If the opposition cannot take in the information, or think about their distant ancestors (who were forced into the destructive "religion,"), or respond to your argument on its own terms.... they can always call you names.

Posted by: StillBreathing at February 20, 2007 6:31 AM

It is troubling that, 5 years after 9/11, here we are still trying to define the word that represents what exactly happened that day.

The battle of language is all but lost to us. Unable even to name our enemy, we insist Jihad spells peace even as all Moslems throughout the world know full well that Jihad is war against Infidels. But, wink wink, when Moslems make appear before us --- or our gullible opinion celebrities and professors, at least ---- it's a personal struggle thing.

This takes me back to when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said (to paraphrase), "Let the fools think what they want about Jihad, we know want it is."

Grasping for straws, clinging to the longshot hope that they aren't really what they appear to be, we are unequipped to take part in the battle, the Jihad, that is already upon us.

I saw an ugly duck walking and quacking like one the other day, and it, sir, was no bald eagle.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 20, 2007 7:10 AM

What's with all the question marks in the letter they posted? I read the original here at JW, and it didn't include them.

E.g.,

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared: "Jihad is a precept of Divine institution?.[Unbelievers] have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them."

and

"If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them?" (Hidayah) The Shafi'i scholar Abu'l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058) agrees, saying that if unbelievers "refuse to accept [Islam] after this, war is waged against them?"

Strange that these would show up in a posting of what I'd assume was a cut-and-paste from an email.

Posted by: Extraneus at February 20, 2007 7:26 AM

It's an obvious fact that most of today's religiously motivated violence can be attributed to Muslims. And not just today's if you look at their 1400 years old history..

Assumably there seem to be only 3 logical reasons: either islam's teaching encourages violence or it is easily misunderstood as encouraging such. Or it's all pure coincidence.

In each but the last case the ummah, the Muslim community has to take responsibility and offer solutions.

It's a bit as if a criminal would use my house to do his business from within my house.
At a certain point people and police will ask me if I'm with him or against him.
If I'm with him - I can't help but bear the legal consequences.
Yet if I'm not with him I have to take my distance and allow for his prosecution.
I obviously can't tell police that I have nothing to do with the criminal in my house - but that I will neither deliver him to the authorities nor allow the authorities to enter my house to prosecute him.

I sometimes can't help but to think that quite a few muslims seem to have taken the third alternative with regards to fanatic fundamentalists.

Posted by: flibustier at February 20, 2007 7:38 AM

At a Sunni site , we have:

Q: I was listening to some girls talk the other day, and they were saying that there was no evidence for jihad al nafs, that all the evidence for it was fabricated, or so weak as to be worthless, and so jihad can only mean fighting physically. I am very confused by this. If you could explain this to me and show me the evidences, I would really appreciate it.

Allah Most High said:

{And whosoever STRIVES (JAAHADA), STRIVES (YUJAAHIDU) only for himself} (29:6). {As for those who STRIVE (JAHADU) in Us (the cause of Allah), We surely guide them to Our paths, and lo! Allah is with the good doers.} (29:69) This is a Meccan Sura and the two verses refer to Jihad al-Nafs. There was no military jihad then.

Without jihad of the nafs, fighting leads to Hellfire.

Allah Most High said:

"By the nafs and the proportion and order given to it, and its inspiration as to its wrong and its right; Truly he succeeds who purifies it, and he fails that corrupts it" (91:7-10). This is also a Meccan Sura.

Without purification, the nafs remains a "soul that enjoins evil" (al-nafs al - ammara bil-su') until it surrenders itself in total obedience to the call of animal passions and shaytan.

Allah Most High said:

{Have you seen the one who chooses for his god his own lust?} (25:43). {He followed his own lust. Therefore his likeness is as the likeness of a dog; if you attack him he pants with his tongue out and if you leave him he pants with his tongue out} (7:176). These are both also Meccan Suras.

About the person who controlled the passion of his ego Allah says: {But as for him who feared to stand before his Lord and restrained his soul from lust, Lo! The garden will be his home} (79:40-41). This is also a Meccan Sura.

The above are among the many Meccan verses and Suras enjoining jihad al-nafs. One that denies that there was/is such a Divine command commits kufr. Such a command cannot mean military jihad, as there was no permission - much less an order - for such a jihad until the Madinan period.

Looking at it from their (Islamic) point of view, the purpose of Jihad is not to fight for the sake of fighting, but to create an environment where Islam rules over all. The "Inner Jihad" is not something which is a substitute for fighting -- it is something to accomplish in preparation for fighting

See also the US Army War College article on "The Quranic Concept of War". The "conflict" Jihad is not just fighting in battle. It encompasses ANY AND ALL MEANS which serve to intimidate anyone from opposing Islam, and encourage the spreading of Islam. A Muslim calling you a racist for bringing up uncomplimentary aspects of Islam is practicing Jihad -- he's trying to get you to shut up. A Muslim trying to get you fired for saying bad things about Islam is practicing Jihad -- he's trying to intimidate others against doing likewise. The murders of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn were practicing Jihad -- they were trying to make others afraid of speaking out against Islam

One of the West's biggest weaknesses is that too few of us have an appreciation for the scope of Jihad

Posted by: PapaBear at February 20, 2007 7:54 AM

Thank you to Robert Spencer and Emory Wheel.

Posted by: Josephine at February 20, 2007 7:57 AM

What's with all the question marks in the letter they posted?

They're characters that your browser can't recognise. The page is telling your browser that it's encoded in UTF-8, but the actual text is ISO-8859-1 encoded. In Internet Explorer invalid characters show up as a question mark, and subsequently get lost as you copy and past. In firefox, which is what I'm using, they show up as a cute little symbol comprising an oval with question mark over the top, which makes it a lot easier to recognise such things.

Consequently it's common to see something like this happen.

Posted by: Archonix at February 20, 2007 7:57 AM

Spine sighted in Germany:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/02/20/karneval-in-germany-depicts-mullahs-as-the-assholes-they-are/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 20, 2007 8:47 AM

Yes, they do teach this . . .in plain english:

ISLAM : KAFIRS AND JIZYAH TAX : ISLAM MUST DOMINATE

audio brought to you by mosquewatch.blogspot.com

Posted by: justamomof4 at February 20, 2007 8:59 AM

Hindu extremists behind blasts: Pak media


http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/feb/20samblast13.htm

if its not the jews then its hindus or any other religion . It must be them , how can a muslim kill a muslim let alone any other kafir .

Posted by: tiger at February 20, 2007 10:19 AM

"Jihad is a precept of Divine institution�.[Unbelievers] have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them."

The truth on this is embarrassing to Muslims. But this has to be confronted by all, not denied. And those with the courage to confront it (Robert, e.g.) have to cease being targets of those who wish the truth re Jihad would just go away.

Posted by: Frank at February 20, 2007 10:29 AM

No "firestorm," Robert - In fact, ALL 15 COMMENTS SO FAR ARE ON YOUR SIDE!!!!!!!

I think the liberal folks at the "Wheel" must be shocked! Good for 'em!!!

Posted by: darcy at February 20, 2007 10:31 AM

Rougie,

If you take any action to overrule your professor that could perhaps reflect badly in your marks later on in his course or in courses of profs who are his friends. That is always a risk one takes when challenging a professor. That's something to keep in mind. Obviously you want to stick to your guns, so to speak, but also keep in mind that it is wise to pick one's battles carefully.

That said, you can contact the ombudsman or ombudsperson of your department or indeed for the university. You might first talk to the department head or a prof in the department who is designated to deal with these types of disputes. If you want to talk to them, don't say what the problem is until you have assurance that what you tell them will be kept in confidence.

The best thing to do though is to try and resolve it, without friction, with this prof himself (before having to go over his head or around him. (And, if you don't make an effort to do that, making some reasonable proposals or arguments, this might reflect badly on you if you try to pursue this further, i.e., over his head. It will be his version of events vs yours). Perhaps your prof would accept a more specific term than simply Muslim of Islam in the phrasing of the title--unless of course you are referring to all of Islam or all Muslims. Although he said it was an issue of political correctness, that may be partly true, but verbal comments are often made in an off-hand, imprecise way. Maybe he wants you to be more precise in the wording? Anyways, if you are not able to work this out with him, and if this issue of wording is important to your argument and is supported by the facts you present, then you'll have to go over or around him if you want to pursue this.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at February 20, 2007 11:17 AM

I went back and read Mr. Caldwell's posts on Jihad Watch.

All he did was to convince me that there are no such persons as moderate or peaceful Muslims.
There are only those who have not acted yet.
He also convinced me that the idea of Sudden Jihad Syndrom is a reality.

By definition; I oppose Islam because I won't submit so I am fair game for Jihad because I oppose Islam and any Muslim who goes after me is defending Islam.

Ouroborus

Sounds like a Lose-Lose situation to me.

Posted by: auntbea at February 20, 2007 11:25 AM

Rougie,

...and note: If you do go over his head and make the complaint it should be kept in confidence, but it won't be if you pursue it further (i.e., formal complaint procedure). That is, if anything is going to be done about this particular dispute, then obviously he'll know it was you that made the complaint because he already knows you in relation to this issue re the title of your paper.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at February 20, 2007 11:26 AM

Off Topic: Can someone advise me as to how I should go about resolving a dispute with my lecturer in university, whom won't let me use the terms "Islam" or "Muslim" in the title of one of my projects? - He even admitted he was being politically correct, but said that 'That's just the society we live in today', what a complete dhimmi.. But yeah, if anyone can advise me what action I could take, it'd be appreciated :) Posted by: Rougie

Rougie, keep this handy:

Academic Freedom Abuse Center

If your rights have been abused in a college course (e.g. unfair grading, one-sided lectures, stacked reading lists), please report this abuse.

Previously submitted reports can be found here.

Posted by: justamomof4 at February 20, 2007 11:32 AM

I'm long past needing the personal nudging to understand that Islam is the source of the terror in the world, but it's very important that Robert Spencer and other scholars continuing educate and remind the world. We live among people that need be smacked over the head with textbooks in order to get them to learn, so it's a cerebral battle that must be ceaselessly waged.

The explosion of blogs on the Net in the past 5 years, all dealing with Islam, Islamic terrorism and the like, are just proof that people are learning and are willing to learn more.

Posted by: Foehammer at February 20, 2007 11:36 AM

I was pleased to see that most of the comments were to praise Emory Wheel for publishing the article

Posted by: Don Singleton at February 20, 2007 11:41 AM

I read your comment on "The Wheel" Don Singleton and it was a good one. Actually, MOST of the comments (21 so far) are in support of Mr. Spencer's article. SOME praise the paper which has been known for PC censorship in the past. For the most part, Emory is a PC place so that these comments are actually seeing print is pretty amazing. It's even been referred to as "Orwell U."

"21 and all is well!" (The un-PC Town Crier!)

Posted by: darcy at February 20, 2007 11:57 AM

I admire your spunk, Mr. Spencer, but re Mr. Caldwell's initial comments I can only repeat (sadly) that "against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." There are none so blind as those who will not see--a short way of describing the "invincible ignorance" logically fallacy that seems to be the mainstay of what passes for liberal philosophy these days. These are the same people who will protesting in shocked tones as they are being dragged off to be beheaded or have walls pushed on them that "this must be a mistake--I'm on your side!"

Posted by: TheManTheMyth at February 20, 2007 12:17 PM

Wow director@jihadwatch, it makes Mr. Spencer sound kind of 007 and J. Edgar:) That is a compliment and while I expected new information on Emory Wheel, it is more of the fine work Mr. Spencer always performs.

Mr. Spencer though, if a suggestion could be made which I have had readers tell me often.......you are a very intelligent gentleman with precise and intricate details in your work which is necessary, but you have a PHD in brightness, but the average soul gets bogged down in all your information and their mind turns off.
At times sir, remember to write for the Dan Rathers who think themselves bright but are dim as a 40 watt bulb on 3 watt power in a Texas dust storm. Be like the Bible, say it with lilt to get the reader's attention and then say it in one sentence and not 4.

No offense intended, but you have to reach the masses as the elitists have minds set in concrete and they are never going to change......if 9 11 didn't do it, nothing ever will.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at February 20, 2007 12:42 PM

For an exhaustively definitive dressing down of this Muslim "Will Caldwell", I'd recommend reading the posts of our fellow JW poster, Khaybar Oasis, on this recently archived thread -- particularly Khaybar's final post there to date:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015300.php#comments

Posted by: remote_control at February 20, 2007 5:31 PM

remote control;

Thanks fopr the tip- I went back and read Caldwell's stuff and the rebuttals. It is scary at the very least!

Caldwell is a true Manchurian candidate, a recent 'revert' who already uses turnspeak and the whole headbanger-kaboodle to further the cult. He calls for censorhip in the form of ('responsible') feedom of speech and all the rest is all just very typical Islamo-dogma.

I cannot believe that we allow such people to teach and work in our institurions of higher learning.
Would we have allowed communist kadres to spread their poison during the time of the cultural revolution? What is happening to our society?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 20, 2007 6:27 PM

Concerning the " firestorm " Mr. Spencer....you are DEAD WRONG! Read the comments on the Wheel, they are in your favor! Those kids are seeing things our way!

I've gained a renewed pride in being an American radical. We're going to get the working class movement to turn against the jihad and when that happens " the wheel of history " of Karl Marx is going to splatter the jihadist while they are bowed down facing Mecca.

As for the so-called leftist that supported the jihad , they too will be left in the dustbin of history for turning their back on the working class and aligning themselves with religious bigotry and barbarism.

The Emory kids are pointing the way to the resolution to the present state of confusion.

----Nossy

Posted by: Nostrodamus at February 21, 2007 1:14 AM

"This manual, Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveler), after defining the 'greater jihad' as 'spiritual warfare against the lower self,' devotes eleven pages to the 'lesser jihad.' It defines this jihad as 'war against non-Muslims,' and 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.'"

Wait a second. Does this mean that violent jihad (so-called "lesser jihad") is only permissible under Sunni theology if there is a caliph? And currently there is no caliph?

Posted by: Menetheos at February 21, 2007 8:53 AM

Menetheos,

Islam has often showed great resiliency and flexibility in its doctrines (indeed, the Koran is a masterwork of a duality of forbidding and allowing the same things). This situation Islam has been in, of having no Caliph, is

1) very new (it only happened in the 1920s)

2) unprecedented (Islam never before was without a Caliph)

3) a humiliating imposition by more powerful Infidels (the Ottoman Empire did not just voluntarily give it up -- it was only after the West became overwhelmingly more powerful around it, and only after an influential Turk, Ataturk, had become "seduced" by Western ideas that the Caliphate finally was dismantled)

and one which

4) is frustrating Islam's original and permanent goal of conquering the world (not that they were able to during the centuries when they had Caliphs -- but no matter, all that matters for us Infidels is what Muslims think they need and think they can do, in the pursuit of which they cause untold misery and mayhem, not what they actually can ultimately successfully accomplish).

Muslims don't take kindly to being forced by Infidels to change what has been their holy frozen custom for centuries, and thus they have been seething throughout the 20th century. Surely, their situation of being without a Caliphate is unique and intolerable, and would demand an extraordinary solution -- one which their jungly serpentine ideology can easily cook up.

Posted by: remote_control at February 21, 2007 11:46 AM

Menetheos,

From what I've read (Reliance of the Traveller, parts of the Hidaya, and some older texts from other schools), generally, "offensive" jihad in Sunni Islam requires a Caliph. Nevertheless, if there is no Caliph, it stands to reason (within Sunni Islam) that Muslims must struggle toward establishing one [e.g., Bin Laden et al wish to re-establish the Caliphate]. (If some Muslims don't believe a Caliph needs to be sought, then obviously it's a non-issue; they will go ahead with violent jihad anyway). Also, the Koran and sahih Hadith as well as the sayings of Ali state that Muslims should struggle (violently and non-violently) to remove "corruption", fight against disbelief and disbelievers, etc. Those are general principles that apply regardless of whether or not there is a Caliph.

Regardless of whether or not there is a Caliph, "defensive" jihad (acording to that manual) is an individual obligation, i.e., must be waged by Muslims in closest proximity to those who are attacked. If those Muslims failed to defend the "opprssed/persecuted" Muslims, then the Muslims next closest in proximity must fight...and so on. All of these terms ("attacked," "defensive," "failed to defend") are sufficiently ambiguous and elastic, and non-Muslims by their mere existence, words and deeds, violate so many Islamic laws, that practically any Muslim anywhere can find some justification to take it upon himself to kill a non-Muslim. And note, there are minimal to no penalties for killing a non-Muslim in most cases (except for protected dhimmis, but again the dhimma "agreement" can be broken so easily, and thus nullifying any protection, that this can hardly be seen as solid protection).

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at February 21, 2007 2:14 PM

I've been out of commission for a few days and only now stumbled upon this, and the previous, thread. Bang up job Khaybar! Re the caliph, I once emailed Mr Spencer in earnest looking for a scholarly answer to this question about whether offensive jihad is permissable without the caliph. (I know he's a very busy man and he didn't reply). From my own readings, it appears to be the Shias who are more reluctant to wage offensive jihad in the absence of explicit authority from an imam. I noticed the other day that Spencer stated outright that offensive jihad was acceptable without a caliph. I would be interested in seeing the explicit sources for that statement. Certainly, it appears to be indisputable that if at least some part of the ummah is not waging offensive jihad, then the entire ummah falls into sin. So what happens without the caliph? If the ummah doesn't wage offensive jihad does the entire ummah fall into sin? (as Remote notes, this is a relatively new happenstance, historically speaking). And is this the reason why the "radicals" try to make such an exaggerated point that Islam is under attack (and try to twist everything, no matter how patently ridiculous, into a "defensive" justification)? Because they know that in that case jihad is obligatory for everyone and the average Muslim will understand their obligation in that case? If they are able to twist their justification for attacks as "defensive" now, just imagine what they would justify if they actually succeeded in re-establishing the caliphate. Gone would be any pretense at some "defensive" explanation for their aggression altogether! In any case, this caliph issue is something I would still like like further concrete information about (i.e.Islamic sources) from someone knowledgeable like Mr Spencer. I hope he will consider shedding further light on this issue at some point in the future.

Posted by: Caroline at February 21, 2007 9:03 PM

Caroline,

In his recently-posted pdf article for the terrorism awareness project (Feb 21 section of JW), Spencer wrote:

“The restoration of the caliphate—the unified Islamic state governed by a caliph who leads the Muslim community as a successor of Muhammad—is a key imperative for jihadists today because only the caliph is authorized to wage war against non-Muslim states to bring them under the rule of Islamic law.”

...He then cites the familiar passage in Reliance of the Traveller, re the caliph waging war on Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…etc.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at February 21, 2007 11:41 PM

Kyaybar - I was thinking of this statement of Spencer's from Feb 16:

"Also, if there is no caliph, Muslims must still wage jihad."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015300.php

It's at the end of the Reliance of the Traveler section, just before Ibn Khaldun. Maybe I mistook that to mean offensive when it actually meant defensive jihad. But the statement "must still wage jihad" doesn't make much sense from a defensive pov. What if one isn't actually being attacked? What if one were never attacked again? What would there be to "defend" against? Or did he mean, "Muslims must still wage jihad in self-defense, even in the absence of a caliph"?

Posted by: Caroline at February 22, 2007 3:09 PM

Caroline,

I suspect those ambiguities are in the text of the Reliance of the Traveller...it's been a while since I searched through the parts on jihad and the caliph. (Another reason why we need up-to-date statements from all the schools: Out of some of them we might actually read clear commitments to policies). All of this stuff is so ambiguous and open to interpretation that the loss of the caliph itself could be regarded as injustice, persecution, oppression and therefore Muslims must "defend" by fighting back against the forces of "corruption" which are blamed for removing the Caliph, e.g., the big bad West.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at February 22, 2007 3:58 PM

Caroline,

Your conundrum is easily solvable, and it's between the lines of Khaybar's posts (as well as stuff you already know):

1) "self-defense" is understood relative to "attack on Islam"

2) the circumstance of Islam being without a Caliph was caused by the Infidel West

3) the circumstance of #2 -- in addition to the continuing geopolitics of the West throughout the 20th century impinging upon, and interfereing with, the Muslim world -- constitutes an "attack on Islam"

4) restoration of the Caliph is not merely a nice wish that someday Islam might have a nice peripheral thing from its ancient times restored, but is an urgent imperative, and the Caliph's absence is intolerable and, given #2 above, excites more hatred against the Infidel West than would even normally be the case.

5) Therefore, jihad waged in order to restore the Caliphate would be necessary and perfectly appropriate, given #1-4.

Conclusion:

If there exists a "Catch-22" in Islamic law, whereby

a) a Caliphate must be in place in order to wage "offensive" jihad

but

b) once the Caliphate is gone, "offensive" jihad cannot be waged -- even a jihad to restore a Caliphate that has been lost, or even dismantled by the enemy

-- then it is easy to see how Muslims can very easily interpret as "defensive" actions those actions we see as in fact offensive, and therefore can continue their jihads, business as usual, with the only difference being that they have one eye out on the hope that their Caliph will be restored soon with the help of their actions.

Posted by: remote_control at February 22, 2007 7:34 PM

Khaybar and remote - yes, of course, you're both right. In short, Muslims think they temporarily have the defensive right to aggress against us, merely until they have unequivocably re-established the offensive right to aggress against us. Makes perfect sense (Not!).

Do you think there's any hope, whatsoever, in ever getting them to understand the legitimate difference between defense and offense? It seems that in order to accomplish that, they would need to undergo a fairly radical transformation of consciousness away from the fundamental tribal mentality that 7th century Islam codified permanently into moral/ethical law. As someone pointed out on a previous post, what is clearly missing here is any fundamental notion of "reciprocity". One could also call it - seeing things from the other's point of view, or empathy. At present, the modern west is suffering from an overabundance of this trait. The Muslim world needs to catch up. Is this a concept that can perhaps be taught through intensive instruction? It sounds crazy to us to actually be devoid of this basic understanding. But quite clearly some people CAN in fact be devoid of this basic concept. Meanwhile, our educators spend way too much time trying to instruct those of us who already grasp the concept, when instead there ought to be a whole-hearted and intensive effort expended in instructing those who have clearly NOT grasped this concept. I've got my hands full right now but if there is anyone out there who works in the educational field and has some time on their hands to try to formulate a novel curriculum to teach these basic concepts - Reciprocity, Empathy, Seeing things from the other's POV, the "Golden Rule" etc. - to Muslims, please - for all of our sakes - go at it! Of course Muslims grasp these concepts where fellow Muslims are concerned. We already know that. But the point is to instruct them in these basic ethical concepts in terms of their attitudes towards and interactions with non-Muslims. Quite a challenge if anyone can pull it off. But a challenge well worth taking on I think (especially for those committed to trying to come up with non-violent solutions to the challenges we face).

Posted by: Caroline at February 22, 2007 9:57 PM

Caroline,

"Do you think there's any hope, whatsoever, in ever getting them to understand the legitimate difference between defense and offense?"

The only way to get Muslims to understand this is for them to abandon their doctrine of soteriological supremacy: they don't merely cultivate a doctrine of supremacy (which would be bad enough), but one that is soteriological -- i.e., one that is directly connected to being eternally saved. Everything Muslims do is supercharged with the twin urgency of lust for eternal salvation / terror of eternal damnation. Their doctrine of supremacy is based on their belief that their way of life and their membership in their belief-system is supreme and guarantees salvation & escape from eternal damnation.

And the only way to get Muslims to abandon this would be for agnosticism to seep into their culture, and over time come to saturate its societies and institutions, as it has in the modern West.

The difference between the West in this regard and Islam is that even the West's former theocracy, Christendom, had discernible, internal seeds and roots paving the way for the growth of an agnostic secularism as the dominant paradigm for sociopolitical existence. One sees no such internal seeds and roots in Islam, and in fact one sees the opposite, in its texts, traditions, teachings and persistent behaviors -- where exceptions seem to be the result of imposition, in one form or another, by the West.

Posted by: remote_control at February 23, 2007 12:39 PM