Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Is ''Moderate Islam'' an Oxymoron ? Part 2


As I mentioned in Part 1 of my post questioning whether Islam can ever have a softer, moderate side and showed that the Koran really won't allow love, respect and decency exist between it and other religions. In fact, Muhammad's 7th century followers literally acted on Koran 9:29 and similar verses (e.g.,9:5), launching the first Muslim conquests, which saw the subjugation of millions of Christians, Jews, and others, and the creation of the ''Muslim World.'' Such jihadi expansion continued until Islam was finally beaten on the battlefield by a resurgent West, some two or three centuries ago. It was a pissed off Pope Urban ll who ordered the first crusade in 1095AD with a speech ending in ''Deus Vult!'' (God Wills It !) after allowing the Muslims almost 400 years of raping, murdering and pillaging. It took 6 further crusades to complete the job.

Western scholarly works, before the age of relativism and political correctness set in, did not equivocate the meaning of jihad. Thus the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for ''jihad'' states that the ''spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general. Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam. Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad (warfare to spread Islam) can be eliminated.''  Islamic law expert and U.S. professor Majid Khadduri (1909-2007), (photo) after defining jihad as warfare, wrote that ''jihad is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community.''

In short, how can a sincere Muslim - by definition, one who has submitted to the teachings of Allah - ''moderate'' verses like 9:29? How can he ;;observe reasonable limits'' vis-a-vis these straight forward commands to combat and subjugate non-Muslims?  Must Muslims not, at the very least, admit that such teachings are true and should be striven for - even if they do not personally engage in the jihad, at least not directly (but they are encouraged to support it indirectly, including monetarily or through propaganda?

Just recently, reports appeared telling of how Islamic groups in Syria were following Koran 9:29 to a tee - forcing Christian minorities to pay them jizya, i.e., extortion money, in exchange for their lives. In fact, all around the Islamic world, Christians and other minorities are regularly plundered and killed by Muslims who justify their actions by referring to the aforementioned verse. Are all such Muslims being ''extreme'' in light of the commands of Koran 9:29 - which specifically calls for the taking of money from Christians and Jews - or are they simply upholding the unambiguous teachings of Islam? In Syria last year they attacked a Christian village and purposely massacred its children. 

One may argue that, if Muslims are to take Koran 9:29 and other similar commands literally, why are Muslim nations the world over not declaring an all-out jihad on all non-Muslim nations, including America?  The ultimate reason, of course, is that they simply can't; they do not have the capability to uphold that verse (and Islamic teaching allows Muslims to postpone their obligations until circumstances are more opportune). Like when they acquire nuclear weapons.

It would be obviously be silly, if not suicidal, for say, Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Islam, to issue a statement to the West saying either accept Islam, pay jizya, or die by the sword. But just because Muslim nations do not currently have the capacity to actualize Koran9:29, does not mean that they do not acknowledge its veracity and try to actualize it in other places when they can.

Bottom Line:  If Islam teaches X and a Muslim upholds X - how is he being ''extreme''? Seems more logical to say that it is Islam itself that is being extreme. Similarly, if a self-professed Muslim does not uphold Islamic teachings - including prayer, fasting, paying zaket, etc. - how is he being ''moderate''?  Seems more logical to say that he is not much of a Muslim at all - that is, he is not submitting to Allah, the very definition of ''Muslim." Then the old mullahs will make sure he gets the lash and is beheaded.

The Way I See It.....the argument from the atheist Western sympathizers that the Bible contains similar war-like verses doesn't ring true, because Jews and Christians are not out to conquer the world. These two religions were never as violent as Islam was and still is. The people of the West must pull down their political correctness and stop calling anyone a racist if they try to warn that Muslim immigration is actual Muslim colonization and a specific policy of jihad by stealth. We can only hope that the talk of reform and bringing Islam into the modern age will eventuate sooner rather than later before it's too late.

It's time to acknowledge that dichotomized notions like ''moderate'' and ''extreme'' are culturally induced and the loaded standards of the modern, secular West - hardly applicable to the teachings of slam - and not universal absolutes recognized by all mankind. If Mohammad and his henchmen appeared on the scene today publishing his book of his visions and messages from an Angel called Gabrielle, recruiting followers with his hateful commands, he would be called a Neo-Nazi and told that his Koren smells too much like ''Mein Kampf''' and will be being banned and Mohammed rightfully discredited. It's a shame that didn't happen back in the 7th century.


No comments:

Post a Comment