| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Moderate Muslim: Islam is in Danger |
| 2006-09-21 |
| The recent brouhaha surrounding Pope Benedict XVI comments on Islam delivered in Germany should give Muslims a pause. Not one that would conjure the recalcitrant attacks that we have seen recently but rather one that would question why such a prominent religious leader would utter these words. What the Pope said allows me, as a Muslim, to ponder self-examination and not rush into a reaction of condemnation. Islam of today differs from the Islam of yesterday. Instead of a thriving era of the Abbasids, we are experiencing a terrorist era of Wahhabism. Wahabbism is an obscure strand of Islam with fanatical followers who remained "out of sight and out of mind" until Saudi Arabia struck it rich with oil. Hungry economies saw it fit to submit to the Wahabbis and their protectors, the al-Saud clan, rather than confront their danger. But this came with a price. It was oil that financed 15 Saudis to attack the United States on September 11 and it is Wahhabism today that is militarizing Islam. Unlike the prosperous Abbasid era, the Wahhabi era is confrontational, fanatic, and universal because of undue influence by Saudi Arabia. That influence is justified, in the eyes of Muslims, because Saudi Arabia is the Guardian of the Two Holy Cities of Makkah and Medina. The radicalism of Wahhabi Islam demands a concerted effort by moderate Muslims and Muslim nations alike if ever Islam is to survive to usher another era of peace and prosperity. To succeed, we must chart a strategy to wrestle control of Makkah and Medina from the hands of the 5 million extremist Najd-bred Wahhabis and trust these two Holy Cities to an International Council of Muslim Nations with the country of Jordan as the host. In other words, we need to vaticanize Islam. As a moderate Muslim living amongst Muslims, Christians, and Jews, I am asking myself what have we, Muslims, brought forth to today's civilizations that would appeal to other religions and prompt them to imitate us or praise us? We have but TV beheadings and barbaric killings of innocent people in the name of our great religion. Are we then surprised to hear other religious people with followers all around the world ask us, through factual history, why we are so violent? The words of Pope Benedict should not be examined with scorn but with scrutiny. The respect that our Islam commands in the world today is diminishing because we have come to accept Wahhabi Jihad as normal behavior; this explains President Bush's message that abandoning us to ruthless dictatorships is breeding the divide all of us should fear. If Pope Benedict infringed upon us with his words, it is because Wahhabism has infringed and continues to infringe upon his world with brutality. Unless moderate Muslims control their destiny, Islam is in danger and its lifespan in the Arab world mirrors the lifespan of oil in Saudi Arabia. Farid N. Ghadry is the President of the Reform Party of Syria. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #38 cingold, I refer you to post # 27 in this thread. We'll have to resume this dialogue at another time as I have to walk my wolf-hybrid with a friend. Did you not notice where I recently vowed to support Bush should he be subjected to impeachment procedings arising from any bombing of Iran? From the rate of your participation and posting, I find it hard to believe that you have been paying much attention to mine or any other posts around here. I'll suggest that you refrain from dredging up FOUR YEAR OLD POSTS when you want to criticize me. Other than that, this will have to wait. I'd like to bear you no ill will, but you keep slinging inappropriate accusations at me and I will get up on my hind legs when that happens. Finally, if you were so offended about my posts in the thread where that woman was murdered, did you even bother to read the Mark Twain quote I posted? Have you ever written any original humor in your entire life? If not, thank you for playing, please try again. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 23:20 |
| #37 I just can't wrap my mind around the solution being the extermination of 1 ½ BILLION Muslims to deal with the problems of islamofascism. Apparently, it helps if you don't believe moderate Muslims exist, and thus, I guess, they are all out to get you (or would get you if they could, or, they won't throw themselves on the jihadi grenade to save you, or, they simply don't care). |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-09-21 23:17 |
| #36 Zenster, let's parse this just a bit, shall we? NOTE: I said "'kill them all, let God sort them out' rhetoric." Rhetoric being defined as, for example, "A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric." See this link. So, at least in my mind, when you want to exterminate 1 ½ BILLION Muslims to deal with the problems of islamofascism it is a "kill them all, let God sort them out" rhetoric. Anyway, thanks for confirming to me that (at least prior to 2004) you thought of Bush as a crook, and that you still might have some pretty big reservations about him. Now, does your extermination rhetoric square with your personal dislike of Bush? I certainly don't know, but I have asked you to help me with that issue. I'm certainly not trying to flame you, because if I wanted to do that I'd just post some of the many links to things as old as the Beslan thread or as recent as the thread yesterday about finding humor in the muderous death of a woman who was dragged to her death by a tow strap. But, I’m not trying to flame you, even if you think I am. I really would like to understand where you're coming from a bit better. I mean, from my perspective, diversity is a good thing -- and our nation’s diversity is one of the things that makes our country great. That we can all come together and agree on anything is amazing. I figure that if people with greatly divergent points of view can agree on something (like, yes, let's vigorously fight and eliminate islamofascism) that's what's in everybody's best interest and is a really good and important thing to do. Of course, it would be nice to go a step further and be able to agree on how to eliminate islamofascism. That’s where dialogue comes in, and I am trying to dialogue with you. I just can't wrap my mind around the solution being the extermination of 1 ½ BILLION Muslims to deal with the problems of islamofascism. But, sadly, that question is dodged by you and I really wanted to hear if that is what you were proposing and if you had thought of any other solution short of the extermination of 1 ½ BILLION Muslims. Now, regarding (as you put it) my beloved Indonesia, I am tremendously saddened by the execution of these three Christian men. Of course, I am much more so saddened than I was when Sydney Jones was expelled from Indonesia, because these lives are never coming back. Indonesia and its government does make some really bad mistakes. However, I continue to believe that there are positive forces for good within Indonesia, and that some of these issues will be self-correcting. Truly, I believe some of what is going on with the executions is appeasement of sorts. I think I've mentioned that kind of stuff going on in Indonesia before. (See, for example, this link at Rantburg.) And that is disgusting. However, some of it too is just that Indonesia really does execute people -- and because of that I really do think that some 2 - 4 of the Bali Bombers will be executed within the next year. Whether the trial of the Bali Bombers was fair and that of the Christians unfair is something I haven't looked at very closely -- but I believe the trial of the Bali Bombers was fair, and they will rightly die. Today, though, I mourn for three Christian souls . . . |
| Posted by: cingold 2006-09-21 22:49 |
| #35 "I certainly do not "happily anticipate" one quarter of this world's population dying." Yeah, me neither. Although if one quarter of that certain population of the world that keeps pulling this same shit over and over was suddenly "dealt with" then you'll get the rest to knock it off most rik-tik methinks. Or, statistically speaking it only takes about 7 to 11% of a population to get clipped before that particular civilization surrenders. Though in this case, that's still a lot of people. I don't advocate a mass genocide of muslims as I don't think it is needed. However, I'd greatly like to see the selective annihilation of certain gov't/religious leaders via wetworks style methods. I'd also like to see the incremental marginalizatin or death of their religion. Like I said in another post, until they really modernize their religion and go to a sort of "jeffersonian koran" *or* the wahabbis are some how kicked to the back room we will always be dealing w/these jokers. Until the oil dries up in the majick kingdom or we get smart and start producing our own fuel - I don't see the latter happening for quite a while. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-09-21 22:23 |
| #34 Jen, only when and if he is ever properly elected will I then be grudgingly obliged to address him as you wish I would. His intentional blurring of the separation between church and state while simultaneously attempting to constitutionalize discrimination gets nothing but scorn from me. I can only suppose that you abjectly refuse to notice how I said that "the best man won" the recent election. As to my personal reservation about potential electoal wrongdoing in the 2000 elections, I'll refer you to recent quotes by Katherine Harris, Secretary of State for Florida during the 2000 presidential campaign. Katherine Harris made remarks ... "Separation of church and state is a lie because "...God is the one who chooses our rulers," according to US State Representative Harris; furthermore, the founding fathers themselves did not intend to build a country based on non-religious laws." One look at the Jeffersonian Bible tells me that some of our founding fathers were looking far beyond religious laws when they penned this nation's constitution. Had they not, freedom of religion would not have featured so prominently in our Bill of Rights. Harris said "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin." Her publicity department sent out a press release explaining that she was 'addressing a Christian audience' and mentioned her pro-Israel voting record. If this isn't enough to cause strong concerns over the possibility of abusive partisan bias in her handling of Florida's 2000 elections results, then you must be brain dead. your “kill them all, let God sort them out” rhetoric Furthermore, you have yet to provide a link for where I have ever said "kill them all, let God sort them out". Until you drop such preposterous accusations, you are not worth responding to. Either you provide a link to where I make such assertions or you will no longer be given the courtesy of a reply. I've had enough of this slanderous bullshit from you. Why don't you post about your beloved Indonesia over in the "Indonesia Executes Christians" thread and see what sort of response you get there. cingold, you continue to make these false accusations without providing a shred of evidence. You are no longer worth the time of day to me. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 22:15 |
| #33 #16 I don't know if this guy is sincere but he has a huge problem: it is the wahabis NOT him who are right on what the Koran says and what Muhammad wanted. You are sadly right of course, but I think the solution is in textual criticism and hermeneutics. That's why I find some solace and comfort in that fact that groups do exist like the Liberal Islam Network (see discussion and links at this link at Rantburg). Although even the Liberal Islam Network is still plagued by a Pollyannaish and rose colored view of Palestine as the victim, and Israel as an aggressor, at least there is room in their thought processes for dialogue. And, an internal reformation in Islam can't be a bad thing, even if it isn't everything we would hope for. There have to be Muslim views more palatable than wahabism. |
| Posted by: cingold 2006-09-21 22:01 |
| #32 Zenster, you write: Maybe so, but I'll still make sure this is clear. I'm fed up with craptacular tripe volcanos like last night's pathetic little smear campaign. Hmmm, but I still don’t see you answering whether dealing with islamofascism will mean that the 1 ½ BILLION Muslims all need to die (be exterminated), in your opinion -- whether you say you’d be happy about killing all those people or not. And, do you think there is any solution to the problem of islamofascism short of exterminating 1 ½ BILLION Muslims? Because, if you do have some other solution short of exterminating 1 ½ BILLION Muslims to deal with islamofascism, I must have missed it. Now, and hopefully as a short aside, you also speak of “craptacular tripe volcanos” and a “smear campaign.” Is that "tripe" and "smear" verbiage in line with this link at Rantburg where a lot of effort went into dialogue with you about President Bush, but got nowhere? Or is your “smear campaign” comment more in line with this link at Rantburg where the conclusion was that your constant references to “President Bush as "shrub" demonstrates you are either schizophrenic or duplicitous”? Or do you simply object to people calling you on your statements like the following: Jen, only when and if he is ever properly elected will I then be grudgingly obliged to address him as you wish I would. His intentional blurring of the separation between church and state while simultaneously attempting to constitutionalize discrimination gets nothing but scorn from me.as in this link at Rantburg, with some emphasis added. My question last night was sincere, and still has not been answered, “How do you square your “kill them all, let God sort them out” rhetoric with your “Bush is a crook” rhetoric?” It's not that I'm opposed to you or everything you have to say. I just disagree with you sometimes. And I have that lingering curiosity about how do you square your “kill them all, let God sort them out” rhetoric with your “Bush is a crook” rhetoric? |
| Posted by: cingold 2006-09-21 21:43 |
| #31 , we didn't kill every Japanese or German. No, but we killed as many as we could until the rest surrenedered unconditionally and let us put their ideological leaders on trial and hang them. When we can do that with the Grand Poobah of Mecca, then we can say we've equalled what we did in WWII. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-09-21 20:37 |
| #30 You're preaching to the choir, Zen. Maybe so, but I'll still make sure this is clear. I'm fed up with craptacular tripe volcanos like last night's pathetic little smear campaign. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 19:43 |
| #29 Ideologies don't go away until they are crushed. Enough practitioners of the ideology must be killed to make the remaining few say "Maybe this wasn't a good idea after all. We quit." You could Google 'WWII Nazi Germany' for an example. Now, the question is: When do we start crushing this ideology? At the moment we're just picking at it. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2006-09-21 19:28 |
| #28 You're preaching to the choir, Zen. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-09-21 19:21 |
| #27 I certainly do not "happily anticipate" one quarter of this world's population dying. What I want is an immediate end to these Islamic atrocities. Even another single one of them is unacceptable. The distinct possibility of a terrorist nuclear atrocity is what makes me no longer care if the Muslim-majority countries are incinerated. I will not sit and watch America be thrown back some 10 - 20 YEARS by such an abomination. This is why we need to place the nuclear option on the table for all to see. I'd almost prefer a demonstration of force by detonating one in an uninhabited expanse of Middle East desert, just to get the message across crystal clear. Islam needs to be put on notice that unimaginable horrors await any further refusal to reform. Reverse the situation. If Islam had America's nuclear arsenal, do you honestly think we would even be having this debate? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 19:16 |
| #26 Ex-lib, I don't think the 'burg cares anymore. Officially and unofficially I'll let Fred answer that officially, if he choses. But I for one do care. IF it comes to the sort of all-out war that so many here seem to be panting for, the horror will be one our grandchildren and beyond will carry before them. It may come to that -- and if so, then so. But count me among those who are NOT popping the popcorn or pouring beer in happy anticipation of such an event. I'll defend myself and mine if need be, but dead is dead and 1,500,000,000 dead is not a prospect anyone should happily anticipate. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-09-21 19:03 |
| #25 I don't think it is necessary to be antagonistic about the issue of Moderate Muslims™. What I think has begun to become clear is that these so-called moderates had better get off of the dime and begin taking substantive measures to distinguish themselves. What's more is that they must additionally initiate their own campaign of outing any of the jihadist imams and radicals within their religious circles. Extremely little of this has been happening to date. So little, in fact, that many outsiders have rightly abandoned all hope that there will be any real action of worth to be seen from this. The West is obliged to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to survive. After five long years of waiting for Moderate Islam™ to make inroads on the fanatics within their midst they no longer have much right to demand any assistance from us. We must go about taking the measures that ensure our safety. If Moderate Muslims™ don't want to be thrown out with the bathwater, they can clean up their own act. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 18:31 |
| #24 Run for cover Sgt. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-09-21 17:50 |
| #23 We need to be optimistic about Moslems like the writer in the article. It is foolish to think the West must kill every Moslem. It is also wrong. What B-16 did was to start opening dialogues and minds. This guy is an example. We fight those who fight us and fight them ruthlessly, but we welcome those who ask themselves such questions. They are not mutually exclusive. The real answer to this jihad problem will lie not just on the battlefield, but in the minds and hearts of those who will be discouraged by the battle. Sherman didn't have to kill every rebel, we didn't kill every Japanese or German. To simply propose this as a "Final Solution" is wrong and foolish. |
| Posted by: Sgt. D.T. 2006-09-21 17:48 |
| #22 BTW, some people on the Burg are beginning to sound like "the only good nigger is a dead nigger" crowd, when it comes to Moslems. Ex-lib, I don't think the 'burg cares anymore. Officially and unofficially. After November it might get even worse. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-09-21 17:39 |
| #21 I doubt we have 400 years left in the west to deal with Islam. We don't even have 40 years. I peg it at less than four years. That's a reduction by two orders of magnitude. It shows just how complacent Islamic governments are about the jihadist threat to them. Think of how much longer it is until Iran has nuclear weapons and then subtract a year. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 17:10 |
| #20 "Unless moderate Muslims control their destiny, Islam is in danger and its lifespan in the Arab world mirrors the lifespan of oil in Saudi Arabia." The Kuwaits fiture they've got enough of that old black crude to last em another 400 years. Don't know about the Soodies. I doubt we have 400 years left in the west to deal with Islam. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-09-21 16:34 |
| #19 BTW, some people on the Burg are beginning to sound like "the only good nigger is a dead nigger" crowd, when it comes to Moslems. Oooooh, the race card. Paging Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton to the lobby. Too bad race has exactly zero to do with the issue. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 16:29 |
| #18 King Kong = Zenster, that says a lot. :-) |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-21 13:38 |
| #17 Personally I think Bush and company should have dumped a ton of money into whatever sect of Islam that was best prepared to counter the jihadists. I'm assuming the Sufi in Turkey. Then got them to use the money to do the exact same thing the Saudis do except in reverse, take over Mosques, print Korans, preech actual peace. Prop up a single Mullah (or council or school) as the leader of Islam. Pick one we can deal with, and meet with them, and show respect to them, maybe even change a policy or two at their demands to give them face before the Islamic world, while letting the rest of the Islamic world kiss our red white and blue ass. Then again perhaps they can't provide one we can deal with in which case I would have started operation Carthaginian Peace a few years ago. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-09-21 12:25 |
| #16 I don't know if this guy is sincere but he has a huge problem: it is the wahabis NOT him who are right on what the Koran says and what Muhammad wanted. Menaing that he is for an upstream battle. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-09-21 12:07 |
| #15 The only real value to us, is that he again points out that Sauds are the central problem. We should have cut the head off this snake long ago. I think different leadership at the top would have done so. Folks, we can all plainly see how to abate this problem . Take direct action on Saudi, Paki, and Iranian governments/lands. The others, less wealthy, or willing to be violently aggressive like Egypt, Syria, Indonesia will hunker down and be quiet for another 50 years, shocked at the extreme retribution paid out to their aggressive, fanatical buddies. |
| Posted by: SOP35/Rat 2006-09-21 12:05 |
| #14 As I've said before, (about such as child molestors and jihadiis) --blow them all to Hell. But for cryin' out loud, don't become dupes and pawns of the leftist media. News, as a business enterprise, doesn't thrive on stories like, "And in Damascus, 300,000 (Moslem) people went to work in the morning between 7 and 10 am, and about 6 or 7 gathered in a nearby coffeehouse to bitch about Assad. There are other Moslems than these terrorist kooks with guns and agendas (whether we're talking about the little guys, or the little guys running places like Iran). Better to build the bridges where we can. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-09-21 11:52 |
| #13 No, it's more like the only good child molester is a dead child molester. There is a huge difference. |
| Posted by: kelly 2006-09-21 11:44 |
| #12 Hey, we WANT the Moslems to begin the journey of self-definition that allows them to also redefine their religion AWAY FROM the direction Wahhabi Islam has taken them of late, right? Or not right? This guy is trying to be an example: "What the Pope said allows me, as a Muslim, to ponder self-examination and not rush into a reaction of condemnation." Well, good for him: "Think--don't just act/react." His conclusion? "Unless moderate Muslims control their destiny, Islam is in danger and its lifespan in the Arab world mirrors the lifespan of oil in Saudi Arabia." When Moslems claim moderation as legitimate and advocate for a self-controlled destiny, they distance themselves from our enemies and join us in condemning Islamic violence and fanaticism. They deserve our support and friendship. New Islamic leadership is needed and should be promoted through educated people like this man. BTW, some people on the Burg are beginning to sound like "the only good nigger is a dead nigger" crowd, when it comes to Moslems. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2006-09-21 11:41 |
| #11 Forgot to recookie. King Kong = me. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 11:29 |
| #10 I just want them for museum specimens. |
| Posted by: King Kong 2006-09-21 11:28 |
| #9 The words of Pope Benedict should not be examined with scorn but with scrutiny. I'm not a monotheist but I agree very much with what he said after scrutiny and I'm not ignorant or a LLL atheist either. How does a muslim know how to scrutinize such matters when the only world that's known, regarded real and valid to himself is i-slam? BS ever rehashed. |
| Posted by: Duh! 2006-09-21 11:19 |
| #8 Zen, I'm afraid that the place you speak of would amount to 6 phone booths and a Volkswagen Beetle. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-09-21 11:12 |
| #7 I wish Ghadry rots of ruck, he'll need it to make any sort of significant dent in fascist Islam. I'd advise him to begin assembling all of the Moderate Muslims™ in one place so they don't get swept away in the backwash. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 10:17 |
| #6 Farid N. Ghadry is the President of the Reform Party of Syria. And a dead man walking. (I never saw the movie, but I assume it means "He's as good as dead." Well, that's what I meant.) |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-09-21 10:05 |
| #5 I've met this fellow. He and Natan Sharansky were visiting my synagogue. They had a love-in where they finished each other's sentences. F.N. Gadry has a lot on the ball. He is smart. He has courage (he has been in detention many times in Syria and he keeps going back). His brand of moderate islam might even work in Syria because of Syria's history of relative religious tolerance (if you grade the muslim world on a curve, Syria would get at least a B+). However, I think he has a mental block that prevents him from seeing the overall problem. |
| Posted by: mhw 2006-09-21 09:30 |
| #4 See him next on O'Reilly or Hannity and Coombs....gettin' his 15 min of fame. |
| Posted by: Shomoth Crons6073 2006-09-21 09:15 |
| #3 Translation: I want western funding. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-09-21 08:46 |
| #2 we must chart a strategy to wrestle control of Makkah and Medina from the hands of the 5 million extremist Najd-bred Wahhabis You'd better start real fast, they may not be around for very long. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-21 08:36 |
| #1 *yawn* More taqqiya. No school of Muslim law rejects violence. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-09-21 08:26 |