The title of the post is the title of the op-ed found in the Opinion Journal section of the WSJ.
Overall, it is a pretty good piece. But the thing you have to keep in mind is, it is written by a Muslim, from a Muslim perspective. With that said, there is a lot of good information in this article, with a strong emphasis on solutions rather than placing blame. One thing that sticks out is that the author (Abdurrahman Wahid, former President of Indonesia) recognizes that it will take a global approach, with help from Muslims and non-Muslims, alike, to combat and defeat the ideology of the terrorists.
I have said several times in other posts that if there is such a thing as a community of moderate Muslims, they will have to start coming out with messages that clearly reject the Wahabbis' oppressive and brutal ones. They will have to communicate those messages to those that need to hear it, not as lip service, but as a sincere effort to combat global terrorists that threaten peace-loving people, everywhere. Until that happens, this threat will only grow. Maybe, this is a start.
The one thing that this article does fail to address (one that is central to this whole notion of jihad) is the recognition of the state of Israel. Until the "so-called" moderates in Islam come to grips and support Israel's right to exist, there will be no peace in the Middle East, or the world. As long as they hold this hatred for Israelis (and Jews everywhere), they will share a common value with the jihadists. It will be a weakness that the jihadists will be quick to exploit, as they already have in many cases.
5 comments:
Bruce, the only reason I am leaving this crap you posted up, is so my readers can see what utter garbage it is and give them an opportunity to respond to your utterly ridiculous claims.
You can believe what you want there pal, but you will have to come here with a better effort than that, to even get an audience. You have so distorted this subject with your incoherent ramblings about something you know absolutely nothing about. And if that's not enough, it hasn't got a damned thing to do with the post.
Have a nice day and thanks for visiting PYY.
Uh, Bruce, you overlooked a little detail. Your whole premise in this essay is that Gen 21 describes an infant. What a miracle that an infant already knew how to pray:
"Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is."
Go back to your drawing board. Also, you seem to be claiming that we are only helping Israel for religious reasons. Are you saying that because of your premise in this passage (now debunked)we should stop wasting money on protecting Israel and let them get slaughtered.
And what a peaceful world it would be if on the US would not defend itself. Right, get a new bigger drawing board, pal.
LA,
Here's another problem with the article...It doesn't address that the warlike Medinan verses nullify the peaceful Meccan verses. Also, the organization of the Koran doesn't fit Western logic: the Koran is organized by length of chapters, not by chronology (the more-or-less organization of the Christian Bible). Western readers of the Koran naturally assume that the later-in-the-book, peaceful verses are the more recent ones, but the reality is that, chronologically speaking, Islam changed into a warlike ideology. The ahadith cemented that bellicosity.
As to hatred of the Jews, that hatred is common to all Islamic sects, even to the mystical Sufism.
Genesis 16:12 And he [Ishmael] will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. Does that mean that the descendants of Ishmael will be nomads and not real-estate owners? Draw your own conclusions on that. But the verse certainly does indicate never-ending feuding, at the least.
And if one wants to go by what the Bible says, one finds that Ishmael resented Isaac: from Genesis 21:8-10 And the child [Isaac] grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned. And Sarach saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had borne unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.
Genesis 22:1-2 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, ABraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Genesis 21:12-13 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in they sight because of the lad [Ishmael], and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee [Sarah insisted that Hagar and Ishmael be expelled and sent out into the desert], hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called [clearly a reference to Isaace as the patriarch of the Israelites and, for Christians, a reference to the lineage of Jesus]. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.
Thus was the covenant clearly established with the descendants of Isaac.
If one follows the genealogies in the Old Testament, one finds that many termed Canaanites and some other desert tribes were descended from Ishmael. Centuries later, Mohammed came along and converted, by persuasion and by the sword, many of these tribes to Islam. In fact, some Arab tribes today boast of being descended from the Canaanites, whom Jehovah ordered expelled from the Land of Milk and Honey.
---End of Biblical history-lesson---
I'm not going to bother much with Bruce's math. What he's presenting here is the typical Muslim justification for the veracity of Islam, and I don't find Bruce's material in the Christian Bible. Not being an expert on the Old Testament, I'll leave it to others more qualified to do the detailed debunking.
Can Islam be made moderate? That remains to be seen. Certainly any reform must come from within. Perhaps the author of the cited WSJ article is moving in that direction. But I have unanswered questions. Recently, over at Northern Virginiastan, I asked Yahya Hendi, the Georgetown University imam, some questions; but I've received no answer.
I'm still waiting for the hordes of "moderates" to put a stop to the "hijacking." Islam divides the entire world into two parts: faithful Muslims and infidels, who are, at the very least, despised. Violent jihad is but one method of changing Dar al-Harb to Dar al-Islam; Islamification and the voting booth are another method, IMO.
Last thought here...Islam is the only "religion" without an equivalent of the Golden Rule. Without such a philosophy, I don't see much hope of adaptation to Western ideals. 1400 years of the history of Islam doesn't show that moderation is consistent with the my-way-or-the-highway ideology. See Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Anis Shorrosh, and Walid Shoebat.
You might want to have a look at this.
LA,
FYI...Robert Spencer comments on this WSJ op-ed.
Post a Comment