More Confirmation of “Root Cause” of Islamic Terrorism
July 13, 2008 | Aussie Dave | Comments 13
The Jerusalem Post has a story on Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamic “extremist” who left the group Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
I won’t reproduce the whole story here; instead, I’ll cut to the chase:
In this ideology, he said, Israel is a “cancer” that needs to be destroyed on the way to re-establishing the caliphate not just in the Middle East but around the world.
Yet more confirmation of a fact most people around the world still have difficulty acknowledging.
Or just plain refuse to.
Filed Under: General
About the Author: An Australian immigrant to Israel, Aussie Dave has been blogging since early 2003.
I just found this pretty awsome article, The Last Patriot, that sheds some light on the first encounters america had with Jihadist back in the late 1700s. Its a really interesting article worth checking out.
The thuggery of Islam is such an unpleasant fact to face that the civilized world still hides its head in the sand for the most part..Sadly it will probably take another attack to re-awaken America to this enemy…The savages are surely planning something spectacular and it would not surprise me at all if some sort of biological or nuclear dirty bomb is on the agenda
Livni, in a June 22 Address on the State of the Nations, both hints at growing awareness of this root cause (the politics in Islamic theology–i.e., politics in religion), while suggesting that somehow this root cause is not inherent, but is “becoming”– i.e., she’s in denial, but at least admits why she’s in denial:
Livni: “The fact that political disputes tend to become more religious in nature is certainly a problem, because a national conflict can be resolved whereas a religious conflict cannot. We can solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with two national states, but if it turns into a religious conflict, which is what Hamas represents, it is irresolvable.”
I cam here, as a Muslim in hopes of finding some common ground. I listened to all the podcasts, some of which I found very offensive as a person, even things that were supposed to be ‘humor’. I am disturbed at the generalizations made about Muslims, and Islam, when it’s clear that you know next to nothing about islam other than what you read in the papers.
If the comments made here about islam were instead made about Judaism, you’d be shouting anti-semitism from the roof tops.
thankfully I know many wonderful Jewish people, so I know that you guys don’t represent Judaism, any more than the terrorist represent Islam… I hope you see that someday.
peace, salaam, and shalom
Aliya
I guess there won’t be much common ground when you take offense at me making fun of terrorists and the genocidal leaders of some Arab countries, even though I am careful not to poke fun at the “average Muslim.”
For the record, I have regular Muslim readers and listeners who assure me they are not offended by my comments in the slightest, and in fact appreciate my sense of humor and efforts not to paint all Muslims with the same brush.
I’m not talking about ‘making fun’ of terrorists. I was actually more referring to calling people names, a particular “Jews for Jesus” song, etc. that I just found offensive and unnecessary. One can make their points, and be humorous without being offensive.
And I wasn’t only addressing you, as comments such as ‘the thuggery of Islam’, is an offensive generalization.
I don’t expect us to agree on many things, but one would think most of us can agree on the ‘golden rule’ concept. Thus, I am here, not calling names, or making sweeping generalizations, but trying to open a dialogue, and look for common ground.
Peace, salaam, and shalom
Aliya
Aliya,
Regarding calling people names, please provide some examples. I can remember “Gorilla Boy” off the top of my head, and I stand by that name! It is the least Ahmadinejad deserves. What other names were there?
The Jews for Jesus song came from a CD sent to me by the musicians. Playing the song was the least I could do, and I did not find it offensive (not nearly as offensive as I find Jews for Jesus). I wonder how you would feel about a group who called themselves Muslims but believed things that were entirely against the fundamentals of Islam, and involved adherents trying to “missionize” Muslims.
I do appreciate you visiting and looking for common ground; I just interpreted your other comment, and choice to make it on here and not respond directly to my email to you, as a rejection of such dialog.
Enlighten us. More and more of us read the Quran, ahaddiths and teachings of historic Islam’s major spiritual schools, as well as re-studying world history, particulalry the 350-400 year period just prior to the Crusades.
Good. It should be.
Dave,
sorry for not replying to the e-mail, last time I checked it (not my main e-mail) I didn’t have any e-mails from you. It wasn’t a rejection.
Second, I do oppose such so called Muslims, but don’t call for their killing, etc. I make it a point to point out what Islam truly teaches, and back up my stance with proof. ALL religions are subject to dangerous and/or misguided ideologies. Mocking them doesn’t do as much good as refuting their claims with proof. I am very active in such ‘intra-faith’ dialogues, and know it doesn’t serve any good to lower myself to their level.
as for the name calling, I commented on the particular podcast, I seem to recall it was in response to an article, although the exact topic I can’t quite recall (I listened to all the podcast in the span of less than a week, the topics tend to blur a little in my memory). I do recall the gist of my commentary was your lack of actual rebuttal, but rather your replies were all along the line of ‘no we don’t (insert name called), well maybe we do… ok yeah, we do, but the Jews have it worse’. It smacked of people complaining about dhimmi status when it applies to them in so called Muslim countries (no country in the world practices Islam as it’s written, and was practiced by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HP) so I dislike the term in relation to today’s societies, because NONE are TRULY Islamic, but rather the leaders’ interpretation, and culture), and yet enforcing that dhimmi status on others.
Shy Guy, Islam, as it was revealed, has been corrupted after the death of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HP). and while I believe, with reason, that one school of thought (not the majority) is closer to true Islam, I would not look to history much after the death of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HP) as an example of what Islam is. Just as I don’t believe christianity is represented by the crusades, the inquisition, or the evangelists of today.
If you have SPECIFIC questions, I would be more than willing to do my best to answer them.
Peace, Salaam, and Shalom
Aliya
Dave, I have now replied your e-mail, and I hope we can move to put this rough start (caused largely by my not having read your e-mail until after you notified me of it here) behind us and move forward toward a better understanding, G-D willing.
Peace, Salaam, and Shalom.
Aliya
Is the Quran, as it exists today, corrupt? Yes or no?
Also, clarification on my dhimmi comment, as I realize it might be taken in a way I didn’t mean it. What I mean to say is, if you can see the wisdom in treating group X in such a way that protects the wellbeing of a society, even if that means group X isn’t given all the rights and privileges of another group (the ruling group) in that society, then why criticize the dhimmi thing, when it’s in essence the same thing.
Peace Salaam, and Shalom
Aliya (convinced there IS common ground, we just have to be willing to see it.)
the Qur’an is not corrupted, as it was not only written down and collected into book form, but also memorized by many people during the lifetime of Muhammad (PBUH&HP). hadiths, histories, etc. are not protected from corruption, fabrication, in the same way.