| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
A few days ago the European blogger Michael van der Galien, with whom I had an exchange about "pure Islam" here last year, wrote a post at his PoliGazette entitled "The Spell of Islamophobia and Moderate Muslims."
In it, van der Galien takes up the familiar lament that there are huge numbers of moderate Muslims, but they aren't getting any attention. It centers on a Washington Post piece in which Eboo Patel complains of the same thing. Van der Galien writes:
Eboo Patel wrote a good article for On Faith of the Washington Post about Islamophobia. His main point is this: whenever he or other so-called moderate Muslims speak out about terrorism, condemn it, and preach a peaceful form of Islam (by pointing out that Islam has a peaceful tradition and a theology that encourages religious pluralism), non-Muslims have only two questions for them. “Why don’t Muslims condemn terrorism?” And, “Where are the moderate Muslim voices?”
And van der Galien agrees:
And, I think, he’s exactly right. I too notice that whenever Muslims condemn terrorism and preach a peaceful and tolerant version of Islam, they are - quite simply - ignored.
Ignored? Really? Isn't that an ironic overstatement when referring to a guy who is writing in the Washington Post? Maybe van der Galien is unaware that those who are tarred as "Islamophobes" don't get invited to write in the Washington Post, but the Eboo Patel types are quite thick on the ground there.
And his other exhibit of a poor, ignored moderate Muslim is just as questionable:
In the blogosphere we have Ali Eteraz. A ‘moderate Muslim’ who writes about Islam almost constantly. Yet, conservative bloggers constantly ask “where are the so-called moderates?”Well, how about Ali?
How about Eboo?
Well, how about them? I think it is worthwhile, in the context of van der Galien's post, to explain why some people -- and not just van der Galien's caricatured baddies who believe the absurd premise that "all Muslims support terrorism" -- are suspicious, and quite justifiably so, of Muslim moderates like Eboo Patel and Ali Eteraz.
Patel, for his part, in his article touts the "Not in the Name of Islam" petition circulated by the Council on American Islamic Relations. Now, CAIR has been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case. Several of its officials are in prison on various terror-related charges, and several other of its officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. So is it simply prejudice -- irrational, unthinking, racist, xenophobic "Islamophobia" -- that makes people suspicious of this petition and of the intentions of the people behind it?
I don't think so. I am not saying that Patel himself is not a moderate. I am sure that both he and Eteraz are as moderate as the day is long. But when all that Patel can come up with as demonstration of a moderate initiative is a CAIR petition, well, pardon me if I am underwhelmed.
And Eteraz? Well, he writes in The Guardian and all over the place, so I don't think it is quite accurate to say he is ignored either. I myself certainly haven't ignored him: he and I have had several exchanges in the past.
In them, Eteraz several times indulged in a disheartening disingenuousness. He claimed, for example, that the gate of ijtihad -- that is, the process of independent legal reasoning in Islam -- was not closed, and that I demonstrated my ignorance in saying otherwise. Never mind the fact that it is rather a commonplace for Islamic authorities of all stripes to affirm that the time for ijtihad is indeed long past, as I show here. Eteraz says that they are in fact open and should be (and I agree that they should be), but for Eteraz to charge someone with ignorance for repeating what some of the world's leading Islamic scholars acknowledge as a matter of course calls in question his good faith.
Similarly, Eteraz's whitewash of some uncomfortable aspects -- recorded in Islamic tradition -- of Muhammad's life does not inspire confidence. Reform in Islam will not come, if it will come at all, from bland denial of the existence of traditions and teachings that jihadists use to justify violence and supremacism, but from an honest acknowledgment of those traditions and an attempt to understand them in a way that will blunt their literal force.
Then there was Eteraz's bizarre and troubling assertion, here, that Muslim moderates should remain silent and passive in the face of Islamic violence and terror, rather than working against it. And finally there is his unfortunate taste for invective, which has led him to depart from the truth on several occasions -- as here, when he claimed that National Review wouldn't link to Jihad Watch. (Hey Ali, here's my most recent NR article, from a couple of weeks ago.) This is not a personal matter -- Ali Eteraz can say whatever he wants about me, but I am working in good faith, and when he stoops to this kind of thing, I don't think anyone can reasonably expect me to take his other writings without a grain of salt.
So what's the point? Is Ali Eteraz not himself a moderate? No, I am sure he is the soul of moderation. But I don't think it's unreasonable for people to ask for more from moderate Muslim spokesmen than a petition floated by a group like CAIR and a disingenuous whitewashing of uncomfortable elements of Islamic tradition.
Eboo Patel and Ali Eteraz are by no means ignored. And I believe that those who are not ignoring them have every right to ask them for more forthright and genuine action against the Islamic jihadists they oppose.
Posted by Robert at March 19, 2008 2:41 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Necessary and good.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 19, 2008 2:48 PM
Robert,
I've been translating some recent interviews with Yusuf al-Qaradawi at lookingfromthebalcony.blogspot.com
He stated in one of them that the gate of ijtihad is open, and no one has the right to close it. Given his stature in the Islamic world, it might be true that the question is not as closed as some of your sources indicated.
Ed
Posted by: ed at March 19, 2008 3:05 PM
Ijtihad 'open' is ersatz Islam? “Criick” is the sound of the big islamic knife cutting through the neck bones and veins…
Dare to question from within the ranks and see what happens from the howls of orthodoxy. No wonder there are no ‘moderate’ Muslims around. It’s their neck and they know it. And they know what happens to apostates… “criick” !
Don’t dare speak out in anything against this ‘religion of peace’ or its your neck.
at March 19, 2008 3:07 PM
Ed:
He stated in one of them that the gate of ijtihad is open, and no one has the right to close it. Given his stature in the Islamic world, it might be true that the question is not as closed as some of your sources indicated.
Perhaps I have not made my point clear.
The scholars I quote in the ijtihad piece -- and I have many more -- didn't get the idea from nowhere. Is there a movement afoot to open the gate of ijitihad today? Certainly. But it is going against the mainstream opinion, as is Qaradawi in the material you read. If Eteraz had simply said, Yes, most scholars agree that the gate of ijtihad is closed, but it must be opened again and has never been fully closed in the first place, that would have been fine.
But instead he said, That you think the gate of ijtihad is closed shows that you don't know anything about Islam. Fair enough -- but then the same must be said of Seyyed Hossein Nasr and so many other Muslim scholars who affirm that the gate of ijtihad is closed.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 19, 2008 3:13 PM
What's with the moderate masses we are told that exists? All Muslims have read the Koran and Islamic teachings and have been taught that, I presume. These people must be silent, or very good at changing the subject, because they know what those teachings reveal. Those who are expressive are jihadists, supported by true Islamic teachings. The moderates are self subdued so as not seen as 'apostates' withing their own religion.
There are lots of arguments about the peacefulness of Islam but it is hard to ignore the 'big stack of dead bodies". Kind of stands out.
Posted by: Sounder at March 19, 2008 3:16 PM
yes it is our fault. it's always our fault. all the dead bodies make us blind to the moderates.
Posted by: Ruebacca at March 19, 2008 3:19 PM
Robert,
Truly moderate Muslims are ignored. Let's forget the blogosphere, British press, and narcissists like Eteraz for a moment and concentrate on American media. AIFD is the most known moderate Muslim organization and CAIR is the most known radical Muslim organization. If you compare the number of Americans who heard of AIFD to the the number of Americans who heard of CAIR, the ratio would probably be 1:100. The only reason for that is that moderate Muslims are absolutely ignored, because they darlings of the media and the government are Islamic radicals who claim to be moderates.
MASH
Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at March 19, 2008 3:20 PM
What about the Center for Islamic Pluralism ?
Their site even has a department on "Wahhabiwatch".
at March 19, 2008 3:21 PM
MASH:
If you compare the number of Americans who heard of AIFD to the the number of Americans who heard of CAIR, the ratio would probably be 1:100.
Maybe, but the AIFD's Zuhdi Jasser gets a huge amount of media coverage. He is a regular on the Glenn Beck show and frequently appears elsewhere.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 19, 2008 3:22 PM
Robert,
You are correct...looking back at my own translation, this is what al-Qaradawi actually said in the Al Jazeera interview where he was talking about whether Shariah should rule in countries where Muslims are the majority:
Qaradawi: If the majority is Muslim, they have the duty to be governed by the Shariah, but the Shariah must be well understood. The problem is that some people are governing today by an outdated irrelevant understanding of the Shariah. We must open the Gate of Ijtihad and it must remain open. No one has the right to close it after Allah and his Apostle opened it for the Ummah.
You're right....he was not saying ijtihad is open, but he is one of those who thinks it should be.
Ed
at March 19, 2008 3:24 PM
Seems to me the correct designation would be not "moderate Muslims" but "nominal Muslims" -- individuals who identify themselves as Muslim for historical reasons but just don't pay a lot of attention to the Koran, ahadith, and lives of Muhammad. The more one focuses on these authentic sources of the Islamic tradition, the more one must feel obliged either to reject the whole shebang or start participating in the jihad, and I'm not talking about any inner spiritual struggle.
Fortunately, yes, there are many nominal Muslims. Unfortunately, many of these nominal Muslims come to Western countries to make some money so their families can have a better life, but they father sons whose allegiance to Islam may take a more serious turn.
Posted by: Karl Pov at March 19, 2008 3:34 PM
MASH,
Thanks for broadening my horizons. Count me among the Americans who had no idea what you meant by AIFD but who knew all about CAIR.
I had to do a search, and now I know.
How does Islam exist without sharia and how does moderate Islam exist with sharia?
These seeming contradictions are what make the idea of moderate Islam difficult to comprehend.
Posted by: PMK at March 19, 2008 3:35 PM
I can never really quite figure out if the so-called moderates are dishonest or just plain ignorant of of their own religion.
One thing for certain, though, is that very few of them would dare go to Mecca and tell the Grand Mufti that he's got his Islamic theology all mixed up.
What the moderates preach to us in the West about the "true Islam", and Western apologists' for Islam parrot, is for our consumption only, and they know it.
The thing that makes me lean towards believing the moderates are dishonest, is their obvious reluctance to try selling in a Muslim society what they so often suceed in selling here.
Posted by: rational at March 19, 2008 3:47 PM
O/T but very important
The US State Department has classified al-Shabaab as a specially designated terrorist group. The terrorist group's website is hosted by a US company which is illegal. Please visit http://reportonarrakis.blogspot.com/2008/03/us-state-departments-newest-designated.html to help out. THanks
at March 19, 2008 3:51 PM
Robert's usually spot on - but not this time. I think that both of these guys make a genuine attempt to address the concerns that Robert raises.
But the right response is not this one. Instead of calling their efforts disingenuous, he should applaud them for taking the first step, and encourage them to take the next one.
Posted by: Ernie Banks at March 19, 2008 4:04 PM
Ernie Banks:
I think that both of these guys make a genuine attempt to address the concerns that Robert raises.
Where?
Instead of calling their efforts disingenuous, he should applaud them for taking the first step, and encourage them to take the next one.
Can you please explain to me how touting a CAIR petition drive as evidence of genuine moderation, and Eteraz's dishonesty regarding ijtihad, are not disingenuous?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at March 19, 2008 4:08 PM
I think that the moderates will benefit either way without having to do anything. And we see that doing something is not what people really want to do. If they sit back in a host country they can enjoy the benefits of that host country - and since they believe that saying anything against mohammed, the koran and islam is a no-no - they will worry more about that than jihad since jihad is sanctioned by the koran.
I don't trust 'moderate' muslims anymore. I have been blogging with too many that deny what it plainly says in the koran or what is happening world wide. They defer, try to distract by mentioning the Crusades, the abuses of the Jesuits on the Indians, etc. I have no problem with those kinds of deflections (thanks for the book on the religion comparisons), but the 'moderates' are NOT moderate. Too many are just lying about their 'religion'.
And their twisting of the words - peace, innocent, suicide, occupiers, etc - are also used without knowing that I know what their 'peace', and other items, means to us infidels.
They are unable to comprehend their prophet is not what they think he is. Actually, I figure it is denial so I make sure to give references and to say it as straight as I can so they can start getting used to the idea that maybe what they believe in is indeed dastardly.
Oh well, to summarize - I don't trust 'moderates' and in fact, the hair on my back raises even when I see one of those coy, little muslimettes. I don't trust her to NOT teach her children to hate us and to be fully aware that she and/or her children could fall into 'sudden jihad syndrome', or that she is one of many wives and is nothing but a baby factory in their goal to raise their numbers and her husband being a jihadist himself.
at March 19, 2008 4:10 PM
There is a difference between "taking the right step" and pretending that such a step is being taken by tens of millions, or millions, or at least hundreds, or even tens, of thousands, because in that pretense that "reform of Islam" is an on-going project, enthusiastically participated in by so many, and not facing obstacles that some would deem insuperable (I call the immutability of the Qur'an, and its status outside of history, as the uncreated and literal Word of God, the Qur'an, an insuperable obstacle to the kind of reform of Islam that is necessary, for the sake not of Muslim women, or Muslim homosexuals, or Muslim this or Muslim that, but for the sake of those whose well-being most concerns me -- the sake of Infidels).
Those who deliberately, or out of ignorance rather than malice, encourage Infidels to be optimistic about "reforming" Islam, and as part of that optimism to deliberately refrain from warning others about the current (pre-reform) meaning, and therefore menace, of Islam, are not people whom I wish to entrust with my well-being, or allow others to trust, for their understanding of Islam.
Posted by: Hugh at March 19, 2008 4:11 PM
Posted by: ed at March 19, 2008 3:24 PM
Ed,
With all due respect, Yusuf al Qaradawi's call to open the gates if ijtihad should not be seen as progressive in any way for non-muslims. He calls for it to serve Muslim interests only, not to reinterpret the mandated, violent, intolerant passages which are prevalent in the Qur'an.
Qaradawi is the main player in the doctrinal workaround of the Qur'anic prohibition of suicide to justify suicide-bombings.
Posted by: awake at March 19, 2008 4:12 PM
There are no moderates and there is no moderation.
In a recent radio interview the Islamic activist Ameer Ali (one of those 'moderates' who used to meet with the Howard government) was so obviously lying, obfuscating and deflecting that anyone with the faintest clue about Islam would have to bang his head in frustration These people really believe we're all ignorant and stoopid, but for how much longer do we allow them to get away with it?
Btw:
You are featured on the Bunglawussi site, Mr. Spencer:
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 19, 2008 4:19 PM
Hugh wrote:
"(I call the immutability of the Qur'an, and its status outside of history, as the uncreated and literal Word of God, the Qur'an, an insuperable obstacle to the kind of reform of Islam that is necessary, for the sake not of Muslim women, or Muslim homosexuals, or Muslim this or Muslim that, but for the sake of those whose well-being most concerns me -- the sake of Infidels)."
The insuperable obstacle of the Qur'an's supposed divinity. That really is the bottom line now, isn't it?
at March 19, 2008 4:21 PM
Where are all the "moderate" Catholics?
There is no such thing, just as there are no moderate Muslims.
There are Catholics who opt for multiple choice regarding the tenets of their faith (pre-marital sex, second marriage, abortion, etc); but in doing so excommunicate themselves from the Church...the so called Moderate Catholics.
The same could be said about Muslims. There are those that live peacefully, westernized...but are they Muslim? Not according to everything I've read in and about Islam/Mohammad/Koran/Hadith/Sharia.
The Catholic church has not reformed to meet the ideology of their members; neither will Islam.
Julie from Stowe Vermont
Posted by: Julie from Stowe at March 19, 2008 4:58 PM
Awake,
you said: With all due respect, Yusuf al Qaradawi's call to open the gates of ijtihad should not be seen as progressive in any way for non-muslims. He calls for it to serve Muslim interests only, not to reinterpret the mandated, violent, intolerant passages which are prevalent in the Qur'an.
I agree with you 100 percent, and I think we are on the same page. I was pointing out that Etarez was wrong in claiming Ijtihad is open. Even someone of Qaradawi's stature says it is not open (even though he thinks it should be).
Posted by: ed at March 19, 2008 5:20 PM
Ed,
Remember that ijtihad is merely the process of establishing/changing Islamic Law. Therefore, this process could be used to introduce rulings that are even more unpleasant than those that currently exist. It does not follow that any opening of Itjihad will automatically be beneficial to us infidels.
In short, it is a double edged sword, and I'm sure you can have a good guess which edge Qaradawi is sitting on.
Posted by: Amicus at March 19, 2008 5:27 PM
Sorry Ed, my last possed crossed with your last one. You clearly know the score.
Posted by: Amicus at March 19, 2008 5:29 PM
That's "post" and not "possed"!
Posted by: Amicus at March 19, 2008 5:30 PM
There are moderates, but the radicals scare them. It's a well known phenomenon that moderates are frequently attacked by the radicals, and thus afraid to stand up.
Here in Denmark we're slowly reaching a consensus not to involve fundamentalists in any kind of dialogue. The question then becomes: "Who's not a fundamentalist?", but preciously few stand up. The scriptures are foreboding, and the fear of the fundamentalists with a book in one hand and an AK-47 in the other is daunting to peaceful Muslims.
They exist, but very few bother or dare to stand up. And that's a problem. They need to do so to defuse the confrontation I'm starting to see as inevitable.
On the other hand, many seem to move to Christianity, which is good. And as a bonus, it was just found that more Danes convert to Buddhism than to Islam! Estimates talk of 4500 Buddhist vs. 2500 Muslims. A punch in the eye of the 'fastest growing religion' :)
Posted by: Henrik at March 19, 2008 5:53 PM
Such elegantly persuasive argument by Spencer in this piece (as so often).
Posted by: traeh at March 19, 2008 5:59 PM
The search is over - because Myths are impossible to find.
Posted by: champ at March 19, 2008 6:08 PM
Moderate Muslims... moderate muslims...
According to a news article last week, moderate muslims warned of violence if the dutch film was released.
They claimed it would destroy "inter-faith harmony".
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/14/content_7790870.htm
The report states:
"Indonesia, with 87 percent of its over 240 million population are Muslim, practices tolerant strain of the religion."
If the "tolerant" muslims warn of violence over a film, just what does that say about islam in general?
Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at March 19, 2008 6:53 PM
And of course the OIC, and a wide variety of other Islamist organs are simultaneously coming out with their "Down with defamation of Islam! Down with Islamophobia" campaign. It is interesting that this all is beginning to seem coordinated to me -- the reactions to the cartoons -- the simultaneous calls across the board for the West to outlaw criticism of Islam -- and the Islamic apologists are suddenly coming out of the woodwork to assert there are "moderate Muslims", and that all the angst and criticism is "racist" "Islamophobia".
This is what $109 barrel oil buys. It will only get worse. The lackies of Islam are out in force, and their Jihadists paymasters are legion.
Posted by: jsla at March 19, 2008 7:00 PM
In search of moderate muslims?
It's going to be a lonely vigil...
Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at March 19, 2008 7:34 PM
"They claimed it would destroy "inter-faith harmony"."
It's been *quite* a while since I sensed any of that 'inter-faith harmony'.
I call crap. Again.
Posted by: Henrik at March 19, 2008 8:01 PM
I've posted my breakdown of Types of Muslims. I'll put it on my blog too.
Posted by: AfghanJohn at March 19, 2008 8:06 PM
As long as a central dogma of Islam is:
kill those who try to leave the faith
any "defense" of such a deathcult is idiotic.
Tapdancing about "gates" and "moderates" -when the "religion" itself is a homicidal pact- makes one question the core intelligence of these Mohammedan softshoe artistes.
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 19, 2008 8:19 PM
Maybe if the MASH people are still around they can answer this about 'moderates'. Or any other muslim reader who can expound on this...
Is it possible for a 'good' muslim to worship Allah in moderation?
Is it possible for a 'good' muslim to follow the directions of Allah, as described in the Quran, in moderation?
Is it possible for a 'good' muslim to emulate the perfect man and role model Mohammad, in moderation?
I will be looking forward to an answer to those questions...
at March 19, 2008 9:08 PM
One more comment on Etarez claiming the gate of ijtihad is open. Last year Al Jazeera held an interview with a Malaysian Islamics Professor on current uses of ijtihad. I listened carefully, since I had thought it was "closed". He gave two examples of ijtihad in a one-hour interview. The first was an opinion on which was the correct way to pray; apparently some groups fold their arms while others hand their arms at their sides. The second was a ruling by a Shaykh in Mecca as to whether women could walk around the Qabah during the Hajj while they were menstruating.
So if Etarez is talking about what women are allowed to do or not do during their periods, I guess he can claim that ijtihad is open.
Posted by: ed at March 19, 2008 9:30 PM
For moderate Muslims to exist as any sort of official entity there must also, it would seem, be a moderate Islam and moderate Kuran to support it. But of course, there is neither. Subsequently, moderate Muslims are neither very influential nor very visible throughout the global Islamic communities.
Moderate Muslims are almost certainly doomed to fail as an official entity because Islamic doctrine is rigged against it. Itjihad, although I am as yet largely uninformed concerning its particulars, is probably quite limited in scope to what it can accomplish in the ummah. If it wasn't, Islamic moderates would be far more successful and prevalent historically than they have been. Moderation has rarely, if ever, been a hallmark of Islamic societies.
The influence of itjihad, I suspect, can be blocked effectively and consistently by the political mechanisms built into Islam.
at March 19, 2008 10:13 PM
nominal Muslim is a good term and may well explain why you never hear them denouncing the teachings. Because they are more not Muslim than the real thing. They are fooling themselves if they run around and call themselves Muslim. They were most likely born into it and that is another aspect of it. Maybe secular Muslim would be a good term. I am speaking of Muslims living in western (non-Muslim) countries.
You will hear them shouting from the roof tops when and if the real Muslims get into power. Because they are very aware of the consequences if they don't say anything.
In a sense this is all meaningless IMHO. And is only good for the great unwashed infidels that have not understood the threat.
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at March 19, 2008 10:50 PM
The Times of India has published the following article on its editorial page today, i.e. 20th of March, 2008.
PROPHET MUHAMMAD, LAST MESSENGER OF ALLAH
By : Zeeshan Ahmad
The life of the holy prophet of islam, hazrat muhammad mustafa, whose birth anniversary falls this month, is a role model. The high accolades paid to his personality by allah through the holy qu'ran and the sunnah or islamic practices reminds us of his exalted personality. Thrice in a day, the adhan or call to prayer reminds muslims that the holy prophet is the messenger of allah. In addition, the namaz recited emphasis the unity of allah and the messengership of the holy prophet in the same breath, thereby underscoring the significance of the persona of the prophet.
islam teaces that allah chose to introduce himself through his words revealed to his choicest servants. For the guidance of mankind, allah sent 124,000 prophets, the first of them being Adam and the last being hazrat muhammad mustafa. It was the holy prophet of islam upon whom allah chose to end his message and complete the chain of prophethood and messengership : "This day, I have perfected the religion (islam) for you ; completed My proof upon you and am satisfied with islam as a religion (maidah, verse 5).
allah emphasises the finality of the prophethood and messengership of hazrat mohammad with the words, "mohammad is not the father of any of the men among you, but he is the messenger of allah and the seal of the prophets" (ahzab, verse 40). Such is the respect accorded to the holy prophet that allah chose to end his communication and message with the holy qu'ran revealed to his last prophet and messenger.
The qu'ran itself, along with the code of laws, pays rich tribute to the prophet. At one place, while the holy prophet is called "uswatul hasanah", the ideal model to emulate, at another place, he is called the "bearer of good news", paradise, and a "warner" for divine chastisement and retribution.
The compliments paid to the holy prophet by allah are not out of place. The period before the arrival of the holy prophet in arabia was one of darkness and ignorance. Wars were fought over petty matters, superstitions were rife and women were hardly respected. The social fabric of the arabs veered more towards vice and debauchery than religion. Principles which we take for granted in our lives like justice were to the winds.
It was in such trying circumstances that the holy prophet announced his message that would change the face and social fabric of the arabs and others forever.Within a period of 23 years, with extreme patience, with the odds of success stacked against him, the holy prophet attracted people towards the message of allah.
Centuries-old customs were disbanded, enmity replaced by brotherhood and superstitions replaced with firm beliefs and reliance upon allah. Through the love showered upon his only daughter, Fatemah, the holy prophet reiterated his commitment to the respect and uplift of women and abolished the shameful practice of burial of female infants.
This brings us to the fore the primary mode adopted by the prophet for disseminating his message : his exemplary character and morals. So whether it was dealing with his family members , his friends or his enemies, he set standards of ethics which remain unsurpassed. It is for this reason that despite the advance of 1,400 years since his demise, the prophet lives amongst us today through his teachings and words.
End of article.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at March 20, 2008 4:27 AM
This term "moderate muslim" is ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence.
Any person who believes God chose a man who raped a 9 year old girl, beheaded human beings, robbed, enslaved and abused women and who stated that he had been sent to fight and kill infidels until the world belonged solely to Allah simply cannot be moderate.
This is akin to saying there are "moderate nazis". If you believe in an evil ideology, not taking part in the "dirty work" doesn't make you moderate nor does saying you condone atrocities.
It is your belief in evil that is the mark. And as Turkey's PM Erdogan stated quite clearly:
"There is no such thing as moderate Islam. Islam is what it is."
at March 20, 2008 6:10 AM
So what's the point? Is Ali Eteraz not himself a moderate? No, I am sure he is the soul of moderation. But I don't think it's unreasonable for people to ask for more from moderate Muslim spokesmen than a petition floated by a group like CAIR and a disingenuous whitewashing of uncomfortable elements of Islamic tradition.
Eboo Patel and Ali Eteraz are by no means ignored. And I believe that those who are not ignoring them have every right to ask them for more forthright and genuine action against the Islamic jihadists they oppose
The petition floating around CAIR is not impressive.
When 9/11 happened there was dancing in the streets in the islamic world according to several sources. Where were the "moderates?"
When the bombings happened in London and Spain there was similar dancing in the streets in the islamic world. Where were the "moderates?"
When we had the beheadings; where were they then?
And now this:
Your publications of these drawings -- part of a new crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican had a significant role -- is a confirmation from you that the war continues," said the Saudi-born militant leader, addressing "those who are wise at the European Union.You are "testing Muslims ... the answer will be what you shall see and not what you hear.
In case anyone fails to connect the dots here, not only is Europe under threat, but the Pope has is also probably because in the mind of whoever put this out, the Pope is a Christian icon.
Thus by extention, Christianity is under threat as well as atheistic Europe -- yet I hear no "moderate" muslims condeming this, do you?
The muslim protests in the street against this threat is ... where?
at March 20, 2008 8:12 AM
Somehow, we seem to have gotten the definition of 'Islamophobia' completely wrong. I think a much better definition would be:
“‘Islamophobia’ is a fear of Islam so intense that you loose heart and fail to defend your country, culture and freedoms. It needs to be eradicated.”
H/T CVF.
Posted by: Henrik at March 20, 2008 10:19 AM
Who cares about moderates? Where are the liberals?
Posted by: deer.valley.ed at March 20, 2008 12:00 PM
Oh, shucks. There's another Ed. :(
Posted by: deer.valley.ed at March 20, 2008 12:02 PM
Moderate Muslim is a Myth.
....file this thread under "Fiction" and move on.
Posted by: champ at March 20, 2008 12:34 PM
It does seem that the West is on an inevitable collision course with Islam and it scares me. What do we do???? How do we defend ourselves when "between fear and political correctness we can say nothing about Islam but sugary nonsense" (I am quoting someone I read but I don't remember who)
Any solutions or suggestions out there???
Whoville
Posted by: whoville at March 20, 2008 4:06 PM
During civil wars, and revolutions, yes even the American revolution, the extreme side tends to terrorize anyone who does whole-heartedly agree with them. Yes, the Sons of Libverty tended to destroy the homes of, or tar and feather those who did not agree with them; ditto for the Tories. So an intelligent moderate tends to say that if I say yes, I'll be killed by this side; if I say no, I'll be killed by the other, so I shall say nothing - and live.
The millions of moderates, who are really saying "a plague on both your houses." are just trying to do what most people in the world are trying to do: live to fight another day.
The trouble with that is the old holocaust story about "I said nothing when they came for the Jews; I said nothing when they came for the labor people; I said nothing when they came for the Gypsies; so there was no one left to protest when they came for me."
But none of us are in their situation, our lives are not a [immediate] stake, so how can we criticize?
at March 21, 2008 8:48 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)