A slight inconsistency?

Submitted by Ron Thompson (United States), Oct 16, 2014 at 23:27

Dr Pipes' article provides an important description of the self-serving 'theological' rationalizations that justify the sexual predation of ISIS fighters in enslaving Yazidi women. The more comprehensively we understand the rationalizations and justifications of Islamic predation in its many forms, the deeper the indictment of the religion as a whole.

But if this particular action really is the impulse of a "miniscule" minority (which i very much doubt, given the absence of a single mass demonstration anywhere against them), and if these actions are headed to an "inevitable collapse", then how could they do "irreparable damage" to Islam (again, given the absence of any noticeable public reaction against them anywhere in the Islamic world?)

It therefore seems they may be either the actions of a tiny reactionary minority which will have no noticeable impact on Islam over time, or they are the actions of a sizeable and growing minority, secretly admired and envied by a far larger number of Muslim men, and therefore apt to eventually do irreparable harm to the religion in the eyes of the World's non-Muslims. But they can't be both the actions of a miniscule minority and apt to do irreparable harm to the religion. One or the other element of this equation must be wrong?

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".