Do Not Bash Muslims

[Joyousperson]

History Continued:

Imam Hatip Schools

Reforms undertaken in the administration of the İmam Hatip schools in 2012 have led to what one Turkish commentator called “the removal, in practice, of one of the most important laws of the revolution, the Tevhid-i Tedrisat (unity of education)".[4][14]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

Erdogan has said one of his goals is to forge a “pious generation” in predominantly Muslim Turkey “that will work for the construction of a new civilization.”

His recent speeches have emphasized Turkey’s Ottoman history and domestic achievements over Western ideas and influences.
Reviving Imam Hatip, or Imam and Preacher, schools is part of Erdogan’s drive to put religion at the heart of national life after decades of secular dominance, and his old school is just one beneficiary of a government program to pump billions of dollars into religious education.
With more Islamic schooling, Erdogan aims to reshape Turkey

In 2017, some argued that "Diyanet’s implication in Turkish domestic and foreign politics opens a new chapter on Erdoğan’s increasing authoritarianism".[20]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

Fatawa

The Diyanet began issuing fatawa on request sometime after 2011, and their number has been "rising rapidly".[4] Among the activities it found forbidden (haram) in Islam over a one-year period ending in late 2015 were: "feeding dogs at home, celebrating the western New Year, lotteries, and tattoos".[4] (Although the Diyanet is a governmental body, its fatawa do not have the force of law in Turkey.)[4]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

In February 2018, Diyanet stated that using left hand for eating or drinking is not desirable, warning that “demons eat and drink with their left hand.” Diyanet added that people with physical disabilities could use their left hand if necessary.[28]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

Why do I quote about fatawa? Such fatawa show how deeply into Sharia the Diyanet is taking Turkey – using the Qur’an, Sira and Hadith to define Sharia for all – even seemingly minor rules like eating with your right hand. For now these rules are not mandatory.

One of the more major rules under Hanafi Sharia regards Jihad:

The Al-Hidayah: A Classic Manual of Hanafi Law defines jihad as follows:
“Jihad is a communal obligation…Jihad is determined till the Day of Judgment…’Then shall ye fight, or they shall submit (Qur’an 48:16)’ When the Muslims commence battle, and they have surrounded a city or a fort, they are to invite the inhabitants to accept Islam…If they respond positively, they are to refrain from fighting them, due to the attainment of the purpose. If they refuse, they are to invite them to the payment of jizyah, and this is what the Prophet ordered the commanders of the armies to do for it is one of the consequences upon the conclusion of battle…if they reject the invitation, they are to seek the help of Allah and engage them in combat.”

With the approval of Erdogan, the Diyanet implements this political ideology within conservative Hanafi Sharia of the Turkish AKP party and employ imams trained in Turkey in thousands of mosques under its control in Turkey and other nations.

Jihad launched by 'conquest' prayers from 90K mosques
More than 90,000 mosques throughout Turkey held “conquest” prayers Saturday and Sunday for Muslim warriors to carry out jihad against infidels – in accordance to their Islamic holy book, the Qura
Jihad launched by 'conquest' prayers from 90K mosques

The Justice and Development Party (Turkish: Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi), abbreviated officially AK Parti in Turkish, is a conservative[18][19] political party in Turkey. Developed from the conservative tradition of Turkey's Ottoman past and its Islamic identity,[20] the party is the largest in Turkey.
Justice and Development Party (Turkey) - Wikipedia

As I mentioned earlier, Erdogan Islamization one-Islam goals is not just for Turkey, but everywhere else.

How Turkey Is Spreading Its Radical Islamist Agenda to Europe

Erdogan is building Mosques in Europe to spread political Islam

Germany and Sweden have uncovered Erdogan’s Islamic political agenda being taught in his Mosques in those countries, including Kosovo, and are now closing down many of Erdogan’s mosques and sending back Erdogan’s Imams.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/10/22/how-turkey-is-spreading-its-radical-islamist-agenda-to-europe/

Wikipedia - International

Germany

Main article: Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs
See also: Turks in Germany and Islam in Germany

The Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (German: Türkisch-Islamische Union der Anstalt für Religion e.V., Turkish: Diyanet İşleri Türk-İslam Birliği), usually referred to as DİTİB, was founded in 1984 As of 2016, the DİTİB funds 900 mosques in Germany.[29] The headquarters of DİTİB is the Cologne Central Mosque in Cologne-Ehrenfeld.
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

The Netherlands

See also: Turks in the Netherlands and Islam in the Netherlands

Of the 475 mosques in the Netherlands in 2018, a plurality (146) are controlled by the Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet). Diyanet implements the political ideology of the Turkish AKP party and employ imams trained in Turkey in mosques under its control. Critics of the Diyanet imams, some of whom do not speak Dutch, hinder the effective integration of Dutch-Turkish Muslims into the society of the Netherlands by promoting allegiance to the Turkish state while neglecting to promote loyalty to the Dutch state.[30]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

Sweden

See also: Islam in Sweden and Turks in Sweden

According to Dagens Nyheter in 2017, nine mosques in Sweden have imams sent and paid for by the Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet). Along with their religious duties, the imams are also tasked with reporting on critics of the Turkish government. According to Dagens Nyheter, propaganda for president Erdoğan and the AKP party is presented in the mosques.[31][32]
Directorate of Religious Affairs - Wikipedia

Kosovo

APRIL 9, 2018 2:28 PM – Building and remodeling mosques in Kosovo – a beacon of democracy in an Islamic nation.

Kosovo and Erdogan’s Dangerous Islamic Agenda

Lulzim Peci, the former Ambassador of Kosovo to Sweden and Executive Director of the Kosovo Institute for Policy Research and Development (KIPRED), is one of the most critical voices in Kosovo against Erdogan’s Islamist scheme. He agrees that the mosques built in Kosovo are political establishments meant to promulgate Erdogan’s vision. “
https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/04/09/kosovo-and-erdogans-dangerous-islamic-agenda/

What do we learn from this?

We learn that Erdogan is extremely intent in indoctrinating Turkey’s Islamic citizens – from school age to adult. This indoctrination of political Islam is being expanded to other countries.

In closing:

Erdogan does believe in one Islam under Sharia Law while also keeping economic secular law in place.

Erdogan is promoting this one Islam through schools and Mosques and the changing of laws in favor of Islamic Sharia.

“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…” The Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

What is the political Islam that Erdogan is teaching in these thousands of Mosques in Turkey and foreign lands that is so controversial to German and other countries?

Besides Jihad against unbelievers, Erdogan is preaching a political agenda – some of which is seemingly good. Only time will tell where this all leads. One thing is certain, Erdogan’s use of the phrase: “One Islam” has far deeper meaning than most people think, and has to do with bringing back Islam under Sharia.

"One Islam" is an Islam that is once again under Sharia. That is Erdogan’s dream.

So when Erdogan chastises the Crown Prince for using the phrase “moderate Islam” we must take into account Erdogan’s agenda – to create a one world Islam under Sharia. Erdogan does not believe in secularizing Islam’s Sharia.

Erdogan is working to correct this error, and sees the Crown Prince as going in the opposite direction that he is taking Islam into – a one Islam under Sharia.

Agree with the above re the direction Erdogan is going towards in Turkey.

Here is one article re Erdogan, and his point
'There is no moderate Islam, there is only one Islam'
i.e. that is only the Islamism of Allah!

Erdogan: No Moderate Islam

This comment does not mark any U-turn, or a radical deviation from his earlier freshman-self back in the 2000s. The problem is that his Western "allies" have stubbornly preferred to turn a blind eye to his poster-child Islamism. Worse, they still do.

Several years ago, Erdogan's ideological-self clearly stated that "Turkey is not a country where moderate Islam prevails." In the same speech, his pragmatic-self -- the one that wanted to look pretty to a chorus of Western praise -- added that, "We are Muslims who have found a middle road." But which "middle road?"
​

 

[setst777]

Can you provide me with specific names of these "experts" that you feel are following the advice of terrorist supporting Islamic organizations?

setst777 said: ↑
I will not get into a war of words with you about who thinks they are more qualified to speak on behalf of Islam. I use:

• there own leaders,
• their own Islamic sources,
• their own people,

as my evidence. The evidence I use far outweighs your limited knowledge of Islam, Sharia, Suni or Shia Muslims. You have repeatedly shown that you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of Sharia or Islam.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
Based on your posting history your understanding of Islam comes only from what you learned and read from anti-Islamic propaganda sites online. . .
>>

Setst RE: All I quoted was Islam’s own sacred books, and Islam’s top scholars, and used as witnesses extremely credible Muslims. You don’t recognize Islamic sources when you see them because you never studied Islam or Sharia. Yes, you did study one Sufii book, but look how confused that made you about Sharia and Islam.

You can call them anti-Islamic propaganda sites if you like, but that only shows your ignorance of the facts and unwillingness to look past your education in Safii Islam.

You even reject the testimonies of the Six Witnesses I gave, all of whom have far more experience with Islam than you imagine yourself to have. Yet, you reject not only the Islamic sources but the testimony of clearly superior witnesses to hold onto your Saffii indoctrination and your "experts" who just feed you what the Islamic terrorists teach them to say.

setst777 said: ↑
All these so called "experts" know is that there is a correlation between terrorism and the events described. Correlation does NOT prove cause.

Joseph responds:
<<
You do realize that many of these experts spend a lot of time in the field conducting interviews with extremists. They are not just going on their personal feelings when it comes to determining what drives violent extremism and terrorism.
>>

Setst RE: You don’t have to tell me that the experts are spending a lot of time talking, and listening to, extremists.

We can see how the experts are using the same language and arguments and "spin" that the Islamic Organizations and extremists want us to believe. The experts are copying what the terrorists feed them as to the reasons for all the problems that Muslims and Islamic lands are facing - nothing to do with Islam.

These "experts" are working to squelch any discussion of the ideology of Islamic Sharia as the origin for most terrorist attacks or any of the problems in Islamic countries or in the West. This is a political agenda that Islamic organizations have demanded and threatened the US to do. The US 'experts' carry out these terrorist demands, because that is what the last US president ordered.

During the Obama Administration, President Obama clearly ordered the following:

"Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive."

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.
Obama administration pulls references to Islam from terror training materials, official says.

So the “experts” are only parroting US Policy as ordered by terrorist supporting Islamic Organizations here in the USA.

Regarding “Islamaphobia,” the “experts” are again listening to Islamic Fundamentals using Taqyah to trick the US experts. And the experts fell for it…

“Muhammad said he was present when his then- allies, meeting at the offices of the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Northern Virginia years ago, coined the term "Islamophobia."

Muhammad said the Islamists decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term "homophobia" to silence critics. He said the group meeting at IIIT saw "Islamophobia" as a way to "beat up their critics." Moderate Muslims Speak Out on Capitol Hill

Notice the the experts are using the same spin that these Muslim hate groups are using.

Yahya Cholil Staquf
The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?
[Orthodox Islam and Violence 'Linked' Says Top Muslim Scholar]
Orthodox Islam and Violence 'Linked' Says Top Muslim Scholar

Looks like the Islamic group plan worked. The experts listened to the terrorist Islamophobe lie, and that is what the experts are now preaching.

setst777 said: ↑
I quoted far more credible sources, including my six witnesses, to show that Islamic Sharia Ideology IS the major cause of the problems in theses ISLAMIC dominated countries.

setst777 said: ↑
What they are saying is that orthodox, traditional, classical Islam is the major cause of these problems in those countries.

Joseph responds:
<<
I didn't get that from reading the sources you provided.
>>

Setst RE: You didn’t??? Great! Well let’s go over the first quote again. This should be fun.

1st Witness

Yahya Cholil Staquf
Contact us at editors@time.com.
Orthodox Islam and Violence 'Linked' Says Top Muslim Scholar

The following quotes are from the above source...

“Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam.

There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy.”
[Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Are “experts” telling us that fundamental Islam has no relation to terrorism? That is what I have been reading from the experts.

“Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?” [Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Do experts claim that any discussion of “Radical Islamic Movements” is “Islamophobia?” That is what I have been reading. The experts do not identify “Islam” as the problem.

“Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.” [Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Do “experts” identify the problem of Muslim segregation and enmity as stemming from “classical tradition” of Islam?

“Perhaps there were reasons for this during the Middle Ages, when the tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established, but in today’s world such a doctrine is unreasonable. To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century.” [Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Do the experts identify Islam Orthodoxy as the reason for the incapability of Muslms to live harmoniously and peacefully with the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies? That is not what I have been reading. The experts are saying that poverty and social problems are the result of such things.

“But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor.” [Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Do experts say that traditional Islam fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims?

“Within the Islamic tradition, the state is a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims under the rule of one man who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world.” [Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Does that sound like the definition of Jihad? Is that what the experts are teaching?

“So the call by radicals to establish a caliphate, including by ISIS, is not un-Islamic?

No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition.” [Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Do the experts say that goal of ISIS stands squarely within Orthodox Islam?

“Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition”
Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.” [Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Do the experts ever mention that Islamic tradition states that Sharia is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws that the state should reject as false – state laws taking precedence?

If so, then why are Western countries willing to consider Sharia Law in Government for the Muslims? – as some European countries have already done or are in the plans doing so.

“Too many Muslims view civilization, and the peaceful co-existence of people of different faiths, as something they must combat. Many Europeans can sense this attitude among Muslims.”
[Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Is that what the experts are teaching – that too many Muslims do not believe in co-existence with different faiths, but rather, something they must combat?

“But Western politicians should stop telling us that fundamentalism and violence have nothing to do with traditional Islam. That is simply wrong.”
[Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Do experts tell us that fundamentalism and violence have nothing to do with traditional Islam?


“They don’t want to foster division in their societies between Muslims and non-Muslims, nor contribute to intolerance against Muslims."

"I share this desire — that’s a primary reason I’m speaking so frankly. But the approach you describe won’t work.
If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a problem, you can’t begin to solve it.
One must identify the problem and explicitly state who and what are responsible for it.” [Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Do the experts fail to identify the real problem – Sharia Ideology of Islam?

“Who and What are responsible?"

"Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide. After allowing this to go unchallenged for so many decades, the West must finally exert decisive pressure upon the Saudis to cease this behavior … “
[Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Do experts fail to identify that terrorism has anything to do with the indoctrination Islamic westerners receive in Mosques in the West?

Is that why the problem persists for more that 50 years now?

“And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de facto proof of Islamophobia. This must end.
A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved.” [Yahya Cholil Staquf]

Question: Would you agree that experts are not identifying the problem, and so the problem cannot be solved? Instead, the experts are calling any connection of terrorism to Islam as islamophobia.

Question: Do you get the idea that the “experts” are getting their expert opinions from the terrorists they listen to? How dumb is that do you think?

Continued...

 

[setst777]

Can you provide me with specific names of these "experts" that you feel are following the advice of terrorist supporting Islamic organizations?

2nd Witness:

I quote in part:

“Immigrants cast themselves into the waters of the Mediterranean knowing full well that the chance of reaching their destination, the northern shore, is slim. They nevertheless risk [the journey], taking advantage of the instability in Libya, which has become the [immigrants’] point of departure on their way to the European paradise.

But what is strange, and perhaps even embarrassing, is that, if you ask them about the infidel West, they will spew curses and invective, call it ignorant, and [express] contempt for it. So why do they cast themselves into its bosom and risk their lives to reach it? I truly fail to understand this reasoning, which is so warped, rotten and paradoxical that it seems sickening and ridiculous at the same time.

An acute embarrassment

“The embarrassment becomes even more acute when one hears certain mosque imams in Europe, some of whom are foreigners and immigrants themselves, abusing the democracy and free speech that are granted to everyone [in those countries] by becoming expert at directing curses and invective at the infidels using [various] skillfully-phrased expressions.
https://worldisraelnews.com/saudi-journalist-if-muslims-despise-infidel-west-why-are-they-so-eager-to-live-there/

Question: Do you see any similarities to what this Saudi Journalist is describing about Muslims immigrating to he West with that of the 1st Witness?

3rd Witness

PM Benjamin Netenyahu
July 18, 2019
If anyone should know what is happening with Islam and Muslims, PM Netenyahu should know - don't you think? Look at all the experience he has dealing with Islam?
<<
Israel Hayom asked Netanyahu how he responds to attacks claiming Israel undermines stability in the Middle East.

“Once they also said that all the problems of the Middle East are a product of the Palestinian problem,” he said.

“Today, there is no one who seriously argues that. Even our sworn enemies are embarrassed to say it, because the struggle here is between the middle ages and modernism, between the tyranny of radical Islam and the forces of freedom. This is the struggle put simply. To stand against Islamic fundamentalism that wants to take over the Middle East first and then the entire world.”
https://worldisraelnews.com/netanyahu-israel-has-become-central-power-in-world/
>>

Question: Do you see any similarities with what PM Netenyahu is stating about Fundamental Islam and Jihad as that found in the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sirah, and Sharia and the other witnesses?

Question: Do you see any similarities with the previous witnesses I just reviewed?

I call my fourth witness:
Prophet Muhammad

Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."

In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy, because all unbelievers are enemies of Islam. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Question: Why is it that Muslims target civilians in their bombing and suicide attacks on the West? Should we ask the experts?

I call my fifth witness – and you really should listen to everything she has to say:

Ex-Muslim Woman warns America

This Ex-Muslim lady pins the problem of terrorism, of Jihad, and the problems of Islamic countries and in the West on traditional Islam ideology, just like the other four witnesses. This is real and it is happening, even though you are too naïve to see it.

I call my sixth witness:

Moderate Muslims Speak Out on Capitol Hill
IPT News
October 1, 2010
Including remarks by Manda Ervin, an American Muslim who fled Iran following the 1979 revolution, to a conference of Muslim moderates on Capitol Hill.”
Moderate Muslims Speak Out on Capitol Hill

If you read the article, you see that many Muslims are to blame, even moderates.

“The claim is that wary Americans "are just evil, rotten people that hate Muslims. That's the narrative," he added. The same people who put forward this sort of argument disseminate public service announcements denouncing terrorism in vague, cryptic, abstract ways without mentioning actual terrorist perpetrators like Anwar al-Awlaki, Osama bin Laden or Hamas, Muhammad said.”

Question: The false narrative that the Muslim terror supporting organizations put out… Isn’t that the same narrative that the experts are preaching?

“He emphasized the importance of the U.S. government moving to "stop legitimizing groups" like CAIR, MPAC, and ISNA, which he described as a "fifth column" in the United States. "It's got to get to the point where these groups are seen as pariahs on Capitol Hill," Muhammad said.”

Note: The experts, in fact do legitimize and believe these terrorist supporting organizations. Experts use the same vague, cryptic, abstract language to describe terrorist perpetrators. Isn’t that interesting? Aren’t these the “experts” you put your faith in?

setst777 said: ↑
Answer: Islam cannot be tamed. There will always be devout Muslims who will fight to make Sharia (Allah's Law) supreme in every land on earth. There is only one Islam. That Islam ruled by Sharia Law.

Orthodox Islam and Violence 'Linked' Says Top Muslim Scholar

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
Did you even read this article?
>>

Setst RE: You bet I did. That is why I am so happy to respond to your posts. You are my willing poster child to get the message out on this board for anyone to see and learn at your expense.

setst777 said: ↑
What are these "experts" doing about it???

Answer: The "experts" are refusing to identify the real problem; so, nothing is being done. Instead they are following the advice of terrorist supporting Islamic Organizations to tell them what the problems are.

Joseph responds:
<<
Can you provide me with specific names of these "experts" that you feel are following the advice of terrorist supporting Islamic organizations?
>>

Setst RE: I can’t believe you asked that question. YOU are the one quoting the experts who are proclaiming the “spin” that Islamic Organizations want them to teach others. I just responded them. Read their articles on Islamaphobia, Terrorism, Extremists, etc that YOU provided.

• Then review again what the SIX witnesses are saying.
• Read Sharia on Jihad - I provided them,
• Read the Encyclopedia of Islam on Jihad - I quoted several times.
• Read the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira - I quoted throughout.

You will find that the "expert’s" “spin” is exactly what the terrorists want you to believe and not what the genuine sources reveal…

What the experts are saying and what the Isalmic sources actually teach - They are opposites. All of these “experts” are telling the same lies that fundamental Islamists and terrorists wants you to believe. What are they saying?

• It’s not Islam
• Terrorism has nothing to do with religion
• Islamic Extremists are not Islamic
• Islamaphobes are those who teach that Terrorists or Extremists are Islamic.
• Terrorists are just poor, uneducated, frustrated human beings. - Lies
• Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.

Never mind what Islam's most trusted sources state.
Never mind that Sharia teaches it
Never mind that Islamic Leaders and genuine experienced Muslim' warnings are the exact opposite of what the terrorists and "experts" are teaching as their spin on reality.
Never mind that the experts are only teaching what the terrorist supporting organizations want them to teach about terrorism and the problems in Muslim lands and the West - per US Government policy.

The “experts” are refusing to identify the problem. So how can they solve it? They never will.

Why? They are working with, and trusting, the same Islamic Organizations who support the very terrorism and extremism the world is now facing.

During the Obama Administration, President Obama clearly ordered the following:

"Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive."

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.

Obama administration pulls references to Islam from terror training materials, official says.
Obama administration pulls references to Islam from terror training materials, official says

I wonder why the FBI would even trust Muslim terrorist front organizations to genuinely cooperate with them? Really strange stuff. I mean, how dumb can these guys be? I mean, would you ask for help from the enemy to help you draw battle plans to combat them?

Hypothetically, your "expert" would respond:

"Well, no... but I'm just following orders from the president and the terrorist supporting groups... After all, us “experts” are inexperienced dim-witted yellow-bellied sap suckers at heart. But we know how to use a computer and push a pencil. Or didn’t you know that?”

You have already quoted many of these sources yourself. How is it you now want me to show you your sources?

 

[setst777]

Agree with the above re the direction Erdogan is going towards in Turkey.

Here is one article re Erdogan, and his point
'There is no moderate Islam, there is only one Islam'
i.e. that is only the Islamism of Allah!

Erdogan: No Moderate Islam

This comment does not mark any U-turn, or a radical deviation from his earlier freshman-self back in the 2000s. The problem is that his Western "allies" have stubbornly preferred to turn a blind eye to his poster-child Islamism. Worse, they still do.

Several years ago, Erdogan's ideological-self clearly stated that "Turkey is not a country where moderate Islam prevails." In the same speech, his pragmatic-self -- the one that wanted to look pretty to a chorus of Western praise -- added that, "We are Muslims who have found a middle road." But which "middle road?"
​

Hi Joyousperson

Yes, when looking at all of Erdogan's statements throughout his political career, and as we understand his vision, and after reviewing all he has accomplished so far to achieve that vision, we understand the significance of his statements,

'There is no moderate Islam'
and
"Islam is one."

<<
Turkey's strongman, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, may have exhibited all possible features of political Islam since he came to power fifteen years ago, but at least he has been bold and honest about his understanding of Islamism: There is no moderate Islam, he recently said again.

This comment does not mark any U-turn, or a radical deviation from his earlier freshman-self back in the 2000s. The problem is that his Western "allies" have stubbornly preferred to turn a blind eye to his poster-child Islamism. Worse, they still do.

Several years ago, Erdogan's ideological-self clearly stated that "Turkey is not a country where moderate Islam prevails." In the same speech, his pragmatic-self -- the one that wanted to look pretty to a chorus of Western praise -- added that, "We are Muslims who have found a middle road". But which "middle road?"
Erdogan: No Moderate Islam
>>

 

[JosephZ]

Joseph responds: Can you provide me with specific names of these "experts" that you feel are following the advice of terrorist supporting Islamic organizations?
>>
Setst RE: I can’t believe you asked that question. YOU are the one quoting the experts who are proclaiming the “spin” that Islamic Organizations want them to teach others. I just responded them. Read their articles on Islamaphobia, Terrorism, Extremists, etc that YOU provided.

What the experts are saying and what the Isalmic sources actually teach - They are opposites. All of these “experts” are telling the same lies that fundamental Islamists and terrorists wants you to believe. What are they saying?
It’s not Islam
Terrorism has nothing to do with religion
Islamic Extremists are not Islamic
Islamaphobists are those who teach that Terrorists or Extremists are Islamic.
Terrorists are just poor, uneducated, frustrated human beings.
Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.

You have already quoted many of these sources yourself. How is it you now want me to show you your sources?

Because the experts are in agreement with your sources.

Here is one of your sources: "Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to 'Islamophobia'.” --- Yahya Cholil Staquf

What is Staquf says throughout that article is inline with that of terrorism expert Dr. Jeffrey Bale:

"Ever since the jihadist terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions. One might imagine that the gap between the oft-professed motivations of the Islamist perpetrators and the assessment of their motivations by Western analysts would be closing with the passage of time, all the more so given that jihadists have since carried out thousands of acts of terrorism in various regions of the world. Yet in fact the exact opposite has occurred: the more acts of jihadist terrorism that are carried out, in which the perpetrators clearly reveal their ideological motivations, the more insistently key Western elites refuse to give credence to those motivations. It should be remembered, for example, that the official 9/11 Report prepared by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States did not avoid referring to the sponsors’ and perpetrators’ religious motivations, and indeed often used accurate descriptive terms like “radical Islam,” “Islamic fundamentalism,” “jihadists,” “Islamists,” and “Islamism” (even if the section on the apparent involvement of certain Saudi officials in the plot was almost completely redacted and details about the egregious failures of certain government agencies were suppressed). Since then, however, various Western government officials and media outlets have instead repeatedly sought to banish the use of terms like “jihadist” and “Islamic terrorism” from public discourse, thereby effectively acting to conceal the core ideological motivations of our Islamist adversaries in an era characterized by explicitly ideological contestation and ideologically-motivated asymmetric warfare."

Islamism is an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines. Islamism is only one of many possible interpretations of such doctrines, of course, but it is by far the most intolerant, aggressive, belligerent, and imperialistic of all of those interpretations... Although it is certainly true that Islamism and its jihadist variants do indeed derive from specific interpretations of Islam, some of which are quite orthodox and hence arguably legitimate whereas others are instead highly idiosyncratic... these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.

Source: The Darkest Sides of Politics, II and here: Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions

Here is Dr. Bale's bio found on the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism's website.

Jeffery Bale is the Director of the Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program (MonTREP) and Associate Professor in the Graduate School of International Policy Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS). He obtained his B.A. in Middle Eastern, Islamic, and Central Asian history at the University of Michigan, his M.A. in social movements and political sociology at the University of California at Berkeley, and his Ph.D. in contemporary European history at Berkeley. He has taught at Berkeley, Columbia University, and the University of California at Irvine, and was the recipient of postdoctoral fellowships from the Society of Fellows in the Humanities at Columbia, the Office of Scholarly Programs at the Library of Congress, and the Center for German and European Studies at Berkeley. Dr. Bale has been studying extremist and terrorist groups for many years, has done archival research and interviewed extremists in several countries, and has published numerous articles on terrorism, right-wing extremism, Islamism, and covert operations. He is in the process of updating two book manuscripts on neo-fascist terrorist networks in Cold War Europe, editing a special issue of the journal Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions on Islamism, and gathering primary and secondary source materials for three new monographs, one on Islamist networks operating in Europe and North America, another on the growing reported links between dissident left- and right-wing radicals in the West and Islamist terrorists, and still another on "conspiracy theories" concerning major recent acts of terrorism (from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the 7/7 bombings in London). In addition to his teaching and research duties at MIIS, he also teaches courses on an adjunct basis at the Naval Postgraduate School and regularly consults for the U.S. government on matters related to political and religious extremism.

Here is another expert, William Braniff, who also says the same thing as your source:

Braniff: When I talk about this in my professional realm, I talk about jihadism and "ism." It is part of the Islamic tradition and you can not separate Islam from the conversation about a group like al Qaeda or ISIL.

Caller: The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Are they in fact Islamic?

Braniff: Yes.

CALLER: So are they Islamic terrorists?

braniff: Yes.

And here is his bio:

William Braniff is the Director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) and a Professor of the Practice at the University of Maryland. He previously served as the Director of Practitioner Education and an Instructor at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center (CTC). There he led the practitioner education program, the nation’s largest provider of counterterrorism education to federal, state and local governmental audiences.

Braniff is a graduate of the United States Military Academy where he received his bachelor’s degree. Following his Company Command as an Armor Officer in the U.S. Army, Braniff attended the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) where he received a master’s degree in international relations. Upon graduation, Bill worked in the nuclear counterterrorism field at the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, and as a research associate with the CTC Harmony Project at West Point.

Braniff lectures frequently for counterterrorism audiences in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Joint Special Operations University, National Defense University, the United States Attorneys’ Office, the Foreign Service Institute, the Diplomatic Security Service, Defense Intelligence Agency and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Braniff has also taken a keen interest in the field of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). He has consulted with the Department of Justice, the FBI and the National Security Staff, playing a key role in an interagency working group dedicated to the topic. In June of 2013, Bill testified before Congress regarding American attitudes towards terrorism and counterterrorism, and in February of 2014 and again in February 2015 he testified before the House Armed Services Committee on the evolving nature of global jihadism. Also in February of 2015, Bill was asked to speak at the White House CVE Summit, to the United Nations Counterterrorism Executive Directorate, and to the Global Counterterrorism Forum Foreign Terrorist Fighter Working group.

So the “experts” are only parroting US Policy as ordered by terrorist supporting Islamic Organizations here in the USA.

Based on the above, it doesn't sound like they are to me.

Never mind that Islamic Leaders and genuine experienced Muslim' warnings are the exact opposite of what the terrorists and "experts" are teaching.
Never mind that the experts are only teaching what the terrorist supporting organizations want them to teach about terrorism and the problems in Muslim lands and the West - per US Government policy. The “experts” are refusing to identify the problem. So how can they solve it? They never will.

Your sources and the experts are in agreement. However, unlike you, they differentiate between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow. This is where you are in error.

You have already quoted many of these sources yourself. How is it you now want me to show you your sources?

Since the experts are in agreement with your sources, it shows that you have never taken the time to listen to what the experts actually have to say. Instead, you get abbreviated versions of what they say from anti-Islamic propaganda sites and not the whole story.

You even reject the testimonies of the Six Witnesses I gave, all of whom have far more experience with Islam than you imagine yourself to have.

Where did I reject the testimonies of the "six witnesses" you provided. You said that your witnesses say that Islamic Sharia Ideology IS the major cause of the problems in theses Islamic dominated countries and that orthodox, traditional, classical Islam is the major cause of these problems in those countries. All I said was I didn't get that from reading the sources you provided.

What I got from those "witnesses" is that Islamic extremism/extremists and their distorted views of Islam, including traditional Islam are to blame. And unlike you, they all made a distinction between the religion of Islam and the Extremists/Fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.

For example, I'm in total agreement with your witness Yahya Cholil Staquf and what he said in the Time magazine article. I have even said some of the same things he does in that article when I have responded to you in this thread.

"Many Muslims [And You] assume there is an established and immutable [unchangeable, fixed, set, rigid] set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

I have told you that you have a different understanding of Shari'a than Muslims and that they are not a set list of rules.

"Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

I have told you that Islamic extremists/fundamentalist do not represent the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow and should be rejected.

"Generations ago, we achieved a de facto consensus in Indonesia that Islamic teachings must be contextualized to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. The majority of Indonesian Muslims were — and I think still are — of the opinion that the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle Ages [in the Middle East] and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims’ behavior in the present … Which ideological opinions are “correct” is not determined solely by reflection and debate. These are struggles [about who and what is recognized as religiously authoritative]. Political elites in Indonesia routinely employ Islam as a weapon to achieve their worldly objectives." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

I have told you many times over that textual and historical context is key to interpreting Islamic texts/sources and how they are to be applied to Muslims today.

"Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

I have told you that what you are describing is Wahhabism that originated in the Arabian peninsula and how Saudi Arabia has been funding missionaries, schools and mosque throughout the world pushing this perverted sect of Islam.

 

[Joyousperson]

Because the experts are in agreement with your sources.

Here is one of your sources: "Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to 'Islamophobia'.” --- Yahya Cholil Staquf

What is Staquf says throughout that article is inline with that of terrorism expert Dr. Jeffrey Bale:

"Ever since the jihadist terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions. One might imagine that the gap between the oft-professed motivations of the Islamist perpetrators and the assessment of their motivations by Western analysts would be closing with the passage of time, all the more so given that jihadists have since carried out thousands of acts of terrorism in various regions of the world. Yet in fact the exact opposite has occurred: the more acts of jihadist terrorism that are carried out, in which the perpetrators clearly reveal their ideological motivations, the more insistently key Western elites refuse to give credence to those motivations. It should be remembered, for example, that the official 9/11 Report prepared by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States did not avoid referring to the sponsors’ and perpetrators’ religious motivations, and indeed often used accurate descriptive terms like “radical Islam,” “Islamic fundamentalism,” “jihadists,” “Islamists,” and “Islamism” (even if the section on the apparent involvement of certain Saudi officials in the plot was almost completely redacted and details about the egregious failures of certain government agencies were suppressed). Since then, however, various Western government officials and media outlets have instead repeatedly sought to banish the use of terms like “jihadist” and “Islamic terrorism” from public discourse, thereby effectively acting to conceal the core ideological motivations of our Islamist adversaries in an era characterized by explicitly ideological contestation and ideologically-motivated asymmetric warfare."

Islamism is an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines. Islamism is only one of many possible interpretations of such doctrines, of course, but it is by far the most intolerant, aggressive, belligerent, and imperialistic of all of those interpretations... Although it is certainly true that Islamism and its jihadist variants do indeed derive from specific interpretations of Islam, some of which are quite orthodox and hence arguably legitimate whereas others are instead highly idiosyncratic... these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.

Source: The Darkest Sides of Politics, II and here: Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions

Here is Dr. Bale's bio found on the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism's website.

Jeffery Bale is the Director of the Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program (MonTREP) and Associate Professor in the Graduate School of International Policy Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS). He obtained his B.A. in Middle Eastern, Islamic, and Central Asian history at the University of Michigan, his M.A. in social movements and political sociology at the University of California at Berkeley, and his Ph.D. in contemporary European history at Berkeley. He has taught at Berkeley, Columbia University, and the University of California at Irvine, and was the recipient of postdoctoral fellowships from the Society of Fellows in the Humanities at Columbia, the Office of Scholarly Programs at the Library of Congress, and the Center for German and European Studies at Berkeley. Dr. Bale has been studying extremist and terrorist groups for many years, has done archival research and interviewed extremists in several countries, and has published numerous articles on terrorism, right-wing extremism, Islamism, and covert operations. He is in the process of updating two book manuscripts on neo-fascist terrorist networks in Cold War Europe, editing a special issue of the journal Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions on Islamism, and gathering primary and secondary source materials for three new monographs, one on Islamist networks operating in Europe and North America, another on the growing reported links between dissident left- and right-wing radicals in the West and Islamist terrorists, and still another on "conspiracy theories" concerning major recent acts of terrorism (from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the 7/7 bombings in London). In addition to his teaching and research duties at MIIS, he also teaches courses on an adjunct basis at the Naval Postgraduate School and regularly consults for the U.S. government on matters related to political and religious extremism.

Here is another expert, William Braniff, who also says the same thing as your source:

Braniff: When I talk about this in my professional realm, I talk about jihadism and "ism." It is part of the Islamic tradition and you can not separate Islam from the conversation about a group like al Qaeda or ISIL.

Caller: The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Are they in fact Islamic?

Braniff: Yes.

CALLER: So are they Islamic terrorists?

braniff: Yes.

And here is his bio:

William Braniff is the Director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) and a Professor of the Practice at the University of Maryland. He previously served as the Director of Practitioner Education and an Instructor at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center (CTC). There he led the practitioner education program, the nation’s largest provider of counterterrorism education to federal, state and local governmental audiences.

Braniff is a graduate of the United States Military Academy where he received his bachelor’s degree. Following his Company Command as an Armor Officer in the U.S. Army, Braniff attended the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) where he received a master’s degree in international relations. Upon graduation, Bill worked in the nuclear counterterrorism field at the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, and as a research associate with the CTC Harmony Project at West Point.

Braniff lectures frequently for counterterrorism audiences in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Joint Special Operations University, National Defense University, the United States Attorneys’ Office, the Foreign Service Institute, the Diplomatic Security Service, Defense Intelligence Agency and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Braniff has also taken a keen interest in the field of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). He has consulted with the Department of Justice, the FBI and the National Security Staff, playing a key role in an interagency working group dedicated to the topic. In June of 2013, Bill testified before Congress regarding American attitudes towards terrorism and counterterrorism, and in February of 2014 and again in February 2015 he testified before the House Armed Services Committee on the evolving nature of global jihadism. Also in February of 2015, Bill was asked to speak at the White House CVE Summit, to the United Nations Counterterrorism Executive Directorate, and to the Global Counterterrorism Forum Foreign Terrorist Fighter Working group.


Based on the above, it doesn't sound like they are to me.


Your sources and the experts are in agreement. However, unlike you, they differentiate between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow. This is where you are in error.


Since the experts are in agreement with your sources, it shows that you have never taken the time to listen to what the experts actually have to say. Instead, you get abbreviated versions of what they say from anti-Islamic propaganda sites and not the whole story.

JosephZ said:
Your sources and the experts are in agreement. However, unlike you, they differentiate between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow. This is where you are in error.​

You missed out something very critical and pertinent to the argument.

The difference is;

Yahya Cholil Staquf is a Muslim, an expert in Islam and top authority of a major group of Islam in Indonesia.
As such, Staquf being an expert Muslim scholar must know that the Quran and Ahadith do contain loads of terrible evil and violent elements which he acknowledged has influenced SOME evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil and violence.
Yahya Cholil Staquf is attempting to steer clear of the evil and violent elements embedded in the ideology of Islam due to the peer pressure of humanity.

He mentioned generations ago, they agreed to the moderate form of Islam, but then, most Indonesian Muslims were very ignorant of real Islam and many were still walking half-naked. The present is a different generation of the internet and smart-phones who can get access to what is real Islam in accordance to the Quran of Allah.

I don't believe and is not optimistic Staguf will succeed because the inevitable incurable 20% of natural born evil prone Muslims and that the doctrines of Islam are commanded to be immutable. In addition, when salvation is at stake, this 20% of evil prone will be very inclined to Allah's words of evil and violence.

Meanwhile
Dr. Bale and Dr. William Braniff are experts in ALL types of terrorism. I am VERY familiar with both Dr. Bale and Dr. William Braniff's who are PhDs and their works, thus are only expert in a very confined scope of study which they had to to get their PhDs. [I had embarked on a PhD, albeit did not complete].
The critical difference with Staguf, is both Dr. Bale and Dr. Braniff did not dig deep into the root cause, i.e. the ideology of Islam from the Quran and supported by the Ahadith. This is evident in their presented works and papers. This requirement to understand Islam thoroughly, would take loads of time which their PhDs would not provide for.
In addition, Dr. Bale and Dr. Braniff missed out a whole load of knowledge fields which are essential to understand the root causes of terrorism holistically and specifically Islamism.

Where did I reject the testimonies of the "six witnesses" you provided. You said that your witnesses say that Islamic Sharia Ideology IS the major cause of the problems in theses Islamic dominated countries and that orthodox, traditional, classical Islam is the major cause of these problems in those countries. All I said was I didn't get that from reading the sources you provided.

What I got from those "witnesses" is that Islamic extremism/extremists and their distorted views of Islam, including traditional Islam are to blame. And unlike you, they all made a distinction between the religion of Islam and the Extremists/Fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.

For example, I'm in total agreement with your witness Yahya Cholil Staquf and what he said in the Time magazine article. I have even said some of the same things he does in that article when I have responded to you in this thread.

"Many Muslims [And You] assume there is an established and immutable [unchangeable, fixed, set, rigid] set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

I have told you that you have a different understanding of Shari'a than Muslims and that they are not a set list of rules.

"Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

I have told you that Islamic extremists/fundamentalist do not represent the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow and should be rejected.

"Generations ago, we achieved a de facto consensus in Indonesia that Islamic teachings must be contextualized to reflect the ever-changing circumstances of time and place. The majority of Indonesian Muslims were — and I think still are — of the opinion that the various assumptions embedded within Islamic tradition must be viewed within the historical, political and social context of their emergence in the Middle Ages [in the Middle East] and not as absolute injunctions that must dictate Muslims’ behavior in the present … Which ideological opinions are “correct” is not determined solely by reflection and debate. These are struggles [about who and what is recognized as religiously authoritative]. Political elites in Indonesia routinely employ Islam as a weapon to achieve their worldly objectives." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

I have told you many times over that textual and historical context is key to interpreting Islamic texts/sources and how they are to be applied to Muslims today.

"Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

I have told you that what you are describing is Wahhabism that originated in the Arabian peninsula and how Saudi Arabia has been funding missionaries, schools and mosque throughout the world pushing this perverted sect of Islam.

Note while Sets777 refer to the critiques of his witnesses against orthodox Islam he had never agreed with them that the 'moderate Islam' they had proposed is THE Islam from Allah.

Note Sets777 point re Erdogan who do not approved any moderate Islam.

Essentially there is only ONE Islam, i.e. the ONE represented by the 6236 verses revealed directly from Allah to Muhammad via angel Gabriel during the period 610-632 CE within Mecca and Medina. When and where else?
The ideology of Islam is supported by the Ahadiths [complied 200++ years after the death of Muhammad].

Thus what is critical is, regardless of what a school of Islam is called [Wahabbism, Sunni, Shafi'i etc.] what count as "Islamic" is the degree that school conforms and aligns with the verses of the Quran [& Ahadith].

Can you prove the "moderate Islam" proposed by whatever school is more Islamic than Wahabbism and those who adhere strictly to the Sharia of Allah?

One very small example;
The strict Sharia of Allah [Shafi'i] enact the following divine law of Allah, i.e.

Book O: 8.1 Reliance of the Traveller;
o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.​

Show me where any one of those who proposed what is supposedly 'moderate Islam' has accepted the above commands of Allah via Ahadith?

I challenged you on the above re your personal views on the above but you slyly ignored it.

Btw, the above is merely ONE example, there are thousands of verses of evil and violence I could raised from the moderate Muslims of moderate Islam to consider.

 

[Joyousperson]

JosephZ,

I quoted the Reliance of Traveller re Shafi'i School re death for apostasy but note,

According to Abdul Rashied Omar, the majority of modern Islamic jurists continue to regard apostasy as a crime deserving the death penalty.
Apostasy in Islam - Wikipedia
​

The majority of Muslims [supposedly moderates] do not agree with the above because they are more humane as human beings and are ignorant of what true Islam really entails.

Some Muslims [knowledgeable of Islam] will state openly in public they disagree with the above [killing apostates], but that is only because they are practicing Taqiyyah due to pressures from human rights groups. These knowledgeable Muslims know Allah's words are immutable, thus cannot be changed and need to be obeyed to ensure they can avoid Islamic Hell to get to the Islamic paradise with eternal life.

Note this poll where there is high % of Muslims agreeing with killing of apostates;
Smite the Unbelievers

1. Sharia should be law of land
2. Muslims who believe sharia should be law who accept death penalty for apostasy
3. % of Muslims who accept death penalty for apostasy

The above % results re 1, 2 and 3 are presented sequentially below;
Afghanistan 1. 99% 2. 79% 3. 78%
Pakistan 84% 76% 64%
Egypt 74% 86% 64%
Palestinian territories 89% 66% “59%
Jordan 71% 82% 58%
Malaysia 86% 62% 53%
Iraq 91% 42% 38%
Bangladesh 82% 44% 36%
Tunisia 56% 29% 16%
Lebanon 29% 46% 13%
Indonesia 72% 18% 13%
Tajikstan 27% 22% 6%
Kyrgyzstan 35% 14% 5%
Bosnia 15% 15% 2%
Kosovo 20% 11% 2%
Turkey 12% 17% 2%
Albania 12% 8% 1%
Kazakhstan 10% 4% 0%

The countries with the larger Muslims population are Indonesia [270 million] = 13% 35 million, Parkistan [200] 64% = 138 million Bangladesh [165 million] 36% = appx. 60 million. The poll excluded India which has the 2nd highest number of Muslims.

Thus your confining your argument to Wahhabism only is a sham and toothless and represent low IQ thoughts.

 

[JosephZ]

I can see where you would get that idea without knowing any background of the situation. Erdogan is surely against using any term to describe Islam. However, attacking Crown Prince for using the words “moderate Islam” has a deeper meaning than you are aware of. The key to understanding the depth of meaning to Erdogan’s rebuke has to do with his statement: “Islam is one.”

Erdogan surely understands this distinction. So what does Erdogan mean by saying: “Islam is one?” My understanding comes from the history of Erdogan’s rule of Turkey and what he is now accomplishing to fulfill his ideal or Islam as one entity.

Erdogan is only saying what most Muslims believe. There is only one Islam. Many Muslims believe that the term moderate Islam degrades the religion and doesn't do enough to separate Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the majority of the world's Muslims follow.

Have you noticed how I have been responding to you in this thread?

it easy for me to differentiate between the extremists ideology of Wahhabism that Setst777 is describing and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

This whole tread and what you have been describing in your post is Wahhabism and not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

They intentionally take the Qur'an and other religious texts out of textual and historical context in an effort to deceive people who are ignorant of the teachings of the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

I showed without doubt that what you are describing here is Wahabbism, not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of Muslims follow. What you teach as being Islam is not taught in any legitimate school that offers courses in Islamic Studies or Islamic History regardless if the courses are offered by a Christian, Islamic, or secular school of thought.

Even I choose not to use terms like moderate Islam and instead use the term "the religion of Islam" to describe what the vast majority of Muslims follow. There is either Islamic extremism (Wahhabism, Fundamentalism, etc.) or the religion of Islam, there is no "moderate Islam".

While there may be many Islamic cultures found in the world, there is only one Islam.

So I want to very briefly describe that history that could fill a book or two…

I lived in Turkey for 11 months while in the military, I know its history.

Erdogan envisions Turkey – and all Islamic countries – as being one Islam under Sharia, and is working to achieve that dream.

Once again, the one Islam Erdogan is talking about isn't even close to what you are describing in this thread.

“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…” The Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

This is not a quote from Erdogen, this is from a poem by Ziya Gökalp. Erdogan was sentenced to prison for reciting this poem during a speech in 1997.

Besides Jihad against unbelievers, Erdogan is preaching a political agenda

Erdogan is preaching jihad against non-Muslims? I haven't seen any evidence of this.

Erdogan is working to correct this error, and sees the Crown Prince as going in the opposite direction that he is taking Islam into – a one Islam under Sharia.

You have it backwards. Erdogen was rebuking the Crown Prince for his hypocrisy by claiming to be moderate, while denying basic human rights.

“The mindset that excludes women from life does not take its reference from Islam but tradition. You talk about moderate Islam but deny women driving cars. Is there any obstacle in Islam to this? No. What is this paradox?”

In reality, Islam and Sharia are inseparable. When you diminish or replace Sharia, you diminish or replace Islam in practice because Islam is founded on the immutable Law of Allah.

Unlike you and the OP who believe that Islam hasn't changed since the 7th century and the Wahhabists/fundamentalist interpretations of Islam and Shari'a are the correct interpretations, and it's most of the world's Muslims who don't adhere to the extremist interpretations that need to live up to Islam’s immutable commandments; Erdogen holds a much different position.

‘Islam is updated over time, you can't impose old rules to modern times,' President Erdoğan said on International Women's Day as he criticized controversial remarks from theologians tying misogyny to Islam.

Erdoğan also underlined that Islam's rules for daily life and human relationships are updated over time, criticizing recent misogynistic remarks by some bigoted clerics.

On International Women's Day, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan hosted women from all walks of life at the Presidential Complex. As he heaped praise on women's role in society, the president also slammed "some clerics" justifying violence against women and defending other forms of misogyny with reference to Islam.

"Recently, some people claiming to be clerics issued statements contradicting the religion. It is hard to understand. They have no place in our times. They don't know Islam needed an update and is accordingly updated. You can't apply the practices applied 15 centuries ago today. Islam changes and adopts to the conditions of different ages. This is the beauty of Islam," Erdoğan said.

Erdoğan slams bigoted clerics degrading women

“We do not seek reform in religion, which is beyond our capability … Our holy Quran has and will always have words to say. Its commandments will never change. But the independent reasoning derived from them, the developed rules and their implementation will surely change according to the time, the conditions and the possibilities,”

“The understanding that tries to depict Islam as a religion closed off to change and the understanding that attributes deviancies that have nothing to do with Islam to our religion only serve the same aim,” Erdoğan said.

Centuries-old Islamic provisions cannot be implemented today: Erdoğan - Turkey News

Erdogen has been a leader in Turkey for 16 years now. He is also a leading voice against Islamic extremism and those who use Islam to deny rights to others both Mulsims and non-Muslims alike. He is clearly not in agreement with you on your interpretation of Islam or Shari'a.

 

[Joyousperson]

Erdogan is only saying what most Muslims believe. There is only one Islam. Many Muslims believe that the term moderate Islam degrades the religion and doesn't do enough to separate Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the majority of the world's Muslims follow.

Have you noticed how I have been responding to you in this thread?


Even I choose not to use terms like moderate Islam and instead use the term "the religion of Islam" to describe what the vast majority of Muslims follow. There is either Islamic extremism (Wahhabism, Fundamentalism, etc.) or the religion of Islam, there is no "moderate Islam".

While there may be many Islamic cultures found in the world, there is only one Islam.


I lived in Turkey for 11 months while in the military, I know its history.


Once again, the one Islam Erdogan is talking about isn't even close to what you are describing in this thread.


This is not a quote from Erdogen, this is from a poem by Ziya Gökalp. Erdogan was sentenced to prison for reciting this poem during a speech in 1997.


Erdogan is preaching jihad against non-Muslims? I haven't seen any evidence of this.


You have it backwards. Erdogen was rebuking the Crown Prince for his hypocrisy by claiming to be moderate, while denying basic human rights.

“The mindset that excludes women from life does not take its reference from Islam but tradition. You talk about moderate Islam but deny women driving cars. Is there any obstacle in Islam to this? No. What is this paradox?”


Unlike you and the OP who believe that Islam hasn't changed since the 7th century and the Wahhabists/fundamentalist interpretations of Islam and Shari'a are the correct interpretations, and it's most of the world's Muslims who don't adhere to the extremist interpretations that need to live up to Islam’s immutable commandments; Erdogen holds a much different position.

‘Islam is updated over time, you can't impose old rules to modern times,' President Erdoğan said on International Women's Day as he criticized controversial remarks from theologians tying misogyny to Islam.

Erdoğan also underlined that Islam's rules for daily life and human relationships are updated over time, criticizing recent misogynistic remarks by some bigoted clerics.

On International Women's Day, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan hosted women from all walks of life at the Presidential Complex. As he heaped praise on women's role in society, the president also slammed "some clerics" justifying violence against women and defending other forms of misogyny with reference to Islam.

"Recently, some people claiming to be clerics issued statements contradicting the religion. It is hard to understand. They have no place in our times. They don't know Islam needed an update and is accordingly updated. You can't apply the practices applied 15 centuries ago today. Islam changes and adopts to the conditions of different ages. This is the beauty of Islam," Erdoğan said.

Erdoğan slams bigoted clerics degrading women

“We do not seek reform in religion, which is beyond our capability … Our holy Quran has and will always have words to say. Its commandments will never change. But the independent reasoning derived from them, the developed rules and their implementation will surely change according to the time, the conditions and the possibilities,”

“The understanding that tries to depict Islam as a religion closed off to change and the understanding that attributes deviancies that have nothing to do with Islam to our religion only serve the same aim,” Erdoğan said.

Centuries-old Islamic provisions cannot be implemented today: Erdoğan - Turkey News

Erdogen has been a leader in Turkey for 16 years now. He is also a leading voice against Islamic extremism and those who use Islam to deny rights to others both Mulsims and non-Muslims alike. He is clearly not in agreement with you on your interpretation of Islam or Shari'a.

Your above contradict the reference I quoted earlier and elaborated by Sets777. i.e.

Erdogan: No Moderate Islam
This comment does not mark any U-turn, or a radical deviation from his earlier freshman-self back in the 2000s. The problem is that his Western "allies" have stubbornly preferred to turn a blind eye to his poster-child Islamism. Worse, they still do.

Several years ago, Erdogan's ideological-self clearly stated that "Turkey is not a country where moderate Islam prevails." In the same speech, his pragmatic-self -- the one that wanted to look pretty to a chorus of Western praise -- added that, "We are Muslims who have found a middle road." But which "middle road?"​

When you were in Turkey which is probable in "his earlier freshman-self back in the 2000s." Erdogen was touted be a very moderate Muslim but in the later years to the present there is exposure of Erdogen's true view of Islam.

Note Harun Yahya [below] who was once a very famous Muslim 'scholar' wrote many books [especially anti-evolutionist] as was acknowledged by the majority of Muslims worldwide. He has a very favorable treatment of women much more than Erdogen who now expect all Muslim women in Turkey to cover up [a form of oppression against women].

Just read Harun Yahya was arrested by Erdogen's government.

You quoted this which is very critical;

“We do not seek reform in religion, which is beyond our capability … Our holy Quran has and will always have words to say. Its commandments will never change. But the independent reasoning derived from them, the developed rules and their implementation will surely change according to the time, the conditions and the possibilities,”

“The understanding that tries to depict Islam as a religion closed off to change and the understanding that attributes deviancies that have nothing to do with Islam to our religion only serve the same aim,” Erdoğan said.

Centuries-old Islamic provisions cannot be implemented today: Erdoğan - Turkey News​

Erdogen's apparent condemnation of a certain cleric in relation to the beating of women [4:34] is very superficial. This is a contentious verse and Erdogen has no authority to judge who is right or wrong on its interpretation. [nb: the STALEMATE Dilemma]

The fact is the overall ethos of the ideology of Islam is inherently aggressive, violent and anti-disbelievers and this according to Erdogen cannot be reformed and the commandments by Allah will never change.
This is the ethos is reflected in Erdogen's recent views as reported in this article;
Erdogan: No Moderate Islam

Note these few verses [there are many of the likes] where non-compliance will incur Allah's wrath and accorded to Hell;

10:15 … If I disobey my Lord I fear the retribution of an awful Day.
4:14. And whoso [sinner -infidel] disobeyeth Allah and His messenger and transgresseth His limits, He will make him enter Fire, where such will dwell for ever; his will be a shameful doom. [unpardonable sin]
39:13. Say: Lo! if I should disobey [i.e. become an infidel] my Lord, I fear the doom of a tremendous Day.
69:10. And they [infidels] disobeyed the messenger of their Lord, therefor did He grip them with a tightening grip.​

What are the critical criteria and grounds to the above?

A Muslim is one who has entered into a covenant Allah to comply with the 6236 verses of the Quran which contain loads of evil and violent verses [3400++ or 55%] that are contemptuous [including warring and killing] to the infidels. So a good Muslims must comply [to best ability] with all the covenanted terms in the Quran [supported by Ahadith].

Erdogen being a Muslim and understanding that Islam cannot be reformed nor its commandments be changed, has no choice but to obey fully whatever is commanded in the Quran [& Ahadith].
Being a world leader Erdogen has no choice but to pretend and state his words carefully [Taqiyya] but he cannot hide his view when we read more into his statements as reported in
Erdogan: No Moderate Islam

 

[JosephZ]

Note Harun Yahya [below] who was once a very famous Muslim 'scholar' wrote many books [especially anti-evolutionist] as was acknowledged by the majority of Muslims worldwide.

I'm pretty sure the majority of Muslims that acknowledged him considered him to be a kook.

He has a very favorable treatment of women

Are you sure about that?

He calls his female followers “kittens"... Some of the female followers, many of whom are accused of having plastic surgery to make themselves look alike, also host TV shows on A9, where they discuss social issues. Oktar is also known for organising parties in hotel rooms and his yacht attended by dozens of women. His following is commonly likened to a sex cult.

He has a very favorable treatment of women more than Erdogen who now expect all Muslim women in Turkey to cover up [a form of oppression against women].

That's not the impression I get.

“From now there will be no fight for freedom of faith, freedom of thought, and freedom of opinion. Everyone will be free in their own faith, be free to live accordingly. In the fields of opinions and thought, everyone will say whatever he or she believes in. There will be no debate on whether any woman’s head is covered or not.” -- President Erdogan, August 4, 2018

These articles give a little history about the previous ban on head coverings for women in Turkey.

Why Turkey Lifted Its Ban on the Islamic Headscarf
Turkey lifts decades-old ban on headscarves

Just read Harun Yahya was arrested by Erdogen's government

It appears they may have just cause for arresting him.

Notorious Muslim televangelist Adnan Oktar, known for leading a cultish group, was arrested by Turkish police in Istanbul on Friday over a number of serious charges, including forming a criminal organisation, sexual abuse of children and sexual assault.

According to the Turkish media, after Oktar was detained on Wednesday, he said that he was surprised to be arrested since he supported Erdogan in the June elections. He said he believed the president was not aware of the operation against him.

Other charges Oktar faces are sexual intercourse with minors, kidnapping children, sexual harassment, blackmailing, holding people captive, menace, political and military espionage, fraud by exploiting religious feelings and beliefs, money laundering, violation of privacy, forgery of official documents, opposition to anti-terror law, coercion, slander, alienating citizens from mandatory military service, insulting, false incrimination, perjury, aggravated fraud, opposition to law against smuggling, opposition to tax regulation law, bribery, preventing one’s right to education and civil rights, torture, illegal recording of personal data, and violating the law on the protection of family and women.

Oktar owns a TV channel called A9, from where he broadcasts a show on religious and social issues surrounded by surgically enhanced women he refers to as his “kittens.”

During the operations into his compound, police confiscated six truckloads of historical artifacts and antiques along with more than 400 memory sticks, 70 weapons, over 3,000 bullets, luxury cars, and considerable amounts of cash.

Within the scope of the investigation, the indictment has recorded the statement of 125 victims and complainants.

Istanbul court approves indictment of cult leader Oktar
Televangelist Adnan Oktar arrested, denies charges - Turkey News

This is the ethos is reflected in Erdogen's recent views as reported in this article;
Erdogan: No Moderate Islam

You aren't going to get a fair and balanced report about anything or anyone related to Islam from the site "The Middle East Forum" that you linked to.

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis.

Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Anti-Islam

In review, The Middle East Forum is an anti-Islamist and strongly pro-Israel group. They often use moderately loaded wording in their headlines such as this: Migration to Europe Becomes a Crisis and they rarely provide hyperlinked sourcing. The Middle East Forum also republishes articles from right leaning sources such as the Washington Times and the Gatestone Institute.

The Middle East Forum has been placed on the Hate Watch list by the Southern Poverty Law Center for financing a rally in London last month in support of English far-right provocateur Tommy Robinson. The MEF also bankrolled Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar’s trip to the U.K. to attend the rally for the jailed far-right activist.

In response to the rally, on June 19, 2018 a letter was published in The Guardian with over 50 signatories, including British parliamentarians, condemning the rally calling it a “resurgent of the racist right.”

“The racist right are using Robinson to reorganize,” the letter states. “Nazi salutes and Islamophobia were at the centre of the mobilisation. This is the first serious attempt since the collapse of the English Defence League (EDL) to develop a racist street movement and give it a political form.”

Further, the founder and President of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes is listed as an Islamophobic Individual by CAIR.

Overall, we rate the Middle East Forum Questionable due to Anti-Islamic views that have been labeled as hate by multiple organizations. (D. Van Zandt 8/11/2018)

 

[Joyousperson]

I'm pretty sure the majority of Muslims that acknowledged him considered him to be a kook.

Note I stated 'was acknowledged' as a reputable scholar and his articles and books were cited by many Islamic scholars THEN, until the fundamentals and extremists Muslims [supported by Erdogan] dominated the narrative.

Are you sure about that?

He calls his female followers “kittens"... Some of the female followers, many of whom are accused of having plastic surgery to make themselves look alike, also host TV shows on A9, where they discuss social issues. Oktar is also known for organising parties in hotel rooms and his yacht attended by dozens of women. His following is commonly likened to a sex cult.

From what I have seen, the females surrounding him were not 'forced' to wear the hijab which is relatively more liberal [in this case] in contrast to the norms these days for Muslim woman.

As for surrounding himself with woman and sex, even with children, it is likely he followed the examples of Prophet Muhammad as an exemplar.
Who are you [me and others] to argue against him when he refer to the Quran, Ahadith and Sira of Islam?

That's not the impression I get.

“From now there will be no fight for freedom of faith, freedom of thought, and freedom of opinion. Everyone will be free in their own faith, be free to live accordingly. In the fields of opinions and thought, everyone will say whatever he or she believes in. There will be no debate on whether any woman’s head is covered or not.” -- President Erdogan, August 4, 2018

These articles give a little history about the previous ban on head coverings for women in Turkey.

Why Turkey Lifted Its Ban on the Islamic Headscarf
Turkey lifts decades-old ban on headscarves

You got the WRONG impression. Read the articles properly.

For 90 years, there was a ban in the wearing of headscarf [hijab] on public servants and schools;

The ban, whose roots date back almost 90 years to the early days of the Turkish Republic, has kept many women from joining the public work force.

Critics accuse Erdogan of lifting the ban to force his Islamic values on the majority Muslim but staunchly secular nation.

When plans to remove the ban were first announced last week, the main opposition party labelled it "a serious blow to the secular republic" created by modern Turkey's founding father Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1923.
...
Female civil servants are now allowed to wear headscarves, while their male counterparts can sport beards.

Turkey lifts decades-old ban on headscarves
​

The above is evidence that Erdogan is moving towards introducing more Islamism gradually into Turkey.

It appears they may have just cause for arresting him.

Notorious Muslim televangelist Adnan Oktar, known for leading a cultish group, was arrested by Turkish police in Istanbul on Friday over a number of serious charges, including forming a criminal organisation, sexual abuse of children and sexual assault.

According to the Turkish media, after Oktar was detained on Wednesday, he said that he was surprised to be arrested since he supported Erdogan in the June elections. He said he believed the president was not aware of the operation against him.

Other charges Oktar faces are sexual intercourse with minors, kidnapping children, sexual harassment, blackmailing, holding people captive, menace, political and military espionage, fraud by exploiting religious feelings and beliefs, money laundering, violation of privacy, forgery of official documents, opposition to anti-terror law, coercion, slander, alienating citizens from mandatory military service, insulting, false incrimination, perjury, aggravated fraud, opposition to law against smuggling, opposition to tax regulation law, bribery, preventing one’s right to education and civil rights, torture, illegal recording of personal data, and violating the law on the protection of family and women.

Oktar owns a TV channel called A9, from where he broadcasts a show on religious and social issues surrounded by surgically enhanced women he refers to as his “kittens.”

During the operations into his compound, police confiscated six truckloads of historical artifacts and antiques along with more than 400 memory sticks, 70 weapons, over 3,000 bullets, luxury cars, and considerable amounts of cash.

Within the scope of the investigation, the indictment has recorded the statement of 125 victims and complainants.

Istanbul court approves indictment of cult leader Oktar
Televangelist Adnan Oktar arrested, denies charges - Turkey News

In Politics anything goes against the one who is not in line with the government in power.

You aren't going to get a fair and balanced report about anything or anyone related to Islam from the site "The Middle East Forum" that you linked to.

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis.

Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Anti-Islam

In review, The Middle East Forum is an anti-Islamist and strongly pro-Israel group. They often use moderately loaded wording in their headlines such as this: Migration to Europe Becomes a Crisis and they rarely provide hyperlinked sourcing. The Middle East Forum also republishes articles from right leaning sources such as the Washington Times and the Gatestone Institute.

The Middle East Forum has been placed on the Hate Watch list by the Southern Poverty Law Center for financing a rally in London last month in support of English far-right provocateur Tommy Robinson. The MEF also bankrolled Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar’s trip to the U.K. to attend the rally for the jailed far-right activist.

In response to the rally, on June 19, 2018 a letter was published in The Guardian with over 50 signatories, including British parliamentarians, condemning the rally calling it a “resurgent of the racist right.”

“The racist right are using Robinson to reorganize,” the letter states. “Nazi salutes and Islamophobia were at the centre of the mobilisation. This is the first serious attempt since the collapse of the English Defence League (EDL) to develop a racist street movement and give it a political form.”

Further, the founder and President of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes is listed as an Islamophobic Individual by CAIR.

Overall, we rate the Middle East Forum Questionable due to Anti-Islamic views that have been labeled as hate by multiple organizations. (D. Van Zandt 8/11/2018)

There you go again.
Who are the "Southern Poverty Law Center" to throw their weight around?

As for CAIR, there are loads of accusations thrown at CAIR as a terrorist group.

Critics of CAIR have accused it of pursuing an Islamist agenda[5][6][7] and have claimed that the group is connected to Hamas[8] and the Muslim Brotherhood,[9][7] claims which CAIR has rejected and described as an Islamophobic smear campaign.[10] Due to apparent ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the government of the United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR as a terrorist organization.

Senator Ted Cruz attempted on multiple occasions to introduce legislation criminalizing the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR under the designation of terrorist organizations.

Council on American–Islamic Relations - Wikipedia

I am very familiar with Tommy Robinson. Yes he had past association with the EDL but resigned after the EDL was infiltrated by Nazis and white supremacists.

The fact is those who critique the true nature of Islam are branded racists, bigot and Islamophobia without any rational grounds.

Tommy Robinson wrote a book [an Amazon best seller] with Peter Macloughin,
Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims Kill For Islam
by Tommy Robinson
Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Mohammed's Koran: Why Muslims Kill For Islam

In the general section, Amazon has banned his book for no rational reasons except based on hearsays.
Check this Amazon:

In his book, all he did was to rearrange the Quran intact in Chronological order and a commentary section. I challenge you to show where his commentary is wrong in a major and significant way?

For the sake of truth, to get the true picture of Tommy Robinson listen to him in his address at the Oxford Union, this will wash up all the dirty lies you had be exposed to by the evil and irrational propagandists;

Note as I had always stated, what counts is the references to the original sources of Islam, i.e. the Quran, Ahadith and Sira.
The tafsirs by anyone else must be subjected to scrutiny against the original sources.

Note I am not too concern with terms like anti-Islam, anti-secular, anti-Nazism, anti-democracy, anti-communism, etc. [except anti-race, anti-semitism, anti-Muslims, anti-human and the likes ] as long as one support one's ideas with rational arguments and proper evidences.

You on the other hand are using your own very subjective personal observations of the majority Muslims' behaviors as the primary source of evidence to arrive at your conclusion.
What kind of intellectual exercise is that! That is a disgrace and a sham!

Currently there a very dichotomous ideological warfare between the 'left' and others. I am for philosophical and rational arguments.
However the left do not believe in rational arguments but because they don't have sound arguments to support their ideology, they relied on labeling critiques in a derogatory manner, suppress freedom of speech and using violence and others to shut up opponents.
Somehow the ideology of the left is similar to that of the ideology of Islam except for the religious elements.

I am not sure whether you are on the right or left, but it is obvious you do not support the use of rational arguments but merely using subjective opinions and labeling others as islamophobic, racists, bigots from unreliable sources such as SPLC, CAIR, etc.

I have shown the ideology of Islam to be inherently malignant, evil and violent in its ethos.
There is nothing wrong with being anti-Islam, anti-Islam-bashers, etc. as long as one's arguments is supported from the original sources of Islam, i.e. Allah's words.

Since we are specifically discussing Islam, you hardly make detailed references to the Quran, Ahadith except for a few very contentious verses which seemingly are "peaceful."
​

 

[Joyousperson]

JosephZ,

Note this challenge which I have repeated twice and you slyly ignored;
.............
"
Thus what is critical is, regardless of what a school of Islam is called [Wahabbism, Sunni, Shafi'i etc.] what count as "Islamic" is the degree that school conforms and aligns with the verses of the Quran [& Ahadith].

Can you prove the "moderate Islam" proposed by whatever school is more Islamic than Wahabbism and those who adhere strictly to the Sharia of Allah?

One very small example;
The strict Sharia of Allah [Shafi'i] enact the following divine law of Allah, i.e.

Book O: 8.1 Reliance of the Traveller;
o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.​

Show me where any one of those who proposed what is supposedly 'moderate Islam' has accepted the above commands of Allah via Ahadith?

I challenged you on the above re your personal views on the above but you slyly ignored it.

Btw, the above is merely ONE example, there are thousands of verses of evil and violence I could raised from the moderate Muslims of moderate Islam to consider.
"
................

The point is those who agree to the above, i.e. apostates are to be killed [as an essential element of Islam], cannot be considered to be adopting moderate Islam [there is no such thing as moderate Islam].

 

[setst777]

Erdogan is only saying what most Muslims believe.

Hi Joseph,

Well, it's hard to respond to someone who is now agreeing with Joyousperson and myself on almost every disagreement we have had on this thread with you about Islam and Jihad.

<<<
setst777 said: ↑
You have already quoted many of these sources yourself. How is it you now want me to show you your sources?

Joseph responds:
Because the experts are in agreement with your sources.
>>>

In stating this, you are already admitting you have lost all your points of argument in this discussion.

The “experts” you previously quoted and the experts you now quote are stating the exact opposite.

The "expert" sources you previously quoted were used by you to "prove" that:

• extremism and terrorism are caused by social factors, and have little, or nothing, to do with religion.
• Islamic extremism and terrorism do not represent Islam
• extremist groups have nothing to do with Muslims
• terrorism is described by the “experts” you used in vague, cryptic, abstract ways without mentioning Islam as the cause of most terrorism.

Now you disagree with your original “experts.” You are now agreeing with almost everything I have been teaching you all along. You then search hard to find several experts who agree with me and disagree with the experts you gave earlier to prove just the opposite.

All I can say is “thank you.”

True, you still don't understand what Sharia is. I hope to change that in this message.

Even when Sharia is quoted to you, you say,

"That is not sharia" or
"That is Wahhabism" or
'the quotes are out of context.'

For instance when Joyousperson and I quoted Suni figh on Sharia called "Reliance of the Traveller" showing that terrorism, war and violence against unbelievers is a command of Allah in Jihad, and is the reason Islamic terrorists use these methods, you object, saying:

Joseph responds:
<<
That is not Shri'a. Muslims have a much different understanding of Shari'a than you do.
>>

This shows all of us that you don't know what Sharia is.

Hint: Sharia is not up for a democratic vote.

Now let us look at your most recent posts…

You quote the following dialogue:
<<
Joseph responds:
Can you provide me with specific names of these "experts" that you feel are following the advice of terrorist supporting Islamic organizations?

Setst RE: I can’t believe you asked that question. YOU are the one quoting the experts who are proclaiming the “spin” that Islamic Organizations want them to teach others. I just responded them. Read their articles on Islamaphobia, Terrorism, Extremists, etc that YOU provided.

setst777 said: ↑
What the experts are saying and what the Isalmic sources actually teach - They are opposites. All of these “experts” are telling the same lies that fundamental Islamists and terrorists wants you to believe. What are they saying?

• It’s not Islam
• Terrorism has nothing to do with religion
• Islamic Extremists are not Islamic
• Islamaphobists are those who teach that Terrorists or Extremists are Islamic.
• Terrorists are just poor, uneducated, frustrated human beings. - Lies
• Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.

setst777 said: ↑
You have already quoted many of these sources yourself. How is it you now want me to show you your sources?

Joseph responds:
<<
Because the experts are in agreement with your sources.
>>

Setst RE: Yes, the two experts you presently quote disagree with all your earlier arguments and they agree with me.

Joseph responds:
<<
Your sources and the experts are in agreement. However, unlike you, they differentiate between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow. This is where you are in error.
>>

Setst RE: You misrepresent their positions, and the positions of the experts I used and the ones you used. Where do they ever make the distinction between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow?

Joseph continues:
<<
What I got from those "witnesses" is that Islamic extremism/extremists and their distorted views of Islam, including traditional Islam are to blame. And unlike you, they all made a distinction between the religion of Islam and the Extremists/Fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.
>>

Setst RE: Distorted? By whose judgment are they distorted? How did you come to that judgment by reading the 6 witnesses, or your two latest experts that their views are distorted?

Joseph continues:
<<
For example, I'm in total agreement with your witness Yahya Cholil Staquf and what he said in the Time magazine article. I have even said some of the same things he does in that article when I have responded to you in this thread.
>>

Setst RE: Oh really?! You have been arguing the opposite.

Joseph quotes:
<<
"Many Muslims [And You] assume there is an established and immutable [unchangeable, fixed, set, rigid] set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf
>>

Joseph writes:
<<
I have told you that you have a different understanding of Shari'a than Muslims and that they are not a set list of rules.
>>

Setst RE: "Many Muslims" believe the same thing I have been trying to teach you - that Sharia represent the immutable laws of Allah.

Sharia has already been interpreted by Suni and Shia sects of Islam. These interpretations of Sharia are called “figh.” "Reliance of the Traveller” is the figh of Sharia for the Shafii School of Suni.

If most Muslims do not appear understand Sharia as defined by their sect of Islam, that does not mean Sharia is up to democratic election as to what it means. Sharia has already been defined by the Jurists.

Sharia is the immutable set of Islamic Laws of Allah since 632 AD (the death of Islam’s last Prophet), and are not optional. This understanding is according to Islamic and secular encyclopedias and Islamic scholars of Suni and Shia Muslims. That is the "assumption" that cannot be denied.

You are right in saying that Sharia is not a set of rules, but does include rules. You have shown through all your responses that you hardly understand or know anything about Sharia, or figh, or even fatwah.

“Figh” is the interpretation of Sharia by each sect of Islam by Jurists and is not open to democratic vote.

Each of the four schools of Suni Islam [and is similar in Shia] have their own interpretation of Allah’s Law – Sharia – called “figh.” This interpretation is a result of legal experts understanding after studying the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira.

The one interpretation of Sharia that I am most familiar with is called, “Reliance of the Traveller” of the Shafii School – a Figh Manual of Sharia. Even so, the interpretation of Sharia by the four schools of Suni are almost identical as regards to the major topic of discussion on this board –

• Jihad against unbelievers, hypocrites, apostates, and blasphemy,
• use of Taqyah
• Threats and Terrorism in the fight against unbelievers.
• Discipline for hypocrisy, apostates and blasphemy – although differing slightly – eventually result in death if not repented of in all schools of Suni jurisprudence.

In addition: The Hadd crimes are universal in Sharia of all Islam, as well as slavery laws and polygamy for males.

Regarding Jihad – the four schools of Suni, and most of Shia, universally understand that the fight against unbelievers, hypocrites, apostasy and blasphemy was to continue until the Day of Judgment – until there is no religion but Islam – Sharia ruling over all.

You disagreed, regarding said “Jihad” by Islam saying that this Jihad was limited to the 632 AD only, and Islam is only about peace now. However you have no evidence for your opinion, and such opinion is opposed to all known reliable sources - Islamic and secular.

“Figh” is the interpretation of Sharia – the defining of its boundaries governing all aspects of social and political Islam. “Figh” helps to understand Sharia regarding rules of behavior in daily living and politics – these rules are not immutable, but cannot be changed by anyone except by the Jurists.

A “fatwa” is an opinion given by jurist based on Sharia, and is not binding.

Continued...

 

[setst777]

"Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

Joseph quotes:
<<
"Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf
>>

Setst RE: You are fraudulently quoting Yahya out of context to make him appear to say the opposite of what he actually stated.

Yahya is not saying the absolute nature of fundamental traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia) is false, but that they should be rejected as false in favor of secular laws because of the violent tendencies that Islamic law creates.

***
No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence …

Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.

Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.
***

Joseph continues:
<<
I have told you that Islamic extremists/fundamentalist do not represent the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow and should be rejected.
>>

Setst RE: The quote you provided to “prove” your point says nothing about the religion of Islam. Yahya’s position throughout is that, although Sharia is the legitimate Islamic tradition, they must be rejected in favor of secular state laws to counter the problems of Sharia in a society…

“Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.”

“There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy.”

“But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor.”

“Within the Islamic tradition, the state is a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims under the rule of one man who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world.”

These quotes are the exact opposite of what you have been stating as follows (dates are given at the time I responded to them):

July 7 2019, Thusday 4:41 am
<<
Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.
>>

4:47 am July 11, 2019, Thursday
Joseph writes:
<<
Islamic Fundamentalism has always been rejected since the inception of Islam.
>>

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
<<
I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.
>>

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
You write:
<<
What you fear is Islamic extremism, it's not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.
>>

July 7 2019, Thursday 1:28 am
Joseph writes (regarding terrorism):
<<
Studies have shown that religion is not the primary factor.
>>

July 7 2019, Thusday 1:28 am
Joseph wrote:
<<
Once again, the Qur'an was written over 1,400 years ago. What you are reading in the Qur'an are verses that were supposedly revealed at different times in Muhammad’s life.
>>

4:35 am July 11, 2019, Thursday
Joseph responds:
<<
The battles being referred to in Chapter 9 fulfilled their purpose over 1,400 years ago and are now a part of Islamic history.
>>

July 7 2019, Sunday 12:16 pm
Joseph responds:
<<
Of course these Islamic materials are found in the camps of terrorists groups. They are used by those in leadership positions to indoctrinate the rank and file members of these groups who are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam into following their extremist sect of Islam.
>>

July 7 2019, Sunday 12:16 pm
You write:
<<
It's because Muslims are tolerant of people of other religions.
>>

These are some of the statements of yours. Your statements are in direct opposition to the 6 witnesses I gave, and the last two experts you provided.

Joseph continues:
<<
I have told you many times over that textual and historical context is key to interpreting Islamic texts/sources and how they are to be applied to Muslims today.
>>

Setst RE: You are again misquoting Yahya’s position. Yahya realizes that traditional, fundamental, orthodox position as represented by Sharia is legitimate and correct, but that Sharia figh, as interpreted by the schools of Islam must be rejected, replaced, or contextualized to reflect state laws to avoid the problems that Sharia causes.

“Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states."

"Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.”

Joseph continues:
<<
"Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide." -- Yahya Cholil Staquf

I have told you that what you are describing is Wahhabism that originated in the Arabian peninsula and how Saudi Arabia has been funding missionaries, schools and mosque throughout the world pushing this perverted sect of Islam.
>>

Setst RE: You again misrepresent Yahya. Yahya is not saying all traditional, fundamental, orthodox Islamic Jurisprudence that causes the violence is all Wahhabists.

He mentions Saudi and the Gulf states as an important factor in the West that is being taught to Western Muslims in their synagogues. Yahya states that this deliberate ignorance by the West is a problem. That is all he is saying.

I have also said the same thing in my posts.

setst777 said: ↑
Erdogan surely understands this distinction. So what does Erdogan mean by saying: “Islam is one?” My understanding comes from the history of Erdogan’s rule of Turkey and what he is now accomplishing to fulfill his ideal or Islam as one entity.

Joseph responds:
<<
Erdogan is only saying what most Muslims believe. There is only one Islam. Many Muslims believe that the term moderate Islam degrades the religion and doesn't do enough to separate Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the majority of the world's Muslims follow.
>>

Setst RE: You surely do not understand Erdogan’s position regarding Islam – by his actions. Erdogan is forming a clear distinction between the practice of Islam (Sharia) and secular law.

What Erdogan is doing is unprecedented to bring back Islamic Law back into Islam - something that has not taken place since the democratic republic of Turkey was formed in 1923. Just because you cannot see this, does not mean it is not happening in Turkey right now.

Joseph writes:
<<
Have you noticed how I have been responding to you in this thread?
>>

Setst RE: Yes I can. You are deceptively giving your own spin on what the experts are stating.

setst777 said: ↑
So I want to very briefly describe that history that could fill a book or two…

Joseph responds:
<<
I lived in Turkey for 11 months while in the military, I know its history.
>>

Setst RE: Interesting. I lived in the USA all my life and I cannot truthfully say I know its history, or all the presidents. I am now finding out that not too appealing aspects of US history were left out from the school book version. So, knowing Turkey’s history after just 11 months of just living there while in the military is astonishing.

You quote Erdogan in the following, and then you comment:
“The understanding that tries to depict Islam as a religion closed off to change and the understanding that attributes deviancies that have nothing to do with Islam to our religion only serve the same aim,” Erdoğan said.

Centuries-old Islamic provisions cannot be implemented today: Erdoğan - Turkey News

Erdogan has been a leader in Turkey for 16 years now. He is also a leading voice against Islamic extremism and those who use Islam to deny rights to others both Mulsims and non-Muslims alike. He is clearly not in agreement with you on your interpretation of Islam or Shari'a.

Setst RE: Erdogan does believe in change regarding secular law governing economics in a worldview. Erdogan has made this clear.

As regards to the practice of Sharia figh, Erdogan is clearly working to build a pure Islam that follows Sharia in Turkey and in Europe.

Keep in mind that not everything Erdogan is saying is the Gospel truth. He is using Takyah to deceive while he steadily brings political Islam back into Turkey and the rest of the world. I provided you the evidence.

 

[JosephZ]

The “experts” you previously quoted and the experts you now quote are stating the exact opposite.

No, they are not. Here are some more quotes from Dr. Bale for example.

Until Western intelligence, military, and law enforcement personnel are provided with accurate information about the history and core religious doctrines of Islam and the intrinsically extremist nature of Islamism, and until they are taught how to distinguish between Muslim moderates and Islamist extremists (including those who are posing as moderates) and learn how to recognise the many telltale signs of Islamist ideological radicalisation, they will generally be unable to identify prospective jihadist terrorists in advance.

The above is talking about people like you who can't differentiate between the religion of Islam that the majority of the world's Muslims follow and what it teaches and the extremist ideology and what it teaches. Yes, the history and core religious doctrines of Islam do contain some references to violence, but until you learn their textual and historical importance and you can make a distinction between the religion of Islam and Islamic extremism, you will continue to be in error.

It should also go without saying that relying on Islamist activists for “advice” about how to deal with the threat posed by Islamism is not only preposterous but utterly self-defeating.

Once again, the above is talking about people like you. The sources you have been using and relying on to support your position in these threads have been coming from extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.

Dr. Bale differentiates between the religion of Islam and Islamism (Extremism) in his articles. Your failure to do this is what leads you to have a misunderstanding of what the religion Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow teaches.

extremism and terrorism are caused by social factors, and have little, or nothing, to do with religion.

Dr. Bale and Dr Brannif would agree to this statement if it were worded that most extremism and terrorism are caused by social factors, and have little, or nothing, to do with the religion of Islam its self. The consensus among experts is overwhelming.

“What 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the Paris suicide attacks we’ve just experienced in the last days, military intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying territory—that’s what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else.”
– Robert Pape, who has Studied Every Suicide Attack in the World: Here’s What a Man Who Studied Every Suicide Attack in the World Says About ISIS’ Motives

“ Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.”
Source: MI5 Study: The Tactics of Bigotry | Spiritual Perception

“Religion is not the strongest driving force behind thousands of foreign fighters joining ISIS and other terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria, a report by US military researchers has found. A new study by the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at West Point revealed that the vast majority of almost 1,200 militants surveyed had no formal religious education and had not adhered to Islam for their entire lives.”
Source: New report confirms what we all suspected about Isis

“ A French journalist’s ISIS captors cared little about religion, Didier Francois — who spent over 10 months as the group’s prisoner in Syria — told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview on Tuesday. “There was never really discussion about texts or — it was not a religious discussion. It was a political discussion.” “It was more hammering what they were believing than teaching us about the Quran. Because it has nothing to do with the Quran.” “We didn’t even have the Quran; they didn’t want even to give us a Quran.”
Source: ISIS captors cared little about religion, says Francois - CNN

“ There is no theological dimension. Their knowledge of Islam is minimal and they don’t care, although the religious myth plays an emotional role.” “None of them was active in religious activities (proselytism): when they preach Islam it is to recruit other radicals, not to spread the good news. This explains why (1) the close monitoring of mosques brings little information; (2) imams have little or no influence on the process of radicalisation; (3) “reforming Islam” does not make sense: they just don’t care about ‘what Islam really means.’”
Source: The Truth About Modern Jihad: It's Not Really About Religion - New Matilda

Islamic extremism and terrorism do not represent Islam

This is true. Islamic extremism and extremists do not represent the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

extremist groups have nothing to do with Muslims

Not sure where you got this from, but of course some Muslims do join extremist groups.

terrorism is described by the “experts” you used in vague, cryptic, abstract ways without mentioning Islam as the cause of most terrorism.

While Islamic terrorism has been the predominant type in recent years, the religion of Islam is not the cause of most terrorism.

Now you disagree with your original “experts.”

I don't disagree with them at all.

You are now agreeing with almost everything I have been teaching you all along. You then search hard to find several experts who agree with me and disagree with the experts you gave earlier to prove just the opposite.

I'm not agreeing with you and I didn't have to search long and hard to find experts. The two I provided in my last post are experts that I'm very familiar with since they are both associated with the institution that I have taken several courses from. Their bios came from the website of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

Yes, the two experts you presently quote disagree with all your earlier arguments and they agree with me.

You need to read more of their research.

You misrepresent their positions, and the positions of the experts I used and the ones you used. Where do they ever make the distinction between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow?

"Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism, an intrinsically radical modern Islamic political ideology... Or, to be more precise, ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... ‘Islam bashers’ adopt a grossly oversimplified and indeed distorted position concerning Islam that would be akin to viewing the political ideology of Christian Reconstructionism, which is based upon a radical, intolerant, puritanical and theocratic interpretation of Christian scriptures, as identical to Christianity in general" -- Dr. Jeffry Bale

The above sounds pretty straight forward to me.

"Many Muslims" believe the same thing I have been trying to teach you - that Sharia represent the immutable laws of Allah.

Yes, many Wahhabists and fundamentalist Muslims.

Sharia has already been interpreted by Suni and Shia sects of Islam. These interpretations of Sharia are called “figh.” "Reliance of the Traveller” is the figh of Sharia for the Shafii School of Suni. If most Muslims do not appear understand Sharia as defined by their sect of Islam, that does not mean Sharia is up to democratic election as to what it means. Sharia has already been defined by the Jurists.

The one interpretation of Sharia that I am most familiar with is called, “Reliance of the Traveller” of the Shafii School – a Figh Manual of Sharia.

How can this be when you earlier stated that you had never read Reliance of the Traveler?

I have a copy of the 'Reliance of the Traveller' [have not read it fully. I often read of the part where Muslims are exhorted to attack the kuffar at least once a year to cast terror on them to sustain fears and terror in them.

This is quoted from the internet... Reliance of the Traveller O9.1 “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning obligatory upon the Muslims each year.
I have the book as well, but never got around to reading it yet. I think tomorrow I will start.

It's obvious that neither you nor the OP have ever read reliance of the Traveler. If you had you would know that it's only an abridged legal manual which is one of several hundred available on Islamic law. Here are some excerpts from the introduction:

The style of translating the basic text is an explanative one with interlinear commentary. The reason for commentary, briefly, is that this book, like others in Islamic law, is less the achievement of a particular author than the shared effort of a whole school of research and interpretation in explaining rules of divine origin. The cooperative nature of this effort may be seen in the multilayered character of its texts, whose primary authors often merely state the ruling of an act, lawful or unlawful, leaving matters of definition, conditions, and scriptural evidence for the commentator to supply, who in turn leaves important details for both writers of marginal notes and for living sheikhs to definitively interpret when teaching the work to their students. The sheikhs form a second key resource of textual
commentary, a spoken one parallel to the written, and in previous centuries of traditional Islamic learning it was well known that no student could dispense with it. Living teachers were and are needed to explain terminological difficulties, eliminate ambiguities, and correct copyists' mistakes,

Within the rulings themselves, columns of necessary conditions or integrals, meaning that all of them must be present for the ruling to hold true, are itemized by letters: (a), (b), (c), etc. An example is the conditions for the validity of the prayer, which must all be met for the prayer to be valid. Columns of examples or instances of a ruling's applicability are itemized by numbers: (1), (2), (3), etc., indicating that not all need exist but anyone of them suffices to apply the ruling.
such as the things which invalidate fasting, the existence of any of which invalidates it.

In the course of editing the commentary and some of the supplementary material of the present volume, though not the basic text, the sequence of some passages has occasionally been altered for the sake of coherence of argumentation, thc need for which will not be lost on anyone familiar with medieval Arabic texts, whose authors sometimes seem to have not reedited their work with a view towards logical sequencing or eliminating digressions. Passages in which this has bccn done have been reviewed and checked by both Sheikh 'Abd al-Wakil and Sheikh Nuh, like the other texts of the present work, and are indicated at the end of their Arabic texts by the words bi raqdim wa ta'khir ("put ahead and behind") as is done by Muslim scholars when a passage is quoted in this way.

The untranslatability of the Holy Koran is fully acknowledged by the translator, whose only effort whcre it is quoted in the present volume has been to explain the significance of its verses, giving a map as it were to the wide lands of its magnificent Arabic. The English by no means purports to be or to imitate the word of Allah Most High.

The Reliance of the Traveler is only meant to serve as an outline for Muslims who teach law and Islamic scholars. It's by no means the final word on the subject, nor is it the only book available on the subject. It was also never intended for non-Muslims who know little to nothing about the religion of Islam or Islamic law. The only reason you and the OP know it exists is because you learned about it from anti-Islamic websites like answeringIslam. The reason I know this is because the only parts of the books that have been given as evidence by either of you in this thread are the same cherry picked sentences and paragraphs that the anti-Islamic websites share.

You disagreed, regarding said “Jihad” by Islam saying that this Jihad was limited to the 632 AD only, and Islam is only about peace now.

I never said jihad was limited to 632AD. Can you show me where I have said this? I only said that your understanding of jihad is different than that of Muslims.

 

[JosephZ]

You are fraudulently quoting Yahya out of context to make him appear to say the opposite of what he actually stated.

Yahya is not saying the absolute nature of fundamental traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia) is false, but that they should be rejected as false in favor of secular laws because of the violent tendencies that Islamic law creates.

***
No, it is not. [ISIS’s] goal of establishing a global caliphate stands squarely within the orthodox Islamic tradition. But we live in a world of nation-states. Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence …

Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.

Any [fundamentalist] view of Islam positing the traditional norms of Islamic jurisprudence as absolute [should] be rejected out of hand as false. State laws [should] have precedence.
***

What you just quoted didn't change anything he said or how I interpreted it. Maybe you should send him an email and ask for further clarification.

You surely do not understand Erdogan’s position regarding Islam – by his actions. Erdogan is forming a clear distinction between the practice of Islam (Sharia) and secular law. What Erdogan is doing is unprecedented to bring back Islamic Law back into Islam - something that has not taken place since the democratic republic of Turkey was formed in 1923. Just because you cannot see this, does not mean it is not happening in Turkey right now.

This is what his opponents claim, but after 16 years in power, there's no real evidence of this.

Interesting. I lived in the USA all my life and I cannot truthfully say I know its history, or all the presidents. I am now finding out that not too appealing aspects of US history were left out from the school book version.

This is obvious since you were so quick to point out atrocities committed by Islamic empires and failed to acknowledge the atrocities carried out by the US and it's doctrine of Manifest Destiny which were equally as barbaric.

So, knowing Turkey’s history after just 11 months of just living there while in the military is astonishing.

Learning the history of the country was part of the culture awareness training I received.

Keep in mind that not everything Erdogan is saying is the Gospel truth. He is using Takyah to deceive while he steadily brings political Islam back into Turkey and the rest of the world.

Of course he is...

 

[JosephZ]

Note I stated 'was acknowledged' as a reputable scholar and his articles and books were cited by many Islamic scholars THEN, until the fundamentals and extremists Muslims [supported by Erdogan] dominated the narrative.

I'm pretty sure he was never acknowledged as a reputable scholar based on his history.

Critics accuse Erdogan of lifting the ban to force his Islamic values on the majority Muslim but staunchly secular nation.

Of course his critics would accuse him of this.

Female civil servants are now allowed to wear headscarves, while their male counterparts can sport beards.

Yes, before they were being discriminated against. Now they are not.

The above is evidence that Erdogan is moving towards introducing more Islamism gradually into Turkey.

If anything, this would be evidence of Erdogen pushing for equal rights.

There you go again.
Who are the "Southern Poverty Law Center" to throw their weight around?... As for CAIR, there are loads of accusations thrown at CAIR as a terrorist group.

The source was't the SPLC or Cair. It was mediafactcheck. They are not the only two organizations that make these claims against Middle East Forum. Just reading the article you linked to shows their bias as it left out much of what Erdogen said at that conference and was intentionally worded to shine a bad light on him. I'm not a big fan of Erdogen, but that article was not being fair towards him.

You on the other hand are using your own very subjective personal observations of the majority Muslims' behaviors as the primary source of evidence to arrive at your conclusion. What kind of intellectual exercise is that! That is a disgrace and a sham!

Yes, actions speak louder than words. What I observe in the Muslim world is much different than what you are portraying here and what I have read on many of the websites you have linked to. I suggest you take a break from the internet, do some traveling, and start interacting more with Muslims if you want to learn what Islam teaches and what Muslims believe.

 

[Joyousperson]

I'm pretty sure he was never acknowledged as a reputable scholar based on his history.

Yes, he was a "reputable" and very popular scholar in the past, especially on the Quran and Creationism versus evolution.
Note the 242 books he wrote which was cited by many Muslims scholars/preachers;
Books

Of course his critics would accuse him of this.

As I had highlighted MANY TIMES, what counts is the proper evidences provided in any criticism and in this case, the evidences are open for all to verify.

Yes, before they were being discriminated against. Now they are not.

I thought you claimed you know Turkey's history.
The headscarf was banned 90 years ago to deter Islamism [of the Ottoman Empire] and turning Turkey towards secularism.
It is very noticeable the general and majority population of Turkey's Muslim females are wearing the hijab only recently signifying the trend towards Islamism.
Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU not too long ago but Erdogan's inclination towards Islamism is preventing his country from being accepted by the EU.

If anything, this would be evidence of Erdogen pushing for equal rights.

Only apparently. This trend toward Islamism will eventually mean Islamic rights to kill non-Muslim upon threats [fasadin] that are vague.

The source was't the SPLC or Cair. It was mediafactcheck. They are not the only two organizations that make these claims against Middle East Forum. Just reading the article you linked to shows their bias as it left out much of what Erdogen said at that conference and was intentionally worded to shine a bad light on him. I'm not a big fan of Erdogen, but that article was not being fair towards him.

You are so lost in this.
Mediafactcheck is checking with their source from SPLC and CAIR.
The ideologies of the SPLC, CAIR and the likes are at extreme opposites to those they labelled and condemned as far right.
Tommy Robinson has never claimed to be 'right' and have dissociated himself from the extreme far right and white supremacists.

Yes, actions speak louder than words. What I observe in the Muslim world is much different than what you are portraying here and what I have read on many of the websites you have linked to.

I like the point mentioned by Setst777; what is Islamic is not determined by a 'democratic' process of consensus, worst still from what the majority Muslims decide democratically upon themselves to behave.
Yes, actions speak louder than words, but not in this case in terms of the majority of Muslims' action.
Note the logical error of the ad populum fallacy,

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
-wiki​

Do you have any respect for logical, rational and sound arguments.
Relying on the argumentum ad populum reflect one's low IQ.

I have always asserted,
What is core and the ultimate authority of Islam is represented by the 6236 verses in the Quran, i.e. Allah's direct message to Muslims via angel Gabriel and Muhammad plus support from the Ahadith.

Note I have just finished reading the 6236 verses of the whole Quran in one go and is now going through it again to refine the categories of the 3400++ verses with evil and violent elements.

The 6236 verses of the Quran comprised of 77,740 words and thousands of literally elements. It is not easy for one to get a holistic view of the Quran of Allah until one has read the whole Quran >50 times with detailed analysis. I have done that.

Within the mist of 77,740 with its complex Quranic grammar, it is very easy for those desperate for salvation to be bias to save their souls in cherry picking and tend towards verses they are inclined to based on confirmation bias.
I on the other hand, as a non-Muslim can be objective in analyzing the 77,740 words of the Quran in a rational and holistic basis.​

I suggest you take a break from the internet, do some traveling, and start interacting more with Muslims if you want to learn what Islam teaches and what Muslims believe.

I told you I have lived in the Muslim majority country for a long time and have many close Muslim friends.

 

[Joyousperson]

No, they are not. Here are some more quotes from Dr. Bale for example.

Until Western intelligence, military, and law enforcement personnel are provided with accurate information about the history and core religious doctrines of Islam and the intrinsically extremist nature of Islamism, and until they are taught how to distinguish between Muslim moderates and Islamist extremists (including those who are posing as moderates) and learn how to recognise the many telltale signs of Islamist ideological radicalisation, they will generally be unable to identify prospective jihadist terrorists in advance.

The above is talking about people like you who can't differentiate between the religion of Islam that the majority of the world's Muslims follow and what it teaches and the extremist ideology and what it teaches. Yes, the history and core religious doctrines of Islam do contain some references to violence, but until you learn their textual and historical importance and you can make a distinction between the religion of Islam and Islamic extremism, you will continue to be in error.

It should also go without saying that relying on Islamist activists for “advice” about how to deal with the threat posed by Islamism is not only preposterous but utterly self-defeating.

Once again, the above is talking about people like you. The sources you have been using and relying on to support your position in these threads have been coming from extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.

Dr. Bale differentiates between the religion of Islam and Islamism (Extremism) in his articles. Your failure to do this is what leads you to have a misunderstanding of what the religion Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow teaches.


Dr. Bale and Dr Brannif would agree to this statement if it were worded that most extremism and terrorism are caused by social factors, and have little, or nothing, to do with the religion of Islam its self. The consensus among experts is overwhelming.

I have countered the above point MANY TIMES.
I have very familiar with Dr. Bale and Dr Brannif's works.

While both agree Islamic terrorism has something to do with Islam, i.e. Islamism, they failed to understand the 'Islamism'
adopted by the Islamic terrorists is the true Islam as delivered by Allah to Prophet Muhammad via angel Gabriel.

Dr. Bale and Dr Brannif's researched on "terrorism" ONLY and all types of terrorism.
This OP is related to the whole gamut and range of terrible evil and violence by Islamists inspired by Islam, where Islamic terrorism is only a part of it.
The limitation of Dr. Bale and Dr Brannif's research in this case they had NEVER dig into the proximate root causes of Islamic terrorism, i.e. from the evil and violent elements in the Quran and the psychology of religion.

I had argued, true Islam is what is represented in the 6236 verses of the Quran [supported by the Ahadith] and no where else.
What is Islam cannot be determined by a 'democratic' process via the majority's view and actions. Note the ad populum fallacy and technically would be blasphemous in Allah's eyes.

“What 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the Paris suicide attacks we’ve just experienced in the last days, military intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying territory—that’s what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else.”
– Robert Pape, who has Studied Every Suicide Attack in the World:

Here’s What a Man Who Studied Every Suicide Attack in the World Says About ISIS’ Motives

“ Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.”
Source: MI5 Study: The Tactics of Bigotry | Spiritual Perception

“Religion is not the strongest driving force behind thousands of foreign fighters joining ISIS and other terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria, a report by US military researchers has found. A new study by the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at West Point revealed that the vast majority of almost 1,200 militants surveyed had no formal religious education and had not adhered to Islam for their entire lives.”
Source: New report confirms what we all suspected about Isis

“ A French journalist’s ISIS captors cared little about religion, Didier Francois — who spent over 10 months as the group’s prisoner in Syria — told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview on Tuesday. “There was never really discussion about texts or — it was not a religious discussion. It was a political discussion.” “It was more hammering what they were believing than teaching us about the Quran. Because it has nothing to do with the Quran.” “We didn’t even have the Quran; they didn’t want even to give us a Quran.”
Source: ISIS captors cared little about religion, says Francois - CNN

“ There is no theological dimension. Their knowledge of Islam is minimal and they don’t care, although the religious myth plays an emotional role.” “None of them was active in religious activities (proselytism): when they preach Islam it is to recruit other radicals, not to spread the good news. This explains why (1) the close monitoring of mosques brings little information; (2) imams have little or no influence on the process of radicalisation; (3) “reforming Islam” does not make sense: they just don’t care about ‘what Islam really means.’”
Source: The Truth About Modern Jihad: It's Not Really About Religion - New Matilda


This is true. Islamic extremism and extremists do not represent the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

While Islamic terrorism has been the predominant type in recent years, the religion of Islam is not the cause of most terrorism.

As stated, the above views are too shallow and narrow;

The limitation of Dr. Bale and Dr Brannif's [and their likes] research, in this case, they had NEVER dig into the proximate root causes of Islamic terrorism, i.e. from the evil and violent elements in the Quran and the psychology of religion.​

JosephZ wrote;
I'm not agreeing with you and I didn't have to search long and hard to find experts. The two I provided in my last post are experts that I'm very familiar with since they are both associated with the institution that I have taken several courses from. Their bios came from the website of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.
You need to read more of their research.​

"Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism, an intrinsically radical modern Islamic political ideology... Or, to be more precise, ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... ‘Islam bashers’ adopt a grossly oversimplified and indeed distorted position concerning Islam that would be akin to viewing the political ideology of Christian Reconstructionism, which is based upon a radical, intolerant, puritanical and theocratic interpretation of Christian scriptures, as identical to Christianity in general" -- Dr. Jeffry Bale

The above sounds pretty straight forward to me. ​

Nope!
As explained above Dr. Bale's and those researchers in START are relatively very narrow and shallow in digging the root cause of terrorism in general and especially Islamic terrorism in this case.

I have already quoted IS own views, i.e. why they kill non-Muslims is PRIMARILY because they are disbelivers and their foreign policy is only SECONDARY.
Such a point is well supported by the Quran's holistic ethos.

Yes, many Wahhabists and fundamentalist Muslims.

You got this wrong!
The fundamentalists are 90% Islamic in accordance to Allah's words in the Quran.
Wahhabism is fully fundamentalist but not all fundamentalists are Wahhabists.

How can this be when you earlier stated that you had never read Reliance of the Traveler?

It's obvious that neither you nor the OP have ever read reliance of the Traveler. If you had you would know that it's only an abridged legal manual which is one of several hundred available on Islamic law. Here are some excerpts from the introduction:

Setst777 is correct with his statement re Reliance of the Traveller.
What he and I had been relying is from summaries compiled by those who have read the book.
I have downloaded the book long ago and have read part of it and now I have done a more serious read on the relevant sections.

Note for our purpose we do not have to read the whole book which contain chapters [can do a quick scan] which are not critical to our discussion points.
The relevant chapters to be read for our purpose are the one's highlighted, i.e.

A. Sacred Knowledge 1
B. The Validity of Following Qualified Scholarship 5
C. The Nature of Legal Rulings 27
D. Author's Introduction to 'Umdatal-Salik 47
E. Purification 49
F. The Prayer 101
G. The Funeral Prayer 220
H. Zakat 244
I. Fasting 277
J. The Pilgrimage 297
K. Trade 371
L. Inheritance 460
M. Marriage 506
N. Divorce 554
O. Justice (incl. Jihad) 578
P. Enormities 649
Q. Commanding the Right and Forbidding the Wrong 713
R. Holding One's Tongue (slander, lying) 726
S. Delusions 777
T. A Pure Heart 796
U. The Gabriel Hadith 807
V. Belief in Allah and His Messenger 816
W. Notes and Appendices 826
X. Biographical Notes 1019
Y. Works Cited 1116
Z. Indexes 1128​

 

[JosephZ]

I thought you claimed you know Turkey's history. The headscarf was banned 90 years ago to deter Islamism [of the Ottoman Empire] and turning Turkey towards secularism.

I said women who wore head coverings were being discriminated against in Turkey which is a true statement.

According to Country Reports 2007, women who wore headscarves and their supporters "were disciplined or lost their jobs in the public sector" (US 11 Mar. 2008, Sec. 2.c). Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports that in late 2005, the Administrative Supreme Court ruled that a teacher was not eligible for a promotion in her school because she wore a headscarf outside of work (Jan. 2007). An immigration counsellor at the Embassy of Canada in Ankara stated in 27 April 2005 correspondence with the Research Directorate that public servants are not permitted to wear a headscarf while on duty, but headscarved women may be employed in the private sector (Canada 27 Apr. 2005). In 12 April 2005 correspondence sent to the Research Directorate, a professor of political science specializing in women's issues in Turkey at Bogazici University in Istanbul indicated that women who wear a headscarf "could possibly be denied employment in private or government sectors." Conversely, some municipalities with a more traditional constituency might attempt to hire specifically those women who wear a headscarf (Professor 12 Apr. 2005). The professor did add, however, that headscarved women generally experience difficulty in obtaining positions as teachers, judges, lawyers, or doctors in the public service (ibid.). More recent or corroborating information on the headscarf ban in the public service could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate.

The London-based Sunday Times reports that while the ban is officially in place only in the public sphere, many private firms similarly avoid hiring women who wear headscarves (6 May 2007). MERO notes that women who wear headscarves may have more difficulty finding a job or obtaining a desirable wage (Apr. 2008), although this could not be corroborated among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate.

Refworld | Turkey: Situation of women who wear headscarves

Women wearing the headscarf were branded as traditional, “family girls” and were often rejected from participating in the public sphere where the most lucrative jobs are. Thus, overtime the hijab brought more economic disparity and inequality than economic access and success for some. Because women who wore the headscarf were not allowed to have jobs in the public sector they did not have full political and economic voices. Additionally, they faced the threat of being fired, of criminal prosecution, or revocation of their Turkish citizenship if they did not adhere to headscarf bans.

The first major example of limited access in higher education due to the headscarf bans occurred in 1968. A young woman, named Hatice Babacan was the first woman to be expelled from a Turkish university for veiling.

For women working in the private sectors, circumstances were also difficult. Women who wore headscarves were regularly paid lower wages and even fired because they were not viewed as desirable employees. Not only were they excluded from the public sphere, but women with headscarves were also “excluded from employment in chain stores selling globally or nationally reputable brands” which meant that they were forced to work in family-run establishments or small-scale retail stores. Women wearing headscarves were and continue to be limited to working in settings with little upward mobility or professional advancement.

https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcont...httpsredir=1&article=1251&context=honors_proj

Do you have any respect for logical, rational and sound arguments. Relying on the argumentum ad populum reflect one's low IQ... I on the other hand, as a non-Muslim can be objective in analyzing the 77,740 words of the Quran in a rational and holistic basis.

Remember earlier when you brought up Toshihiko Izutsu an outsider to both the Islamic world and the west whose approach to Islam and his research probably gave the most unbiased and unprejudiced picture of this religion than any other researcher in history? Why is it that Izutsu, who was fluent in Arabic, translated the Qur'an from Arabic to Japanese, did much of his research in the Middle East, especially Iran, and did a rigorous linguistic study of traditional metaphysical texts of Islam came to a different conclusion about this religion than you have from your "research?" You would think that he of all people would have brought attention the evil and violent side of this religion if this was to be found in the context of the Qur'an, yet he was fond of Islam and saw it as not only a positive contribution to the Arab world, but for all of mankind especially in its teachings of coexistence, morals and ethics.