Thanks J.S. But the "Islam and radical Islam" distinction makes by head hurt.

Submitted by MelM (United States), Nov 14, 2006 at 00:47

Ok, thanks for the update on Dr. Pipe's view. But, if Islam is equated with pluralistic Islam, then I have a problem with that.

It seems to me that the qualifier "radical" should only be used for emphasis because radical Islam is true Islam. Then the Islam that throws out the oppressive stuff can, perhaps, be qualified as pluralistic Islam. Talking about Islam and radical Islam makes it sound like true Islam is pluralistic, peaceful, and supports the Bill of Rights etc and radical Islam is not true Islam (which I think it is.)

While I'm on the subject, any ideology that defines blasphemy and coercively punishes it is not peaceful. Harming those who "insult the prophet" or who want to change to another cult (or to a secular philosophy) is not peaceful. Any such ideology is, in fact, brutal. Christianity, over the centuries, has had its fangs pulled and it claws cut. Thus it can now get away with calling itself peaceful--although evangelicals are showing signs of wanting to go back to a "meaty" religion. Islam still has its full set of fangs and claws. From CAIR to OBL, as I see more of what Islam says and does, I find the idea that "Islam is a peaceful religion" to be completely absurd.

I will not violate the rights of American Muslims and have no sympathy for anyone who does. This is because I agree with the Bill of Rights and not because I've been brainwashed into believeing Islam is a peaceful religion. I don't need spin.

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".