In Reply to Abdul Rahman Reijerink

Submitted by Hannibal (Australia), Jun 3, 2006 at 03:27

ARR,

I read your level-headedness about most things, but am disturbed by your treatment of Islamic mores as somehow fundamental. That is, they are something that must be reconciled with the contemporary environment in which they are immersed:

"I refute your assertion that if Islam is practised devoutly that it is totalitarian, except that it does touch on every part of our lives, but should not faith inform everything we do".

Islam is for you an investment. Something into which you have placed your faith and something about which you work to measure and accommodate that about it:

"The Sharia is not some immutable law, sure God's law is unchanging but how we understand it does, the understandings of previous generations do not bind us. When you say that this is what the Sharia is, you merely strengthen the hands of those who claim it is immutable, and that we fallible human beings can know exactly and perfectly what God wants of us".

Any treatise written by human hand can be so ascribed such powerful interpretation. The Koran or the Bible have no monopoly on truth. In wartime Germany, people adopted Mein Kampf as such a guide. Weddings were witnessed over Mein Kampf. Hence, the culture in which you are immersed helps define for you truth.

In olden times - less than seventy years ago - the philosophy which you espouse in moderate cant was labelled fascism. Unfortunately, Islam with its tenets is fascism. Those who in their own mind do not recognise that their God has no part in the affairs of man, but rationalise their beliefs with reference to some book that has no value outside of its cultural context is just as much a fascist sympathiser as those who are hardline in their practice, the so-called fundamentalists:

"I did not embrace Islam because some evil men followed the whispers of Satan, it was because the devout muslims are an excellent example to all mankind and have excellent manners, piety and respect for others. The terrorists have sympathy among a large number of Muslims becasue they are seen to stand up against authority that is mis-used, this will not translate into new followers of their evil in large numbers (and has not). It is an immature position and I condemn it, but we need to understand why they feel this way, and argue against it. Some of it has justification, no one is ever all right or all wrong".

The best solution for the modern world is for Islam to be banned, or those who practice it to be educated about their wrong-doing. Thus, the world and they will be released from their false beliefs.

I take it that you take the Koran as the word of Allah, or God. It is something immutable in itself. I am sorry to disappoint you, but the majority of humanity does not see it that way. The Koran is a book, and nothing more. Your heartfelt enunciation falls on deaf ears because it assumes we all have a similar layer of transcendental belief :

"We need to unite against the sick at heart who listen to Satan and think it is God will they follow".

We do not.

Islam with its set of tenets as recorded in the Koran contravenes modern thinking. It has failed the test of modern times. What is that? Credibility.

The religious hangups Muslims have about their beliefs and their clothing have no place in a liberated West.

Despite your even-handedness, ARR, you are still the lackey of a false god.

Hannibal

---

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".