Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Muslims Must Declare War on Radical Islam
As the devastation in Orlando unfolded, I felt a tiny grain of hope that President Obama would finally show some teeth against the very real threat posed by radical Islam. Would he label the horror show for what it was? But — true to form, and after acknowledging the slaughter that befell on the defenseless — he diverted attention to gun laws without uttering even the slightest hint regarding who and what the killer represented. The Left ran with it, saturating the media and Internet with LGBT solidarity. Much of what followed was not a discussion about Islamic terrorism, but focused on the 2nd Amendment and homosexual rights, with fingers pointing to usual targets such as the NRA and religious leaders. Points for consistency, even in the shadow of cascading evil.
I know most Muslims abhor what the radicalized sociopaths have done to Islam. Yet, there seem to be very few to take on the gargantuan effort necessary to focus world attention on the growing Islamic threat. Nonetheless, it’s during times of tragedy that heroes are made. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said that the Orlando mass shooting should be a wakeup call for moderate Muslims.
To our friends, associates, and acquaintances who practice Islam, my heart goes out to you as you face rage from many American corners that will tempt you to turn inward and cocoon. I ask you to fight that urge.
If radicalized Jews had hijacked Judaism and perpetrated this reprehensible bloodshed, instead of hiding behind special interests groups that divert attention to politically expedient low-hanging fruit, I would be actively fighting to take my religion back.
American Muslims, stand up and make your voices heard. I will stand with you as you fight back against the brutal murderers of the innocent, the rapists of women and children, and those leaders who espouse hate, homophobia, and genocide in the name of Islam. Even seemingly insignificant efforts like sharing your thoughts on social media, writing letters to your local newspaper editors, or calling into radio shows can help. Share your outrage at Orlando, Tel Aviv, San Bernardino, Paris, and wherever the next scene of carnage occurs.
While feckless politicians highlight and target the side effects, the cancer is metastasizing. Others will — and should — join you in solidarity, but it is up to you.
Published in General
You can replace the word Sharia with Islam and it works just as well.
I don’t take it as the default assumption, Mendel. I believe most people are good.
The problem goes back to the texts. You say the texts aren’t alive and practicing, but people are. Yes, I agree with you there, too. Most Muslims are fine people.
The problem is that the texts do call for these actions. So, every generation, there will be people who read it and say, “You people haven’t been doing this right. Here is what we are supposed to be doing.” The texts also claim to be the unalterable word of God. Trying to change the Quran is punishable how? I’ll give you three guesses. Killing infidels is not “radical” Islam; it is Islam as written.
There are only two endgames: Islam is removed from this Earth completely, or the Earth is converted. Islam accepts nothing else. Individual Muslims may, but Islam does not.
The OP postulates that there are 2 interpretations of Islam. I think his proposition is very sound.
Considering that the OP postulates rather binary interpretations of Islam why is it a fallacy to assume one of them is correct?
The Great Gatsby is a work of fiction. The Koran is a widely read instruction manual being implemented in our contemporary society.
Just because neither of us believe doesn’t mean we should disregard the murderers who do.
Because Protestants aren’t mass killing Americans.
Did you know that the Catholic Bible includes different books from most Protestant Bibles? That is not true of the different branches of Islam. The main differences in the branches of Islam are the leadership path after Muhammad. They all have the same Quran.
Well, the good news is that Islam does not actually exist in any physical form.
Thus, individual Muslims can do whatever the [expletive] they want and still consider themselves Muslims as long as they themselves believe they’re doing God’s will.
Except that no text is 100% clear. There is always room for interpretation, since language is an incomplete tool for conveying a message.
Therefore, every generation of Muslims will also have the opportunity to say “I believe that the unalterable word of God actually wants us to respect our neighbors, despite what may appear to be a call for violence.”
The texts and the history of Islam are indeed a huge problem. But they are not insurmountable, as many here seem to suggest.
Yes, I am well aware of the differences in canon. However, those differences are not primarily responsible for the differences in theology and practice between these two wings of Christianity.
Do you actually disagree with my central tenet: that for any holy scripture there can be more than one interpretation considered valid among its adherents? That would seem to me to be self-obvious.
And if it is, then it renders the notion of “there is only one correct interpretation of the Koran” moot.
Probably because Muslims, like all people, are human beings first. Ask the average Christian to go to some godforksaken hellhole to preach where the only reward is probably horrific and gruesome death and you won’t get many takers.
Also most Christians don’t understand their own texts or doctrines. I watched a girl on facebook quote from the Catholic catechism and at the same time completely misunderstand it. I’d say it’s worse in Islam where a lot of it is recitation in ancient Arabic.
The thing is there’s some people who will get the message and who will go to that godforsaken hellhole.
We always talk about “taking back” Islam but we don’t ask the important question of what Islam is in the first place. If the people “taking back” Islam are poor muslims then they’ll get nowhere for obvious reasons.
I personally like David Wood, though I don’t share his optimism:
David, why don’t we have hundreds or thousands of Orlando’s, Brussels, Paris, or San Bernardino’s daily?
Not everyone is in the army or operational aspect.
Additionally there are great divides in Islam about how to prosecute Jihad.
One of the rifts was between the Muslim Brotherhood and AQ. AQ and now ISIS prefer the 4th generation terror/violence approach while MB prefers to infiltrate western institutions.
The split was exacerbated by the Gulf War in 1991 when most of the rest of the world realized the era of 4th gen warfare was over.
I think those differences are much more subtle than what we are considering with Islam.
I agree, but there are degrees of interpretation. A canon can emphasize Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and another can emphasize his resurrection and within events in the Bible there are different interpretations.
What doesn’t change is that for Christians Jesus is salvation and way, truth, and light.
The discussion here about Islam is secular integration versus beheading non believers. That is a much bigger degree than anything in Christianity.
No, I do not disagree with you that there could be multiple interpretations. My branch of Christianity reads the Bible meta-physically.
But here is the difference, people reading the plain text of the Bible, and especially of Jesus’ teachings, will not be violent. The plain text of the Quran; however, well since you are so sure of yourself, I assume that you have studied Arabic and have read it in the original, so you know as well as I do what it says.
Im not trying to be facetious here, but I just want to be sure I follow you Arahant… Are you suggesting there’s hundreds of millions of people out there who ‘claim’ to be Muslim, but are really lying to themselves, their friends, employers and society. They attend mosques, celebrate holidays and pray, but are not real Muslim because… what, they are not coiled like a rattlesnake ready to bite? Since they don’t spend their waking hours planning to kill the infidels, they are not real Muslim?
That only terrorists, sharia zealots and ISIS are truly Islamic because they are following the darkest interpretation of the Koran?
What are the views of “moderate Muslims” on the roles of women, gays, Jews, infidels and apostasy? I doubt they are different from the views of the jihadist head choppers.
So what are the differences? The jihadists would gladly chop off our heads and burn us to death. “Moderate Muslims” think it’s acceptable to kill infidels, but wouldn’t want to do the heavy lifting and bloody their hands?
Even if there are such Muslims who disagree with the jihadists, we won’t hear from them anytime soon. They’re afraid of getting killed along with us infidels. It’s understandable.
Sorry I didn’t read all the comments. My bad. I’ve followed Zuhdi Jasser for many years and read his book. He is a true moderate Muslim. But he can’t seem to get traction for his organization and his ideas. Unfortunately he’s discouraged that moderate Muslims that he knows are not more vocal. It’s one thing to talk amongst yourselves that you despise the radicals; it’s another to publicly say it, to non-Muslims or to the media.
Brent, Germany may not be the most appropriate comparison, but there are some crossovers. Before WW2 Hitler gained power by using economic scapegoats to blame for people’s blight. He increased his support as people believed they would be brought to the promised land under a Germany which was still licking it’s wounds from WW1.
Nationalism then morphed into a new master race. Germans were ‘uber alles’. Germans who were horrified and spoke out were killed, then most were too scared to say anything. However, many Germans risked their own lives, housing Jews under floorboards and saved innocents. They knew what was right and wrong and acted. A quiet but growing number of Germans hated what the 3rd Reich stood for and the effects of war on their homeland, but were not able to rise up.
Germany, however is not a religion (although some may apply the brainwashing of Nazis to the brainwashing of Islamic terrorists) and it took the entire world to beat Hitler’s regime… something our current leaders don’t have the appetite for.
Germany fell not from within, but from allied and Russian forces. However, after Germany was liberated, it’s people ensured the horror of the holocaust would never again happen.
Does the human condition allow for change, no matter what your religion or culture?
I know that any of these prescriptions would enable stalwart adherents of most religions to stand up and confront the most negative elements in their religion, but I have a nagging suspicion that we outside of the religion of peace are mostly doing projection of what we would do if in their shoes, and I suspect such wishes and admonitions would mostly be falling on deaf ears. Islam teaches submission. Yes, in centuries past, it succeeded in changing the world, but once it changed the world, it proceeded to teach the importance of submission. I am dubious about the willingness of the rank and file to follow what is being suggested. Although here in the US, you have the safest place in the world in which to do it, should one choose to do so.
Good points about Germany.
How many Germans died in that loss that forever imprinted the horror of the holocaust on their culture and society?
I think Islam is much more entrenched than Nazism. Nazism existed from its WW1 roots until its demise about 4 decades. Islam has been around for centuries.
If it took a world war against Nazi Germany and nuclear weapons in Japan to stop the axis powers that had fomented decades. What does it take to stop a murderous culture that has grown for centuries?
This is why I am Ok with candidate’s ambiguity dealing with ISIS. When it isn’t clear where ISIS/evil stops and moderate/peaceful Islam begins (if it exists) it is hard to know when to stop killing. Additionally, eradicating ISIS may help them multiply. In that situation where does justified military action stop and the next genocide begin?
Thanks, and Hi, Susan. I didn’t read the comments either, but I, perhaps like yourself, felt I had a valid reaction to the original post, which I was responding to. I know my mind enough to know when I’m probably going to be hitting on something no one else is thinking yet. Shouldn’t be any reason to have to apologize.
There is no room for interpretation of the Koran. Muslims believe that God dictated the Koran to Muhammed so to “interpret” the Koran would be blasphemy. How many critical works are out there on the Koran? Who in Islam is doing exegesis on the Koran like is done in Christianity with the Bible. To “interpret” the Koran is to be a heretic. That is why there can be no moderate Muslims. You either believe or you don’t. When Pope Benedict XVI suggested in his Regensburg Address that Islam come to grips with reason they responded the only way they know how – with violence. One can hope and pray that Islam will reform, but that is an oxymoron – it must be defeated and destroyed.
FTFY.
If I say, “Everyone who meets David should give him a slap upside the head,” one could interpret it as a joke or as a figurative call for chewing him out and arguing with him. Maybe there is even an interpretation of that that means, “Shake his hand for me; he’s a capital guy.” But that is not what the words say. What they say is a call to physical violence. One does not need to go into gyrations to interpret it as such. It is the plain meaning of the text. So, maybe there are “interpretations” of the Islamic texts where one can say, “Well, it doesn’t really mean it when it says what it says, it really means this.” But that is getting into the realm of a Gnostic mystery cult. Most people are going to read it plainly unless they are taught otherwise, and then there is no guarantee the “interpretation” will take over the plain meaning of the text.
By the way, both David and Mendel are capital guys, and if you do meet them, shake their hands for me. That is plain text, no interpretation necessary.
There was a period in Islam called ijitihad–a time when the Koran could be discussed and re-interpreted by scholars. But you’re right, Scott–it’s unclear how well a revision from Zuhdi Jasser would be accepted. Just like with any translations of sacred texts (this happens with Judaism, the Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and English), the clarity can be questionable. I think that is what Jasser will attempt to clarify. But it will be an uphill battle.
I think the number of between one-point-six billion and one-point-seven billion Muslims on the planet is pretty widely accepted.
The trouble is, that’s a rather large number, and so is even a small percentage of it.
So when we start to talk how many people are radicalized, if the number is about one-tenth of one percent (the ridiculously low end, in my opinion) that’s 1.6 or 1.7 million.
If it’s one percent it’s 16 or 17 million.
If it’s ten percent it’s 160 or 17o million.
Ten percent doesn’t sound like an outrageously high estimate to me. So let’s go with twenty-five percent as the over-the-top high end (but is it, really?): slightly over four-hundred million.
To paraphrase Everett Dirksen’s perhaps apocryphal words, “A percent here, a percent there, sooner or later, it adds up to a real lot of people.”
Please don’t patronize. Of course I have not studied Arabic – and even if I had, I probably couldn’t give a useful opinion on what the meaning of the text was 1400 years ago.
However, I do have a good friend who is a native Arabic speaker and who translated the Koran into a a European language. He did, indeed spend hours painstakingly researching the etymological issues.
And he also agrees that the more violent interpretations are certainly plausible, perhaps even the most likely. At the same time, there is apparently enough uncertainty over whether every “loaded” term was always as violently tinged as they are currently understood, or whether those violent interpretations have evolved over the centuries – in part resulting from the actual violence incited in the name of said passages.
In other words, there is enough linguistic and dogmatic leeway to at least make a moderate, non-violent version of Islam theologically plausible. You might read the Koran and think otherwise, but your or my interpretations are actually irrelevant since we’re not Muslims.
The only important question is: can Muslims convince themselves that a non-violent interpretation is actually God’s will? And the answer appears to be: it’s possible, but far from easy.
Here’s the obvious, fifth-grader rebuttal:
Is “you shall not kill” also not plain text? Then why have various types of manslaughter – including fairly ugly episodes during missionary/colonial expeditions – been tolerated and/or encouraged by Christians since the death of Christ?
I’m asking rhetorically, we both know the responses to that question. Point being: plain text is almost never that plain in the context of scripture. This problem is not as simple as you make it out to be.
She,
Whether it’s .01 or 25% there are more peaceful Muslims living in societies worldwide who are not plotting our demise.
I just listened to Trump’s speech from this afternoon and it sounds like he agrees with the sentiment of this post (cause Im sure he read it)… work with ‘moderate Muslims’, help them clean house and prevent more attacks.
There is also the confusion because the Koran is not written in historical order. The result is that people don’t realize that Muhammad started out peacefully but as he met resistance, he became more violent. And of course, you can’t see that by reading the text from beginning to end. Also when there are contradictions, the most recent teachings are held as true. So it’s difficult to digest.
Depends on who is doing the teaching. Radical Imam or enlightened (openly homosexual) Imams?
Is there room for both? Apparently Muslims (outside the radical sociopaths) are open to it.
In America, Muslims Are More Likely to Support Gay Marriage Than Evangelical Christians
This is what happens when muslims speak out against radical Islam:
Just in case you aren’t familiar with Mr. Fatah, here’s his Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Fatah
Color me a little skeptical about that poll.
This.
And I do think the ability of non-Muslims to help them do this is very limited. The only thing the rest of us can do is continually, determinedly reiterate our opposition to those aspects of Islamic life and law that offend and impinge upon our values. Like, for example, the authorized murder of gays and lesbians.
If gays and lesbians and their allies listen to Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio et al and don’t hear the righteous and protective wrath, the energy there that is so dismally absent in the words of the president and Hillary, I don’t know what to say. (“Wake the [CoC] up,” maybe?)
David,
I agree that the major movement must come from inside Islam. However, we must understand how our behavior will affect this. As long as we manufacture excuses for this kind violence we encourage the radicals and discourage those who would fight them.
The first and foremost problem is Jihad. Preaching Jihad constitutes sedition, subversion, and incitement to violence. Anytime anywhere we find Jihad being taught we must shut it down immediately. We don’t need any new laws to do this. Once again, by definition, Jihad is sedition, subversion, and incitement to violence.
This particular incident shows how and where we must go beyond just demanding an end to Jihad. Sharia Law is much too broad a subject to be attacked directly. However, we must demand that any suggestion that the death penalty for homosexuality, honor killing of women, the death penalty for apostasy, or any other destruction of civil rights will not be tolerated in our country and will be considered on its face a criminal conspiracy to deny the civil rights of our citizens.
Only if we act as I have described above will we be sending the right message that we will have zero tolerance for these crimes or their instigators in our society. Once it becomes clear that this is our policy in the West, the forces of Islamic reform have solid ground on which to start work on their own societies.
Regards,
Jim