Why IslamIST? Why not IslamIC?

Submitted by Peter Ronai (United States), Aug 3, 2004 at 23:25

The "terrorism," that is, violence, is driven by what is contained in IslamIC teachings, not something that has been added to these by the IslamISTS. You, Dr. Pipes, have tried to save the "moderate" Moslems from being besmirched by the acts of those that actively commit acts of violence.

Just bcause the "moderate" Moslems do not actively participate in the jihad, does that make this endeavor something foreign to Islam, something that dare not be called IslamIC? Do the IslamIC Moslems--the "moderates"--not speak up against the acts of the violent ones, the IslamISTS, because they are afraid of specifically pointing out that the acts of violence aganst the "unbelievers" are not true to the basic teachings of Islam? Or do they know better and only make general references about such acts not being permitted by the Koran--with the exception of the defense of IslamIC lands? (Of course any act of IslamIC violence can be shown to be defensive.)

Okay, we have taken a baby step, we have called this a "war" against "IslamIST terrorism" instead of a "war" against generic "terrorism." What is IslamIST terrorism, however? Is it the terrorism of those that "have hijacked a great religion?" Do we mean that the "true" Islam, the IslamIC Islam does not countenance violence against the "unbelievers?"

Some koranic verses do, other verses do not; the later verses take precedence over the earlier, the Koran MUST be read in the original Arabic, othewise it cannot be fully understood, all verses must be read together or the ones promoting violence are taken out of context--in such a cohesive whole--we have heard all these arguments.

The history of Islam is one of conquest and conversion through violence. It is not a history of peaceful teachings of brotherhood and love being spread by unarmed preachers. The violence, the terror, that has been propagated since the 7th century A.D., by Moslems, that is still being carried out today, is based on the teachings of Mohammed, on Islam. Therefore, is this violence, this terror, not IslamIC in its origin? Has it ben refuted by the "moderate" Moslems, the IslamIC Moslems? Is the terror being carried out contra the teachings of Islam and therefore cannot be called IslamIC?

---

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".