Whats all this "moderate" muslims-stuff??
Either a muslim obeys the words of his god or he does not. If he does he is by definition a muslim and therefore a follower of an extremist ideology. Or he ignores the words of his God but then, by definition, is no longer a muslim. Or is it possible to be against free elections and still be a democrat?? Can one be a nazi, but has no problem with jews and dont think the germans are a masterrace?? Can someone clarify this for me??

Posted by: erdebe at May 20, 2008 11:44 AM

Moderates must be the "lukewarm" Muslims.

Posted by: champ at May 20, 2008 11:52 AM

What will make The Black Flag of Islam go White?

Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at May 20, 2008 11:53 AM

He who controls the terms of discourse has already won the debate. We are being told what to think and what to say to by our enemies.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 20, 2008 12:07 PM

Fortunately, what they say goes under my feet.

"Jihad", "jihadist" and many other terms have not yet left my lexicon, thanks to Robert.

Posted by: PMK at May 20, 2008 12:13 PM

Calling angina a "common cold" does not change its nature. It only prevents us from taking the necessary steps in treating it, which will only lead to further sickness, and possibly death.

Playing word games with jihadists is not only meaningless, but plays right into the hands of the radical Muslim terrorists - who, to be defeated, must first be called by their true name.

Spot on. If we deceive ourselves we are playing into the enemy's hands. "Jihad" is what it is for the enemy, a supremacist world conquest religio-cult philosophy of violence against anyone who disagrees with them. It does not deligimize their threat by not calling it what it is, but only obfuscates the enemy's intentions. Nothin can change "Islamic Jihad" by watering down words describing it, in fact the oppositve effect will happen, where they are emboldened to attack. State made a mistake here, and it is good to point it out, especially since it is their job to protect our freedoms from the predatory nature of this vile primitive enemy. Islamic Jihad is the enemy. Let them tell us otherwise, and we may listen politely, but until they show us otherwise, it is what it is, not a 'common cold.'

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at May 20, 2008 12:29 PM

From the article:

*Islamists are not waiting for "infidel" Americans to define jihad for them; they defined it themselves, a very long time ago.

*Where does the word game end? Should we also stop calling militant organizations - such as Egypt's "Islamic Jihad" - by their own chosen names?

Facts and questions the National Counter Terrorism Center's 'Extreme Messaging Branch' folks apparently did not think of as unnamed 'American Muslims' helped compile that ridiculous list.

Posted by: PRCS at May 20, 2008 1:19 PM

"define your enemy correctly, and you will rally legitimate allies to your side."

Define the enemy correctly? What a novel idea.

Posted by: awake at May 20, 2008 1:55 PM

"Call radical Islam by its name"

A good place to start would be to omit the word "radical" - that is, if the idea is that we should call it by its real name.

Posted by: anonymous at May 20, 2008 2:31 PM

The government has always indulged itself in word magick and word trickery. It works better if you can apply the trick before the word gets out. Once the horse is out of the barn, it's hard to convince people that they are not seeing what they are seeing. We have seen jihad...we know where it comes from, why it exists, even how to spell it...The gov can't erase it...We already know...

Islam is the enemy...an ideology...it may not be possible to declare war on Islam (as a formal declaration), but it is possible to treat Islam as an enemy, and restrict it in every way possible.
When push comes to shove...shove hard...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 20, 2008 2:57 PM

To judge by this Daily News article, and some other straws in the wind lately, Spencer and his colleagues are not imitating Sisyphus. They're moving mountains, slowly but surely. Shows what one person can do, when he really puts his life on the line for it.

Posted by: traeh at May 20, 2008 3:01 PM

Sounds like a Catagory Error. Does anyone know what that is?

Dan Simmon's Time Traveler knows:

"I'll tell you what it is," said the Time Traveler. "In philosophy and formal logic, and it has its equivalents in science and business management, Category Error is the term for having stated or defined a problem so poorly that it becomes impossible to solve that problem, through dialectic or any other means."

Go read the whole story. It is a message from our future.

Posted by: DJM at May 20, 2008 3:11 PM

It is my hope and prayer that, in the end, Tawfik Hamid, who has spoken here with such helpful clarity, may be prepared to explore unflinchingly the dissonance between his own human conscience, his human instinct for empathy and fellowship (which meant that he felt pain when as a schoolboy he encountered the doctrine, supported by Quranic verses, that he should separate himself from the Christian boy who had hitherto been his friend, and treat that boy with contempt) and the general import of the many antihuman texts that are found not only in the Hadith and Sira, but in the Quran itself.

At the moment he seems to be proposing a paradigm shift that would, presumably, produce a religion somewhat like the Baha'i, but without any central 'prophet' as such; it would also require an extraordinary rethinking of the figure of Mohammed, such that his acts of violence would have to be seen not as normative but as negative examples.

sez Hamid: "If Muslim leaders wish to insist that the word {jihad} refers primarily to a peaceful struggle against the self, they have that option. Let them clearly and publicly denounce the current doctrine and establish a new one. That's the answer - not redefining reality."

Good luck.

But, personally, I think it more likely that Mr Hamid might, in the end, resolve the contradiction between his human instincts and 'the Islam meme' by taking the difficult path that others before him have taken: people like Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, and his fellow Egyptians, Nonie Darwish and Magdi Cristiano Allam.

I hope he is reading their books. I hope he is listening to them.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 20, 2008 10:54 PM

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 20, 2008 10:54 PM

I find it troubling that more and more JW readers view the reformation of Islam as an absolute lost cause, with the abandonment of their Islamic faith being the only feasible alternative to individually being declared an overt enemy.

To expect that premise is commiting the same logical fallacy of asking that all sentient beings renounce their deistic faith in totality... it is not possible, at least in my opinion.

By all means, we should steel ourselves against the threat of jihad and global expansion through Islamic supremist ideology, but to actually view the total abolition of Islam as a tangible solution, simply boggles the mind.

I for one believe Islam to be a false ideology, borne of a false prophet, and conveniently for Muhammad, an ideology that was miraculously suited to meet his historical needs.

I can't speak for Robert directly, nor can I confirm nor deny that he feels as I do.
I can only go on his explicitly stated words, words that have proven far more truthful than the words and accusations of his opponents, Muslims and non-muslims alike.

Posted by: awake at May 20, 2008 11:27 PM

I find it troubling that more and more JW readers view the reformation of Islam as an absolute lost cause

The way I see it, if this is the case then it is far from troubling, and is actually a good sign. After all, what is important is that people realize what is true, people shouldn't reject the truth just because they don't like its (supposed) consequences.

However, I'm curious as to why awake thinks it is troubling - is it because he does think there is a potential for reform in Islam, or is it because he simply dislikes the consequences such a potential not existing?

If it is the former, could awake perhaps enlighten us as to what it is about Islam that makes him unwilling to rule out the possibility of Islamic reform? Otherwise, why does awake find it troubling that JW readers view Islamic reform as a lost cause - is it because he himself is starting to fear that it is in fact true?

Posted by: anonymous at May 21, 2008 1:05 AM

Anonymous,

There are very few absolutes in life. Reformation in Islam, depending on how you define it, is certainly possible.

The canonical texts harm no one, the followers of the texts do. Reform in Christianity occured without altering the texts. The contraversial passages (primarily in the OT) that moral equivalence apologists try to use as an argument to justify the vileness of the Qur'an, are simply ignored.

There is a valid argument that to ignore Islamic passages is to deny one's god, at least in reference to the Qur'an which many Muslims deem as divine, but to me, it is apparent that ignoring pieces of Christian texts has not lead to the demise of Christianity, so logically the same could follow regarding Islam. That being said, the Qur'ans supposed status does provide a major obstacle. A major re-write of Islam does seem to destroy it utterly and should not be considered feasible.

When enough people (non-muslims) perceive Islam as a the political weapon it is being weilded as, not the "religion of peace" that is above any inspection and criticism, then reform is possible, at least in terms of its physical influence over non-muslims, then the Islamists will then be called to task. I for one believe reform in Islam will only originate from external incentive and influence and not internally as Robert states it should, but has yet to date.

Islam is indeed problematic based on the words and actions of its followers, and I concur with your previous statement that terms like "radical" tend to cloud the situation more than provide clarity to it. Using terms like "radical" implies that it is something outside of Islam, which it certainly is not, but that was not the question posed.

Your opinion is certainly your own and you are entitled to it, but you cannot pass off your opinion as truth by simply stating so. You can say that it is the truth that Islam has not been reformed to date, but you cannot say it is true that it can not be reformed.

Let me pose the (nearly) same question to you:

Could anonymous perhaps enlighten us as to what it is about Islam that makes him unwilling to consider the possibility of Islamic reform?

Posted by: awake at May 21, 2008 10:02 AM

awake

If reform in Islam is possible, even with 'Western incentive', why did it not occur at the time when the Soviets were busy feeding Arab nationalist states like Iraq, Syria, Libya, et al, and the US was busy with states like Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman and even Saudi Arabia? All the Westerners and others who go and work in these countries - aren't they enough non-Islamic influences, without whom these countries would simply shut down? All these countries had exposure to non Islamic (in the case of the Soviets, de-Islamifying), and Western influences: wouldn't Islam have reformed as a result of their presence? Or by incentive, do you mean more like a barrel to their collective head?

There have been several FPM symposiums that have pretty much concluded that once Islam is reformed, it's no longer Islam: that's been the view of people like not only Bill Warner, but also Abul Kasem. Your assumption (if not assertion) above not only contradicts anonymous, but also flies in the face of history. In fact, the simple answer to your question above - 'what it is about Islam that makes [one] unwilling to consider the possibility of Islamic reform?' - is history!

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 21, 2008 1:26 PM

Could anonymous perhaps enlighten us as to what it is about Islam that makes him unwilling to consider the possibility of Islamic reform?

As I have vaguely suggested earlier, I don't really have all that much time to discuss at the moment, and answering questions does take much longer than asking them. So allow me to be quick before I vanish into thin air.

My unwillingness to consider the possibility of Islamic reform stems from my recognition that "Islam" isn't merely a word without inherent meaning, but a term which denotes one particular phenomenon. While one may argue that this phenomenon may evolve, it obviously cannot evolve into anything and still remain Islam.

In order for Islamic reform to happen, Islam would have had to be stripped of the very features that make it an enemy of humanity. Unfortunately, those happen to be its central, core features, and therefore if they were removed, Islam would have evolved into something that would in fact no longer be Islam. In fact, we would have witnessed a transformation, not a reformation. It would have transformed into basically nothing.

A common objection to this line of thought is that Islam is nothing in and of itself, but that it is simply "whatever its adherents say and believe it is" (or something similar), but while the adherents' actions and beliefs are indeed central in determining how Islam manifests itself at any point in time, ultimately it doesn't define what Islam is.

Although one could argue endlessly that somehow it would perhaps be possible for us to convince or force Muslims to change their behaviour so that Islam's nature does not manifest itself the way it has done the last 1400 years, e.g. by making Muslims ignore parts of the scriptures or abandon the idea that the Qur'an is divine in its origin, lack of adherence to Islam is not the same as reform of Islam. Also, there is no guarantee that these Muslims would not resume their practice of Islam at some later date. (Of course it is always foolish to take any apparent moderation among Muslims at face value, but that, I guess, is a different discussion.)

Posted by: anonymous at May 21, 2008 1:29 PM

IP wrote:
"Or by incentive, do you mean more like a barrel to their collective head?"

Unfortunately, yes that is what I meant. The carrot doesn't work with Islam, only the stick.

Reform by definition, like I previously stated, in terms of debilitating Islam's negative affection of the non-muslim world, not reform as we understand.

Warner makes some excellent points and in summation he declares that once you remove the hatred against the kafir in the Qur'an, it ceases to be anything more than a leaflet and Islam is no more as it exists today.

Anonymous,

I whole-heartedly agree with many points that you made in your last post and based on my definition of reform, maybe reform is not even the proper term in terms of the plausibility of it occuring as we generally understand the term.

That being said, Warner makes another excellent point in stating that the trilogy of the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira are all required to properly understand Islam and two thirds of those texts are not perceived as divine and open to interpretation and re-interpretation being that they originated from man.

Although quite unlikely, it is certainly not impossible and I can understand Robert's position that he chooses to maintain regarding this. He certainly does not wait in perpetual dhimmitude at this prospect and quite the contrary. His position is here is Islam as written, interpreted and practiced. Islam is hazardous to your health. we must guard ourselves against Islam until it becomes something other than what it is currently, if that ever happens.

Posted by: awake at May 21, 2008 2:03 PM

..."by making Muslims ignore parts of the scriptures or abandon the idea that the Qur'an is divine in its origin, lack of adherence to Islam is not the same as reform of Islam."

But this is exactly the counter argument to violent passages in the OT. They are deemed historical in nature and thus ignored, yet the faith continues.

I already admitted the problem of the Qur'an, but there is also a dualistic nature to it that can be manipulated by interpretation. The degree of anti-muslim sentiment found in it is also quite problematic, but that being said, that is exactly what the concept of abrogation does, currently.

Posted by: awake at May 21, 2008 2:10 PM

Awake

Thanks for clarifying. The term 'reform' is like the term 'moderate' - it serves up an illusion that Islam can be improved. But if you actually meant something like a transformation, then that would be something quite different.

Personally, once such a transformation happens, I wonder whether and why would any peoples, other than Arabs, and maybe Pakis, Afghans and Bangladeshis, prefer that 'transformed Islam' to a pre-existing, well established, mainstream religion, be it Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, et al.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 22, 2008 1:33 AM