An article published on the "Front Page" magazine 10 days ago has gained up till now more than 1500 comments .. scrolling down the comments makes me realize how that man has built a very strong case.
Here are some paragraphs i'd like to quote and share with you .. you can read the whole article from that link
Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy’s ideology as:
“Islamic Fundamentalism,” “Islamic Extremism,” “Totalitarian Islam,” “Islamofascism,” “Political Islam,” “Militant Islam,” “Bin Ladenism,” “Islamonazism,” “Radical Islam,” “Islamism,” etc….
The enemy calls it “Islam.”Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as “Radical Nazism,” “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism.” The implication would be that there are good versions of those ideologies, which would then lead some to seek out “moderate” Nazis. Those who use terms other than “Islam” create the impression that it’s some variant of Islam that’s behind the enemy that we’re facing.
In another paragraph he says:
Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and State is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought in order to establish Islamic (“Sharia”) Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian. Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some “extremist” form of it. If jihadists were actually “perverting a great religion,” Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can’t is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God.
He continues by saying:
Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims. And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam. In the end, most Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves, irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy’s ideology “Islam,” and they dismiss the idea of “Moderate Islam” as they would the idea of “Moderate Evil.” When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a “Muslim Extremist,” then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.
He replied to his critics of the idea of calling "Islam" Islam in a post script by saying:
I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.
Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.
If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his choice somehow shines a good light on Islam. It doesn’t. A good Muslim according to us is a bad Muslim according to Islam.
That is really very good article i've been reading it over and over again trying to memorize every word he wrote .. I totally agree with him .. from now on i won't use the term islamists .. they are muslims. .. let's call "Islam" Islam
the idea of a separation of Mosque and State is unheard of in the Muslim world.
What about Turkey, Bosnia and Albania? (and Central Asian countries, like Kazakhstan, Tajikstan, Uzbekistan and maybe others)
Turkey spent years with strict sectarianism thanks to Kamal Atatork .. as well as most of the nations that were part of the USSR.
They are what they are right now because they have chosen so and not because they are following the teaching of Islam or the Koran .. a closer look at turkey for example would give you a glimpse of how the Ardogan policies don't represent the teaching of Islam and are opposed by true muslims.
It's only a matter of time before they start studying Islam and Koran .. they will realize that their life style wasn't very islamic as they thought it was and sooner or later they will end up like the Tsarnaev brothers.
The point is that the author of the original article made a factually incorrect statement. Turkey and other countries do not declare an official religion for the state in their constitution. In other words, constitution wise, there is a separation between Mosque and State. How people live their lives or how distant it is from true Islam is not the issue. But considering the source publication of that article, I should not be surprised that the information was not corrected :-)
and this separation is opposed by most "if not all" Muslim Clerics .. how many of them have you heard calling for the separation between Mosque and state ?? me .. none. You know that they call Moustafa Kamal Atatourk an infidel for establishing the secular state of modern turkey and ending the islamic othmany empire.
koran itself calls for a religious state .. if anyone established a secular state it's simply because he choose to and not because Islam was calling for it.
One expert said that "The peaceful Muslims are NOT the ones who really know the Koran backwards and forwards and can quote it chapter and verse." Never mind that they quote it selectively (just like Christians) and reserve the right to make up rules and interpretations, some of which have no scriptural basis.
can't agree more with you
All Abrahamic religions have valid reasons for using their holy text to justify violence. That reason is....THEIR RELIGIOUS TEXTS JUSTIFY VIOLENCE! It's right there.. in black and white. They come from a violent era of a society that was barely civilized. Their laws are barbaric because they were written by barbarians. As societies advance, they civilize. These are the morals and mentalities of 2,000 year old desert folk.
2,000 year old morals can't really be rationalized in today's society, so those morals are cherry-picked to survive. Religions are like languages. They evolve with interaction from others. They are influenced with globalization and immigration. Traditions, celebrations and entire cultures are absorbed and altered. That's why most Christian holidays are um...Pagan. It's the same with Islam. When Christians bomb an abortion clinic you don't call them 'radical Christians' do you? They aren't considered 'ultra conservative' they are just considered crazy but still identified simply as Christian terrorists, right? (I could well be wrong here.)
Of course religion evolves slower than science in the acceptance of anti-oppression. Even the most 'peaceful' religions have to be dragged kicking and screaming into modern human rights eras. There are exceptions, of course... but I'd wager a vast majority follow this script.
it's that those so called modern muslims are considered to be not true msulims by those following every word in the book (the koran) .. and on the other hand those "modern muslims" do nothing to defend their stand.
Neither do Christians. That's two out of three.
I don't know too many Christians that would say, "I don't believe in abortion, but I believe in your right to medical decisions being between you and your doctor without government interference."
How many Christians have you heard protesting religion in American schools? None? Why, because the only religion in American schools is Christianity.
Ok, I am over generalizing when I say 'all' or 'none' here. I know that. But the general profile remains the same.
Moderates protect the conservatives in any religion because that's the environment that religion creates.
But aren't the people who stand up to the Jihadist bully-boys, all risking death? And the Jihadists are hand-in-hand with corrupt criminal governments? And the whole thing is political anyway? Has Islam been hijacked by politics? Is this inevitable because of the non-separation of church and state?
When I look at Islam, especially Sufism, it looks rather attractive in its spiritual dimension, and I generally find Muslims to be extremely civilized and hospitable.
How are they risking death anymore than anyone else is?
I mean, extremists are as likely to go after a 13 year old pro-education girl as a political target or cartoonist.
Why would a moderate feel any safer than I do or you do? Why wouldn't they?
I don't understand what you're getting at here. That Muslim extremists target Muslim moderates more than Christian extremists target Christian moderates?
I've got a few pipe bombs and fertilizer explosions that say otherwise....
I'd like you to share with them that Mohammed marrying Aisha at the age of 9 was pedophilia and a crime .. and then you'll see how peaceful are they.
tell them how islam is sexiest against women and you will see a whole different side.
I'd like to tell you that sufism are following books and scriptures other than the Quran and the Sunna .. their founders of sufism has all been accused of blasphemy and killed .. they never went public during the ages of Islamic empire for fear of getting killed.
to me .. Sufism is much closer to Buddhism rather than islam itself