"Can an Ethiopian change his skin? or a leopard its spots? If they can, then you can do good, who are so accustomed to doing evil." Jeremiah 13:23
How many Muslims are radical and how many moderate. What do the terms mean?
Definition of moderate in English:
adjective - Average in amount, intensity, quality, or degree (Of a person, party, or policy) not radical or excessively right- or left-wing:
Origin - late Middle English (in the senses 'forming the root' and 'inherent'): from late Latin radicalis, from Latin radix, radic- 'root'.Thus a Radical Muslim is one who is going back to the Koranic root for guidance on behaviour and faith.
Noun - A person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform
If our leaders are concerned about Radical Islamic terrorism and the Muslims who kill unbelievers with cars, knives, guns and bombs because they have gone back to the root of Islam and found therein calls for violence, how can they say that radical Islam is not real Islam?
Muslim voices for reform
Channel 1 (Egypt) - December 28, 2014 - 02:47
Egypt's Muslim leader is concerned about Radical Islam and calls upon Islamic leaders to consider change.
The relevant excerpt from Sisi's speech follows (translation by Michele Antaki):
Note: It is unclear if in the last instance of umma Sisi is referring to Egypt ("the nation") or if he is using it in the pan-Islamic sense as he did initially to refer to the entire Islamic world.
I am referring here to the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing-and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It's inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!
That thinking-I am not saying "religion" but "thinking"-that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It's antagonizing the entire world!
Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world's inhabitants - that is 7 billion - so that they themselves may live? Impossible!
I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema-Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I'm talking about now.
All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.
I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move - because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost - and it is being lost by our own hands.
Is Sisi Islam's Long-Awaited Reformer? - by Daniel Pipes - January 19, 2015
Some comments extracted
To begin with, no matter how fine Sisi's ideas, no politician - and especially no strongman - has moved modern Islam. Ataturk's reforms in Turkey are systematically being reversed. A decade ago, King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan gave similarly fine speeches on "the true voice of Islam" and "enlightened moderation" that immediately disappeared from view. Yes, Sisi's comments are stronger, but he is not a religious authority and, in all likelihood, they too will disappear without a trace.
Kudos to Sisi for tough talk on this problem; his candor stands in sharp contrast to the mumbo-jumbo emanating from his Western counterparts who uphold the pretence that the current wave of violence has nothing to do with Islam.
But Sisi gave no specifics regarding the revolution he seeks; what might he have in mind? Contrary to what his admirers say, I believe he champions a subtle version of Islamism, defined the full application of Islamic law (Shari'a) in the public sphere.
It's certainly possible that Sisi's views of Islam, like many Egyptians', have evolved, especially since his break with Morsi two years ago. Indeed, rumors have him affiliated with the radically anti-Islamist Quranist movement, whose leader, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, he cited in his student paper. But Mansour suspects Sisi is "playing with words" and waits to see if Sisi is serious about reform.
Our community must not meet this challenge with deflection and denial. We need to own up to the problem of extremism.
Speaking to the first hearing of the US House of Representatives committee on homeland security on a critically important topic: "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community's Response." The issue of radicalization inside the Muslim community is an issue that his generation will inherit.
The hearings represent an important wake-up call that we, as Americans, are not going to continue to dance around the reality of an extremist ideology of Islam, which is wreaking havoc in the world. The British have had a similar debate, tackling tough topics, such as how far to go with multiculturalism and accepting the threat of "non-violent extremist" rhetoric in our Muslim communities.
Already, instead of dealing with the substance of the issue, Muslim organizations such as the Muslim Public Affairs Council has adopted a strategy of deflecting attention, by launching personal attacks against me and the other witnesses, Dr Zuhdi Jasser and Dr Qanta Ahmed, as illegitimate voices because we "are not representative of any mainstream sentiment in the American Muslim community".
A Muslim blogger called us "astroturf Muslims", engaging in the politics of "takfir", or Muslims declaring other Muslims "bad Muslims".
Inside much of our Muslim communities, we have departed from our very clear sense of holding ourselves accountable.
Many in our Muslim society have adopted a culture as "wound collectors", a term coined by former FBI agent Joe Navarro to describe terrorists of all identities, holding onto grievances and responding to scrutiny with a strategy characterized by four distinct elements: denial, deflection, demonization, and defensiveness.
The Muslim community's response to the hearings on radicalization within our community - much like the response of many communities to internal problems - hasn't been one of taking ownership of our problems, but rather engaging in a strategy of deflection. This strategy has expressed itself in our wider response to radicalization, terrorism, and the presence of an intolerant interpretation of Islam in our world today.
We are very much a culture of denial, fixated on our perceived wounds. Indeed, all of us carry wounds from generation to generation and throughout our personal lives. .... How we respond to wounds comes to define us, as individuals and communities. It very much guides the ways in which we respond to future challenges and conflicts in the world.
Last year, when my son was in second grade he came home with an assignment he had completed in school, titled "Rights and Responsibilities". Seeing the early lesson my son was receiving in "owning up", I realized that this was the simple mandate that we have to realize in our Muslim communities.
I believe we have the capacity to practice an Islam of grace that includes compassion, forgiveness, truth-telling, and owning up.
Asra Nomani, an American Muslim born in Bombay, India, is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and the author of Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam (2006).
Dr. Tawfik Hamid, is an Islamic thinker and reformer, and one time Islamic extremist from Egypt. He was a member of a terrorist Islamic organization JI with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawaherri who became later on the second in command of Al-Qaeda. Some twenty-five years ago, he recognized the threat of Radical Islam and the need for a reformation based upon modern peaceful interpretations of classical Islamic core texts.
Dr. Hamid provided a fresh and theologically valid interpretation for the Quran to counterbalance the radical teaching. As the Daily Express (UK) mentioned "Dr. Hamid has predicted the attacks on the twin towers, Madrid and London". After September 11, Dr. Hamid boldly decided to speak out through western broadcast and print media. He has appeared on shows spanning the spectrum from CNN to Fox News, and his articles and op-ed pieces have appeared in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Daily News, and the Jerusalem Post.
Some of Dr. Hamid's Op-Eds were also selected at Real Clear Politics. Dr. Hamid's exceptional knowledge of the jihadi mindset has led him to be a guest speaker at many reputable private and governmental fora - both within the US and internationally such as the US Congress, Director of National Intelligence DNI, the Pentagon, National Prayer breakfast, and the European Parliament. He also received Speaker of the Truth award of the Endowment of Middle East truth .
Currently Dr. Hamid is a Senior Fellow and Chair for the Study of Islamic Radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
Dr. Hamid is also the author of Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam-
From an article by by Tarek Fatah -
The Toronto Sun - February 3, 2015
Kenji Goto, a fellow journalist, died Saturday. Another innocent man beheaded by those among my co-religionists who wish to rule the world and to annihilate all non-Muslims. This in order to pave the way for an end-of-times apocalypse.
Many Muslim heads hung in shame as Goto's head rolled into a barren desert ditch, while western politicians and media refused to call the Islamic State jihad what it is - a jihad.
Similarly, the now-familiar masked man who kills for the camera and who beheaded Goto, was referred to by most media not as a "jihadi terrorist of the Islamic State" (which is who and what he is), but rather as "a militant with a British accent".
At the official level, the Obama White House announced it will host a Feb. 18 "summit" to counter what it referred to as "violent extremism." Note the choice of words again. Not "jihadi terrorism," but the much more vague "violent extremism."
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, head of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a former U.S. Navy Lt. Commander, told me by not naming "jihadi terrorism" and "Islamism" for what they are, the White House has paid heed to Islamists within the administration who still exert influence over it.
In a January 11 New York Times ad, several prominent moderate Muslim leaders denounced Islamism. In contrast to those who refuse to call jihadi terrorism what it is, over 20 Muslim leaders recently took out a remarkable full-page advertisement in the New York Times to denounce ISIS and Islamism.
In the ad, headlined: What Can Muslims Do To Reclaim Their 'Beautiful Religion'? they wrote:
"Neither jihadism nor Islamism permit the equality of all humans irrespective of their race or religion and should therefore be rejected. Our denial and our relative silence must stop."
They declared, "It is the duty of ... Muslims to actively and vigorously affirm and promote universal human rights, including gender equality and freedom of conscience. If Islam is a religion that stands for justice and peaceful coexistence, then the quest for an Islamic state cannot be justified as sanctioned by a just and merciful Creator."
In a stirring challenge to ordinary Muslims, their New York Times ad went on to say: "We must also recognize and loudly proclaim that the quest for any and all 'Islamic State(s)' has no place in modern times. Theocracy, particularly Islamism, is a proven failure. The path to justice and reform is through liberty."
Instead of engaging with these progressive Muslims and supporting their call for reform, not only did the White House ignore them, but every media outlet other than Fox News did as well. As if to reinforce the blindfold the Obama administration wears on these matters, we also learned from Eric Schultz, the White House deputy press secretary, that the U.S. government no longer considers the Taliban as a "jihadi terrorist" group, but rather as an "armed insurgency".
If this is how America fights its war against the Islamic State, ISIS will win, but not before many more innocents like Kenji Goto die.?
Tarek Fatah is a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, a columnist at the Toronto Sun, host of a Sunday afternoon talk show on Toronto's NewsTalk1010 AM Radio, and a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum. He is the author of two award-winning books: Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State and The Jew is Not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti-Semitism.
Hussein Aboubakr blogging for Times of Israel
For the past six month the president of the US has taken it upon himself to defend Islam as a religion and a culture. One State Department spokesperson made a statement suggesting that lack of job opportunities is a major reason for beheadings and cruel violence. All of this is not just shocking because of how irrelevant it is, but it's shocking because the will to avoid addressing the problem is so big that the president of the United States had to personally deviate from his federal job description and give speeches about what Islam is and what it is not. Our desire to reassure ourselves that all people are as nice as us is so great that we are changing the ways we conduct our business. That is why I want to share some thoughts on the issue of Islam and Islamic moderation.
To deny the existence of moderate Muslims is, beyond any reasonable doubt, an anti-Muslim prejudice. Not only that, but it's most certainly destructive to any efforts to counter Islamic extremism. A world with no moderate Muslims is inconceivable. Check out these long quotes from an open letter from Ani Zonneveld, a Malaysian-born Muslim, published on the AlJazeera website:
"I was raised in a harmonious interracial and interfaith society that accepted and respected other religious practices.. Saudi Arabia started exporting its Wahhabi ideology in the 1970s, and it spread around the world, turning existing interpretations of Islam into one that is dogmatic and violent. We cannot continue on this path of religious-based mayhem in the name of Islam. The Muslim world needs a change…
"As a child, I remember celebrating Mawlid - the Prophet Muhammad's birthday - with uplifting songs, prayers and even a parade. Now it is taboo to observe Mawlid even in America, and adherents to the Wahhabi brand of Islam would rather emphasize his death.
"When I was growing up, weddings and community events were colorful and featured music and dance, without segregating the sexes. This is no longer the case in many Muslim communities. Music, dance and unsegregated gatherings are deemed haram, or forbidden. Artistic expressions must be Sharia-compliant, meaning no depiction of humans or animals.
"The Quran liberated women from subhuman status, gave us rights to choose whom to marry, to work, to be in leadership positions and to ultimately live in full dignity. And yet in 2015, Wahhabi imams have relegated women to subhuman status by allowing husbands to cane their wives into obedience and promoting a version of Sharia that permits forced and child marriages and condones honor killings. Women have become sexual objects through forced veiling, which makes our voices, skin, hair and faces off limits, and even a handshake is deemed a potentially arousing sexual experience."
This is one of the most honest Muslim self-criticism pieces I have read. It is sincere, genuine, authentic and above all it is unbiased and it is the work of a moderate Muslim. However, it is obvious that those words raise the same concerns I have: the majority of the Muslim world is not under the influence of a moderate version of Islam but rather a very extreme, violent one.
I was born and raised in Egypt, thousands of miles from Malaysia, and I have an almost identical experience with the rapid radicalization of the Egyptian society. There are moderate Muslims but it should be clear at this point that they are not as influential as the extremists. It should be clear that advocates of reform in the Muslim world are as marginalized and persecuted as any other non-Muslim minority. One clear proof of that can be seen in the fact that many if not most such Muslims, like Mr. Zonneveld or me personally, do not actually reside in their home countries but in the western world due to the fact that many parts of the Muslim world are extremely intolerant towards reform and criticism.
....... (full article here)
Many parts of the Muslim world are intolerant towards free speech, criticism and reform. Human rights are not observed in most of the Muslim world; women's rights, homosexual rights, minority rights, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of belief, etc. are things that the majority of non-violent Muslims do not observe. Execution of apostates, women who are not allowed to drive, sexual segregation, persecution of liberals and journalists, homosexual imprisonment, and persecution of non-Muslim minorities are all common themes almost in all Muslim countries. Many Muslim countries use public beheadings, hangings, lashings, stonings and chopping of limbs as an accepted form of punishment.
While the vast majority of Muslims may frown upon ISIS and Al Qaeda and may be horrified by their acts, they will still approve of many human rights abuses. The majority of the world Muslim population believe that the cartoonists who ridicule Muhammad should be prosecuted. Many Muslim countries carry death penalties for any similar heresy action because they simply do not believe in freedom of speech.
There is a Muslim consensus that any acts of violence against Israel, including suicide bombers in buses, are justified if not encouraged. Our acceptance or denial of those facts does not affect the reality we are all living; the Muslim world is dominated by bad ideas and bad beliefs. The majority of Muslims have no principle objections to application of extreme violence, subjection of women and minorities, prosecuting if not killing homosexuals and confiscating personal freedoms.
My argument is, we are using the label "moderate" for everyone who is not trying to kill us regardless of that person's actual views. We are in a very bad situation to the extent that we have confused moderation with self-interest. The majority of the Muslim world may not be moderate, but rather acting in its daily life from a purely self-interested point of view. This is a very good thing. We should encourage all Muslims to act and preserve their self-interests. But we should not lie to them about the nature of their religious ideas.
One of my other concerns regarding moderate Muslims is their response to Islamic terrorism. Whenever the issue of Islamic extremism arises, the first reaction of moderate Muslims is not to start an honest debate and reform in their religion but to defend Islam and Muslims.
Moderate Muslims are obsessed with slogans like "the religion of peace" more than they care about facing the terrorists emerging from their own communities.
Moderate Muslims rush to warn about Islamophobia and unjust western prejudice against Muslims. Almost in every single occasion that Islamic terrorism is mentioned, Muslims' first action is to defend their faith. They assert over and over how peaceful and beautiful Islam is. They are obsessed with their religion and care about it more than they care about stopping murder in its name. It should be clear that this kind of obsession is just another form of fundamentalism. The time has come to talk about how unhelpful and unhealthy their constant obsession with Islam is. Those Muslims need to know that it is more important right now to direct their efforts inside their communities to battle extremism than to polish the image of a faith soaked in blood. Constantly using the rhetoric of Islamophobia and defending their faith as if it was under attack does not help us to promote peace but actually makes the job of terrorist recruiters easier.
We can all agree that prejudice against Muslims is indeed a form of unacceptable discrimination, but moderate Muslims should not try to stifle criticism of their religion by raising the racism card. Many Muslims are responsible for creating an environment of intimidation and social blackmail, using the alleged charges of Islamophobia to immediately dismiss any criticism. We should be clear and honest to our Muslim friends; Islam and its prophet are just other figures in the world of religious fascinations and they are not above criticism and ridiculing and this is non-negotiable.
Recently we have been hearing the argument, sometimes from the highest figures of the U.S government, that we should not criticize the doctrine of Islam in a way that points out its inherent violence because that is the exact point organizations like ISIS are trying to convince Muslims with. The point is we should not help terrorists in convincing Muslims that Islam is violent. I have to say that this is the most twisted acrobatic irrational logic I have ever heard.
I think a truly moderate sane person, when told that his god promotes and enjoys public beheadings, should do one of two things; either dismiss the cruel claims about his god as untrue or dismiss his whole religion. The victims of terrorism should not be blamed for the crimes being committed against them. Our intellectual freedom should not be taken hostage so moderate Muslims won't break bad. What kind of logic is that? I assume that any peaceful moderate person should remain so regardless of what anyone says on TV or in a newspaper or a coffeehouse about a sixth century belief system. Otherwise, the words "peaceful" and "moderate" simply mean "I will be nice as long as you do not hurt my feelings." Personally I find this closer to psychopathy than moderation.
If we are sincere about solving this pressing global issue, then we should be honest and truthful. We can't fight cruel terrorists while we ally ourselves with people who commit similar atrocities but have more oil. We can't allow ourselves to deceive our Muslim friends that it is their right to oppose free speech, LGBT rights, women's rights etc.
Moderate Muslims should not be part of the problem, they should be the solution. Islamic extremism will not be "degraded and ultimately destroyed" unless it is Muslims themselves who fight it. Being obsessed with religion is not a proper response and we should be honest and clear about that. I am aware of the fact that all I'm sharing is tough and not easy to do, but I can assure you that closing our eyes to reality will do us no good. Only acknowledging it will allow us to take our first steps toward a profound and desperately needed reform.
Hussein Aboubakr was born in 1989 to an Arab Muslim family in Cairo, Egypt. Hussein studied Jewish and Middle Eastern history and Hebrew literature at the Faculty of Arts and Oriental Studies Department at Cairo University
Sufi Islam is a strain of belief and practice that might be found in both Sunni and Shia. It is more mystical and concerned with a personal relationship with the almighty. Sufi worship can appear somewhat "charismatic" in chanting and meditating on the name of Allah.
Sufis are more friendly and open to Christians.
From wildolive Islam denominations
How can we be on our guard against Muslims who seek to destroy our civilisation and subjugate our Christian (or Jewish) faith whilst having an open and loving approach to our Muslim neighbours who abhor terrorism practised in the name of Islam and wish to live in peace with us?
Caroline Cox and John Marks have produced an excellent study addressing this problem. "The West, Islam and Islamism" -"Is ideological Islam compatible with liberal democracy?" published by CIVITAS, ISBN 13 978-1-903386-54-5.
"The aim of this book is to encourage mutual understanding between Islamic and Western worlds. The majority of Muslims are peaceable, law abiding citizens. However, Muslim fundamentalists, described here as Islamists, present a challenge to the values of Western Democracies.
With many lapses, modern Western societies strive to uphold values such as tolerance, pluralism, and individual freedom. Islamism is monolithic, intolerant of dissent and hostile to individual liberty.
'Islamic' societies and militant 'islamism' need to be distinguished. Islamism is not compatible with liberal democracy, but it is the hope and intention of the authors that through this book non-Muslims may develop a better understanding of Islam and better relationships with moderate, peaceable Muslims."
Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director, Barnabas Fund, wrote in October 2009,
Recent months have seen a number of unexpected and extremely encouraging statements coming out of the Muslim world. Respected, mainstream Muslim leaders in a variety of countries have voiced opinions which are at odds with traditional, conservative Islam. They have challenged aspects of shari'a and are calling for a liberal, modernist, enlightened Islam compatible with Western norms. Perhaps the most significant of all is a comment by a group of British Muslims calling for an end to the apostasy law and for full freedom in all religious matters.
The article concludes,
It is time Western governments and Christian Churches implemented a policy of rejecting traditional Muslim and Islamist demands and that they shifted to a position of active support for the new voices of reason and moderation within Islam. Barnabas Fund applauds these encouraging moves and the courageous Muslims advocating them.Read the complete article at barnabasfund.org
From a piece by Afzal Upal, PhD
On the one hand, our leaders and pundits tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, that most Muslims around the world are moderates who love peace, and that a few terrorists are perverting the peaceful ideology of Islam for their nefarious purposes.
On the other hand, at least according to most Western media reports, this moderate Muslim majority never seems to be able to muster the courage to protest terrorists who attack in their name. Instead, as millions in France and other Western cities shouted, "je suis Charlie," a few thousand counter-demonstrators in the Muslim world shouted back, "if you are Charlie then we are Kouachi."
To understand why a vast majority of world's Muslims did not join the good side we need to go beyond the headlines and understand the deeper social psychological forces at work.
This article does that through an analysis of the response to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat - an organization lauded as a model for its moderation by numerous Western leaders and pundits - Report here:
Conclusions of that report
This case study illustrates the dilemma faced by Muslim moderates who want their fellow Muslims to turn away from violent Jihad (or any other beliefs and practices that are firmly established as part of Muslim identity). When they advocate a change in shared social beliefs they are seen as less than ideal Muslims. To be able to successfully argue for a change, reformers have to be seen as strong defenders of the faith and the faithful. Thus to remove religious sanctions from a military Jihad against the British, Ahmad had to be seen as more ferocious in his pen-Jihad against Christians. In order for him to get Muslims to change their beliefs in Jesus' death, he had to be seen as the biggest champion of Muhammad and an Islamic supremacist. His championing of Muhammad lead him to make repeated calls for punishment of even the slightest perceived blasphemy against the prophet. Other Muslim leader competing with him for adherents had to outdo him in their rhetoric against insulting the prophet. Studying these social identity dynamics can help us understand how changes in a group's beliefs and behaviour that appear beneficial in the short term may actually be harmful in the long term.
Dr. Afzal Upal is a cognitive scientist of religion with expertise in Islamic movements, countering violent extremism (CVE), and narrative-based messaging.
Thoughts from an article by James R. Rogers February 3, 2015
Islamic Terrorism means living in a state of never knowing if and when someone you know or don't know might just have an excuse for killing or maiming you.
We try to think of most Muslims as moderate or peaceful citizens who we have no reason to fear. But what if most, if not all, live in fear of their own religion and its, shaira law.
Suppose the authorities in my church had the right to inflict severe bodily harm or even behead me if I decided I wanted to go down the street and join another church. Suppose they could behead my children for watching a football game on television. Or stone my daughter for talking to a boy in public. Or stone my wife for adultery if I didn't kill her myself for dishonouring my family.
How moderate would I be under those conditions?
If you live in fear of the terrifying enforcers of the religion you are commanded to worship, it's extremely hard to be brave enough to be a moderate.
According to Brigitte Gabriel - president and founder of ACT! for America, "The radicals are estimated to be between 15 to 25 percent, according to all intelligence services around the world," "You're looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization..."
According to Angel Rabasa, a senior political scientist at the RAND corporation, less than one percent of the Muslim population is at risk for becoming radicals. One percent of the Muslim populations across the whole of Europe (approximately 325,000 Muslims) are at risk of becoming radical.
According to Rabasa, a "radical" Muslim could also be an individual who belongs to an Islamist organization that is advocating for a Sharia legal system, but does not embrace violence to bring this to fruition. (but surely, Sharia is violent)
He maintains that a better indicator to evaluate what percentage of the European Muslims are extremists prone to violence may be to count the number of people who have gone off to fight in Syria and Iraq, estimated at around 3,000 in September. 3,000 would only represented only a tenth of all the Muslims in Europe "dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization," that would put the figure at 0.01 percent of Europe's Muslims. ( a tenth is 0.1%)
3000 Jihadis in Europe would not be a worrying number if we were talking about an invading army, engaging in symmetrical warfare. But were are facing asymmetrical warfare, where one smart terrorist can cause carnage, panic and capitulation.
Muslim Opinion Polls
Have you heard that Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live peacefully and that only a "tiny minority of extremists" practice violence? That's like saying that White supremacy must be perfectly fine since only a tiny minority of racists ever hurt anyone. Neither does it explain why religious violence is largely endemic to Islam, despite the tremendous persecution of religious minorities in Muslim countries.
In truth, even a tiny minority of "1%" of Muslims worldwide translates to 15 million believers - which is hardly an insignificant number. However, the "minority" of Muslims who approve of terrorists, their goals, or their means of achieving them is much greater than this. In fact, it isn't even a true minority in some cases, depending on how goals and targets are defined.
The following polls convey what Muslims say are their attitudes toward terrorism, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks, violence in defence of Islam, Sharia, honour killings, and matters concerning assimilation in Western society. The results are all the more astonishing because most of the polls were conducted by organizations with an obvious interest in "discovering" agreeable statistics that downplay any cause for concern.
(These have been compiled over the years, so not all links remain active.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm will continue adding to this).
Surveys about views on Terrorism
ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops.
There is considerable enthusiasm for interfaith dialogue, but there are several reasons to believe this will succeed unless Muslims are prepared to let go of some articles of their faith.
To achieve anything approaching peace, the teachings in Qur'an and Hadith about slaying infidels must be reinterpreted or abrogated in a way that would defy any simple or radical way of reading sacred texts.
The principle that the world is divided into the House of Peace and the House of war (the lands under Islam and those not under Islam) would also need to be shelved in order for Islam to coexist with other faiths and none.
The call for Blasphemy, as defined in Islamic terms of reference, to be universally applied would also have to be shelved since Islam's sacred texts fall foul of such a definition in their denigration and defamation of the beliefs of other faiths. Consider the core Christian article of faith; that Jesus is alive.
To believe that Jesus is alive, is highly insulting and derogatory to the Holy Prophet. I cannot stand this sacrilege even for a moment. Everyone knows that the Holy Prophet passed away at the age of sixty-three and lies buried in his tomb at Medina, which millions of pilgrims visit every year. If it is disrespectful to believe in the death of Jesus or even to think of it, then I ask how can you permit this insolence and disrespect with regard to the Holy Prophet? How can one claim to love and be a follower of the Holy Prophet if he accepts a superior status for Jesus by pronouncing him alive and the Holy Prophet dead?
Anybody engaging in dialogue should first understand Islamic thought and teaching for himself, and not accept bland assurances about what Islam teaches without checking for himself. Otherwise he will be tricked into compromising his own faith in exchange for insincere compromises offered in the spirit of Tequia (deception in defense of Islam)
Within a community (defined as people living within an area - not "the Muslim community" or the "Christian community" or the "black community" - terms beloved of our multiculturalist, politically correct leaders) there should certainly be dialogue about practical matters of how to live and work together. Muslims who are prepared to live together with those of other faiths on this basis will be those who accept that their neighbours do not live under the demands of Sharia and Islamic teaching can truly be called moderate. This is analogous to Christians, who believe that they hold the only way to GOD but do not seek to force this on those who choose not to accept Christianity.
Unfortunately, while such tinkering with scripture might be acceptable to intellectuals who can find ways of accommodating ideas that deny their own scriptures, the ordinary person can only accept such an approach by leaving their scriptures at arms length and adhering to a faith that suits his chosen lifestyle. This suggests to the author that engaging in religious dialogue could be counterproductive by encouraging Muslims to reconnect to the more radical teachings of their scriptures.
The best hope of living with moderate Muslims is increasing secularisation among Muslims.
Islam's many problems will only be solved when Muslims leave Islamism, an attempt to regress to a medieval model, and favor a modern, moderate, and good-neighbourly version of their faith.
One analysis finds that 25 percent of Arabic-speakers have become atheists.
More Muslims are coming to faith in Jesus now, than at any time since Mohammed.
Indonesian Muslims have felt it necessary to make this marketing push as 2 Million Islam Followers a Year Turn to Christ Muslims in Indonesia report losing one follower of Islam to Christianity every 15 seconds. That's 2 million a year. At that rate, by 2035 Indonesia will no longer be majority Muslim nation.
Pray for these converts, that this campaign will not turn to violence to achieve its objective.
Great care was taken by the Obama administration to avoid any mention of words associated with "Islam" or "Muslims". Thus, "violent extremism" became the catch-all phrase (euphemism) to refer to Islamism, Islamist or Islamic extremism during the conference.
It soon became evident the three-day summit was a theatre of the absurd.
Conspicuous by their absence at the summit were prominent Muslims who have for the past decade been fighting the doctrine of the Islamic State (ISIS), which was the real focus of the conference.
One of the American Muslims not invited was the president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. Reacting to President Barack Obama's speech at the conference, he said:
[Obama] is insulting millions of reform-minded Muslims who are trying to reject and push back theocracy ... And the leader of the free world in the meantime is saying, 'Well, these terror groups are sort of coming out of thin air and it's just sort of a crime, education and a job problem'--which is absurd.
Defeating ISIS might have been the stated intention of White House officials, but they did not find it worthwhile to talk to the only groups that have defeated Islamic State on the battlefield; the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK), which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization.
More than 1,000 people, including many Muslims, formed a human chain around an Oslo synagogue in a show of support for Jews.
However, some Norwegian Jews said the so-called "peace ring" on Saturday night was tainted because one of its organizers said over the weekend that he dislikes people who support Israel. The organizer, Ali Chishti, had also made anti-Jewish and anti-Israel statements in 2009 that he disavowed.
The seven organizers, many of them Muslims, had planned the initiative with the endorsement of the Jewish community to protest the slaying on Feb. 15 by an Islamist of a Jewish volunteer guard at the main synagogue in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Well, I was there, and it wasn't 1000 Muslims. It was 1300 people in total of which almost everyone looked like ethnic Norwegians. The people holding hands are media staged - they had barriers in front with an entry checkpoint with 10 guards or so, and allowed a small number of Muslims inside together with the Jewish congregation.
So innermost the synagogue with 50 or so Jews, then this semicircle of 20 or so Muslims, then the barriers and guards and police, then a mostly Norwegian crowd.
He posted this clarifying photo.
Notice how, after each new Islamist atrocity, a moderate Muslim talking head appears on television news to be interviewed. After grudgingly denouncing violence (not Muslim violence) or voicing some other bland token of regret, he will move straight into condemning the nation in which the attack was perpetrated for the anti-Muslim backlash that he thinks might happen.
Douglas Murray confronted one such distortion of truth on Al Jazeera, following the Charlie Hebdo killings.
Joel C Rosenberg
For the first time in all of human history, we have not just one but two nation states whose rulers are driven not by political ideology -- or even mere religious theology -- but by apocalyptic, genocidal End Times eschatology.
The Islamic Republic of Iran today is ruled by an apocalyptic, genocidal death cult. So is the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
The former are Shia. The latter are Sunni. Both believe the End of days has come. Both believe their messiah - known as the "Mahdi" - is coming at any moment. Both are trying to hasten the coming of the Mahdi.
But the fact is that a deep and widespread belief exists within the Islamic world that we are living in the End of Days, and that the Islamic "Mahdi" or "messiah" is coming at any moment to bring Judgment Day and the end of all things.
2012 report by the Pew Research Center, " in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, - - more than half of Muslims believe they will live to see the return of the Mahdi."
Click the banner below to go to the site map and choose another page