned President and who wrote at length, and scathingly, on the basis of his own detailed study, about Islam. But "honored" the Quran? Thought well of Islam? All the evidence suggests not only otherwise, but the very opposite of what Akbar Ahmed, so nonchalant about history, wants us all to believe.
You do our Founding Fathers and John Quincy Adams credit, Hugh, because you tell the truth about them. The Founding Fathers no more admired Islam than they appropriated aspects of the political make-up of the Iroquois confederation when constructing the Constitution, yet another modern falsehood bandied about by those who are as sloppy with the past as they invariably are with the truth in general.
Wellington, Hugh, it is refreshing to share blogspace with guys like you, even if we are far apart theologically. This business about our Constitution imitating the Iroquois is poppycock. It has some very long and deep roots in the Hebraic and Hellenic roots of Western civilization.
Hi, Henry ...thank you, and I like your wife's slogan, too!
Like Champ and many others I also consider Moderate Muslims just lukewarm, tepid, half-done, not sincere, less of something.
And I do believe Wellington, Hesperado, Hugh and Ali Sina and so many other knowledgeable critics that Islam cannot be reformed.
But for the benefit of those "damned" Political Correct people all around me and us I would still like to ask for "Democratic Muslims". Because the PC's are in overwhelming majority still pro secular Democracy.
Nonie Darwish published "shariah for dummies" and it showed 33 known Shariah laws contradicting laws of secular democracy. I suppose many more un-democratic laws and principles can be found in Quran and Hadith. Hugh explains quite a lot of them too, often.
So, for the benefit of the PC's, let us propose that Muslims are forced to choose, at least in words, between the 2 sets of laws. Naming every specific law and principle that contradicts our laws.
They can be honestly for Shariah and respected for it. Or they can pro forma choose Democratic laws, but they can be legally held accountable for an oath in a precise way.
Or they can negotiate, like Jehovah's Witnesses, often fine citizens, only refusing to go into the army. And come to some compromise.
But of course many Muslims will be hard put to openly choose democratic laws over Islamic laws in a specific way. Some will be honest about them being openly theocratic anti-democratic, others will be caught in breaking their oath. Of enough of them, though most will simply deceive us.
But may that finally open the eyes of enough of the PC's, ignorants among the infidels, so that politicians like Geert Wilders get the upper hand.