When Muslims Are More ‘Radical’ than ‘Islamists’
What are the differences between the traditional Muslim and the so-called “Islamist”? As words dealing with Islam continue to morph and multiply, it is important to differentiate, for there are real, if subtle, differences.
A recent Arabic talk show on Egypt’s former president Hosni Mubarak’s trial sheds some light. The question was whether Mubarak, in the sight of Sharia law, should stand trial and be punished for, among other things, selling gas cheaply to Israel — or, as popularly portrayed, traitorously giving away Egypt’s precious resources to its mortal enemy.
Two Islam authorities debated. Taking the controversial position — that Mubarak should not be condemned — was Sheikh Mahmoud Amer, leader of Ansar al-Sunna, or, those who imitate prophet Muhammad’s way of living, which, of course, is what traditional Muslims — literally, Sunnis — have always done. His opponent, arguing that Mubarak deserves to be tried without mercy, was famous Islamist lawyer Montasser al-Zayyat (who most recently professed his “love” for Osama bin Laden).
The sheikh, representing traditional Islam, stressed two points to exonerate Mubarak: 1) Dealing with the enemy (in this case, Israel) is permissible according to Sharia; Muhammad himself often appeased his infidel enemies, including Jews, when to his advantage, “for” — as the sheikh quoted Muhammad — “war is deceit”; 2) According to Sharia, the only justification for deposing a ruler is if he becomes an infidel; if he is unjust, violent, and tyrannical to his Muslim subjects, that is not reason enough.
In fact, the sheikh’s position is very much in keeping with Sharia: Muslims — particularly their political leaders — are permitted to deceive and dupe non-Muslims, including by playing the role of appeaser, when circumstances call for it; moreover, even al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri admits that Islam’s jurists are “unanimously agreed” that “it is forbidden to overthrow” Muslim rulers, even if they are “cruel and despotic,” whereas “it is obligatory to wage jihad against” rulers found to be “apostate infidels” (The Al Qaeda Reader, pgs. 121-122, 129).
It’s interesting to note, then, how “Islamists,” such as Zayyat, who appear tenacious about upholding Sharia, sometimes advocate positions that actually contradict it. To understand this phenomenon, one must first understand “Islamism” — a hybrid abomination of sorts, whereby the better principles of Western civilization are absorbed and rearticulated within a distinctly Muslim paradigm. For instance, the Western stress on human freedom, human dignity, and universal justice is, for Islamists, transformed into a stress on Muslim freedom, Muslim dignity, and Muslim justice — all, naturally, at the sake of the infidel.
So while the Islamist maintains traditional hostility for infidels, he may exhibit a Western sense of “humanitarianism” to fellow Muslims, evoking things like their “human worth” and “dignity.” Zayyat, for instance, repeatedly accused Mubarak of “robbing the people,” “betraying the people,” “torturing the nation’s sons,” “denying sons from their mothers and fathers” — language as alien to the traditional Muslim mentality as it is familiar to the Western.
Similarly, Islamists influenced by the Western notion of “nationalism” tend to Westernize Islam’s notion of Umma, as when Zayyat talked sentimentally about how “the Umma has a right” over Mubarak.
As the sheikh indicated, however, traditional Islam — born of the deserts of 7th century Arabia, and so, ever pragmatic — makes clear that the authority, the sultan, can be as ruthless as necessary with Muslims — Western concepts of justice and equality be damned. Moreover, the nationalist element evoked by Zayyat is non-existent in Islam proper: Umma originally meant “community” (and in Koran 6:38 is even used to describe communities of animals).
These discrepancies were summed up towards the end of the show, when the traditional sheikh exclaimed: “I say to Mr. Montasser al-Zayyat that you will be asked on Judgment Day about these claims you’re making — that he [Mubarak] took money and was a Zionist traitor. I am here telling you what the prophet said and what the prophet did [that it is permissible to deceive the enemy and that the ruler is above censure], and here you’re talking nonsense?!”
Lest it appear that Islamists are more “humane” than traditionalists, it should be kept in mind that the other — the non-Muslim — is viewed by both groups as the infidel enemy. In fact, whatever subtle differences may exist, the similarities between the Islamist and Muslim are many. Thus, while the traditional sheikh and the Islamist argued over Mubarak’s fate, there was never disagreement over two points — enmity for Israel and Jews, and the permissibility of using deceit to undermine them.
East is east and west is west……
The notion that all people are just people is nonsense. My dog has more decency than Sheikh Mahmoud Amer, Montasser al-Zayyat and 90% of the muslim world.
“born of the deserts of 7th century Arabia…” And unchanged.
People are people. Some people are evil. We can be nasty, predatory apes, or we can work together to accomplish great things.
Be decent, honest, and have a plan to kill anyone you meet, in the event that it is necessary to preserve the life of you and yours. You might run into a crazy violent guy. We will hope that you don’t, and we will especially hope you don’t run into a crazy violent person who works for the police.
“My dog has more decency than Sheikh Mahmoud Amer, Montasser al-Zayyat and 90% of the muslim world.”
False. Your dog, like all animals, is 100% amoral. Nothing it does is moral or immoral.
People, once they’ve reached the age of conscience, are 100% responsible for the morality or immorality of their actions. In this we are all equal and therefore possess equal rights and responsibilities.
i think suthenboy’s point is that his dog, an amoral creature, is much more moral than a muslim, an absolutely immoral creature. a desert criminal invented the perfect religion for natural criminals: islam, the antireligion, where everything that is a sin in other religions is the highest virtue. criminals from all over the world flocked to the new religion. why not? islam validates all of the characteristics of humanity at its worst. regarding the issue of islamist vs. muslim. the “islamist” is the faithful muslim that believes it is best to kill infidels now. the muslim is the faithful muslim that believes that it is best to sell us a load of bovine fecies about how peaceful they are, breed at our expense, contaminate our countries, colonize us, and then kill us when they have achieved a majority of the population. who is worse? we are defeating the islamists. the muslims are defeating us. who should we fear? the ones that are defeating us, of course, those invaders favored by our traitors in washington, hollywood, the media, and academia.
“i think suthenboy’s point is that his dog, an amoral creature, is much more moral than a muslim”
I know that was his point. His point is false, because an amoral creature, by definition, is incapable of morality or immorality. It therefore is neither more or less moral than a moral or immoral creature.
Animals definitely have a sense of morality, meaning they have a behavioral code of “right” and “wrong”, especially when interacting with their own kind (note that humans too have different standards of morality when interacting with humans or non-humans).
For example, in the wild, dogs will stop fighting when one of them rolls over belly up, yet there’s no “amoral reason” for the victor to refrain from killing the loser, as amoral humans have often done.
Among domesticated dogs, there have been many documented cases of dogs sacrificing their own lives to protect their human companions… a canine ethic that over-rides the most primal instinct of all creatures for self-preservation.
All creatures have a sense of propriety and behavioral boundaries within their own communities, which can override even the most fundamental instinct for self-preservation.
Going even further, I’m aware of animals who exhibited special gratitude at a later date to those who helped them in the past. Likewise, I’m aware of animals who harbored a grudge for being “wronged” in the past, and sought opportunities for “revenge” at a later time.
Morality is not necessarily a product of human education. An objective observer will notice that unfortunately human education does not necessarily result in morality in humans.
“Animals definitely have a sense of morality”
False. Hyena pups routinely kill and eat their sibblings in competitions for suppremacy. Is that moral, or immoral?
Neither.
A hyena, a dog, a chimpanzee – any non-human animal – is incapable of making moral choices. Their “choices” are a result of genetic programming – even when a dog sacrifices itself for its master. It’s genetic programming tells it to sacrifice itself for its “Alpha” so that its “pack” may survive and propagate the species.
I realize that materialists believe the same is true for humans, but that belief is no only wrong, it lowers humans to the level of animals and strips us of moral responsibility.
“Morality is not necessarily a product of human education.”
Provide a quote that demonstrates where I stated that morality is a product of human education. If you can’t find such a quote (hint: you won’t), that makes your statement a red herring.
Oscar wrote: “Provide a quote that demonstrates where I stated that morality is a product of human education. If you can’t find such a quote (hint: you won’t), that makes your statement a red herring.”
If you don’t believe human morality is learned, then you must believe that human morality is instinctive.
I don’t agree that all human morals are instinctive (the moral against tax evasion seems to be more of a behavior learned through human education than a matter of human instinct). However, I do agree that “The Golden Rule” is instinctive, even though it often clashes against another strong instinct present in all living creatures to be selfish and self-serving.
Speaking of “red herrings”, I never said that animal morality (codes of behavior in animal social groups) is identical with human morality (codes of behavior in human social groups), however what’s interesting to me are the many documented cases of animals who make decisions that contradict the most basic and fundamental instinct to be selfish and self-serving.
The only possibilities are that selfless “moral” behavior by animals is learned, or else it’s instinctive. I don’t think it makes much difference whether it’s learned or instinctive, because either way it’s still moral behavior. Not necessarily behavior that’s moral by human standards, but nevertheless behavior that sacrifices one’s self-interests for the sake of others.
FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA, ISRAELI FOR ISRAELIS!!
I take it then that if your dog had any understanding of decency, he would be appalled by the reports and images of rape, torture and murder that went on in Abu Ghraib – as one example of Western treatment of others. If you are unfamiliar with the actual detail, it is easily found via an Internet search.
On reading some of the comments on this page, I am struck by the blind hatred being expressed. It does not seem to occur to some commenters that some people – who happen to be Muslim – could have extremely valid first-hand reasons to despise the US. It wouldn’t be simply theoretical for them, whereas it might be theoretical for many (or all?) posters here.
These, of course, would be a minuscule percentage of the over one billion Muslims in the world. That’s about 1 on 5 of the world’s population.
I have worked with and socialised with people who happened to be Muslim. They never tried to convert me. I never tried to convert them to Catholicism. This despite both religions having a history of invasion and forcible conversion – with the odd bit of slaughter thrown in on each side.
I would say that the vast majority of people who happened to be born Muslim are just getting on with their lives. This would be just as the nominally Christian population of the West are getting on with their lives without the teachings of Christ having any great bearing on their behaviour.
The tiny minority that are exercised by conflict would probably chill if only the West would “get off their lawn”.
I’m really growing weary of trying to understand people who are committed to lifestyles I find repugnant. I’m just sick of it. There’s no amount of perusing the minutia that’s going to make me like the way Muslims run a culture. I can see the results. I don’t need to know the definitions and multiple definitions.
Geoffrey Dahmer raped, murdered and ate people. I don’t need to delve into the various sub-categories of cannibals. I don’t need to “understand” him. He was vile.
I’ve read enough about Islam. I didn’t realize this until halfway through this article when I sighed and said, “That’s it. I can’t do this anymore.”
I’m done reading. It’s getting intopointlessly microscopic details now; it’s all repeating itself now, and nothing’s changing.
Wrong! It is essential to understand our enemies, and that included know which group in fact is the enemy and which is not.
All knowledge gives you more power.
I support and agree with RKae’s point….what good is it to “understand” those who want to slit our throats for drawing cartoons? Such thought processes as those within Islam which lead to throat slitting for any number of percieved slights…mainly simply “disagreement” with the subtlest arcane interpretations of the printed words in their Koran…are quite simply beyond my wanting to “understand”; additionally, our attempts at such “understanding” will not end their attempts to slit your, or my, throat.
We have here in these multiple ad-hoc interpretations of Islam by Islamists resident within Islam, and open to further interpretation by local madrassa instructors resident here in our America, endless variations on the “justification” for applied barbarism against us American infidels. These are beyond our Western mindset of the meaning of “understanding”.
We must accept the very existence these two vastly different mindsets, and fight them [right here], that of Islam and that of American Democracy. I say “American” Democracy because it would appear that our European ancestors’ descendents have already accepted Islamic penetration as witnessed by the existence of the no-go “-istans” within Amsterdam, London, and Paris.
Our priorities here in our America should be in safeguarding our physical personal beings against this Islamist barbarism…..a subversive threat which we put off fighting on our domestic front in the name of political correctness and/or “freedom of expression” at out peril.
Why we Americans so hesitate, as we do, behind this facade of attempted “understanding”……is what I cannot understand….all the more so after our recent observance of the tenth anniversary of the Islamic destruction of part of lower Manhattan.
What incredibly short attention spans we’ve developed!
I’m not saying we shouldn’t know the enemy. What I said was: I already know my enemy. I’m done. No one has any more info to offer me. Everything I read just lands me right back where I was before I read it: I’m disgusted. I’m ready to do what needs to be done – eject them from the West and contain them in their sandbox. Let’s get on that. Europe is nearly lost.
I am completely where you are RKae. When do we start????
true knowlege is power. but it is also important to keep the end goal in mind. the knowlege gained should be used to defeat the enemy not sympathize. we americans have a lot to learn about war again…real war. tese tactics islam uses are not even remotly new, but the basic tennanats of war. we havebecome complacent and foolish in our views. we let the geneva convention and ‘rules’ weaken us and distract us. while at the same time strengthen our enemy. we foolishly believe that war ca be ‘nice’ and plesant, and thats why we are loosing. we have let the view of the shining spire of freedom blind us to reality. the reality that not everyone deserves or wants ‘our freedom’ America needs to look out for our interests. we are being defeated by stone throwers. if it was up to me i would bomb them , andtake everything. while that sounds repugnant to most ‘western’ value systems i would like to point out, that our current strategy of appeasment and being nice is not working at this the 10th yr(even longer) of war and 2 that IS the muslim plan for us. its time we stop being fools and start winning. remember wwwii kamakazies were stoppedonly when we nukedthem..whats differet now?
and wrong knowledge makes us weak. we are overloaded with wrong knowledge, otherwise known as willful ignorance. most muslims are peaceful. religion of peace. only a few “radicals’ have hijacked the religion of peace. it just goes on and on. people who are determined to be defeated by the worst crime ring the world has ever known are just full of really good reasons to surrender to pure evil without a fight.
I, too, am sick and tired of a daily dose of info on Islam. The important thing, however, is not to shut it out of our minds, to don blinders and pretend it isn’t there for our peace of mind. Cancer victims sometimes get into denial because the realization that something is growing within them that will eventually take their life is too much to deal with and so they pretend it isn’t there and that, in some cases, finds them giving up the fight – after all if there is nothing to fight, why fight? I, too, avoid tutorials in the minutiae of Islam. It’s enough to know it’s the cancer of the world and it is up to us to excise it. I’m not about to go out to blow up some mosques (even though someone should, since they are growing like weeds in the Americas) but I’m going to make sure that the man I vote for in 2012 will know the enemy and will be resolved to fight him.
Islam is very convoluted and variable,many muslims are uninformed of other sects.
You see alot of Suuni- Shia conflicts but Islam has over 100 sects and all Sharia law depends on the sect’s school of thought,jurisprudence etcetc.
That is why Sharia cannot coincide with democratic systems.They have hundreds of laws they alter by sect,school,Imam,scholars,mosque,case,mood,sex,social standing,popularity on and on.They don’t trust,believe or tell each other the truth.
Allaah Says what means: “…Indeed, among your wives and your children are enemies to you, so beware of them …” [Quran 64: 14]
if disagreements among muslims are the only reason you can think of to reject sharia, you are ready for islamic slavery. even the most superficial knowledge of western traditions of freedom, and islamic traditions of servitude, slavery, and genocide would not be at all concerned about the slightly different evil of different brands of islamic evil. evil is evil. no need to parse it. you are welcome to all the islamic servitude you want, just please, go to an islamic country to get it, instead of bringing it to western countries.
I read this piece quickly because I too am tired of microscopic legalistic detail which changes in seconds when the wind changes direction and the whims of so-called sheikhs and assorted self proclaimed bozos of Sharia.
The difference between Islamism and Muslim is zero … zero. War is deceit remember?? It’s like trying to convince Americans that the Islam has many things in common with our Constitution … That’s typically called “lying in order to deceive” which is sanctioned by Islam, as long as the “liar” in question still remains faithful to Islam in his/her heart.
This Mubarak nonsense is a show trial; a vehicle for deception. I for one am sick and tired of listening and hearing about their lying garbage. Islam is Islam and it is the Islam of the Saudi kings; Andimanutjob of Iran; Abbas; Assad; Imam Rauf; President’s advisors; CAIR (the American MB) … need I go on?
It’s one and the same … but that doesn’t stop them using deception to morph into a seemingly “kinder and gentler” Islam; just like rabid leftists and their PC rot. The young in Islamic lands are NOT happy with Allah, they sense that Allah is a murdering bastard and one that does not have their best interests at heart, so they are prime targets for the deception of a somehow more compassionate Islam and being led by another crazy sheikh into the abyss.
Check out their ideas about “democracy”; hell, they already have Obama fooled into believing them. Our foreign policy proves it; his WH advosors prove it and his support of the MB proves it. So go and investigate THAT ‘cos our national security is a million times more important than dissecting a discussion between a couple of Sharia “lawyers” aka bozos).
There are MANY reasons why Muslim countries, organizations, and individuals cannot be trusted. And yes, Muslims are nearly as much of a danger to one another as they are to us.
It is not necessary to put so fine a point on the justifications they use for plundering and slaughtering us and/or one another. Protecting ourselves means considering all of them to be enemies, and that’s that.
Hesperado has been blogging about this in some detail – and in clearer terms than this article.
exactly knwlege gainedsould be used to defeat the enemy alone. after thatthen you can decise what to do with the remmanents ofthe enemy. bt we cannot win a war and rebuild at the same time. especially with an enemy and people who are closer mathches than us and te people.
I can understand the attitudes of some of the posters. It is also a more dangerous attitude than one would think. Ignorance is a killer no matter what side you are on. It is not important that you become a Islamic scholar or even read the Koran but you should not make blanket assumptions about something you know very little about.
Maybe, just maybe, these articles were not written for you but for people who would like to learn more. It is important to know your enemy so that you do not underestimate them.
I can certainly understand your disgust and revulsion but we are living in the crazy times now and it is important to stay informed, later we might not be able to.
do you have a point?
It is highly probable that there is a parallel to this discussion going on in some Muslim site(s).
They are probably terrified by the thought of the infidel Christians all following the teachings of Christ.
I can see the point. It’s absolutely horrifying. Can you imagine?
- Giving to the poor.
- Healing the sick (without demanding a fee).
- Loving your neighbour – even if they are black – or brown – or Muslim – or Democrats – or Republicans.
- Not invading countries on the pretext that they have WMD or shelter Al Queda
- Not considering tens of thousands of dead innocents to be mere collateral damage.
The list goes on.
It simply will not do!
Christians must be encouraged to continue disregarding the teachings of Christ. The alternative is chaos.
If the Christians start following Christ, the world as we know it is over.
I will note that Afghanistan and Iraq did shelter Al Queda. We killed about 80,000 terrorists in Iraq.
The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was not done under a pretext. It was done for good reasons. Reasons which were fully sufficient to fit under Christian “just war” definitions.
Christianity does not require that no fee be accepted for medical services.
Your theology is faulty. Your position is ludicrous.
Reasons given for invasion of Iraq
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html
“..And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.”
Number of weapons of mass destruction found = 0
Saddam’s support for terrorism = non-existent.
Al Qaeda beginning in Iraq was *Post* invasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq
The Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence (formally, the “Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq”) was the report by the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concerning the U.S. intelligence community’s assessments of Iraq during the time leading up to the 2003 U.S. invasion. The report, which was released on July 9, 2004, identified numerous failures in the intelligence-gathering and -analysis process. The report found that these failures led to the creation of inaccurate materials that misled both government policy makers and the American public.
The Committee’s Republican majority and Democratic minority agreed on the report’s major conclusions and unanimously endorsed its findings.
If you want to class all militants fighting against the invasion as “terrorists”, then that’s a new definition of the term.
Classified US military documents released by WikiLeaks in October 2010, record Iraqi and Coalition military deaths between January 2004 and December 2009. The documents record 109,032 deaths broken down into “Civilian” (66,081 deaths), “Host Nation” (15,196 deaths),”Enemy” (23,984 deaths), and “Friendly” (3,771 deaths).
Different organisations using different methods have 100,000 civilian deaths. Uncertainty as to how badly someone has to be injured to be classed as a “casualty”.
Nevertheless, the US military does not agree with your number of “terrorists” killed, and doesn’t not even use that term – as they don’t have to use propagandist terms in internal documents.
Video over gunship sights firing on a number of Iraqi “terrorists” – including two Reuters reporters, unarmed Iraqi civilians and children. Newsman’s camera lens is “weapon”.
Gunners requesting permission to fire even though no threat. People on ground not taking up definside cover or firing positions. Just hangin’. Marines are playing video shoot-em-up games with live people.
Van arrives to aid wounded. Children in van. No threat. They get blown away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
This and other gratuitous killing of civilians absolutely guaranteed to encourage previously peaceful Iraqis to find any way at all of hitting back at the US.
How would you feel if that happened to you or your kids?
As for money and the sick, I was referring to the likes of the Tea Party debate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037066/Ron-Paul-GOP-debate-Tea-Party-fanatics-say-let-uninsured-people-die.html
Ron Paul seems sensible, but maybe the people cheering the let-em-die are from some non-Christian religion.
The truth is not as simple as you would wish it to be.
My reply seems to have disappeared into the moderation process – probably because it included links. THis is a common auto-moderation. Perhaps it will surface in time.
In short form, a report on the Whitehouse.gov site and leaked US military documents show that you are mistaken about the reasons for invasion of Iraq, numbers of opposition killed and any presence of Al Qaeda in Irag pre-invasion.
For further information on sick people and money see the videos of the Tea Party Debate audience cheering at the suggestion that those who can’t afford insurance should be left to die.
You might also search for news on how the US Circuit court has cleared the way for Donald Rumsfeld to be made accountable for the torture of two American contractors in Iraq who blew the whistle on sales of American arms to Iraqi insurgents.
The world is not as simple as you would wish it to be.
An intelligent person would inform themselves, even if they don’t like the sound of what they are learning.
If this site can not abide contrarian opinion, presented without hate, insult or foul language then it does a dis-service to America.
“The sheikh, representing traditional Islam, stressed two points to exonerate Mubarak: 1) Dealing with the enemy (in this case, Israel) is permissible according to Sharia; Muhammad himself often appeased his infidel enemies, including Jews, when to his advantage, “for” — as the sheikh quoted Muhammad — “war is deceit”; 2) According to Sharia, the only justification for deposing a ruler is if he becomes an infidel; if he is unjust, violent, and tyrannical to his Muslim subjects, that is not reason enough.”
This quote is so disgusting on so many levels. And this is the “reasonable” sheikh.
First off, I thought Israel had a peace treaty with Egypt, you know the Camp David accords brokered by Jimmy Carter? If you have a peace treaty with somebody, how can they still be considered “infidel enemies?” And Mubarak was able to maintain that peace for about 30 years. Not bad for a ruler who “became” an infidel.
Whether Mubarak was “unjust, violent, and tyrannical to his Muslim subjects,” is very much up for debate. He was probably a lot better than any other Muslim tyrant, and was certainly better than pigs like Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, the Assads (both father AND son), or any of the killers that run Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. Face it, when compared to other Muslim tyrants, Mubarak was a saint. And what do the Islamists now want to replace Mubarak with in Egypt? The Muslim Brotherhood. Good luck with them being an open and progressive administration. Just proves that almost all Muslims are incapable of having anything close to a republic or a democracy in their country. And this is what Obama and Clinton were striving for? What naive jerks we have running our foreign policy.
I agree with this “Maybe, just maybe, these articles were not written for you but for people who would like to learn more.” and yes it’s a good article and I also learned from it.
The first three posters (including me) do not have a dangerous attitude; in fact there’s truth in those posts. Pandering to Islam has made everyone sick and tired.
How long does it take to “stay informed” about Islam – like there’s something new?
Now the door has been opened to apologists and moral equivalents like “sling” unless it’s a joke of course.
Peronally, I have settled on the terms “doctrinaire Muslims” and “not so doctrinaire Muslims.” I really don’t give a rip how Muslims relate to one another, I only care about how they relate to me. A doctrinaire Muslim is likely to cause me harm while a not so doctrinaire Muslim is likely to just stand by and watch. In other words, in this struggle the not so doctrinaire Muslims are just irrelevant bystanders and not worth anybody’s time.
#8 exdem….
…”in this struggle the not so doctrinaire Muslims are just irrelevant bystanders and not worth anybody’s time.”
These not so doctrinaire Muslims here in America are definitely worth our time, as I think they ought to come out and declare that they’re “with us”. Their passivity and willingness to ride our coattails while pursuing their prosperity here in our America make me suspicious…..aren’t they really….freeloaders?
What about the Muslims’ own idea (if my infidel mind permits any understanding at all) that they, i.e., Muslims in general, either are Muslims, or they are apostates?
I keep saying that there is mammoth hypocrisy among these Muslims/Islamists. Too much fence straddling, too much “having things both ways”.
It’s not “hypocrisy” it’s a strategy. Islam is very passive and harmless-looking until such time their numbers increase dramatically or they perceive that they have the ‘upper hand’ so to speak. These Muslims in America are actually engaged in political jihad and ‘lawfare’. “Having things both ways” is a classic example of playing the vicim and demanding unique treatment and unique rights by inventing terms such “Islamophobia” and then suing anyone that dare disagree with them. Heard about “hate crimes” and such? Same thing. All for what? The institution of creeping Sharia with the end result being the “flag of Islam flying over the WH” – their words not mine.
“Fundamentally change America” – heard that before somewhere?
Waging political jihad from within by using our own rules against us. THAT’s the main tactic and it’s being aided and abetted by our clueless POTUS.
Our POTUS grew up as a Muslims and had absorbed all those anti-American thoughts, feelings growing up in Indonesia – a Muslim country. Can one say that all those anti-Americana thoughts he grew up with disappeared just by his supposed conversion to Christianity?? NO!!
He is now what he was a way back then in his childhood!!
His actions of apologizing to Muslim world right after his election clearly shows that. I don’t think he considers himself an American, yes an American President for sure but not an American!!
All Muslims are Islamists!! Period. Islamist is the word coined by Western and other Muslim apologists so as to give pass to Muslims in general as if the crimes of jihad are only done by few Islamists following some weird brand of Islam not followed by most Muslims. But the fact is Islamists are Muslims and Muslims are Islamists bent upon propagating islam by any means, be it open jihad warfare or stealth jihad, and most importantly, they all follow the same Islam of Mo/allah.
So lets just drop the word “Islamist” and call spade a spade – if the shoe fits call all those jihad crimes done by Muslims and not by just a tiny minority of Islamists!!
Under any definition or version thereof the Muslim “faith” has more to do with subjugating and conquering Infidels than with religion. Taquiya means you can NEVER trust ANY Muslim of ANY type EVER. Taquiya justifies any and all of the basest and foulest lies to any infidel. The only definition of infidel that makes ANY sense is ANYONE who is not a radical/Jihadist Muslim. So if you are NOT a radical/Jihadist Muslim you are an infidel. Any other silly iteration is pointless and is often an attempt to justify Dhimmihood. Finally all Infidels must submit to the Radical/Jihadist elements or DIE. Use this and discover which you are and then proceed. Kill or be killed if you are an infidel 100% of the time.
RKae — Dahmer was a cannibal and I am glad there are people who study how such minds work — FBI profilers and others who protect me from dahmers.
You may have seen enough about Islam to know its menace but if you want to help, you teach others about it. And they may say “what’s the diff between Islamism and Islam?” And what I will say is this: “most of the time when you hear ‘Islamism’, it’s because the speaker is afraid to say ‘Islam’. But I saw a useful definition of Islamism in an article by Raymond Ibrahim, namely it is co-opting western human rights language (just like communist propaganda coopted it. In that way when Arabs toned down their ‘destroy Israel’ rhetoric and started going on about rights and self-determination of ‘Palestinians’, that was an Islamist innovation. And exploiting such fissures within Islam is what will help us defeat it.”
I agree with kuchuk above. Mr Ibrahim offers a meaningful definition of ‘Islamist” and show how the word is valid and not just a form of political correctness. Nor is it an insignificant detail, as this article shows these differences sometimes cause quarrels between Muslims and Islamists. So let’s understand and take advantage of this difference, if possible.
kuchuk was right until he wrote “exploiting such fissures within Islam is what will help us defeat it.” that is absolute nonsense. when 2 cannibals are arguing, lets kill this outsider, then cook him, and the other cannibal says, no, lets cook him, then kill him, those arent differences that you are going to exploit. the big argument in islam is “lets start killing the infidels now”, versus, “lets tell them lies about what wonderful people we are until we are in the majority, then kill them. again, not a difference that can be exploited. nomyar, your interpretation of kuchuk’s definition of islamist is nonsense, and not at all what kuchuk proposed.
And we will talk the subject to death – as we tend to do when the subject gets a bit weighty – ‘Muslims are designed for sand living’ – they may not like it but that’s the way it came down!
Their religion is repugnant – how they treat their enemies and their faithful makes me cringe – these people are operating from a base established in the dark ages – and it is working for them!
Unless we turn our hands – and not our cheeks – these sick bastards will destroy us.
I’ve heard enough about the ‘good Muslims’ – the problem is finding them – and every time an Arab dons a vest full of C4 then blows up a bus full of Jewish school kids – I wait for the ‘good Muslims’ to pour out of the Mosques in Ohio and Dearborn shouting down their leaders and calling for a few changes in ‘the joke book called the Koran’.
I watched the ‘good Muslims’ dancing in the streets after 9/11 – the streets were in Dearborn, Michigan as well as every Muslim country in the world!
Europe is going down friends – they have opened a Muslim door that will only slam on their own fingers when they try to close it. I mean make a joke about the portly pedophile called Mohammed and they riot in the neighborhood.
“The quiet grow to a tumult – then they kill you!” /
Work on that for a spell – then close the Mosques in your neighborhood.
What the “moderate” sheikh says is absolutely devastating to me as an Israeli.
1. Why is he calling us “enemies” and say we’re at war? Isn’t there a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel? What does a peace agreement with these people mean if after signing one, with all the concessions involved, we’re still seen as enemies and considered to be at war?
2. He makes clear that the only justification for any peace treaty with infidel enemies is that it is a ploy, a temporary tactical deception that is part of the war, and not real peace ending the war.
3. He doesn’t say that this war they have is only with Israel, he says their war is with the Jews.
Some direct quotes from your link:
“Regarding this gas issue you’re talking about, whoever said that exporting gas to enemy combatants, Jews or otherwise, is impermissible?”
Here he calls us “enemy combatants” in spite of the fact we have a peace agreement. And to clarify he says later:
“So, show me one jurist saying that it is impermissible to deal with enemy combatants—I do not say treaty-holders, as there is a treaty between us and the Jews, but I posit that between us and the Jews is war.”
So he recognizes there’s a peace agreement, but still the basic assumption of the conversation is that they are at war with the Jews, and the Jews are called “enemy combatants”.
And here are the “war is deceit” parts:
“…in the Battle of the Trench [627], the prophet negotiated with one of the polytheist tribes [enemies] to give them dates, Medina’s main source of income, just so they would quit the war—because “war is deceit”; he negotiated for this purpose.”
“I say the prophet negotiated with the polytheists to give them free dates just to keep their strength at bay at that time…”
It was, of course, temporary, as long as those polytheists were stronger and could thwart Muhammad’s war efforts. So deceitful peace treaties are tactical maneuvers in a war – that is the justification he provides for the peace treaty and selling gas to Israel.
So what does that say about the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel and the general gullibility of many Israelis like me who saw it as a groundbreaking miracle and one of the most important events in our national, as well as personal, lives?
When the Muslims feel stronger or feel Israel is weaker, and estimate (rightly or wrongly) that they can destroy Israel or conquer it, any Sharia justification for a peace treaty will become null and void, and their religion will compell them to go to war.
Pnina,
For me it’s hard to believe that you live in Israel and did not know it…
I live in Europe and I’ve been hanging around the internet in the past years trying to figure out what’s going on in the Middle East… reading about Islam, studying history a little-bit, visiting Israeli sites, like jpost.com, etc.
And it’s pretty clear now, that Israel was and is at the center of hatred of its neighbours, who never gave up terminating her and/or the Jewish people. (I mean after the rebirth of Jewish state). Sorry to say this, but I don’t see that the final goal of the surrounding people would be fundamentally different than of the nazis’, though they pursue this goal on the basis of Islam religion and nationalism.
Your conclusions are excellent and correct.
You woke up.
The first step for victory is to know your enemy and his goals.
Go on.
I continue supporting Israel and praying for her.
God bless!
I’ve read Raymond Ibrahim’s article here three times now, and for the third time have come away thinking that Islam is just too slippery; and Islam’s arch rationalizers can bend and twist things expertly on an ad hoc basis to suit any particular circumstance with two or more sides, positions, or traditions just waiting on the edge of the stage to slip into any dialogue and start justifying whatever he pleases.
How do we infidels enter into these dialogues? We don’t. We can’t. And, we shouldn’t.
And, the sooner we Westerners accept that this elasticity of Islam is quite beyond the Western mind-set, the better off we’ll be. Discussions and attempts at “understanding” these flexibilities are futile.
Why wonder that Islam’s sects have been butchering each other for fourteen centuries?
What rank nonsense it is to discuss anything at all with an Islamist.
Mr. Griffith, after reading the many comments, and many were very correct and concise, I find myself associating more with yours.
As we have seen, not only in the middle east and southern Asia, here in the US there is no dialogue with Islamists.
The NY Mosque is an excellent example of failed dialogue. The many Americans that see this as a slap in the face are shouted down. Groups such as CAIR have no intention of backing down.
The Islamists here have learned several western tactics very well. Those who have any objections are shouted down as racists, islamaphobes and ignorant.
I find this too be so incredible, and if it weren’t so insidious it might even be humorous. As, the arab spring winds down, I cannot recall a single incidence in which the opposing sides referred to the other as racist, islamaphobic or ignorant.
Those are western terms used by Muslims to discredit the country that has offered them the best of everything. What a way to show appreciation.
Mohammedan morals consist in prostate like bowing 5 times a day in the general direction of some black stone in Mecca that is suppose to have fallen down from their moon-god, Allah, and attending mosque regularly at the appointed weekly time, and in breaking the ten commandments all the balance of the week. It comes natural to them to lie and cheat and kill and enslave in the first place, and then they go on and improve on that nature until they arrive at perfection. I never did dislike anyone as much as those Muslims and especially the Arabs, and, when Israel is pushed to war with them again, I hope America and England and France will not find it good breeding nor good judgment to interfere.