Some American Christians, reading the Bible, came to the conclusion that slavery was allowed. Other Christians came to the opposite conclusion after reading the same book.
A Civil War resulted.
Some Muslims, reading the Koran, believe that Islamic law, the body of man made jurisprudence that has grown out of the Koran over many centuries, is the correct interpretation. Other Muslims believe that Islamic law is stuck in the 11th century and needs deep reform, especially those doctrines about using jihad to achieve the imposition of Islamic law.
Those Muslims who believe that Islamic law is essentially correct as it stands are attempting, by means legal and illegal, to impose Islamic law on Muslims and non-Muslims wherever they can. The most violent among them intimidate and murder would-be reformers by declaring them apostate.
Proponents of Islamic law have correctly identified Western Civilization, with its regime of individual and human rights that conflict with those of Islamic law, as the most pressing threat to the spread of Islam. So the West has been drawn into the civil war within Islam.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Islam and Islamism
Daniel Pipes' position:
During the question and answer session, Mr. Pipes pointed out that those who argue that Islam itself is the problem leave the West with no solutions, adding that, to truly reform Islam, Western governments must begin to empower genuine moderates.
Wafa Sultan, Hugh Fitzgerald:
Ms. Sultan began her argument by quoting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who says that there is no "moderate or immoderate Islam. There is Islam; that is it." She contends that terms like "radical Islam" conceal the true nature of Islam itself--a political ideology. She adds that the aim of Islam is to subdue the entire world under Shari'a.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/fitzgerald-islam-and-islamism-or-leaving-the-west-with-no-solutions.html#more
According to the Koran, ahadith and Sira, Ms. Sultan and Mr. Erdoğan are correct. Islam is what its legally binding texts say it is.
But Mr. Pipes’ strategy is superior. Rather than a head-on attack on the whole religion, he advocates separating those Muslims who wish to live under Islamic law from those who do not. The success of this strategy depends on the West creating political space for those Muslims who do not wish to live under Islamic law.
Muslims can reinterpret Islamic law to invalidate the doctrine of supremacy through jihad in the same manner that acceptance of the practice of slavery has been edited out of the Abrahamic religions.
Mr. Pipes is wrong about the West not having a solution if the problem is defined as Islam as a whole. Islamic law has many elements that are illegal in the West, and attempts to install it in the West should be identified and prosecuted. This might encourage Muslims who disagree with Islamists to identify themselves.
The supremacy of Islamic law is the issue in the civil war within Islam. We should encourage Western Muslims to defend the rights derived from citizenship in the West from the restrictions of Islamic law. Those Muslims who side with us against the illegal parts of Islamic law are our allies in this war on the West.
During the question and answer session, Mr. Pipes pointed out that those who argue that Islam itself is the problem leave the West with no solutions, adding that, to truly reform Islam, Western governments must begin to empower genuine moderates.
Wafa Sultan, Hugh Fitzgerald:
Ms. Sultan began her argument by quoting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who says that there is no "moderate or immoderate Islam. There is Islam; that is it." She contends that terms like "radical Islam" conceal the true nature of Islam itself--a political ideology. She adds that the aim of Islam is to subdue the entire world under Shari'a.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/fitzgerald-islam-and-islamism-or-leaving-the-west-with-no-solutions.html#more
According to the Koran, ahadith and Sira, Ms. Sultan and Mr. Erdoğan are correct. Islam is what its legally binding texts say it is.
But Mr. Pipes’ strategy is superior. Rather than a head-on attack on the whole religion, he advocates separating those Muslims who wish to live under Islamic law from those who do not. The success of this strategy depends on the West creating political space for those Muslims who do not wish to live under Islamic law.
Muslims can reinterpret Islamic law to invalidate the doctrine of supremacy through jihad in the same manner that acceptance of the practice of slavery has been edited out of the Abrahamic religions.
Mr. Pipes is wrong about the West not having a solution if the problem is defined as Islam as a whole. Islamic law has many elements that are illegal in the West, and attempts to install it in the West should be identified and prosecuted. This might encourage Muslims who disagree with Islamists to identify themselves.
The supremacy of Islamic law is the issue in the civil war within Islam. We should encourage Western Muslims to defend the rights derived from citizenship in the West from the restrictions of Islamic law. Those Muslims who side with us against the illegal parts of Islamic law are our allies in this war on the West.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Krauthammer's Error
Speaking of Geert Wilders, Charles Krauthammer says:
What he says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].
The untruth of that is obvious. If you look at the United States , the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. are not Islamists. So, it's simply incorrect. Now, in Europe, there is probably a slightly larger minority but, nonetheless, the overwhelming majority are not.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTA0YWU2NjQzZTM3YjRmNDA4ZDk2NWNjNzQyYjlmYTY=
Thus the premier American political analyst mistakes the tail (European and American Muslims) for the dog (mainstream Middle Eastern traditional Islam). Definitive authority in Islam comes from the Middle East, not America and Europe.
What does it mean if a majority of European and American Muslims are not Islamists? Not all Germans were Nazis and not all Russians were Communists, but the ideologues drove the agenda. Islamism is mainstream traditional Islamic law adapted to modern political realities--Qtub’s In the Shade of the Qur’an has no new Islamic theology. Islamists are Muslims who take seriously the political implications of Islamic law and reject any Western-inspired innovations and compromises that have crept into the law. Those in the West who call themselves Muslims while trying to paper over the demands of Islamic law (instead of calling for deep reform) will never win an argument with a well informed Islamist.
Even the most superficial acquaintance with the Koran, ahadith and Sira will convince any fair-minded reader that “the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].”
This is why Wilders and many Europeans see Muslims in Europe as colonists, not immigrants.
Krauthammer knows that the tail does not wag the dog. When I see such a heavy hitter swinging at a wild pitch, I start looking for explanations that have nothing to do with talent or intelligence.
What he says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].
The untruth of that is obvious. If you look at the United States , the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. are not Islamists. So, it's simply incorrect. Now, in Europe, there is probably a slightly larger minority but, nonetheless, the overwhelming majority are not.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTA0YWU2NjQzZTM3YjRmNDA4ZDk2NWNjNzQyYjlmYTY=
Thus the premier American political analyst mistakes the tail (European and American Muslims) for the dog (mainstream Middle Eastern traditional Islam). Definitive authority in Islam comes from the Middle East, not America and Europe.
What does it mean if a majority of European and American Muslims are not Islamists? Not all Germans were Nazis and not all Russians were Communists, but the ideologues drove the agenda. Islamism is mainstream traditional Islamic law adapted to modern political realities--Qtub’s In the Shade of the Qur’an has no new Islamic theology. Islamists are Muslims who take seriously the political implications of Islamic law and reject any Western-inspired innovations and compromises that have crept into the law. Those in the West who call themselves Muslims while trying to paper over the demands of Islamic law (instead of calling for deep reform) will never win an argument with a well informed Islamist.
Even the most superficial acquaintance with the Koran, ahadith and Sira will convince any fair-minded reader that “the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].”
This is why Wilders and many Europeans see Muslims in Europe as colonists, not immigrants.
Krauthammer knows that the tail does not wag the dog. When I see such a heavy hitter swinging at a wild pitch, I start looking for explanations that have nothing to do with talent or intelligence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)