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
The Islamists have not hijacked the religion, they live out the tenant of the religion. Islam was and is a political system with some religious traditions.
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.
@GreatWhiteNortherner
It is an important point you raise, but allow me to play devils advocate since IOP will not be responding.
If he did, I believe he would say that political Islam is Islamism is Jihadism is expansionist and disrespectful of both the teachings of the Muhammed and personal liberties. I have seen several of his interviews and I believe he has made each of these arguments at various points at various times. Regarding Erdogan, he is Muslim Brotherhood, which the IOP specifically challenges the West to disavow and sanction out of the West. Regarding the pre-Brotherhood period, Jihadism was the earlier face of what the Brotherhood is currently seeking to pursue, again, something which the IOP completely disowns. He also disapproves of the teachings of the Hadiths, and all other teachings which came after the death of Mohammed, arguing that these were attempts to legitimize violent actions and to enact political control over the people. He further condemns the violation of the Temple Mount and other Holy sites over which mosques were built as being another aspect of Jihadism and conquest over the people of the book, ie fellow monotheistic followers of Christianity and Judaism, on which he stands in complete opposition as being the perversion of Islam rather than the practice of it.
So on these points he is very consistent in calling for the recognition of the terrorism which has been used in pursuit of the Caliphate over the past millennium and a half.
Where you might find something on which to question the IOP further is on the life of Mohammed himself, who IOP sees as being the perfect man. But on this, I will leave IOP to defend for himself.
We seem to be missing an important point here: many times, it is an imam in the place of prayer ( not always or only a Mosque) who justifies and triggers a lone wolf or small group of terrorists to go out and kill the infidels.
Another important point is that in order to keep the gravy flowing, these acts of violence are explained away, but not the probably justified responses. This leads to a two level justice system which some left oriented groups tend to accept.
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.
@peloni, sure, the US is in charge of the safety of the public in USA but as usual, the police only get their behinds moving when something actually happens or the evidence of some event is so obvious that it can no longer be ignored. Ask any girl who complained to the police before being raped… and then being mentally raped again by the police after the fact.
The great American value regarding accepting people of various ethnic, religious and other individual preferences…..PLUS our general reluctance to give weight to their historical views, actions, beliefs – etc, In general the American population has no clue of the history of Islam….nor of it ideology and tenants. If they were aware that the eternal goal of Islam is to “conquer” the world and create a world wide caliphate….not with guns….but with infiltration, embedding, and in anyway to change, convert, uproot…American society. Across Europe today…they have made great inroads………and right here in America…an entire town in an American city is now run by Muslims/Islam. And now, NY will have a Muslim mayor…already having been quoted many times as being antisemitic. Although he is attempting to cover his tracks, backtrack on past comments, and refusing to disassociate from very controversial remarks/beliefs. Our ignorance will easily lead to the fall of Ammerica. And not one gun will have been used.