Replies

Islam [not just radical Islam] is the problem. Just read the Koran to see this.

Isn't the problem how the Koran is interpreted?

I know many Muslims who only follow the "five pillars" and say to heck with not only Sharia and Jihad, but even dietary laws; i.e. they drink beer and eat pork. Are they somehow not "real" Muslims, or less legitimate than Islamists?

If your answer is, "yes," then do you say the same thing about Jews, i.e. that only the ultra-orthodox who follow all the laws concerning diet, dress and behavior are "real" Jews and that the millions of reformed Jews and other less than ultra-orthodox are somehow not really (and religiously) Jewish?

Even among conservative and traditionalist Muslims there are many who, for instance, adopted a kind of "dispensationalist" (to translate to Christian terminology) interpretation of Sharia and other such matters related to religion and state. IOW they believe that the close association between religion and state that was instituted in Mohammad's time (and which Islamists treat as mandatory for the present and for all time) was in fact meant as an extengency for that time and place, and that religion and politics should be separate in the modern world. Even some dissident (but otherwise conservative) Iranian mullahs accept this interpretation.

Are these people not real Muslims?

In sum: Why the hell do you want to effectively, even eagerly, ENDORSE Islamists as holding the correct, sole and monolithic interpretation of Islam; especially when doing so can only assist our enemy in marshalling their forces, and dispirit or deligitimize their own internal foes?

Geez. We have to deal with our own deadly "fifth column" which our enemy actively promotes. Why assist the enemy in undermining the legitimacy (by denying even the reality) of their "fifth column"? We should be promoting (or at least quietly helping) anti-Islamist Muslims, not for God's sake helping our enemy in relegating them to the status of "unpersons".

"Isn't the problem how the Koran is interpreted?"

It isn't a matter of interpretation. The "moderates" outright ignore major sections of the Koran. That's all well and good, but that means it only takes a religious revival before they become jihad supporters. One has only to see the example of the London 7/7 bombers.

" IOW they believe that the close association between religion and state that was instituted in Mohammad's time (and which Islamists treat as mandatory for the present and for all time) was in fact meant as an extengency for that time and place, and that religion and politics should be separate in the modern world"

Ah, but these people are a minority living in an Infidel, not a Muslim, state, are they not? Ask CAIR - which is supposedly "moderate" - what they want to see flying over the White House.

"In sum: Why the hell do you want to effectively, even eagerly, ENDORSE Islamists as holding the correct, sole and monolithic interpretation of Islam; especially when doing so can only assist our enemy in marshalling their forces, and dispirit or deligitimize their own internal foes?"

That is an excellent insight. You have my heartfelt appreciation for pointing that out as it answers several questions about why our government has taken the position that Islam is a religion of peace. To do otherwise only endorses the radical interpretation. Again, my thanks.