Video Loads Below
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
I’ve come across this “Imam of Peace” (“IOP”) before, and while he says all the right things and comes across as a very gentle practitioner of the so-called “religion of peace“, it’s not what he said so much as what he left out that raises all kinds of questions.
Perhaps I wasn’t paying attention, but he talked about the Muslim Brotherhood being the source of “Islamism” for the last hundred years, but I didn’t hear him explain what the source was for the Shiite Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 or violent Shiite fundamentalism generally, which cannot also be the Muslim Brotherhood since the latter are Sunni. That would be the equivalent of saying the Catholic Church is the source of this or that Christian ideology or practice amongst mainline Protestants, in which case there must to be at least two sources of violent Muslim ideology both of which, according to the IOP, are distinct and separate from the benign version he and supposedly the vast majority of Muslim practice. To be clear, I believe the vast majority aren’t violent, but I don’t believe it’s because the violent ones have supposedly “hijacked“ Islam.
I also didn’t hear him talk about anything BEFORE the last hundred years, including the various Caliphates and how for 1300 years there was always a caliphate, all of which were expansionist. Which raises an obvious question: were all of those caliphates Islamist or merely the non-political, non-violent, non-jihadist Islam ostensibly practiced by the vast majority of Muslims all that time? And were all “People of the Book“, primarily Jews and Christians, second-class citizens, forced to pay the jizya, victims of Islam or Islamists?
For that matter, the IOP never mentioned Erdogan, who years ago made it very clear that the distinction between “Islam” and “Islamists” is nonsense, and that “there is only Islam”. Period.
So, as Desi said to Lucy, the Imam of Peace has some esplainin’ to do.
Having read about the religion, culture and history of Islam for the past 25 years and seeing a range of different practices, jihad, for example, is a core principle of mainstream Islam, however, not all Muslims are interested in participating in holy war, however, that doesn’t necessarily mean that those who are have “hijacked“ the religion as the IOP claims. In other words, contrary to Daniel Pipes’s mantra, that “radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution“, in my observation “radical Muslims are the problem, moderate Muslims are the solution“. And that really comes down to nonviolent Muslims deciding as individuals whether to ignore 14 centuries of mainstream Muslim jurisprudence, practice and history.
He asked a question: how long will America allow the Muslim Brotherhood to be the face of the Muslim community. This is Taqiya in its professional form. The real question should be: how long will the Muslim community allow the Muslim Brotherhood to be the face of Islam?
His question make us guilty butit is the Muslims who are guilty here!!
A little later, he said, “We know these people.” He should be offering help to weed them out!
@dreuveni
But here is the bigger point: The US, not the Muslims, are responsible for the safety, well being, and equal protections under the law. This is true across the Western world, and it is what difines the Western world, and even attracts some honest dissidents from their Muslim homelands.
He said to target the Muslim Brotherhood and their affilates. When this is accomplished, it will resolve the very real threat which exists in the West, while leaving the lone wolves to be dealt with as they become apparent, one way or another. Or I would argue in any event.