102 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0
As Islam is a written ideology (Qur'an and the Sunnah of Muhammad), there is no such thing as 'radical Islam'.
The passage mandating the amputation of a fellow human being's hands reads the same in Usama bin Laden's copy of Qur'an as it does in my CAIR provided copy. So-called 'moderate' Muslims are like Catholics who use artificial birth control methods; neither is fully compliant with the teachings of their respective religious belief systems.
What is being misconstrued as 'radical Islam' is actually Orthodox Islam, and the American public deserves to know where Muslims living in America think such amputations--and other 'divine' barbarities-- are morally acceptable to them.
1. None of them even understood Arabic, but they could mindlessly read the Koran.
2. The ethnic group in that part of Indonesia rejects all education but the Koran and radial(sic) Islam.
3. And the children grew up with radicals telling them what it means to truly follow God.
They do not 'read' the Qur'an. Qur'an means 'recitation' and that is what they are doing. Little Muslim boys and girls--many of them illiterate in their own languages--do not 'read' classical Arabic; nor do many adults. They are told how to pronounce--and recite--the Qur'an's every passage by clerics and 'scholars' who may have been 'taught' the same way.
I do hope you understand the Catholic reference: individuals are either fully compliant with the teachings and demands of their respective belief systems or they're not. Literalism, in the case of Islam, is a threat to 'unbelievers' and insufficiently compliant Muslims alike. But to hear it from those intent upon deceit—and the uninformed—the amputations of thieves’ hand(s) by Somalia's al Shabab Muslims (as but one of the many barbaric punishments used to keep Muslims from straying off the Shari’ah reservation) are the acts of ‘extremists’; an overtly ignorant notion when one realizes that Islamic ideology itself expects full and unquestioned compliance from Allah’s every slave.
I don’t agree with the ‘radicalized/radicalizing’ idea. Major Hasan, a life-long ‘moderate’ Muslim was not ‘radicalized’ by that ‘American born radical cleric’ Anwar al Awlaki. Awlaki taught him Orthodox Islam, and it is by citing Islam’s actual texts that the American Muslim community’s half-truth excuses for the behavior of their most devout brethren will end.
Your mind went blank as a result of my edit? You did write the article, didn't you?
The point is simple. As Islam is a written ideology, there is no such thing as 'radical Islam'.
That phrase creates the erroneous impression that Muslims attempting to follow the Qur'an and other Islamic texts--to the letter--are members of that famous 'tiny minority of extremists' who have twisted and perverted 'the religion of peace'.
Surely you can understand how much CAIR and other Muslim 'civil rights' groups appreciate those who perpetuate that myth.
I can only imagine how much more entertaining Ellison's responses would have been had Hannity challenged him with the phrase 'Orthodox Islam'.
"As strong as Hannity’s challenge to Ellison was, next time he has the congressman on we’d really like to see him raise the subject of the dangerous RADICALIZATION of Islamic stealth jihad organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In particular he needs to be asked about the Muslim Brotherhood’s secret document ”An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” which lays out RADICAL Islam’s plan for conquering our country from within."
2. "I think I made my opinion on that phrase fairly clear in paragraph #3, above. ??? "
Your own use of the word 'radicalization' and the phrase 'radical Islam' made your opinion about as clear as mud.
(IMO) the appropriate phrase is Orthodox Islam, and the American public will be better informed by its use and the burden of explaining the non-existent difference between 'radical' and 'moderate' Islam will be shifted to Muslims themselves; a situation they are desperate to avoid.
Look, there's no such thing as 'radical' Islam.
I challenge you, Ms. Shrader, to explain what you think that means, and how you personally think 'radical' Islam differs from regular, everyday, Islam as written in the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Muhammad.
Either make the distinction clear or stop misinforming your readers.
Let me help you understand Islamic reality; so-called 'moderate' Muslims are like Catholics who use artificial birth control methods.
That American jurisprudence makes the amputation of a thief's hand(s) illegal here does not change what the Qur'an says and Somalia's al Shabab Muslims are not 'extremists' because they do.
Egypt's general population is typically, and inaccurately, referred to as 'moderate' MUSLIMS. You are right to note that other religions are scarcely mentioned in news reports.
Generally speaking, ISLAMISTS are those of the worlds billion plus Muslims who are pushing for a return to Islam's unadulterated teachings, the re-establishment of the Caliphate (as Beck has been explaining), and the replacement of man-made governments with Islamic law (the Shari'a).
That's why the phrase 'radical Islamist' is unnecessary and misleading. If we were taken over by pleasant Islamists via the ballot box the result would be the same.
You are also correct in noting that Egypt's so-called 'moderate' Muslims (though not actively engaging engaged in the worldwide jihad that Islam dictates, yet) the majority of that population do hold to the most vile precepts of the Qur'an--if only in their dreams and aspirations.And there is no way to know when they'll act out.
As with the Fort Hood shooter.
The difference between so-called 'moderate' Muslims and their more devout brethren is the degree to which individual Muslims follow, or attempt to follow, Islam's every teaching. Though most of the world's Muslims don't actively participate in the amputation of thieves' hands, they know that punishment is prescribed in the Qur'an. Politicians and journalists, in falsely asserting that those who carry out such amputations--like Somalia's al-Shabab Muslims--are the acts of 'extremists', or of those who have twisted the teachings of 'the religion of peace', the American public will remain misinformed.
Here's another example of our nation's general ignorance of Islam: while you have probably seen or heard variations of the word 'Hezbolla', the truly dangerous nature of that phrase becomes obvious with its correct spelling: hizb'Allah. The party of God. The American public would better understand the true nature of the threat we face from people who think that their's is the party of God. If only politicians and journalists would do their homework.
C'mon, Joe. Would you be less worried if they were just Islamists?
All of these unnecessary modifiers do nothing but keep the American public ignorant about the teachings of orthodox Islam.
Here are a few that make no sense:
radical Islam' as opposed to what
radical Islamic extremism
radical Islamic terrorism
violent Islamist extremism
radical, violent Islamists
Islamic jihadists; as opposed to Christian jihadists
Muslim jihadists; see above
A note: so-called 'moderate' Muslims are like Catholics who use artificial birth control methods.
The problem is Islam as it's written. Not as all those 'moderate' Muslims follow; but as that 'tiny minority of 'extremists''' accurately attempt to complete with its every teaching.
And, my friend, they are being mislead by that sentiment.
Muslims are happy to tell us that the Qur'an is God's literal word: remaining to this day exactly as it was 'revealed' to Muhammad 1400 years ago.
Ergo, there is no such thing as 'radical' Islam. There is only Islam; as written in Qur'an specifically along with hadeeth collections and the Sira'h.
The notion of 'radical' Islam confuses Islam, an unchanged written ideology, and the piety of individual Muslims.
The idea of Muslim 'radicals' and 'extremists' is equally wrong and misleading.
The 'Christmas Tree' bomber was doing what Islam expects of its adherents.