Quote from Robert Spencer:
Muslim leaders of all kinds have already denounced "terror." The problem here is that no one is defining these terms; rather, everyone is assuming that we all mean the same things by them whenever we use them. By "terror" does one mean "an unprovoked attack against innocent civilians with the intention of causing undifferentiated mayhem"? Muslim leaders will have no problem denouncing that. But if one means "actions carried out in order to further the program of Islamic supremacism that advances through both nonviolent and violent jihad," that is quite another matter. No one is being specific enough. No one is speaking about "the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism" and asking Muslims to denounce that. No one dares.
From Here
By the way one of our readers has voiced concern regarding Jihad Watch, so I am careful when I reference articles from that site. But I think this quote is right on and too good to pass up.
3 comments:
"But if one means "actions carried out in order to further the program of Islamic supremacism that advances through both nonviolent and violent jihad," that is quite another matter" (Robert)
Again, Muslims need to look over the meaning of their faith and its promotion tactics - and possibly jihad needs to stay internal and not go external. But again this is the mixing of faith and gov't - which can become a horrible mess. But again, as far as violence goes - I will shout down anyone in my faith that believes this the means to an end - and this needs to be announced as a virtue in all faiths - I don't think God is violent...
To begin with, ""actions carried out in order to further the program of Islamic supremacism that advances through both nonviolent and violent jihad," is a definition that is made up by Spencer. Why would any Muslim leader denounce something that is made up?
As to specific denunciations from thousands upon thousands of Muslim leaders worldwide, including fatwas against terrorism, violence, suicide bombing, militant jihad, and perverting the Qur'an and hadiths, you can find a compilation of these at http://facts-not-fear.blogspot.com
The majority of these denunciations clearly explain why such acts are a violation of the Qur'an and hadiths, why they will send a Muslim to hell, how the teachings of bin Laden, Spencer, and other extremists are perverting the Qur'an and using lies to try to convince Muslims to violate their own faith. They explain that the only allowable militant jihad can only exist under very specific conditions, and that those conditions are not and have not been present since the early 1900's. They cite major Islamic authorities, they correct the mis-citations, misunderstandings, and out of context citations given by those who encourage militant jihad. I cannot see any way in which they could be more specific.
So Muslim leaders have already thoroughly and specifically condemned all forms of militant jihad and violence. What's left in Spencer's call? If you really examine Spencer's fear about "actions carried out in order to further the program of Islamic supremacism that advances through both nonviolent and violent jihad," and rule out violence, (since we can now see it has indeed been condemned) then doesn't this come down to prosletyzing? And doesn't every single religion prosletyze? Christians are under Jesus' command to prosletyze. The last I checked, peaceful prosletyzing was protected by the US Constitution. So what is Spencer's problem with it?
Of course, the Constitution is not often considered on the Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch site. Spencer's calling for internment camps for Muslims, calling for Islam as a religion to be made a criminal offense, calling for closing of all mosques and Muslim schools, calling for a bar to immigration to all Muslims, racial profiling of Muslims and restrictions on Muslims that are not placed on any other religion, all of these blatantly violate the US Constitution.
When I showed Spencer this very long and detailed list of Muslim condemnations, his reaction was "they're all lying, they're all using taqiyya, they're not specific enough, they're not from a high enough authority", etc, etc. He made it very clear that he would not accept any denunciation from any Muslim leader, so that he could continue his claim that Muslim leaders don't condemn terrorism.
There are very specific details and facts of Spencer's jihad at http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot.com Look for the article titled Spencer's Spin, download the full report, and then if still interested, check the blog's index for other Spencer articles.
BTW, societyvs, your point is well taken and too often overlooked. Too many of the Islamophobic pundits completely overlook or completely ignore the violence and terrorism carried out by those of faiths other than Islam. The US, as the President has made clear, is fighting a war against all forms of terrorism, no matter the ideology. Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Anarchist, eco and animal-rights, Secular, Nationalist, whatever the ideology of the terrorist may be, we are fighting it.
The FBI, over and over (and as recently as February 2007) has testified to Congress that the most urgent and dangerous domestic terrorists in the USA are not Islamists, they are terrorists from groups that are Christian Identity, Armagedonites, neo-Nazis, eco-terrorists, animal-rights terrorists, anarchists, anti-immigration extremists, and anti-government terrorists.
ALL TERRORISM IS WRONG. Why cannot the condemnations we see from the pundits use this basic premise?
And yes, the mixing of faith and government can become a huge mess. If a government leader holds to good, strong morals based on his own faith, that can be very good for a country. But if religion, of any type, starts interfering with a government, starts trying to exert undue pressure on a government, or setting the agenda of a government, then we can run into trouble very quickly.
Post a Comment