Sectarian Violence (or at least Squabbling)
No, not in Iraq, in the west. Amongst those of us who agree that there is a battle to be waged against Jihad, which is a small enough number as it is, the question on what is to be done, is leading to an enormous amount of blue-on-blue. Like this duel I got into with another commenter on GOV.
The sides seem to be between those who suggest that Muslims who want to be islamic, and yet still secular, democratic, and peaceful should be used to battle the Islamists, and those who do not.
As you can see from the arguments between myself and the commenter Anonymous, the problem is that the Koran backs the Jihadis. That is, that the violent radicals are the koranicly, letter perfect, correct ones. If you doubt this, you can read Robert Spencer's Truth About Muhammad. I'm reading it now. His scholarship, which seems impeccable, shows that the Jihadis are the accurate practitioners of Islam, and those who we would hope to label moderates, i.e people who wish to practice the age old human desire of being left alone, are the ideological black sheep. Some argue that this, along with the practice of Taqiyya (or jihad under deception), makes any alliance with moderate muslims impossible.
My problem with that is two-fold. One, if we accept that there are no "good muslims" (because anyone acting in a manner tolerable to us would be, by koranic definition an apostate muslim) than those muslims who wish to be islamic, but do not want jihad or sharia, are left swinging. We refuse to ally with them, the Jihadis of course will view them as apostates. Secondly, it makes the threat that much more difficult to deal with. If we insist that all muslims are jihadis, than those who wish to be muslims will be pushed to become jihadis, because both the enemy, and us, say there is no third path.
You will never defeat totalitarianism by accepting their view of the world as reality. If neither option 1, nor option 2 is acceptable to us, we must create an option 3, whether or not it exists at present.
The sides seem to be between those who suggest that Muslims who want to be islamic, and yet still secular, democratic, and peaceful should be used to battle the Islamists, and those who do not.
As you can see from the arguments between myself and the commenter Anonymous, the problem is that the Koran backs the Jihadis. That is, that the violent radicals are the koranicly, letter perfect, correct ones. If you doubt this, you can read Robert Spencer's Truth About Muhammad. I'm reading it now. His scholarship, which seems impeccable, shows that the Jihadis are the accurate practitioners of Islam, and those who we would hope to label moderates, i.e people who wish to practice the age old human desire of being left alone, are the ideological black sheep. Some argue that this, along with the practice of Taqiyya (or jihad under deception), makes any alliance with moderate muslims impossible.
My problem with that is two-fold. One, if we accept that there are no "good muslims" (because anyone acting in a manner tolerable to us would be, by koranic definition an apostate muslim) than those muslims who wish to be islamic, but do not want jihad or sharia, are left swinging. We refuse to ally with them, the Jihadis of course will view them as apostates. Secondly, it makes the threat that much more difficult to deal with. If we insist that all muslims are jihadis, than those who wish to be muslims will be pushed to become jihadis, because both the enemy, and us, say there is no third path.
You will never defeat totalitarianism by accepting their view of the world as reality. If neither option 1, nor option 2 is acceptable to us, we must create an option 3, whether or not it exists at present.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home