What and whose bias please?

Submitted by Abu Fitnah (United Kingdom), Jun 14, 2002 at 14:23

"The problem at hand is not the religion of Islam but the totalitarian ideology of Islamism."

We'll see.

"As a faith, Islam has meant very different things over 14 centuries and several continents. What we can call "traditional Islam," forged in the medieval period, has inspired Muslims to be bellicose and quiescent, noble and not: one can't generalize over such a large canvas."

As a militant faith from its very beginning Islamic expansion over centuries and continents was not achieved by quiescent faithful but by their traditional bellicosity, fuelled by their creed, long before Islamism appeared on the historic stage. One can't fade out this momentum of Islamic invasions over such a large canvas.

"But one can note two common points: Islam is, more than any other major religion, deeply political, in the sense that it pushes its adherents to hold power; and once Muslims do gain power, they feel a strong impetus to apply the laws of Islam, the shari`a. So Islam does, in fact, contain elements that can justify conquest, theocracy, and intolerance."

Why that egg-dance around Islam? On the one hand it is treated as something quite different from Islamism, on the other hand the avowal that Islam "contains elements" that "can justify" conquest, theocracy and intoolerance. Elements? The author must know very well that the Sharia is not any given element of Islam but is part of its core. Islamic theocracies existed long before the appearing of the muslim brothers, long before of the colonial rule of the West.

"Islamism differs in many ways from traditional Islam. It is faith turned into ideology, and radical ideology at that... Whereas traditional Islam places the responsibility on each believer to live according to God's will, Islamism makes this duty something for which the state is responsible. Islam is a personal belief system that focuses on the individual; "

It differs not so much. Was Europe besieged by "traditional" or non-traditional Islam? Besides - traditional Islam does not place the responsibility on each believer but the DUTY to live according to "God's will. It does in no way respect the personal conscience as protestantism does but threatens the disbelievers. It is NOT A PERSONAL BELIEF SYSTEM that forcuses on the individual, on the contrary, it is based on the power of the collective to whom the individual is sacrificed, for example an individual willing to leave the collective system.

"Islamism is a state ideology that looks to the society. Islamists constitute a small but significant minority of Muslims in the U.S. and worldwide, perhaps 10 to 15 percent."

The Quran and Sharia look to the society! Was it only 10 - 15 percent who approved of the fatwa against Rushdie??

"Apologists would tell us that Islamism is a distortion of Islam, or even that it has nothing to do with Islam,"

That's just what this article does.

"but that is not true;"

Double speak? Or insight?

"it emerges out of the religion, while taking features of it to a conclusion so extreme, so radical, and so megalomaniacal as to constitute something new."

It's something very old. Let's say as old as the Quran. Imagine an islam deprived of its essential "features" ...

"It adapts an age-old faith to the political requirements of our day, sharing some key premises of the earlier totalitarianisms, fascism and Marxism-Leninism. It is an Islamic-flavored version of radical utopianism."

O these low low bows to the "age-old faith". To whom is this subliminal invention to chime in the chorus of reverence adressed? Moreover - Islamism did not emerge from the totalitarianisms of the 20. century though there are similarities, - it was explicitly opposed to Marxism. Islamists where sympathizing with the Nazis on grounds of their centuries-old anti-Judaism rooted in the Quran and the words and deeds of the prophet.

"Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers. "

Who must be considered sympathizers of killers - only Islamists? Where are the alleged 90% of "traditional" Muslims when dissidents are murdered?

"Traditional Muslims, generally the first victims of Islamism, understand this ideology for what it is and respond with fear and loathing, as some examples from northern Africa suggest. Naguib Mahfouz, Egypt's Nobel Prize–winning novelist, said to his country's prime minister and interior minister as they were suppressing Islamism: "You are fighting a battle for the sake of Islam."

That may be courageous in Egypt. But no Nobel-prize can put me up to the idea of fighting a battle for the sake of islam. Westerners have to fight another battle.

"Integrationist Muslims—some pious, others not—can live simultaneously as patriotic Americans and as committed Muslims. Such Muslims have no problem giving their allegiance to a non-Muslim government. Integrationists believe that what American culture calls for—hard work, honesty, tolerance—is compatible with Islamic beliefs, and they even see Islam as reaffirming such classic American values. They accept that the United States is not a Muslim country,"

Really? How long do they accept this fact? As long as they are forced to accept it? What comes next? Let me repeat:

"Islam is, more than any other major religion, deeply political, in the sense that it pushes its adherents to hold power; and once Muslims do gain power, they feel a strong impetus to apply the laws of Islam, the shari`a. So Islam does, in fact, contain elements that can justify conquest, theocracy, and intolerance."

In fact.

"Taking these three steps—keeping Islamists out, watching them within the nation's borders without violating the civil liberties of American Muslims, and delegitimating extremists—permits Americans to be fair toward the moderate majority of Muslims while fighting militant Islam. It will be a difficult balancing act, demanding sensitivity without succumbing to political correctness. But it is both essential and achievable."

The balancing act will depend on the "moderate Muslims", i.e on how they will be capable of balancing between the constitution and their 'strong impetus to apply the laws of Sharia.' As long as we can easily differentiate between the former and the latter we have not to perform balancing acts but to unmistakebly defend our laws.

---

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".