Earlier on PJM (via RaymondIbrahim.com) I discussed some of the differences — and similarities — between Muslims and “Islamists”:
What are the differences between the traditional Muslim and the so-called “Islamist”? As words dealing with Islam continue to morph and multiply, it is important to differentiate, for there are real, if subtle, differences.
A recent Arabic talk show on Egypt’s former president Hosni Mubarak’s trial sheds some light. The question was whether Mubarak, in the sight of Sharia law, should stand trial and be punished for, among other things, selling gas cheaply to Israel””or, as popularly portrayed, traitorously giving away Egypt’s precious resources to its mortal enemy.
Two Islam authorities debated. Taking the controversial position””that Mubarak should not be condemned””was Sheikh Mahmoud Amer, leader of Ansar al-Sunna, or, those who imitate prophet Muhammad’s way of living, which, of course, is what traditional Muslims””literally, Sunnis””have always done. His opponent, arguing that Mubarak deserves to be tried without mercy, was famous Islamist lawyer Montaser al-Zayyat (who most recently professed his “love” for Osama bin Laden).
Sheikh Amer, representing traditional Islam, stressed two points to exonerate Mubarak: 1) Dealing with the enemy (in this case, Israel) is permissible according to Sharia; Muhammad himself often appeased his infidel enemies, including Jews, when to his advantage, “for–”as the Sheikh quoted Muhammad”””war is deceit”; 2) According to Sharia, the only justification for deposing a ruler is if he becomes an infidel; if he is unjust, violent, and tyrannical to his Muslim subjects, that is not reason enough.
In fact, the Sheikh’s position is very much in keeping with Sharia…