Our dear Shills and the proof and the pudding!

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 7, 2012 at 07:47

And the twists and turns never end

DNM,

Yes our dear Shills

While your paraphrase suits your interests of "trolling,"

Oh is "trolling" the flavor of the week? and is it halal and can I have it with lots of bacon? And what happened to "canned"?

You are not even original

it is not what I wrote.

This is what you wrote

Mr. Pipes has observed Islamists are generally made up of individuals who are not schooled in the tradition of Islam. They know enough to clothe themselves in that tradition and are able to tap into the general discontent in the Muslim world. As long as they are allowed to retain an air of Islamic legitimacy, violent Islamists will continue to draw support from the masses of Muslims. Knowledge of what Muhammad forbade in the conduct of warfare allows the educated individual to strip violent Islamists of their legitimacy and expose them as frauds.

Now this is what you wrote this time

I wrote that Dr. Pipes had written Islamist leaders are generally not educated in the traditions of Islam.I provided you with the link. Here is the exact quote for your benefit and anyone else reading,

Well let us see what Dr. Pipes is saying

The distinction becomes sharpest when one compares the two sets of leaders. Traditionalists go through a static and lengthy course of learning in which they study a huge corpus of information and imbibe the Islamic verities much as their ancestors did centuries earlier.

And he is very correct that abwab al-ijtihad were closed in the 11th century CE but notice that Dr. Pipes is not saying that islam is not a violent tradition or that islam in the past was warm and fuzzy and he just wrote an article about islam and the horrible and criminal destruction of other cultures by Muslims as in the case of India where you come from where the temples of your Hindu ancestors were destroyed or converted to mosques by those barbarians that invaded India but why should you care and you tell us about "South Asian" (read this as a way to cover the identity of criminal Muslims in England that come from India or pakistan) a term that we do not even use here in the US

Their faith reflects more than a millennium of debate among scholars, jurists and theologians.

He is also correct here too

Islamist leaders, by contrast, tend to be well educated in the sciences but not in Islam; in their early adulthood, they confront problems for which their modern learning has failed to prepare them, so they turn to Islam. In doing so they ignore nearly the entire corpus of Islamic learning and interpret the Koran as they see fit.

He is also very correct here and we all know that Ibn Taymiyya told Muslims long time ago that abwab al-ijtihad can re-open again and this is indeed based on a very celebrated saying and it is التفسير للصحابة والتءويل للعلمة where anyone can re-interpret what the Qur'an really says his own way and this is indeed the message in Sayyid Qutb's book معالم في الطريق so they are more Muslims that you are

As autodidacts, they dismiss the traditions and apply their own (modern) sensibilities to the ancient texts, leading to an oddly Protestant version of Islam

And he is also correct because they are interpreting the Qur'an in a different way but it is not a wrong way

Now let us revisit what you wrote

Mr. Pipes has observed Islamists are generally made up of individuals who are not schooled in the tradition of Islam.

Where does he say that in the above? he does not say that as a matter of fact he indicates that they know what they are reading in the Islamic sources

They know enough to clothe themselves in that tradition and are able to tap into the general discontent in the Muslim world.

Not really they are following traditional islam but re-interpreting the sources which is very Islamic as per the above saying

Oh the Arabic! Learn some Arabic! You cannot not come here and defend islam without being able to read the sources in Arabic

As long as they are allowed to retain an air of Islamic legitimacy,

But they are speakers for Islam like it or not

violent Islamists will continue to draw support from the masses of Muslims.

And?

Knowledge of what Muhammad forbade in the conduct of warfare allows the educated individual to strip violent Islamists of their legitimacy and expose them as frauds

Where does Dr. Pipes say that?

Muhammad's biography by al-Waqidi is called المغازي or the invasions! You so called prophet was an Arabian warlord and caravan raider and to add insult to injury and to quote Patricia Crone: "Muhammad had to conquer his followers liked to conquer and his deity told him to conquer do we need any more?"-

and on top of this we have all these nasty verses to fight and kill as in ayat al-sayf and ayat al-jizya and the nasty 9:111 and ayat al-irhab and on top of this your Allah wants his share of the loot and you know what? If the Arabian empire did not decline the world would have been facing jihad following anothe jihad and more wars and more destructions but you know what "what goes up must come down" and I hope that islam declines even more

But you know what? The old saying: the truth is in the pudding!

90M of your Hindu ancestors were killed enslaved and raped by the Muslim invaders of India and in the process Muslims destroyed Buddhism and its centers of learning as in the case of the Nalanda library and all done in the name of Allah and you come here and tell us that Oh no Islam was not violent and Abul Qasim was also warm and fuzzy? Islam was violent back then and it is still violent now

Your so called prophet was not the Buddha

http://www.danielpipes.org/366/islam-and-islamism-faith-and-ideology

When I wrote that the general opinion has been that Arabs are not fit to govern themselves it was in the context of discussing Arabs and democracy.

But i also told you and let me repeat: Democracy pre-supposes secularism, there is no secularism in Islam therefore there is no democracy and islam now do you get it?

I was just watching a video by a salafist in Egypt who was telling his followers that secularism and democracy would make them gay! So is that true our dear Shills?

The discussion has been and always was about democracy in the Middle East.

Now you know that there can be either islam or democracy in the Middle East so which one do you want you tell me?

I provide you with articles regarding the United States and United Kingdom's position that there was an "Arab exception" to democracy. The only twists and turns are the one's you are inventing.

It is either islam or democracy so which one do you want? Let me guess it ain't democracy right? and where does it say in your articles anything about the Arabs cannor rule themselves? why the lies?

I have been advocating for democracy and the democratic participation of all non-violent actors in the Middle East.

And who cares!

I hope you are able to find actual Islamists to attack in future instead of inventing them. Best of luck to you.

So what is an islamist our dear Shills you tell us!

---

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".