No, it’s not “violent extremism,” or radical Islam, and it’s not Muslims per se: It’s Islam, and it has been since the formation of the conquering political ideology masquerading as a religion.
And when it comes to Islam, Western leaders are liars or idiots. Embrace the power of “and.”
“It’s not radical.”
Finally somebody puts it in print. I could not agree more. Every point is obvious. Just as obvious is the fight is with ourselves before anyone else. Come on Andrew, tell us how unrepresentative of Sharia, Islam is.
The name is still a problem.
It seems silly, but “Jihadism” is a better term all around. And no, I don’t care if they consider it a badge of honor.
Calling for all Jihadists to die is a perfectly defensible statement. It is semantically “I want everyone at war with me/us to die.” It covers precisely the correct set of people under its umbrella. It still drives liberals completely berserk when you say it.
But calling Islam the problem fundamentally prevents the needed mindset, and then allows the derailment of the entire conversation by the useful idiots. “You’re asking for the deaths of billions!” I do agree that the religion itself is problematic, and I’m shocked shocked! that we are also fundamentally at odds with a religion that has submission/slavery as its name and core principle. But that take allows the deliberate misinterpretation “So why do you hate my hairdresser?!?”
That’s why I said Muslims aren’t the problem. Nazis weren’t the problem, either. Nazism was.
I do agree with your core idea on this.
For Islam to come out of this as a compatible religion is going to require more deaths and probably more time than everything attributable to ‘sect fights’ from the second Martin Luther tacked his issues on the door until now.
But fighting “Islam” means fighting the even more numerous useful idiots in fundamentally distractionary off-topic arenas.
Witness: Yet another discussion where “Your hyperbole is too hyperbolic” is the only topic of discussion.
I’ve experienced exceedingly few open discussions on this topic that aren’t derailed since 9/11.
I had a look at the second link and found some strange contradictions to Raymond Ibrahim’s (an Egyptian Coptic Christian) claims:
Muslims from all around the world and from all walks of life — not just “terrorists” or “ISIS” — unequivocally and unapologetically proclaim that Islam commands them to hate, subjugate, and kill all who resist it, including all non-Muslims.
I followed the links provided and didn’t find the evidence he claimed, in fact I found refutations of his claims, for example he claims that the above is based on a fatwah from Saudi Sheikh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz (d. 1999). titled, “Duty to Hate Jews, Polytheists, and Other Infidels.” he provides links, but though I’ve followed them I haven’t found such a fatwah.
During the Gulf War Ibn Bāz issued a fatwa allowing the deployment of non-Muslim troops on Saudi Arabian soil to defend the kingdom from the Iraqi army.
He allowed the wearing of the cross by non-Muslim soldiers and the carrying of New Testaments into battle against other Muslims from the holiest land in Islam (from the bases in Saudi Arabia the US used) – for this he courted harsh criticism from other Clerics.
And his views were not strict enough for Osama bin Laden who condemned ibn Baz for “his weakness and flexibility and the ease of influencing him with the various means which the interior ministry practices”.Ibn Bāz was the subject of Osama bin Laden’s first public pronouncement intended for the general Muslim public. This open letter condescendingly criticized Ibn Bāz for endorsing the Oslo peace accord between the PLO and Israeli government.
I get the impression that Raymond Ibrahim isn’t as reliable as people would like to think.
As for the rest, it’s simply untrue that the Quran demands that Muslims wage war and hate non Muslims, it is demanded that war be waged against non Muslims who start a war against Muslims, and that if a treaty is in place between Muslims and non Muslims the Qaran expects Muslims to honor the treaty.
As I said above,the author of one of Rand’s links Raymond Ibrahim claims Sheikh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz (d. 1999), issued a fatwa, or decree, titled, “Duty to Hate Jews, Polytheists, and Other Infidels.”
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2016/01/19/hating-americans-is-official-saudi-and-qatari-policy/
I couldn’t find the claimed fatwa on the links Ibrahim provided, I did find this though:
http://www.alifta.net/Fatawa/FatawaSubjects.aspx?languagename=en&View=Hit&HajjEntryID=0&HajjEntryName=&RamadanEntryID=0&RamadanEntryName=&NodeID=4657&PageNo=1&SectionID=14
In the first of the links on that page ibn Baz condemns terrorism: It is well known for anyone who has the least insight that hijacking planes and blowing up embassies and other buildings are among the wickedest crimes in the world that have bad sequences, and cause severe harm and suffering to the innocent people.
It is clear to all that the harm and evil of such crimes do not afflict one country or one community alone, but they afflict the whole world.
it is demanded that war be waged against non Muslims who start a war against Muslims
There you have it in black and white. Do you stand behind this statement Andrew? Then, as you have many times pointed out, we started it and Islam demands that they finish it. I’m good with that.
It does allow new treaties should the adversary denounce their aggression.
http://clements.umich.edu/exhibits/online/barbary/barbary-timeline.php
Good link.
Surah 9:7 God and His apostle repose no trust in idolaters, save those with whom you have made treaties at the Sacred Mosque. So long as they keep faith with you, keep faith with them. God loves the righteous.
On the face of it the actions of the Barbary States in repeatedly breaking agreements is inconsistent with the teachings of the Quran, were the Barbary States satisfied that the US had held up its end of the agreement, I don’t know, but if they were unjustified breaches of the treaties the Barbary States were not being righteous.
if they were unjustified breaches of the treaties the Barbary States were not being righteous.
Oh, how does that manifest?
Yessa, massa.
Well this certainly ISN’T the way to defeat terrorism:
From the Mirror – UK:
ISIS knifemen ‘forced French priest to kneel and filmed themselves slitting his throat in horror church attack’
“One [of the attackers], who lived close to the church, is said to have left for Syria in 2015 to try and join Islamic State, but he was arrested in Turkey.
He was jailed for terrorist offences following a short trial in France, before being released on March 2nd this year.
Bail conditions included returning to live with his parents, wearing an electronic tag, and reporting to his local police station.
According to his bail conditions, the electronically tagged terrorist was allowed out unsupervised between 8.30am and 12.30pm.
Today’s attack took place between 9.45am and 11am. ”
Un-be-lievable
From the 1st link: “Every imam in the country should be thoroughly vetted and many should be de-licensed and restricted from preaching.”
I wasn’t aware that preachers were licensed in the US.