'Radical Islam'

Submitted by donvan (United States), Aug 24, 2012 at 08:39

This misnomer, like 'Islamophobia' is a political construct. I'slam is radical by it's nature. Muhammedism can only survive if it is radical. What 'New thing did Muhammed bring..." only the radical notion that violence, and only violence, can effectively advance the I'slamic cause. In the blending of religious, political, and social imperatives can and could Muhammedism have expanded as it did. The paradox of Muhammedism, in all its iterations, requires the elimination of the 'other'. If all the Jews, Christians, et al were eliminated, the Sunnis and Shiites would still seek each others destruction. Eventually, even if one or the other sect were eliminated, the remaining sect would be further subdivided and conflict would continue. Muhammedism and thus Muslams are incapable of self governance. Only by a controlling authority amounting to dictatorship can Muhammedism survive. Liberalism's embrace of Muhammedism as a "Change agent" is immoral and destructive to itself.

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".