[lit-ideas] Re: Islamism and Islamism
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:50:52 -0800
Okay, Omar, There is something wrong with Hirsi Ali, Daniel Pipes, Ibn
Warrick, and me. We are all perverse and uninformed for not being able to
find Islamic Moderates, but why waste your time criticizing us? That
doesn't really prove your point. The demolishing of us doesn't produce any
Moderate Muslims. Instead, why don't you say, "look, here they are! Here
and here and here and here. Look, here is a whole nation of them. See how
they value human rights. See especially how well they treat women. Women
can do and say anything they like there. They can dress however they like.
Look at all the freedom of speech. See how that organization over there
criticizes the president and nothing is done to them. Do you see that?
That is because they are free and uncoerced, and the President has no
recourse but to let those people say any thing they like -- and the press -
see how free the press is. They can say anything they like. And look how
peaceful everyone is. Look over there is an Islamic Pacifist organization.
They don't believe in any fighting of any kind. And no one wants an
aggressive war. As to Jihads, don't worry about them. They are for
personal improvement only.
If you were able to say that, Omar; then all our mouths would shut. But you
can't, because such a situation doesn't exist. Even the people you fancy as
moderates don't hold to all of the positions above. But if there were any,
they would either be in hiding with there mouths firmly closed, or they
would have immigrated to a Western nation where they could find like-minded
people, and perhaps form another Progressive Islam organization.
Lawrence.
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:35 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Islamism and Islamism
She identifies the core
Muslim texts-Koran, hadith, sira-their codification
into Islamic Law (i.e.,
Shari'a), and the orthodox interpretation of this
sacralized literature by
seminal Muslim jurists-noting Ibn
<http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4495&search=bostom>
Taymiyya's "pure" Islamic exegesis, specifically-as
being responsible for
the incompatibility between Islamic and Western
values.
*This is not at all what the site you gave says. This
author contends that: "Any fair, objective comparison
must conclude that relative to the Hanbali jurists Ibn
Qudama and Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Ghazali is at least as
bellicose in his pronouncements on jihad war, and more
bigoted and oppressive in his stated guidelines for
the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmis."
Hirsi Ali's response to the standard non-sequitur
apologetic about the
putative existence of, "different Islams", is
unequivocal:
"No that is an erroneous idea . If one defines Islam
as the religion founded
by Muhammad and explained by the Koran and later by
hadiths, there is only
one Islam that dictates the moral framework."
*Setting aside that Hirsi Ali is not familiar with the
idea that a single text can have different
interpretations, she doesn't even seem to know that
there are different Ahadith texts being used by
Muslims. I agree with you that the Muslims who manage
to get publicity for their views in the West are not
likely to be taken seriously in the Muslim world, and
probably wouldn't be in the West if they were not born
Muslims.
As for Ibn-Warraq, I doubt that he even exists.
O.K.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
