The Muslim Civil War: ‘The Most Important Ideological Struggle in the World Today’
Barry Rubin: How does assimilation and acculturation work with Muslim immigrants in the West and how should it work?
Zeyno Baran: Each country has had different policies and different experiences, but in general, European countries for many decades paid little attention to assimilation; in particular, the UK and the Netherlands followed an openly multiculturalist policy that avoided any mention of assimilation and/or acculturation. This led to Muslim immigrant enclaves being formed in parts of European cities; when an area becomes heavily Islamic, then Islamists come in with their institutions and mosques, and establish themselves as the interlocutors between the immigrant community and Western authorities. Even after many of these governments decided to change their policies and developed programs for increased acculturation, they continued to work with the Islamists, whose ultimate responsibility is not to Muslim immigrants, but to the global Muslim umma (community) as they understand it. Since these “representatives” had no interest whatsoever in promoting the integration and assimilation of European Muslims, this led to frustration on the part of Western governments and societies, which began wondering whether Muslims can ever truly become “Western.” In turn, this frustration — directed towards all Muslims, not just the extremists — fostered a sense of anger and victimization on the part of the Muslim immigrants, who felt they would never be accepted as long as they remained Muslim. A better way to ensure social cohesion would be to address the pragmatic needs of Muslim immigrants — jobs, education, equal rights — in accordance with the social norms of the country, with a sensitivity to different religious/cultural backgrounds. In practice, this would mean allowing the establishment of dignified prayer places for Muslims, while not assuming all Muslims go to the mosque all the time, or that the mosque is the only social place for Muslims. There should be many other places where Muslims can go to socialize with each other and non-Muslims; these will develop naturally if Europeans can move away from characterizing these populations as “Muslim first.”
Barry Rubin: Has the concept of multiculturalism helped or hurt in this struggle?
Zeyno Baran: Despite being born of good intentions, the Western policies of multiculturalism have made it harder for Muslims to become Western. The pendulum of respect for cultural/religious difference has swung too far, and Muslims have been trapped into their Muslim identity as “the other,” instead of being assisted in becoming one of “us.” One of the recent and most clear examples of this is the wearing of the burqa in the West. For years multiculturalists have looked the other way when seeing women covered from head to toe in a style contrary to most Western norms as well as to Islam itself. Islam simply mandates modesty in dress, which for many women traditionally meant the headscarf, but never the full covering. Yet, until recently, in another unintended consequence of multiculturalism, few Westerners were willing to tackle this issue as they did not want to be seen as intolerant or bigoted. The few that have spoken out have been silenced with threats of being labeled “racist”; thus, intolerable forms of social behavior have continued to the point where they have become acceptable.
Barry Rubin: How can Western societies “win over” Muslims without losing their own identity or surrendering to the Islamists?
Zeyno Baran: The question is which Muslims? The Islamists would never be won over since their long-term goal is to see a world that is ruled with sharia. If Western societies continue to try to judge their success in “winning over Muslims” by giving into Islamist demands, then they’ll continue to lose their identity and their basic freedoms. But if Western societies were to side with non-Islamist Muslims, and learn from them how best to counter the short- and long-term goals of the Islamists, then I would say there is a great possibility that the West will not only successfully defend its own values and norms, but also help Muslims usher in a desperately-needed Islamic Renaissance.
Barry Rubin: How can moderates justify their interpretations of Islam when they appear to differ with the most important and basic Islamic texts?
Zeyno Baran: Many of these texts have been written centuries ago and in a particular context. Many moderates read them recognizing that what may have been a great social advancement in the 8th century cannot be taken literally in the 21st century. Over the centuries, there were many different voices widely debating how to interpret the Qur’an or the hadiths; moderates follow the tradition of those who have used their rationality and interpreted revelation as well as historic developments within their correct context. There are also many moderates who have not read many of the basic Islamic texts; yet they are no less legitimate, because 1) many of the radicals have never read many of these texts either and 2) Islam is not just about the written text but the living tradition. Indeed, for centuries Muslims learned the basics of their religion orally, passing down teachings from one generation to another. The recent radical trend we see among Muslims is due to radicals picking and choosing certain passages from the Qur’an and other key texts, interpreting them in a way to make their case, and then presenting them as the most legitimate interpretations. Again, I’ll draw an analogy with Christianity — it is as if saying that only one denomination’s interpretation of basic texts is the correct one. Paraphrasing Bernard Lewis, the situation we face within Islam is as if a KKK-controlled state found major sources of oil, and used the money to spread its own version of Islam as the most correct form and the whole world gradually began seeing them as the most authentic voices.
Barry Rubin: The Islamists are so well financed and well-organized. How can the moderates compete? How can they win?
Zeyno Baran: This is the most difficult question. The moderates have not been able to compete and won’t be able to compete unless there is help from the West. Theoretically some of the Muslim-majority countries that are threatened by Islamists could help, but in practice they are often too afraid to challenge them for fear of being labeled as “apostates.” The West knows from its own history the damage religious extremists cause to societies and the religion itself; they can help the moderates by no longer giving Islamists a free pass while their activists are working to undermine Muslim moderates and Western (or universal) values. They can also help by increasing visibility of the moderates’ work, such as those in The Other Muslims who argue for secular rule using Islam’s own texts and history, or those who push for an Islamic Renaissance, without which I believe we’ll never quite win against the radicals who are increasingly becoming the mainstream.
I’d like to believe in these moderate Muslims whom Zeyno Baran upholds, but in this interview she does not point to a single specific example — individual or group — of these mythical creatures.
She describes moderate Muslims as “cultural, pious and secular” but what in the world is a secular Muslim?
I guess it’s like a secular Jew — someone who grew up in a Muslim family and culture but does not believe as a Muslim. I’m sure such people exist but they are hardly an important part of the struggle to define modern Islam.
Maybe Baran’s book explains better, but based on this interview she seems to be just another voice advising wishful thinking when it comes to the challenge Islam presents to the world.
“She describes moderate Muslims as “cultural, pious and secular” but what in the world is a secular Muslim?”
A cultural Muslim would be a Muslim In Name Only. A pious Muslim would be a devout Muslim and unless you believe that devout Muslims that believe that all unbelievers must be made to submit to the authority of Islam or die can somehow be classified as moderate, then pious Muslims are anything else but moderate. A secular Muslim is an atheist or agnostic.
In my view, the litmus test of whether a Muslim community can co-exist with the west is if members can turn apostate, leave the community, and live to tell about it. (Disowning, shunning, and other social punishments are to be expected.) Without that, any pretence that Islam and Infidels can coexist is delusional. One will destroy the other (and I’m not taking bets on which is which).
Saudi Arabia has been funding Wahhabi school systems teaching the more radical and fundamentalist aspects of Muslim thought.
We lend legitimacy when President Bush walks holding hands with the people that are funding these schools, and when president Obama bows to them. When we stop treating them as business partners and start treating them as the groups funding these radical schools of thought, then we might get somewhere.
Her views and perspective are more fairytale than reality.
I think this is not quite accurate. Islam as an ideology is extremist. As Geert Wilders says, there may be moderate Muslims but no moderate Islam. To be a ”moderate” a Muslim must reject Islamic teaching, in whole or in part. What the ”radicals” are doing is promoting a revival of the original Islamic teachings, Jihad & the imposition of Shari’a by force, a return to the time of the Muslim conquests. Islam as an ideology cannot be reformed, the Islamic idea of reform is the opposite of moderate. Can someone be a ”moderate” Nazi?
I lived most of my life in an Arab country. Conceptually, the way to understand Islam is to define moderate as those who observe Islam as a folk religion, in other words, cultural Muslims who observe the holidays, marry & bury according to Islamic rites, keep Ramadan, Aid al-Kebir, eat the traditional foods for the holidays, who sort of live a Muslim life-style, maybe they pray once in a while, maybe they went to a madrassa as children & memorized a bit of the Qur’an – but, they can’t really understand the Arabic of the Qur’an, know little or nothing about ideology, have very little knowledge of Shari’a, are unaware of Muslim history, philosophy, or scholarly works – AND the ”bearers” of Islamic ideology, the Imams, the scholars, other religious leaders, some of the intellectual ”elites” – these are the fanatics of Islamic ideology, the pure & unadulterated extremist that Islam has always been.
You know, when I was young, say around 1970, things began to change. Up until that time, mosque attendance was way down, mostly a few old men. The influence of French culture, at least superficially, was everywhere. The urban population was small, the vast majority of the country was rural, poor, & illiterate. And, at this time, you could say that the whole country practiced ”folk Islam” – in other words, they were relatively moderate. Sure, they were anti-Semites, hated the West, raved & ranted about imperialism & colonialism, the usual Third-World Muslim BS.
But by 1975 or so, you could see the change – the country was ”importing” another Islam, an ideological Islam.
Islam was always political, there is no separation between mosque & state. The state’s legitimacy was based on it’s adherance to Islamic values & custom. But until the mid-1970′s, this was mostly a show, it wasn’t ”real” – and that began to change at a rapid rate, accelerating with the formation of Islamic movements & political parties.
Arab nationalism was discredited & more & more, Islam, the real Islam, the ideological Islam grew. This coincided with rapid urbanization & greatly increased education.
”Folk Islam” gave way to ideological Islam. It was like watching the nazification of Germany in the 1930′s.
And my point is that no one could fight this because it was in every way a return to the Islam of the prophet, the Islam of Mohammed the Jihadi warrior, the Islam of authentique Shari’a, the true Islam of expansion & conquest.
By the way, I read your post on why Israel should not attempt a preemptive military strike against the Iranian nuclear program. I think you are completely mistaken, you are just rationalizing inaction.
Terry: Could not agree more with you. And your observations are based on experience.
The author of this book would have a point if and only if she could indicate not one but one hundred of groups of what she calls “moderate Islam” the same way as it is possible to list a hundred groups and organizations and countries that composed what she calls the “Islamists.” Where are they?
You don’t see these groups and people because the international Banksters and their CIA/SIS controlled MSM does not show it to you. You only get to see the contrived theater, the lies and anti-Israel propaganda that they wish you see, to keep you emotionally invested in their game. These blood-vultures have been using Jewish and Israeli blood to keep their money racket going for decades and decades. They are directly responsible for carnage of WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, all the Middle East wars for at least the last 100 years, the rise of the Commies, the rise of the Nazis, and now the rise of the Islamo-nazis. See: The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed The Jewish People by John Loftus and Mark Aarons, to get a flavor of their ugly imperialist machinations.
I couldn’t agree with you more. The same thing is happening here in Turkey – a steady whittling away of a democratic state by an Islamic party that is currently in power. They are making strong headway by arresting and charging their political opponents with “treason” and “attempted coups.” Where is another Ataturk when they need it?
This is the most astute analysis of the development of Islamism that I have read in the past ten years.
Ummm… the Jihadists are the “traditional Muslims”. Point out to me what the Jihadists do that isn’t backed by the Sunnah (“traditions”).
Jihad as warfare against non-believers in order to institute “Sharia” worldwide is affirmed by all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi’i, to which the great majority of Muslims worldwide belong, as well as of all the other schools (Ja’afari, Ismaili, Imami, Zaidi, Naqshbandi, Chishti, Qadiriyyah, etc)
These schools formulated laws regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it must be practiced, centuries ago. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared: “Jihad is a precept of Divine institution?.[Unbelievers] have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”
Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists, taught: “Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
The Hanafi school sounds the same notes: “If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them.” (Hidayah) The Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058) agrees, saying that if unbelievers “refuse to accept [Islam] after this, war is waged against them?” All this is not merely of historical interest. A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law was certified in 1991 by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.” This manual, Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveler), after defining the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.” It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,” and spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians… until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.”
There is only one Islam.
Frank,
You got it right. A moderate Muslim is one who ran out of ammo.
Or one who set his gun on the ground after shooting an American Soldier so our brave soldiers fighting allah’s scum (yes I know I repeat myself) cannot shoot him.. ala obama ROE.
A Moderate Muslim is the one who pins you to the ground while the Radical Muslim cuts off your head.
or
A Radical Muslim beheads you while a Moderate Muslim explains to you why you deserve it.
Excellent analysis Frank. You are right. Islam is a totality and a political ideology not a faith. There is no moderate nature to a system of totalitarian ideals. No Golden Rule and no Book of Matthew exists within Islam. Only 2 % of the Koran has anything nice to say – and that is reserved for Muslims only. Any exceptional and kind words that one can find in the Sunna are the property of Muslims. That is not true of the Book of Matthew. Islam is universal in its aims to have all humans under the rule of the moon cult. The moon cult must rule, and you must submit your worthless individuality to the umma or communal of the moon cult and follow its rules. There is nothing moderate about it.
By the way, I believe Islam can be defeated. Of course, not with our current collection of spineless worthless politicians or our incredibly stupid media & journalists who have some twisted notion of ”radical chic” re: Islamic terrorists. And our current ”experts” in academia are a hopeless case, for the most part, they are out & out morons. As Orwell said, no idea is so stupid that an intellectual won’t believe it, more true today than at any time since the 1930′s.
The way to defeat Islam is to defeat it militarily & in a most ruthless fashion. At the same time, Islam should be shown absolutely no respect – it should be ridiculed, mocked, exposed as backwards, stupid, & primitive. It should be made very unwelcome in the West, in effect, treated as non-Muslims are treated in Muslim countries (minus the murders, of course). Imams should be deported, mosques closed. And, a major propaganda effort aimed at Muslim populations should be undertaken to undermine their faith, similar to the work done by the Coptic priest in Egypt (sorry I don’t remember his name). A great many Muslims, especially among the young urban poor, are not happy with Islam. I know this from personal experience. This disatisfaction is more widespread than most people think. And, believe me, the fanatics are more afraid of this than anything else. We should be encouraging mass defections from Islam.
Concisely and pithily argued. Couldn’t agree more.
Dear Terry,
The Coptic priest is Father Boutros Zakaria. He is brilliant, absolutely fearless, and is able to shred Islamic doctrine better than Vince and his ‘slap chop’.
Father Zakaria uses the ultimate weapon against Islam – Islam itself. He points out the fantastic absurdity of Islamic doctrine, and savages the ‘holy prophet’ simply by exposing the truth about Muhammed, his sadistic sociopathy, his sexual perversion, his murder, rape, enslavement & looting, genocide and terror….all straight out of the Koran, Ahadith and Sirah Rasul Allah.
Most Muslims don’t know this about their ‘prophet’, that in truth he was a first class creep, a vile and disgusting example of humanity.
The truth about Muhammed is enough to thoroughly discredit Islam and Islamic theology. No civilized human could knowingly and willfully embrace this barbarian. We must expose the truth about Muhammed to defeat Islam.
Best regards & keep your great comments coming!
~ The Infidel Alliance
Thank you, the name slipped my mind, I read a few articles about this priest & got a good laugh, his use of the Islamic writings is priceless, sadly, I did not know these facts when I still lived in my home country. I had quite a few ”religious” discussions with Muslim friends, some ended in a great deal of anger directed at me, a few threats, but I was also very successful with many, those who had doubts prior to our discussions. You could say I was on a mission (not a missionary though) since I saw first-hand the damage caused by this vile ideology. I have to say that the terror attacks on NY on 9/11 were a wake-up call to me, in fact, this was the impetus in my decision to leave.
You have struck the nail squarely…I can add nothing
We need big organization and big annual event to explain genocidal ideology of Islam to the world. I hereby propose the first day of Ramadan as the perfect date for annual protests against Islam and against Muslim invasion of the West. The next Ramadan begins August 11, 2010.
YES! To Hell with the respect. We must encourage the annihilation of the religion of Islam. It’s a tall order, but it’s the only thing that’s going to work. (minus any violence, of course. I’m talking war of ideas, not bullets.)
I agree with you Terry, but we here in North America are not allowed, at least publically, to criticize Islam or Moslems. I was fired from a major hospital in Toronto because I made a comment about Moslem terrorists to a colleague while we were IN THE LADIES ROOM. Someone overheard me and reported it to my boss. I was let go the next day. Any comments about Moslems is verboten. Free speech is dead.
Thank you for providing insight to an ordinary American who is struggling to understand why my POTUS is risking the security of my country in his overtures to the Islamic world (e.g., NASA). Most Americans are not aware of the internal ideological struggle occurring in Islam, and while I certainly hope moderate Islamics can prevail, I honestly DO NOT WANT their civil war to be brought on American soil. I am sure there are good, peace-loving Islamics (Muslims), but they bring more instability to my country at a time when we are struggling to prevent a another Civil War. I am bewildered by the intense hatred radical Islamics have for America and its people. I admit that I distrust most Islamics (Muslims) and am alarmed at the number of mosques that are being built all over America. After all, how can Americans tell the good Muslims from the bad Muslims IF the “good” Muslims don’t speak out publicly against the terrorism perpetuated by “bad” Muslims or against honor killings in the name of sharia law? Americans DO NOT WANT sharia law and will fight to the death against any attempts to usurp the law of the United States of America–the U.S. Constitution.
Thank you Ms. Baran and Mr. Rubin. The most cogent description of the problem within Islam and between Islam and the West that I have seen.
Really looking forward to reading the book.
Know Muhammed, no peace.
No Muhammed, know peace.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Many moderates read them recognizing that what may have been a great social advancement in the 8th century cannot be taken literally in the 21st century.
There is nothing in the Koran that advances The New Testament. And there is nothing moderate about Mohammed. The only way to be a moderate Muslim is to be ignorant about the life of the founder and his teachings.
ABN
You are wrong, some of Quran teaching was progressive, socially progressive. The society in which Muhammad lived was mainly polytheistic not Christian, so some of his teaching was improvement on customs in that society. On the other hand no one is saying that Mohammad was a moderate.
Dear Misses Zeyno Baran,
I lived 60 years of my life among moslems and few are those who realise what the islam means. Simply because, in their indifference, the non-muslims never cared to read the Qur’ân and try to understand it.
For instance, the verse 28 of Sure nr.3 the Family Amran, which recommands to the muslime the practice of the “Taquiyya” with non muslime, the infidels, ennemy of Allah and of the islam. If the western governments in both America or Europe realize the far implications of this Taquiyya and consider it seriously, they would not allow anymore one single moslem to enter their homeland. To believe that a moslem swears fidelity to a christian country, the time he gets his naturalisation, is in the pure domaine of illusion and utopia, since you cannot integrate a moslem in a christian society. Out of that, I am deeply convinced, as well of the multiculti idea, a creasy disillusion.
Miss Baran is dreaming – There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There is no such thing as secular Islam or a secular Moslem; neither can there be any separation between this faux belief and the state. Whilst schisms have occurred in the past, resulting in numerous Islamic sects, each and every one of them are extremes, and not in the least open to change. Bear in mind that Islam claims to be the perfect eternal faith for all mankind. Yet, reformation has not happened in nearly 1,400 years, and is not going to happen any time soon. It is not possible to be a Moslem and not believe that the Qur’an is the immutable word of God. Neither is it possible for a Moslem to not believe that Mohammed was the perfect man, both in word and deed. Islam is carved in granite, that’s just the way it is. No change. Allah’s book is sealed.
Want proof? Just ask any ‘moderate’ Moslem if it’s permissible for a 52 year old man to be betrothed to a six-year old child, and then to consummate that ‘marriage’ when she is less than nine years of age, when still a child? Ask a ‘moderate’ Moslem about what is the punishment for apostasy? Any prevarication can mean only one of two things, (1.) They are in denial; therefore do not understand the truth about their own religion (2) They are justifying, or lying (Taqiyya). There is a third option, although born into the faith, they may simply not believe, in which case they should come clean and say so. Oh, wait a minute, what is the punishment for leaving Islam?
How dare you tell the truth about the Pedophile Prophet Piggy Mo? Silence…I KEEEL YOU!
(Is that good enough Terry, LOL.)
Proud to be an infidel Islamic satan
And that one truth about Momo is all that any non-muslim needs to hear. YESSIR!
Explain to the ‘dhimmis’ how Momo is the grand example of man for muslims for all of time, and how he married a 6 year old, proceeding to rape her when she was all of 9 years old.
Make the connection between pervert Momo’s 7th century pedophilic activities and the Taliban gassing schoolgirls and bombing jungle gyms in 2010.
Because you don’t need algebra to push out kids, girls, errr ladies!
Atheist Joe
Also proud to be a ‘devil’ in the defective eyes of Islam
left-handed, but right-handed in the bathroom
wiping an even number of times; Momo preferred odd numbers!
wildlife illustrator
drummer
snakebreeder – niche hobby…lol
chugs water on hot days
long ago discovered my ‘special purpose’ (*hat tip* to ‘The Jerk’)
mmmm Canadian Beer
vegetarian – yeah, i know, what do i mean by that. well, did allah not put all of the animals here for me to eat? is it not more enjoyable to ‘prepare’ a halal goat than a halal vegetable plate? how much fun can one really have ‘smiting the heads of the asparagus’???
All of these behaviours/activities seem to come naturally to me.
But Islam says I was born wrong.
Afterall, the Koran repeatedly mentions that infidels like myself have been pre-destined to reject islam because I’m simply blind and unable to see the ‘light of islam’….
Yes, all religions are somewhere on the ‘Scale Of Stupid’…
But only Islam has the nerve/naivety to label me ‘dirty/immoral’ and a pre-destined target, fit to be killed by the true believers.
Interesting article.
Interesting like the legend of the unicorn.
No soup for Ms. Baran. NEXT!
Our own western cultural elite tend to underestimate the importance of religious texts, assuming they can be construed in whatever way the reader prefers. This is an especially dire disability when it comes to islam and the example of Mohammad, where the Quran itself is “God with us” rather than a book written by inspired men. While there may be some latitude, there are certain central ideas in a religion that determine the viability of a given interpretation,* and it is very difficult, given the example of Mohammad, to argue that muslims are not required to force everyone in the world to submit to some sort of standard version islamic law as a kind of islamic “Great Commission,” either through hard or soft jihad. For these reasons, putting one’s money on the “moderates” seems like an unrealistic bet to me, and instead of calling them moderates, it may be more appropriate to call them non-practicing or cultural muslims only. If I’m right, then the ideological struggle with the so-called radicals is not a win-lose proposition, but more of a chronic, ongoing problem that will arise with greater or lesser intensity inside EVERY muslim majority population for the foreseeable future, leading to perpetual political violence, less freedom and the inability to form consensual, civil governments. Where the cultural muslims fail, we’ll end up with Iran, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Where they remain firm, we’ll end up with Turkey, where the state is by definition secular, the sermon of EVERY MOSQUE is reviewed before Friday prayers and a radically self-selecting military is vested with the power of enforcing the secular character of the state. Of course, even THAT isn’t working all that well these days (and therein lies the power of a good theological argument).
*By the same token, I do not believe the KKK version of Christianity would ever gain much traction with a majority of Christians world-wide, even if it was backed by the wealth of TEN Saudi Arabias.
Omar
You are right that one should not not putting all one’s money on moderates, on the other hand one should not dismiss them. We should not count on them, nevertheless we should help them. Because sometimes “even horse can learn to sing.”
Qu’ran, according to muslims, is given directly from God but interpretation of various verses is done by humans. And majority of the verses in Qu’ran are prone to interpretation otherwise one can hardly understand all their meaning. Interpretation is done with references to what Muhammad said or done —but— Muhammad, as you know, was Islam prophet but was also human. Only God is perfect. So ……………..
“The true divide within Islam is not between violence and nonviolence, but between moderation and extremism.”
Right. She says violence is ok with some if done moderately, ok with others only if done extremely. In other words, all are for violence, some just don’t vociferate that much about it.
That’s the net. This woman is mesmerizing us like Inquisitional torture masters did with their public and learned expositions of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin — then oops, gotta go, due back at the rack.
Their core is “bringing the faith by the sword”, nothing else.
I don’t think that Islamism is of “recent origin”. The American conflict with radical Islam goes back to the very founding of our nation. The following is from the Wikipedia entry on the “First Barbary War”:
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of State John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador’s comments and offer to Congress.
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
One does not need to strap on a bomb to be considered a ‘violent muslim’. How about all those ‘good muslims’ who silently cheer when tragedies happen worldwide, or worse, publicly cheer same events. I for one, will always err on the safe side, and consider all muslims to be the enemy.
At this point in history, it is their responsibility to prove otherwise.
Ms. Baran has been snorting the fairy dust. There is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim, and there never will be. There are “cultural” Muslims who like “cultural” Christians and Jews observe the major holidays, observe rites at birth, marriage, and death but really don’t really know or practice the religion. Even these Muslims have the potential for so-called “radicalism” as they might decide to actually study and get back to their “roots”.
The directives of the Koran, the Hadiths, and examples of the Sunnah are open ended and not directed to a specific time or place. Contrast Mohammed and Jesus and you’ll understand that Islam is a cancer perpetrated upon humanity.
Jesus gave life to the dead. Mohammed executed an entire tribe by beheading.
Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. Mohammed lied to the leaders of Mecca in order to conquer the city.
Jesus was was kind to children. Mohammed married one at age six and consummated the marriage when she was nine.
Jesus preached and advised turning the other cheek. Mohammed conquered, slew, and forced people to convert or pay the jizya.
For a Christian to Jesus is a sin and a shameful act. Taquiyya is wholly acceptable in Islam.
Dear ‘Real Deal’,
Please don’t give be so politically correct in your description of Muhammed’s relationship with Aisha.
Muhammed didn’t ‘marry’ Aisha and ‘consummate’ the marriage. The truth is that Muhammed enslaved her when she was in kindergarten and raped her in the third grade. A kindergarten age child cannot consent to marriage and a third grader cannot consent to sex with a 52year old pervert.
If you are going to hit this issue, hit it hard, with the hard truth and hard words.
Best regards,
~ The Infidel Alliance
When I said that westerners should not “put their money” on moderate, “cultural” muslims, I meant in a theological sense. Of course, we should ally with cultural muslims and encourage them to challenge islamists however and wherever possible, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves that our cultural allies will be winning many theological arguments with their opponents. And so, rather than shoring up a losing interpretation that will be under constant, effective assault from violent adversaries, maybe our efforts should be directed at critising and delegitamizing shariah and islamic supremacism itself on human rights grounds – as opposed to the current policy of appeasement.
Still focussing on what Muslims want and what muslims need. Did you read your own book?
I have to insist that the notion of “moderate” or “secular” Muslims is naive, Utopian, and fictitious; such people are, unfortunately, completely detached from what their faith preaches and represents, while the violent jihadis truly represent the Muslim faith – sadly, the “moderates” and “secularists” are the false Muslims
Islam is a fascist, misogynistic social organization fronting as a religion. What religion doesn’t allow the Holy book to be translated into other languages so the followers of say, Indonesia can understand what they been forced to ‘beleive in’? I say forced because Indonesia used to be mainly Christian, Buddhist and freer. What so called religion forces the women to dress in endless forms of censorship to self? What so called religion has death as an alternative to leaving said religion? Note all the persecution, fatwahs, death threats to those who decided to leave Islam and embrace Christianity or whatever. What so called religion has followers who destroy schools because they can’t stand broad minded normal education? What so called religion is busy with destructive, barbaric attitude toward women and children? What so called religion has holy war fighters using women and children as human shields; slaves; fodder for their hateful barbaric acts. What so called religion promotes a form of homosexuality instead of love and light? What so called religion hasn’t given anything truly constructive or positive to the planet since Jalaluddin Rumi? I don’t see anything positive and encouraging about Islam. I have been studying this so called religion for well over 15 yrs and now with more info coming out from those who have lived Islam, been persecuted by Islam, I am more convinced than ever that this evil, barbaric scourge upon society must either be eliminated or at least broken into which part is the so called religion and which part is Sharia and all the rest of the totalitarian organization. Don’t be fooled by those who talk all this ‘good’ crap about Islam and the things done in the past. It’s like saying, Hitler was okay, as long as he kept to himself and played in the corner. It’s just a crying shame that so many Westerners refuse to get off their lazy assets and read even 50 pages of the Koran, which makes them just as stupid and just as liable as the jihadi’s and the rest the ignorant barbarians. To assume that Islam is a religion just because they have those obnoxious mosques is absurd. It’s a total social structure, embedded deeply in people’s lives. Even if you aren’t a Muslim, their rotten filth infects our lives daily with each and every fatwah, every belch of Sharia Law, the very Koran itself. It makes me sick at heart to realize how many people don’t get it about all the genocide committed daily in the name of Islam. I mean daily folks against Christians, Hindus and Buddhists, et.al. The destruction of non-Islamic holy structures. If you really start to take a good hard read and look, to educate yourself, you might become putrified by all the mentally ill, derranged acts committed in the name of Islam against those who were trying to lead a peaceful, productive life or are too small to defend themselves. And the sad part is the lack of fortitude by this fraud of a president to stand up and enact the laws that are already in place to defend this country against an insidious social organization like Islam. He is a treasonous, seditious puny president who is a pisspoor excuse for affirmative action.
The war the author writes of, the struggle within the Umma between moderate and “Islamist” Muslims is a fantasy and a diversion.
Yes, there are struggles within the Umma to see who gets wealth, position and power, yes, there are some Muslim rulers and states that are more strict than others about certain aspects of Islam, and there are disagreements over minor points of doctrine (although the author apparently never mentions that Muslim religious scholars decided back in the 11th century A.D. that all doctrinal points within Islam were settled and that there was to be no more discussion and debate, no possibility of any change or reform of a perfect system, and they declared that “the Gates if Ijtihad were closed”), but there is no disagreement within Islam about how Muslims should view “unbelievers,” about how unbelievers should be treated and dealt with, no disagreement about the fact that the fundamental, mandatory religious obligation of each and every observant Muslim is to wage the Jihad—violent or apparently “peaceful,” overt and covert–against all unbelievers as Muhammad commanded, nor any disagreement that the Jihad’s ultimate goal is for the Muslim’s “House of Islam” to conquer and devour every nation and people, and every government and law and religion that makes up the unbelievers “House of War,” until the whole world and all its peoples are conquered for Allah and Islam, and “all is for Allah.”
If there are the legions of moderate Muslims that she says there are, where is the proof? For standing silent on the sidelines of the battlefield–as more than a billion Muslims do– is not rebellion against Islam and Jihad, it is acquiescence; it is support for Islam and its Jihad, it is quietly waiting in line for your cut of the eventual spoils.
Where are the Muslim congregations, the centers of Muslim religious instruction and education, the Imams openly calling for reform of the Qur’an, and for the jettisoning of all verses that defame unbelievers and call for their subjugation; verses that make up the majority of the Qur’an? Where are the calls within the Umma for the reevaluation of Muhammad, of his actions and statements, and of his central role in Islam as “the Perfect Man,” and the perfect example of conduct in all areas? Where are the institutions, political parties, the body of literature calling for such reforms, where is the evidence, plain for all of us to see, of this titanic struggle?
We see the millions of Muslims who demonstrate for Hamas or Hezbollah, who scream “death to Israel” and “death to America” it seems almost daily on our TVs, but where is the mass movement of moderate Muslims, where are the rallies within the Umma—of any size at all–against terrorism and “fundamentalism” and for moderation? Where are the prominent Muslims-outside of a couple of dozen such Muslims, most of them now ex-Muslims, here in the West—calling for major reforms of the Qur’an and Islam, and the reevaluation of Muhammad and his life and teachings?
The simple fact is that none of these things exist, because there is no “moderate Islam,” nor is there any great number of Muslims who want to moderate Islam, for as Islam has been very carefully constructed to insure, to advocate such is to invite ostracism, punishment and, very often, death. The fundamental teachings of the Qur’an, the Hadiths and the Sira, the example of the life, words and deeds of Muhammad are the ground that has produced the militant, xenophobic, predatory and supremacist totalitarian politico-military ideology that is Islam, and its core directives to “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” and to “fight all men until they cry that there is not God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet” and “all is for Allah.”
Ignoring this fundamental truth, being unwilling to face our enemy, and to see this conflict for what it is, is the way to loose this conflict, and to be overwhelmed and conquered.
The problem facing the ‘moderate’ or ‘peaceful’ Muslim and the violent terrorist Jihadi Muslim is that they both deign fealty to the same ‘holy prophet’, Muhammed, and derive their moral guidance from the same books, the Koran, Ahadith & Sirah Rasul Allah.
The Koran 68:4 upholds Muhammed as “…an exalted [standard of] character.” Islamic tradition upholds Muhammed as ‘al-insan al-kamil’ or ‘the perfect man’, to be emulated by all Muslims.
But the hard truth about Muhammed, as recorded in the Islamic ‘holy’ texts, is that far from being a a ‘holy prophet’ Muhammed was a sadistic sociopath, a 7th century Arabian Hitler – only worse, a successful Charles Manson, only creepier and more evil.
Muhammed was a murderer, torturer, amputator, decapitator, mutilator, slaver, looting stealing thief, rapist, human trafficker, sex trafficker, child rapist, sexual deviant, misogynist, perfidious liar, genocidist and self proclaimed terrorist.
By any objective standard, Muhammed was one of the most vile and disgusting men in the pantheon of human history, a brutal barbarian, a self important narcissistic consumed by unquenchable sexual lust, greed and power. Muhammed should have been incarcerated not venerated, and he should be reviled not revered.
Every pathology that afflicts Islam comes directly from this sick man, Muhammed, and the world suffers because of him.
There can be no reform of Islam and no civil war. Islam is inherently uncivil, and ‘Moderate’ or ‘peaceful’ Muslims cannot be Muslims without embracing Muhammed and his savage barbarity, same as the Jihadis do.
Muhammed is Islam’s Achilles heel. The way to destroy the ‘moral’ foundation of Islam is simply to expose the truth about Muhammed. But we must be relentless and vocal, because Islam is relentless vocal.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Infidel Alliance.
That was excellent. Really. And you’re right, the life of Mohammed is the fatal flaw, the weakness to exploit.
I went to the ‘Prophet of Doom’ website last week. I think that’s the name. According to a very ignored group of very reputable scholars the Qur’an was basically invented in Baghdad 150-200 years after Muhammad. At least in the 8th century Muslims prayed toward Jerusalem, long after Muhammad. The Temple Mount was in fact their real ka’aba, the site of the Dome of the Rock to commemorate that. Muhammad’s actual habits were so appalling that his first biographers refused to include many of them. And the Hadith were also created in Baghdad, summarized there, 99% thrown out or more, the remaining .5% the ones now in use.
One of the scholars cited even claims that the Hadith were created first, then the Qur’an written to justify the Hadith. In any case, Muhammad wrote almost nothing done. Even more startling, but in an entirely logical way, Muhammad may not have been viewed as a prophet or The Prophet by his followers, none of whom had studied a Qur’an which did not exist.
I am reading Spencer’s book on Muhammad. Obviously there are some contradictions with Spencer’s account. In any case, it is clear that the Qur’an was written long after Muhammad passed.
The Jesus Project says that the Christian New Testament was invented from whole cloth in the 4th century, and the Gospel of Thomas, complete with the miracle of Jesus’ poopy diaper releasing a prince from his transformation into a donkey) is the earliest true gospel. Their scholarship is ludicrous, but they have ivy league degrees, so who’s to argue? In short, I must admit a certain (perhaps irrational) prejudice, before even having read the work you mention. Attacking the authenticity of religious source documents is not very convincing to most people, both believers and non-believers. You’ll get much better traction addressing the content.
Agreed – probably won’t fly at all. I think most religions have gotten used to the idea that their holy scriptures – as we have them today – are the product of many years of collations, revisions, reproductions, interpretations, purges and what have you. The process has been pretty well documented in most cases, so someone jumping in with a “revelation” that contradicts the scholars and believers is not likely to be taken seriously.
Not sure about Islam, however. Is there a critical tradition w/in Islam that seeks to discover the “true” origins and history of the Koran and other scriptures?
Dear ‘Stuart Gathman’,
I understand the point you’re making, but it doesn’t matter what you believe.
What matters is what they, the Islamic ummah, believe. They believe in the Koran, the Ahadith, and Muhammed.
Because of this belief, they cannot be reasoned with and you cannot criticize or critique Islam.
Again….it’s not what YOU believe, it’s what THEY believe.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Mr. Rubin the biggest struggle we have in regards to Islam is stop apologists like you from increasing this mortal threat to our society. There have always been non observant (moderate) Muslims but there is no moderate Islam or Muhammad.
Those who follow the action, deeds, and commands of the evil Muhammad will always prevail. The Islamic texts back them. I’m so sick of the PC nonsense the left and the neocons try to peddle us. That is pinning your hopes that some fictive Islam will emerge. An Islam that disregards most of the Koran, Hadiths and Sira. An Islam that ignores the murders, beheadings, rapes and mutilations that were done by the founder, Muhammad.
Spare me any analogies with Jesus Christ and Muhammad.
There is no such thing as Moderate Islam or Terrorist Islam or Misunderstood Islam or fanatical Islam there is just ISLAM and it is the font of all TERRORISM and VIOLENCE.
Thank you Professor Rubin, for presenting this interview. Now if we can persuade Ms Clinton to read this book —
It is heartening to see how few accept the maunderings of this woman.
There is no ‘civil war’ in Islam. The Dar al-Islam grows on two main fronts. The glorious jihadis who bring Islam to the infidel in martial fury and the quiet Muslims who insert Islam into the everyday lives of infidels using their own governments as the means to undermine them.
In Islam there is argument over which of these two fronts will bring about the downfall of the dar al-Harb.
Judging from the ease with which purportedly ‘conservative’ sites accept the doctrinal assertations from the quiet front, I’d say the argument is answered.
Jihadis are good show–and Allah will reward them, but Islam is best spread under the nose of the infidel.
Looming before us is the Plain of Glass, will we have the moral fortitude to create it?
I agree with Barry Rubin. Religions (like non-religious ideologies) will always clash and war. I’m no scholar of religion, but I think that prior to our Renaissance, Christianity was probably just as extreme as Islamism – backed by scripture like what is indexed on “http://www.evilbible.com/”.
I don’t have a much experience with Muslims, but Michael J. Totten is usually pretty dependable on the subject, and he seems to believe that moderate Muslims exist. “Kosovo’s Moderate Muslims” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123059201269240805.html
If religions evolve along the same patterns, then we can simply subtract 750 years from the Christian Calendar (2010 – 750)to find out where Islam is today. We end up with Islam firmly entrenched in their 14th Century (21 – 7). We already know this story since the Christians involved from 1350 through the Enlightenment (1750) all wrote it down. This means for the Muslims the Reformation is coming. A really brutal chapter in Christian history, but we should definitely help them to a speedy birth of Muslim Protestantism and Schism with eventual Counter-revolution and ultimately Religious self-determination and freedom. That’s the Civil War we are seeing, and I don’t see how we can take sides, but we should keep the fallout that hits the West and the remnants of Christendom to a minimum. Of course, between Sunni and Shiite Islam has had a schism practically since the death of Mohammad and the cracks that come with Reformation will not make things easier. But we who have been here before can show our Muslim counterparts the way, though I doubt they’ll listen.
Your simplistic post ignores the fact the by 1350 Christian leaders were not following the teachings of Christ. Muslims have no foundational texts which will lead to enlightenment. Their texts lead back to the dark ages, not ahead to a more civilized religion which is where the New Testament took us.
#26 states correctly – “I’m no scholar of religion, but I think that prior to our Renaissance, Christianity was probably just as extreme as Islamism”.
You are right. You seem to know little or nothing about Islam or Christianity. Try to focus on what Islam says about what Muhammad commands his follower to as opposed to what Jesus Christ taught.
There is a renaissance going on in Islam today, they are going back to the evil teachings and atrocities committed by their founder Muhammad.
Are you really trying to compare this to the renaissance that went back to the basics of the teachings, life and example of Jesus Christ?
29. steve
I may know relatively little about the specifics of Islam or Christianity, but I know how to think honestly.
No, I can’t compare Mohamed to Jesus, but I can compare God’s word in the Old Testament to Mohamed’s word. I know the site of “evil bible” quotes that I linked to is just hate filled leftist nonsense, but they didn’t make up the quotes in which The Bible promotes slavery, genocide against non believers, infanticide etc… Yet somehow we managed to explain away all that and put it into perspective, just as “Zeyno Baran” claims practicing Muslims do with the most hideous side of Mohamed.
Oh, how lucky we are to have the ‘moderate’ muslims. Just think, instead of killing all the Jews and Christians, the moderates will only require 75%. Isn’t that nice of them? Doesn’t it just fill you up with hope?
Another good thing about tolerating moderates is that they will not be filled to the brim with hate and loathing for us. They will manage quite nicely by subsituting dislike, disgust and offense. Boy oh boy, isn’t that happy news for us, that they really want to tone it down?
Personally, I don’t believe the word moderate can be applied to Islam. You are either in for the count…..or, you are not. It is like saying one is only just a little bit pregant.
Their baloney talk does not fool anyone, except themselves. Guess they have told so much bs that they are starting to believe it.
Let’s drop the false pretense of skirting the issue. Islam is violent and ALL who have the desire to follow it, want to be with violence.
Simple as that. Clear heads are better for victory.
What Zeyno Baran gets right is that those Muslims who support sharia, even if they don’t intend personally to participate in violent jihad, are not moderates.
What she gets wrong is that she says traditional Islam is “secular.” If she is going to make such a counter-factual and counter-intuitive claim about Islam, she has to back it up with evidence, at least if she cares about being taken seriously. But she offers no evidence, no doubt because all the evidence refutes her.
For example, if Islam is secular, why did Muhammad make no distinction between treason and religious apostasy, and say in Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection, “If someone changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.” See http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/084.sbt.html#009.084.057
Muhammad called for death for apostasy in many other canonical hadiths.
Muhammad was the ruler of a theocratic state in Medina. His words and actions were law. All the schools of Islamic law, which do not differ very much from one another, developed because theocracy was present from the first when Muhammad ruled Medina.
In calling traditional Islam “secular,” Baran seems to be yet another promulgator of polite fictions about Islam.
My personal belief is that Muhammad was posessed by a demon. He behaved as a demon would and his teachings are demonic. His true followers behave in demonic ways and say demonic things.
I’m not talking about the demons of comic books, TV and movies. I’m talking about the real, powerful and supernatural beings the Holy Bible speaks of and describes. Read up on demons in the Bible and you will find your Muhammad there.
…and not one mention of what I believe to be the most significant. That Islam means SURRENDER, not peace, not love, but surrender.
We only need to look at what has transpired over the last few hundred years to easily predict Islam’s course:
What Islam Isn’t By Dr. Peter Hammond
http://tinyurl.com/62dxdg
Islam: The Religion of Peace ( And A Whole Bunch of Dead Bodies)
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
The quote below is from http://bznotes.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/science-and-the-islamic-world%E2%80%94the-quest-for-rapprochement/.
This “civil war” is ancient, and the triumph of the orthodox and more restrictive Muslims in this war in the 13th century plunged Islam into darkness.
Frankly, moderate Muslims remind me of moderate communists who lamented when one of their own goes off the reservation and does something right out of the Marxist-Leninist playbook, such as kidnap Aldo Moro, the Italian prime minister (’70s), and kill him.
The essential premise of Islam, that Mohammed is THE prophet, will always lead to the burning down of whatever the library of Alexandria of the day is, as we see in Afghanistan, for example.
Islam’s encounter with science has had happy and unhappy periods. There was no science in Arab culture in the initial period of Islam, around 610 AD. But as Islam established itself politically and militarily, its territory expanded. In the mid-eighth century, Muslim conquerors came upon the ancient treasures of Greek learning. Translations from Greek into Arabic were ordered by liberal and enlightened caliphs, who filled their courts in Baghdad with visiting scholars from near and far. Politics was dominated by the rationalist Mutazilites, who sought to combine faith and reason in opposition to their rivals, the dogmatic Asharites. A generally tolerant and pluralistic Islamic culture allowed Muslims, Christians, and Jews to create new works of art and science together. But over time, the theological tensions between liberal and fundamentalist interpretations of Islam—such as on the issue of free will versus predestination—became intense and turned bloody. A resurgent religious orthodoxy eventually inflicted a crushing defeat on the Mutazilites. Thereafter, the open-minded pursuits of philosophy, mathematics, and science were increasingly relegated to the margins of Islam.1
Zeyno Baran does not understand Islam. Some Muslims are non-violent because they are too lazy to read basic Islamic texts (Koran, Sira and canonical Hadiths). There are non-violent Muslims, but there is no such thing as non-violent Islam. All five mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafii and Shia/Jafari) interpret jihad as violent war of conquest and eternal duty of all able bodied men and women. The only way to stop eternal jihad is to eradicate Islam from the face of our planet. Even the non-violent Muslim immigrants are loyal to the nation of all Muslims, called Umah, rather than to the West. Any Muslim who is not loyal to the Umah is killed by true Muslims.
Koran is made of two parts. The Meccan part instructs Muslims to befriend non-Muslims when Muslims are weak. The Medina part instructs Muslims to enslave or kill non-Muslims when Muslims are strong. Muslim immigrants will remain friendly until they are strong enough to enslave or kill us.
Muslims believe that Koran is the literal word of Allah, so it cannot be interpreted or modified to fit Western laws. For example, the Koran in sura 8:55 says: “Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve.” Muslims truly believe that we are the “vilest of animals” and they are upset when we touch Muslims because they believe that we are filthy. Another example is sura 8:39: “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.” They must fight and kill us until we become Muslims. Sura 5:38 says: “As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.” Allah says in this sura that hands must be cut off. This is the eternal word of Allah. It must be obeyed till the end of times.
The quote below is from http://bznotes.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/science-and-the-islamic-world%E2%80%94the-quest-for-rapprochement/.
This “civil war” is the rehashing of an old one, one that plunged the Islamic world into darkness in the 13th century.
I don’t think that there is such a thing as a “moderate Muslim”, that is, if the “moderate Muslim” holds to the premises of his faith.
The same mistake was made about Communism. Italians “radical” communists kidnapped and murdered Aldo Moro, the Italian prime minister, in the ’70s.
As was said later by President Cossiga of Italy, this all is the result of the “bad professors” who taught Marxism and then were shocked when someone actually applied the operating principles of Marxist-Leninism.
Same for Islam.
“Islam’s encounter with science has had happy and unhappy periods. There was no science in Arab culture in the initial period of Islam, around 610 AD. But as Islam established itself politically and militarily, its territory expanded.
In the mid-eighth century, Muslim conquerors came upon the ancient treasures of Greek learning. Translations from Greek into Arabic were ordered by liberal and enlightened caliphs, who filled their courts in Baghdad with visiting scholars from near and far.
Politics was dominated by the rationalist Mutazilites, who sought to combine faith and reason in opposition to their rivals, the dogmatic Asharites. A generally tolerant and pluralistic Islamic culture allowed Muslims, Christians, and Jews to create new works of art and science together. But over time, the theological tensions between liberal and fundamentalist interpretations of Islam—such as on the issue of free will versus predestination—became intense and turned bloody.
A resurgent religious orthodoxy eventually inflicted a crushing defeat on the Mutazilites. Thereafter, the open-minded pursuits of philosophy, mathematics, and science were increasingly relegated to the margins of Islam.1″
Ms Zeyno Baran characterizations of Islamic society are ludicrous to say the least, as the obligation to force non-Muslims to submit to the authority of Islam to make Islam supreme throughout the world couldn’t be anymore mainstream within Islam as it is taught by every sect of Sunni and Shi’a Islam and by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
Additionally, Islam in stark contrast to all other faith-based religions is a religion of submission whereby all Muslims must submit to the will of Allah at the same time they must surrender their own free will. Hence, the freedom of conscience (shirk) in Islam is haram (forbidden). For instance, a Muslim can’t question what is written in the Koran as that is blasphemy and blasphemy in Islam is punished under the pain of death. Likewise a Muslim can’t decide on his own that he wants to stop being a Muslim, as that is apostasy and apostasy is also punished under the pain of death in Islam. Therefore, unlike in all other faith-based religions, adherents of Islam can’t pick and choose what it is they will adhere to and what it is they will not adhere to, as that is shirk, which is punished under the pain of death, as the freedom of conscience in Islam is haram (forbidden).
Therefore, those restrictions within Islam preclude any devout Muslims from being classified as moderates, unless you are gullible enough to believe that Muslims that believe all unbelievers should be forced to submit to the authority of Islam or die can somehow be defined as moderates. This is not to say that there aren’t any Muslims that secretly reject and dismiss that holy obligation to force unbelievers to submit to the authority of Islam or die. However, those particular less than devout Muslims aren’t considered to be Muslims, much less moderate Muslims by the devout Muslims, as those less than devout Muslims are considered to be blasphemers by the devout Muslim. Hence, trying to classify an entire civilization between so-called moderates and so-called radicals, besides being racist, is also asinine.
Islamic society is a lot like black society. In black society approximately 90 percent of blacks are Democrats that never stray off the plantation, while approximately 10 percent of blacks are conservatives that have strayed off the plantation, and in black society those black conservatives that have strayed off the plantation are always ostracized, vilified, and marginalized as Uncle Tom’s by the blacks that have not strayed off the plantation. It works pretty much the same way within Islam, except the devout Muslims will often kill the stragglers for not being Islamic enough when they can get away with it.
Greetings:
I’ve become convinced that our strategy must include actions to diminish worldwide the impact of Islam, (not Islamism, not radical Islam, not any other post-modern construct) and if not to destroy it then to drive it into disrepute. What the Obama administration’s actions are doing is, in effect, granting Islam an ideological equivalent of the North Vietnamese communists’ sanctuaries along the Cambodian and Laotian borders, and some of us remember how that worked out.
The way forward is to confront Islam, the ideology, directly and often. I’ve read about an Egyptian Coptic priest, Zacarias Botros, if I remember his name correctly, who broadcasts radio programs that elucidate and discuss some of Mohammed’s sexual proclivities such as having sex with his 9-year-old trophy “wife” and sucking on the tongues of children. While understanding the “jihad” part of Islamic doctrine is useful, I think that exposing the depravity, murders, thievery, lying, throughout the muslim scriptures is a better way to erode the thin veneer of religion and reveal the supremacist, political ideology that is the core of Islam. I believe that is why the muslims put so much effort into precluding, and/or punishing criticism of Islam or Mohammed.
What they want most to protect is what we must attack. There is a reason why muslims are so easily aggravated by criticism of their “religion” or proselytization of its adherents by other religions. It’s their greatest vulnerability.
I’m confused by the radical and Islamist terms used. “Islamist” seems tautological to me: like calling a Christian a Christianist or a Hindu a Hinduist. Radical in the Western sense implies getting to the root of something, its essence: for example, a Muslim is what a Muslim thinks under Islam, but it is equally true a Muslim is what a Muslim does. Seems to me the terms literal or traditional would be a more accurate descriptive than radical. Christian protestant reformists were in a sense literalists or traditionalists as well as radical (from the Catholic perspective), especially in their traditional emphasis on the individual’s direct relationship to god (not needing the priest’s mediation) and radically doing science that conflicted with Catholic dogma. Seems to me that the hypothetical non traditional Muslim seeking modernity is the radical redefining Islam, as apposed to the traditional, literalist, Muslim doing jihad (conquest) under Islam.
and when looking at the polls of american muslims who think there are times suicide bombing is okay, or jihad is okay, or honor killing are okay, is far, far higher than the percentage who “actually commit” violence. NONE of those who think any of the previous is “okay” are moderate. ALL of them fall under the islamist purview.
Mohammad & his most devout followers would kill Zeyno Baran in a split second, unless she’s knowingly lying to hopeful, ignorant Westerners, which Islam, along with killing, sanctions.
“Moderate Muslim” is an oxymoron and, more important, always has been. Official relgious doctrine, from the Koran itself and the Hadith, endorses murder. It’s as simple as that. Not everyone in the Muslim world goes along with this, I’m sure, but it doesn’t matter what they think: they have no power.
one of the worst articles I have ever seen on PJ- shame on you for giving platform to this woman’s liberal claptrap- at the bottom of her non existent premise of war between moderates and extremists (the war is between SUNNI AND SHIA) she gives us the old : it’s YOUR FAULT- that’s right the old blame the victims- you didn’t love your Muslims, you didn’t give equal rights, did not give enough stuff- what a crock of BS-
I was shocked the week after 9-11 actually _-I fully expected to see MUSLIMS dragged from their homes and beaten in the streets-I was proudof Americans for their restraint and understanding, the lack of RACISM-
We did and continue to do as Miss-informed above suggested- we trusted so called moderates to help us “understand” the attacks- how has that worked out? we have more extreme and more ISLAM in USA than ever, we have Muslims pretending to be loyal to USA while undermining us-we have groups supporting terror and crying victim- ask the NYC cops who trusted the imam who tipped off the perp- or the dead FBI guys shot by the Jordan doctor, a double agent- this article has not one fact- it is a complete denial of reality– a fanstasy of a dhim-wit.
I am with redhead- how can we tell which Muslim is which? which one is the next human bomb? I don;t trust any one of them or their lovers and enablers Obama admin.
Miss-informed needs to understand that “reformation” of ISLAM is forbidden, to leave or criticize it is death sentence. ISLAM is all or nothing- that is the war
Ms. Zeyno Baran can spend her time fantasizing about an Islamic civil war as the ‘moderate’ or ‘peaceful’ Muslims struggling agains the Jihadist Muslims for the soul of Islam, but that’s not the battleground where the real ‘Muslim Civil War’ is taking place. The real ‘Muslim Civil War’ is the Sunni’s, influenced by the Salafists and the Talib against the Shia, Sufi and Amahdiya Islamists.
We can be certain that if the ‘Muslim Civil War’ is between the ‘Moderate’ or ‘Peaceful’ Muslims and the Jihadi Muslims, the Jihadi’s will win. The Jihadis have the will to kill, supported morally by Muhammed and the Koran, and this will to kill extends beyond the internecine conflict within Islam.
The ‘Muslim Civil War’ isn’t the conflict we should be concerned with. We should be concerned with THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR.
We must understand that Islam’s prime directive is the militant conquest of the entire world, mandated by Allah & Muhammed in the Koran & this hadith: Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle Muhammed said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’”
Islam – Sunni, Shia, Sufi…all Islamic sects – has been dutifully following this mandate for 1,400 years, since the time Muhammed left Mecca for Medina. What we are facing is nothing less than an ISLAMIC WORLD WAR that rages on every continent except Antarctica, against everyone and everything “non-Islamic”.
Let’s look at the FACTS. Islam against:
- the Catholics in the Philippines (routine slaughter & beheadings)
- the Christians in Indonesia (routine slaughter & beheadings)
- Australian tourists in Bali (blown up…twice)
- the Buddhists in Thailand (routine slaughter & beheadings)
- the Hindus & Sikhs in India (hundreds of years battling the Islamic Jihad)
- the Jews in Mumbai (slaughtered)
- the Zoroastrians & Baha’i in Iran (virtually exterminated)
- Islamic converts to Christianity in Afghanistan (death fatwa)
- ancient Buddhist statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan (blown up)
- the Chaldean Christians in Iraq (routine persecution, slaughter & church burnings)
- the Jews in Israel (routine attacks against civilians, threat of 2nd genocide)
- the Jews in Yemen (nearly exterminated)
- S. Korean & German tourists in Yemen (blown up)
- the Coptic Christians in Egypt (routine persecution, slaughter & church attacks)
- the Christians & animists in Sudan (genocide)
- the Christians in Kenya (constant Jihadist threat from Obama’s homies)
- the Christians in Nigeria (routine Jihadist attacks)
- U.S. embassies in Tanzania & Kenya (blown up)
- the athiests in Europe (the prime target)
- the native French in Paris (torched car terrorism)
- Jews in Paris (read the grisly story of Ilan Halimi, a Jewish shop clerk who was kidnapped, tortured and killed in 2006)
- the native Swedes in Malmo (Islamic rape brigades)
- the native Dutch in Amsterdam (routinely terrorized)
- Dutch politicians (Geert Wilders & Ayyan Hirsi Ali – death fatwa)
- Dutch cinematographers (Theo vanGogh savagely murdered by an Islamist in broad daylight)
- Dutch cartoonists (Kurt Westergaard – death fatwa)
- Dutch newspaper editors (Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor – death fatwa)
- Train commuters in Spain (blown up)
- Tube commuters in London (blown up)
- Airports in Scotland (blown up)
- Jews in Argentina (blown up)
- Jews in Caracas (blown up)
- Twin Tower office workers in N.Y. (blown up – twice)
- Defense workers in the Pentagon (blown up – airliner jihad)
- Army/Navy military recruiters in Little Rock (gunned down by an Islamist)
- Soldiers in F.t Hood Texas (gunned down by an Islamist)
- Pedestrians at the U. of N. Carolina (run down with an SUV by Islamist)
- Journalists like Daniel Pearl (savagely decapitated by Islamists)
- Nick Berg, Kim Sung-il, Piotr Stanczyk, Jack Hensley, Eugene Armstrong, Paul Johnson (savagely decapitated by Islamists)
- Jewish centers in Seattle (slaughtered by Islamist Jihadist)
- Jewish centers in Toronto (slaughtered by Islamist Jihadist)
- Infidel Delta Airlines passengers (underwear bomber)
- World Cup fans in Uganda (blown up)
And on, and on, and on………the list get’s longer every day.
It is Islam against everyone, everything, everywhere that is not Islamic.
It is Dar al-Islam against Dar al-Harb. Islam against us, not us against them.
Let’s face the facts and call it what it is. It is not a ‘War on Terror’ against a few ragtag misunderstanders of Islam. It is nothing less than: THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR.
THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR – Muhammed’s legacy – This is the Islamic war we should be concerned with.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Small correction: Westergaard and the Jydlands Posten are danish.
I see no difference between Zeyno Baran and the so-called moderates who get on foxnews and start crying about how Quranic texts and islamic history are being taken out of context by islamists. Until I hear a muslim say the Quran & Hadith do infact promote violence and subjugation of non-muslims and apostates and the historical record is crystal clear on this matter I won’t be backing you one iota. Screw your interpretation fallacy. The few muslims who did use reason in islamic history end up MURDERED for apostasy. What needs to happen is very simple violent & subjugate passages in the Quran and authenic Hadiths need to be completely removed from these man-made books. Otherwise, Nothing will change because the mainstream view of islam is what the violent islamist and non-violent islamist sympathizers who call for Sharia law in western countries all follow. Enough of this Moderate muslim bullcrap ethier prove yourself like Ayaan Hirsi Ali has keep it moving.
One last thing… If you are such a Moderate muslim Zeyno Baran why did you not call for a need of separation of church and state in Islamic countries in your apology for islam here?
What a nut. I will keep it simple for the young las.
Do they follow Mohammad? If yes, then they are Muslims. If no, then they are Apostate, and must be murdered.
There is no such creature as a moderate Muslim.
A moderate muslim is one who hasn’t killed anybody yet.
OK. Great! Would she please give the names of some Muslim organizations that believe as she does? Why aren’t these people on the talk shows?
Best known Muslim reformers in USA are: Zuhdi Jasser, Khalim Massoud, and Irshad Manji. They get lots of money from infidels, but all they get from fellow Muslims are death threats.
Muslim immigrants/invaders believe that Islam is perfect because Islam helps them enslave us as dhimmis. As long as Islam is conquering the West, they have no reason to reform it. The most non-violent Muslim nations are Turkey and some former Soviet republics because Atatürk and Stalin defeated Islam there. We can learn a lot from Atatürk and Stalin. If we defeat Islam, Muslims may be willing to reform it.
I believe that global jihad is the beginning of a Third World War, and that we should mobilize all Western assets to win this war. We should rid the West of Muslim invaders, as well as quislings and useful idiots who pretend to be our leaders.
I’m beginning to think that moderate Muslims are just Muslims who are lying. Lying to keep from spooking their Infidel herd, or lying to keep from being trampled or gored by enraged Infidels. That’s it, we’re the impalas and they’re the lions. “Nothing to see here”, say the lions. “Just out for an evening stroll”, they assure, “nothing to worry about…we’re moderate lions”. And we impalas buy it every time, because we have a brain the size of a lemon.
Interesting- Where are all the trolls in support of Islam? Did the Soros money run out?
You can’t be a Muslim and not embrace the life and teachings of Mohammad. He led a violent life and taught others to do the same. The followers of Islam are instructed to bring the bounty from conquests to their God and their prophet. This is enrichment through plunder. The followers of Islam are instructed by their prophet and their God to fight Israel and the Jews until the end of time.
If you don’t believe in these teachings you are denying the God of Islam and the prophet of Islam and you can’t be Muslim. The lady is trying to cover up and we all know what that means…suppression and oppression. I am always a little disconcerted when females defend Islam because I think it hates them the most of all. It is like the Stockholm Syndrome strange to witness.
This is the struggle we are in right now and giving the Muslims a chance to decide what they believe is a courageous one, but pretending that it is possible to be a Muslim and not follow the teachings of Mohammad and Allah is only fooling ourselves. They should be given the chance to decide but we should not be willing to oblige the goal of their God and prophet.
I’m sorry to inform you all, but extricating ourselves from the Muslim/ Sharia law head hold may involve fighting, or worse. Ubtil we are prepared to pick up arms and do that (but restrain unless we are left with no other choice) we will always be running scared.
Please. Islamism and islam, muslims and islamists are as different as CO2 and carbon dioxide.
People should simply stop burying their heads in the sand and study mohammedan history, and what Sir Winston Churchill, Alexis the Toqueville, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams never had trouble identifying as the enemy: islam, period.
Oops, sorry about the misspelling of Alexis de Tocqueville’s name…
Well, I should think so! Some people!
I have always questioned this narrative used by so-called moderate Muslim apologists which claims that true or real Islam has somehow been overthrown in case after case by false Islam simply because the false Islam has more money.
Seriously??? If you really believe that there is a true version of your faith, how in the world could the truth be conquered by falsehood, even one that is well funded. It goes against the entire hope and premise of religion in the first place ie that truth is stronger than falsehood and that it is truth which conquers falsehood not the other way around.
No, the real Islam is conquering the false Islam. It is the moderates, the ones who equate with progressives all over the world, who peddle a watered down creed which is in denial of the truth and reality of Islam. So when the full-blooded real version comes along, its not the money that makes the difference. The pale, weak version is overthrown. No amount of money can save it.
The same thing is happening with Christianity and Judaism. When people meet up with the more powerful and assertive versions of these faiths, they leave the weak as water mainline denominations in droves. There is nothing there except, as one commenter as already mentioned, compromise and cherry picking. The only way anyone can believe in a watered down faith is if there is no other game in town.
This is just what happened with Islam. As time went on, the people relaxed the faith to the point where many became cultural Muslims. The so-called “false” Islam that this woman talks about is clearly a return to the original version of the faith. The moderates will never be able to compete with that.
Baran’s delusional views on mohammedanism sure could earn her a place among those to which Hugh Fitzgerald has written tributes at Jihadwatch…