Islamism, not Islam is the Problem

Family Security Matters ^ | May 18, 2007 | Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser

[nuconvert]

“And just what are you a “nuconvert” to”

LOL. Thanks. I haven’t heard that line in a long time!

[Just another Joe]

So, basically this guy is saying that Islam needs to go through a reformation.

There are so many clues in this guys writing but to start with just a few.......

The process of theological renewal and interpretation in the light of modern day thought—ijtihad—as it is known in Islam is in many ways hundreds of years behind Western enlightenment today arrested around the 15th century. This process can either be facilitated by non-Muslims or hindered by the belief that it is impossible.

The process of reformation cannot be facilitated, or hindered, by non-muslims. It must be come from muslims themselves.

Some Muslims may behave, interpret, and express ideologies which are not from God but contrarily evil and from Satan, but they are still Muslim. I cannot deny that.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, wrong.
If their behave and express ideologies from Satan, they are Satan worshippers, not a religon from G*d.

Can Muslims separate mosque and state? Can Muslims be anti-theocratic? Can Muslim behavior and thought today be consistent with modernity while so many current Muslim legal constructs enacted in the name of sharia law seem not to be? How do Muslims reconcile their history of an empire ruled by a Muslim Caliphate, an empire which had varying rules for its citizens based upon faith with today’s more pluralistic universal laws of American society blind to one faith? How do Muslims reconcile the plight of women’s rights in ‘Muslim’ societies with their faith and the West? Those are just a few of the questions so many thoughtful writers have tried to answer since 9-11.

I've heard no answers to these questions from the "muslim majority" in the time since 9-11.
I've heard some opinions from individuals but the 'majority' remains silent.

Basically, this guy says that muslims are stuck in the 14th century and need to rethink their religon in modern terms.

I say that muslims are stuck in the 14th century and aren't likely to rethink their religon because they see nothing wrong with it.

[GladesGuru]

You wrote, “Try doing some research before you slander someone.”

I have done my research. Have you?

A few questions regarding Islam and Mohammed, the soi disant Prophet:
1. When was the last time you read the Koran?
2. Are you aware that the later suras take precedence over the earlier ones?
3. Do you know that Big Mo slid into ever more violent and cruel behavior with time, and that this degenerating (by non-Muslim standards) is reflected in Big Mo’s writings?

That the author serves in the Navy does not change either the Koran, or history of Islam.

Your post was sufficent to motivate me to write an article about the issues of Islam’s irreconcilableity with America.

I’ll post it as a vanity here at FR.

[GladesGuru]

Since you mentioned research, the very post after yours was by cornpone. Go to his about page and you will find enough references regarding islam to keep you busy reading for many years.

Hint: This summarizes the Islamic issue quite well.

Churchill On Islam

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

~A passage from his book “The River War” written by Sir Winston Churchill in 1899 after he had participated in the Sudanese campaign.

I am curious, are you Muslim?

[Valin]

What Do Muslims Think?
The American Interest / Able2know.com ^ | May/June 2007 | Amir Taheri

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1835047/posts

What do Muslims think? Do most Muslims reject the radical fundamentalist interpretation of their faith peddled by Osama bin Laden and his associates, or do they increasingly embrace it? As simple and even empirical as the question is, Western observers do not agree on the answer. Several efforts by Western polling organizations to answer this and related questions have clarified little and raised serious arguments over the reliability of their methodologies.

Most do agree, however, that the question is important, for the answer ought to tell us how to fashion the political aspects of the global War on Terror—the struggle for “hearts and minds”, as it is commonly and more softly called. If most of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims oppose radical views, then U.S. (and Western) policy could usefully help organize, mobilize and in other ways support majority moderate Muslim views against minority radical ones. There would be a robust future for public diplomacy and little worry about a clash of civilizations. The short-term risks of destabilizing authoritarian Arab allies in an effort to open up political spaces within their borders, too, could be borne confidently. On the other hand, to the extent that Muslim societies have become radicalized in recent years and if still further radicalization is to be expected, then public diplomacy will not be able to accomplish much, a civilizational clash looms, and cooperation with less-than-democratic regional allies becomes a more attractive tactic.

(snip)

[Wings-n-Wind]

The only good moslem is one who ain’t anymore.

IF...
We pull the credibility of their book out from under them... we discredit their mullahs and imams --
NO MORE "PROPHETIC" AUTHORITY!!

We mark the radical clerics as sub-human thugs and criminals...

The hearts of the people will open to consider the options for their faith -- which is the basis of their life.

Tough task, long road...

(See Daniel 2 -- about the feet of clay)

[Just another Joe]

What do Muslims think?

And I answered that question with my opinion. For what my opinion is worth, muslims will not reform their religon because they see nothing wrong with it.

I personally know a muslim from 'palestine' that came to the USA and is now a data network adminstrator. He originally came to the USA as a college student.
As he became older he decided to adhere more strictly to his religon, Islam, and now wants a 'good muslim wife'.
His definition of a 'good muslim wife'? She will wear a burkha, she will take any and all of his requests as gospel, she will not be educated, she will not work outside the home, etc, etc, etc.

As for his response to 9-11, the USA deserved it because of the state of our civilization. (See Fred Phelps Westboro 'baptist' church)

[Valin]

As he became older he decided to adhere more strictly to his religon, Islam, and now wants a ‘good muslim wife’.
His definition of a ‘good muslim wife’? She will wear a burkha, she will take any and all of his requests as gospel, she will not be educated, she will not work outside the home, etc, etc, etc.

And I know and have worked with several Muslims who would say this guy is being...well silly.

[trisham]

That’s really shocking. I had no idea there were so many.

[Just another Joe]

And I know and have worked with several Muslims who would say this guy is being...well silly.

Do you believe that the muslims you know have any wish to reform their religon?

Are they in the majority of muslims?

[ClearBlueSky]

Muslims are making it a holy war against all civilization.
If the instructions to do so were not in their holy ‘scripture’, THEN a case could be made that it is not the ideaology.
It is in the scripture. It is the ideaology.
Yet there are those who will insist that the reason the terrorists scream to the world is not really the reason for their actions.
Who would know better than they?
This is like telling someone beating the crap out of you that they REALLY aren’t doing it because they want to hurt you/ want your money, your car, whatever. When they say ‘I want all your money’, that IS why they have attacked you. Your insisting that it’s because they’re constipated doesn’t change that fact.
The terrorists have scriptural PERMISSION( orders in fact) from their RELIGION to dominate or destroy.They say it’s about religion- and its domination of the world. Religion IS their reason. All of our desperate semantics to the contrary can’t change that.

If there were no terrorists at all, the violent, evil ideaology of Islam would still exist as long as the Koran exists. It would still be as evil as ‘Mein Kamph’ is- even without the soldiers who would enforce its ideas.
The language is evil, the ideas are evil, and any ‘religion’ that has that at its core is evil- the percentages of obedient adherents doesn’t matter. It’s the ‘religion’.

[Valin]

On those occasions that the subject comes up, the answers go from “Yes” to “Ya got me” to “No, you don’t understand”

What we are seeing in the GWOT is a civil war inside Islam, and we are collateral damage.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Yeah, OK, doctor, so how do we know the difference? Is it by the sword in their hand? or the finger on the bomb? or the machete about to hit the neck? or the screams that invoke the deity as people are killed?
Has the doctor heard of the Sudden Jihad Syndrome whereby someone with no history of violence suddenly kills innocent people?
I propose that all members of a violent ideology be EXPELLED!

[Aquinasfan]

The question remains-- who or what defines Islam, and under what authority?

That's a good question.

It's a question Christians should also consider, not that I'm putting the two religions on the same level.

[Popocatapetl]

How many good Catholics condemn lapsed Catholics for their views of abortion? That is more to the point. The first shock to classical Catholicism was the Reformation, a rejection of the worst abuses of that church. But it not only resulted in a schism of the church, it brought about reconsideration within the church to its own needs to reform. The second great shock to Catholicism was entirely voluntary, the Vatican II conclave, which was even more far-reaching in its effects on the church. It went too far, it was later decided, in even challenging the core values of the church. Ironically, it also created a schism within that church. But one between the religious and secular, or cultural, Catholics. Between those who truly embraced the faith as a faith, and those who just were part of its social structure, without any real interest in Catholic doctrines or worship. Many prominent American Catholic politicians are of the latter group--being nominally Catholic because in their youth that was the only way to political power. And only within the last few weeks has the church finally decided that embracing such nominal Catholics, because of their political might, is just not worth it. They must cease in their anti-Catholic behavior, supporting such doctrines as abortion and euthanasia, or they automatically excommunicate themselves from their faith, and cannot claim membership in the faith in their quest for power. But Islam has been cursed by a lack of reformation, in fact, just the opposite. In the late 11th and early 12th Centuries, the Persian philosopher al-Ghizali (there were several of similar name, so spelling is important) and his peers formalized the rejection of innovation and learning, advocating only knowledge which existed in the Koran, which ended the scientific and cultural progress of Islam. This was done as a xenophobic reaction to foreign threats to Persia at the time. It took many years for this fundamentalist philosophy to run through the Ummah, ending in West Africa just as Islam was driven out of Europe. Had the great libraries and magnificent artifacts remained in Muslim hands much longer, it is likely they would have been destroyed, as something that would lead the faithful astray. But being captured by the Christians, they led the way for them from the Dark Ages. Several more times, though, Islam has had its enlightenment crushed by such forces of fundamentalism and stagnation. The most recent, Salafist-Wahabbism, is perhaps the most terrible, destroying art, music, culture, science and non-religious learning everywhere it gets sway. The Taliban were only unique in that didn't care if the world saw their barbarism, their rule by whim, cruelty and viciousness. They thought it good advertising for their beliefs. Today it even destroys the few vestiges of history remaining in Islam of its founding in Arabia. Mosques are purged of their unique and beautiful artwork, remnants of the life of Mohammed and his family are erased, and non-fundamentalist sects are oppressed. In truth, the struggle between Islam and the West is the struggle ongoing since the days of the Roman Empire. It is not one of religion, but of civility versus barbarism. Barbarism cannot survive next to civilization, as even the common man will choose to live in civility rather than servitude and fear. So only those who richly profit from primitivism truly support barbarism, and they must leave no hope in those they rule that a better way may exist for them. It is a tremendous irony of Islam, that in its origins, *it* was civilization rejecting barbarity, and therein lied its power to convert, by persuasion, not coercion. It tried to transcend bitter tribalism and proto-nationalism, to create a religious civility, and so it thrived. Even within the Koran, the technological innovation of the time was embraced, because they were the ideas of progress. But like the Amish in the US, whose dress and behavior was codified in its origins to blend in with society, it stopped innovating, so now the Amish and the Muslim are to a great extent stuck in the past, and are anachronisms in the modern world. To Islamic scholars, they are caught in the paradox of still thinking of Islam as progressive and civil, above the barbarity of the world. But this was the barbarity of the world a thousand years ago, not today. So it truly is not out of character that they call for the death of those who say that Islam is not "a religion of peace". They do not see the hypocrisy of such a fatwah, or they refuse to admit it, for that would be an admission of barbarism, that Islam must reform itself or be lost to history, like the barbarism it sought to transcend. Years ago, I counseled a convert to Islam to search the Koran to find an interpretation of his faith more in line with the world today. I said that he should seek examples in the world of the struggle of jihad, and its success or failure based on its method. That is, I pointed to endless examples of Muslims who used violence, cruelty, viciousness, and war as their tools of jihad. And how theirs was the path to endless failure, defeat and humiliation. How God despised them, as any could see who would open their eyes. But more importantly, I then gave many examples of Muslims whose method of jihad was within themselves, a truly difficult struggle to overcome the meanness of man, to learn how to treat others with kindness and acceptance, and to meet oppression with prayer and forgiveness. And how this latter group prospered and overcame their oppressors, how their examples persuaded others of the value of Islam as a faith and way of living. And how they became enlightened in their religion, prosperous on the Earth and joyful in their faith. Because this is the Reformation needed within Islam. To realize that what God favors of man he rewards in many ways, and how He shuns cruelty, barbarism, oppression and cruelty. Even more so when such things are done in His name. The evidence surrounds us.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]

----------------------------

[Aquinasfan]

This article is classic al-tarqayya/kitman. Mr. Muslim makes statements like the following: “But academically, when dealing with the faith of one-quarter of the world, and with its history, a central morality of individual Islam (the personal character of most Muslims) has generally demonstrated synergy with Judaism and Christianity.

Historically, "synergy with Judaism and Christianity" has meant conversion or death.

I like this definition of Islam from the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the "Infidel". Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.

[Aquinasfan]

were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled -

Churchill's only error in an otherwise good statement. He has it exactly backwards here.

The Origin of Science.

[expatguy]

One influencial country has the power though now for change and that is Saudi Arabia.

Without Saudi change then will not see the end of this Islamic resurgence.

[GladesGuru]

With all due respect to teh Catholic Church’s being the de facto repository of knowledge in the Dark Ages, the scientific method is what made possible the technological revolution which began in the start of the Rennaissance.

The Church did attempt to destroy the practioners of scientific method.

The last of the rules of science, taught to me as part of the scientific method was that “Science accepts no authorities.”

This was explained in terms of the hypothesis being tested and teh data supporting or contradicting the hypothesis was what mattered - NOT who made the argument.

As the Church is committed to authority, the schism was both unavoidable and inevitable. The Church deals with things spiritual, science with things verifiable.

Belief simply is a matter of faith. Science can only verify hypothesis and promises only probabilities. Churches can offer truth, but in spiritual matters, rather than verifiable matters here on earth.

To say that science was the result of faith is perhaps less accurate than that the inquiring, and those fed-up-with authorities, managed to find a moment in history when they could escape the iron rule of the Church - and by creating wealth with their newly forged scientific method of inquiry, were able to retain their intellectual freedom against the Inquisition.