Islamophobia: a natural reaction to the nature of the religion

Submitted by martin kessler (United States), Oct 25, 2005 at 21:31

But, Sir, making a distinction [ See Note ] where none exists explains the apparent quandary and self-confoundment. The point is radical Islam the ideology is Islam the religion. Until this is understood, Islam will never be understood and the problem it poses to non-Muslims. What lies behind calling a body of thought "a religion" that then permits a presumption of a pacifical entity.

On what basis can a rational distinction be made by layman or students of theology? Anecdotes? Conversations with Muslims? Protestations of Muslim Leadership? What objective evidence is available to show the distinction is valid in reality and not but a fanciful distinction and to what end? Moreover, the distinction does little and obviously is doing little and has done little to solve the current problem of Islam in world affairs. Where can it be shown by any logical and rigorous argument that the distinction has merit? It is a false and contrived distinction preventing the effective resolution of Islam in practice and it's reformulation into a non-radical thelogy. One making such a distinction only delays resolution with costs to life and property that could have been avoided. The distinction only serves to contribute and perpetuate the problem with Islam.

Respectfully,

Martin Kessler
mdk4130@aol.com

Note: I understood the distinction being made was between "moderate" Muslims who are said to practice a "religion" and "radical" Islamists Muslims.

---

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".