Apologist- I don't think so

Submitted by K.H. Ahmed (United States), May 23, 2008 at 10:37

Krista,

I'm not sure as to what I said that is wash and spin. I have mostly commented on the article stating that the name Hussein is Muslim - it's not and that is fact - it's arabic and there is a difference, anyone can have that name. The same is true about the name Barak. They both evolve from the aramaic from which both arab and hebrew find their roots.

Barak is a variation of the Hebrew Baruk and at the moment Hussein escapes but there are 4 or 5 spellings of it but I believe,(don't guarantee) that Husyn is the root. I don't apologize for Islam or any other religion, while all religions have great purpose in the world as far as I am concerned they are all so badly misused by their proponents I prefer not to debate their merits.

I have stated many times on this site that the use of Sura or Biblical quotes is intellectually dishonest - these writings were made during historical times and relate to a historical perspective - it is disingenious to define a religion a people or a religion in modern times by its historical writings. I do not define the Jewish community by Old Testament verses, nor do I define Christians by the same. I can define the Wahabbi sect of Islam by its actions and its interpretation of Islamic text as a dangerous and unacceptable form of Islam.

However, I don't and wish that others would not generalize this over into the general population or other sects of Islam such as Sufi or alawite. I try to point out that Islam is no more monolithic in its beliefs than any other religion. If one wishes to question a "muslims" background then the first question I would ask is what sect of Islam do you belong too.

I merely find it disturbing that the word "muslim" has taken on such a broad perspective in the west that it now connotates a perjurative anytime someone wants it too. And I know all about 9/11 and the whole terroist thing - but that has nothing to do with truly understanding the people we are dealing with - the writer of the original article developed a thesis based on innuendo and false premises that led to a false conclusion regarding someones honesty. I wouldn't care who it was you just can't make it up as you go along so it fits the arguement.

Don't you think we've seen enough of this over the last few years, arguments for war, arguments for various restrictions and all based in premises that were never true to begin with, okay sort of true and that's the problem if sort of true is okay, does that mean sort of false is okay too.

Krista, to defend a group from the generalization of another group is not to be an apologist - it is merely to seek the truth. If this discussion was about a person being a closet Jew, Christian, Hindu, Bhuddist I would defend them too - it is not about what they are it is about how the arguement is made.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".