Folk constantly demand that Muslims admit that these terrorists are Muslim. So I fully expect them to cheer self-described “counter-extremist” Muslim Maajid Nawaz from the Quilliam Foundation who, in what he calls “a plea to my fellow Muslims and liberals,” demands precisely that.
A puerile response by some of my fellow Muslims is to ask “why should we apologize for something that has nothing to do with us.” But this entirely misses the point.
Just as we Muslims expect solidarity from wider society against anti-Muslim bigotry and racism, likewise we must reciprocate solidarity toward victims of Islamist extremism. Just as we encourage others to actively denounce racism wherever they see it, so too must we actively denounce Islamist theocratic views wherever we find them.
Enough with the special pleading. Enough with the denial. Enough with the obfuscation
The killer of Orlando was a homophobic Muslim extremist, inspired by an ideological take on my own religion, Islam. In just the first seven days of this holy month of Ramadan, various jihadists have carried out attacks in Tel Aviv, Baghdad, Damascus, Idlib, Beirut, Orlando, and now Paris.
This global jihadist insurgency threatens every corner of the world and has killed more Muslims than members any other faith. So why pretend it does not exist? Why shy away from calling it by name? …
It is time that we liberals took the fabled red pill and accepted reality. Just as this clearly has something to do with outdated gun laws, and just as those laws need reform, this also has something to do with Islam, which also needs reform today. No other stance makes any sense.
If Islam is ever going to reform itself from within, which the civilised world so desperately demands it do, it needs more like Nawaz who accept reality, and argue boldly for that reform.
Read: Admit It: These Terrorists Are Muslims – Maajid Nawaz, DAILY BEAST
.
9 comments:
Except he was so damn confused he's no real Muslim -- ISIL thinks Hezbollah are heretics and should all be killed, but this loser claimed to be both Hesbollah and ISIL. He was a fantasist: he was neither.
What he was was a registered D'RAT. Being a Democrat and being an American are clearly incompatible, now more than ever.
Oh wow, Muslim boy wants to come out. He has worked out that Islam is violent
Go there it Reads @ “”Whereas Islam today requires reform, the Islamist ideology must be intellectually terminated. To do so requires first acknowledging it exists, isolating it from Muslims, devising a strategy to challenge it, and then backing the voices that do””.
Good grief, Fair go, This boy thinks the progressives can isolate Muslim from Islam , and so as he explains later eliminate the danger of a Trump Presidency. .
Bu wait there’s more
Reads @”” What happens if we don’t name the Islamist ideology and distinguish it from Islam? We leave a void for the vast majority of Americans … [ who he here suggests are stupid,] to be filled by Donald Trump and the Populist Right “”.
That is that now even the Islam ideaology is quite different from Islam . I see.
The article is intellectually fatuous. Muslim boy with pink skin and big pen has written a piece of pretentious progressive political trash.
Islam can't reform from within because that will require so much juggling of theology as to strip it of its divine claims. That reduces Islam to a secular and pointless shadow of a world dominating religion. Islam's writings were a shambles and its teachings relatively barbaric even at inception so bringing that up to date will require a master in making shit shine. Labour will want to hire that person when they have finished with the Quran.
Sultan Knish's latest item on his blog (I couldn't link it) sets out why its violent. His view is consistent with the views on Islam expressed in the book "How Civilizations Die".
3:16
Couldn't you have said the same thing about Christianity 1000 years ago when they were burning 'witches' on the stake and crucifying free thinkers, all in the name of the religion you hold today?
To be clear I'm not trying to draw moral equivalency between Islam and Christianity now, but on what basis do you think your religion was capable of reform, but Islam isn't?
And more to the point, regardless of how challenging reform is, shouldn't we regard someone who's trying to do so an ally to be encouraged rather than an enemy to be dismissed?
I thought it was a good piece. Reform sounds ok but I imagine there won't be much left of Islamic teachings when you throw out all bigotry.
I have started to be outspoken about Islam in my private life. Essentially, I judge a man by the colors he chooses to wear. If he calls himself Muslim, I have to assume he takes the whole package on board and I won't have anything to do with him.
It won't be until we openly criticize Islam that a change can be made. It be the populist way to ban Islam but that won't do anything good. Its up to the public. Any self proclaimed Muslim should be judged on the values he holds. The shoe would then be on the other foot. Now a Muslim would need to justify his position.
@ MarkT
No, I do't think you could have said the same about Christianity. In my view the reformation was a Christian response to, generally, the awful RC practices that were demonstrably related to politics, money and power and had nothing to do with the Gospel message. I understand the blood letting is greatly overstated although that's not much comfort if you are the one picked on. Christianity has wobbled about a bit as all things men dabble with do but the initial message remains as relevant today as 2000 years ago. Islam was always thuggish by design because that was what was required to conquer the world whereas Christianity was always about the next world while walking in this one and is not intended to be political the way Islam is. With Islam no enlightenment (that makes it benign) is possible without killing it off - what we are seeing today are its faithful (as opposed to the large numbers of nominal) believers returning to their roots. They are acting in the way the Muslim religion requires.
I think Dither is correct in that Muslims need to justify their position. Christians are routinely expected to, and rightly so, but Muslims seem exempt. A denial that the latest atrocity in the name of Islam is nothing to do with Islam is not, in my view, a satisfactory response. They need to respond from the Quran and show why its nothing to do with Islam.
3:16
Christian Bloodletting Overstated - you mean the 30 years war, the 80 years war, the English, Scots civil wars and invasion of Ireland and who knows what else was overstated?
Hell the IRA nearly killed Thatcher in my lifetime, and the Real IRAs last bomb was in March. Economically the Eurozone mess is pretty much Protestant vs Catholic as us a fair chunk of BRExut (the EU flag is Catholic, right, the Holy Roman Empire redux).
In this context the shooter is like someone who pledged allegiance to both the IRA and the UDF - ie an idiot who doesn't really understand Islam.
What he is - is a registered Democrat like almost all the other US shooters. Hopefully Trump would deal with that - no one else will
In respect of bloodletting the issue is what is 'Christian' and what do the doctrines say. Some thugs dressed like royalty or in tin suits and poncing about killing people for political gain is not in keeping with the Christian doctrines and morality. That is why church and state must be separate but that concept is completely contrary to Muslim theology and is what makes it essentially incompatible with western democracy.
I was at a talk by Gary Millar recently. He presently runs a theological college in Brisbane but started his church career in Ireland. I understood his view to be that the Irish troubles are cultural and not related to Christianity at all - the side have just taken the RC or protestant labels as a point of difference. Real Christians are meeting together and getting along quite happily irrespective of what side of the road they live on but the sectarian issues relating to political control masquerading as religion have made it a hard road.
3:16
Maajid Nawaz, a guy who has worked with Tommy Robinson (does that make him a white supremacist?), is clearly putting liberalism ahead of Islam. It's great that he considers it in need of reform, but on the other hand he attacks people who cut closer to the bone than he does (such as Robert Spencer) as Islamophobes. If he truly desired to reform Islam he wouldn't shy away from the utmost scrutiny. No matter what his sincerity level is, he is nothing new in Islam. Would-be reformers have peppered its entire history, the majority of them murdered by more devout muslims than they.
BTW, the new Muslim mayor of London that you applauded as being a sign of how the West and Islam can happily coexist, is going to ban sexy ads from the London Underground. I wonder if that's coming from his Islamic view or his Leftist view.
Post a Comment