Should We Call it “Radical Islam”?
This article makes specific what we have known for some time: that Hillary Clinton and President Obama refuse to use the term “Islam” when referring to jihadist attacks.
Do they have their head in the sand?
Their reasons are that they don’t want to help demonize all Muslims for the extremist views and actions of a few.
This is understandable, and in some ways I agree. It won’t do any good to demonize and scapegoat all Muslims for the violent actions of a minority.
However, there is a fundamental problem at the core of this which liberals like Obama and Clinton will not face because it is very fundamental to the beginnings and nature of Islam itself.
We can all admit that most Muslims are not terrorists. We can all admit that some peaceful and spiritual teachings are a part of Islam. We can all wish that most Muslims want simply to practice their religion and to pray in peace. If you want to learn more about the different expressions and denominations in Islam go here for an excellent and informative article.
The problem is, we are assuming that Islam is a religion like Christianity–in other words that Muslims believe their religion is a matter of personal spiritual choice, and that Islam, like Christianity, is essentially a religion of peace, justice, sweetness, light and forgiveness, and that the terrorists are just crazy fanatics–kind of like Westboro Baptists on steroids.
That would be to misunderstand the foundation and history of Islam. From the beginning the religion of Islam was bound up with conquest by violence. Mohammed himself was not a peaceful Christ like figure, but a ruthless Arabian warlord. His immediate followers combined ambitious military conquest which they justified by the expansion of their religion. The Koran justifies holy war and calls on all Muslims to take part in jihad and to establish world wide Sharia law.
We can readily admit that these commands may be re-interpreted by moderate Muslims. “Jihad” might simply mean for them “the spiritual and moral struggle” and they might say they only want Sharia law to be available for them as they practice their religion in peace.
The problem with this is that the extremists will argue quiet convincingly that a literal understanding of the Koran is the only pure understanding and that “Jihad” does not simply mean spiritual struggle, but armed conflict and conquest–and they would look to the example of Mohammad himself and his immediate disciples who understood jihad in that way.
Furthermore, it is very difficult for Muslims to avoid a literalistic interpretation of the Koran because of the nature of the Koran’s creation.
Mohammad did not suggest that the Koran was simply inspired by God as if the ideas were given to him from a divine source. He taught that the book was dictated word by word by the angel Gabriel.
This is very important, and explains why Muslims find it difficult to re-interpret a law code for a seventh century Arab tribe into the modern world. If the book really was dictated word by word in Arabic from heaven, then surely it must be obeyed literally.
This is why the Muslim extremists’ arguments are so convincing to their fellow Muslims and why it is so difficult to separate out the religion of Islam from the political aspirations of ISIS and from the motivations and actions of the terrorists.
Clinton and Obama may wish to separate Islam from the actions of ISIS and the terrorists, but it is difficult to do so and be honest.
What is needed is for Muslims themselves to forswear violence, stress that “jihad” is no more than the spiritual and moral struggle and explicitly state that Sharia law is no more significant for the world’s population than Canon Law is for Catholics, and that it is NOT the aim of the Islamic religion to conquer the world by jihad and impose Sharia law on all people.
If this is true, then Clinton and Obama had better use all their diplomatic muscle to get Muslim leaders worldwide to make such a declaration.
If the Muslim leaders–both political and religious–can’t make such statements, then to be on the safe side we had better take Islam at face value and assume that Islam does teach what the Koran says, that violent jihad is expected of all Muslims and Sharia law is to be imposed globally.
Read the source & comments: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/12/should-we-call-it-radical-islam.html
Related Articles/ Videos click below:
ISLAM 101 – A Crash Course
ISLAM IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RELIGION. HERE’S WHY?
5 Reasons The Qur’an Can Never Co-Exist with the Constitution
The top 10 Koran verses that will help you understand ISIS better
24 Reasons ISIS are wrong: Muslim scholars blast Islamic State
Needed: A New Church Policy Toward Islam Part 1
Needed: A New Church Policy Toward Islam Part 2
Needed: A New Church Policy Toward Islam Part 3
CIA: The Crusades against Muslim Aggression
The Real History of the Crusades
Four Myths about the Crusades
Muslim Crusades Started Four Centuries Before the Western Crusades
Crash Course on the Crusades
Jihad vs Crusades by Bill Warner, PhD
CIA: The Inquisition during the Medieval, Spanish and Roman Times
Obama Compares Catholic Crusades to Islamic ISIS
Obama at Prayer Breakfast Affirms right to be godless
Watch how Judge Jeanine Just Revealed the Moment She Understood on Obama’s Dark Secret
Forged by War: The Three Battles in the Rise of the Rosary
A President, His Muslim Faith, And His Quran… Is It Ok For Him To Lie?
Mario Joseph Testimony , a Muslim Imam Convert to Catholic Church
From Darkness to Light
As a Muslim imam, Mario Joseph was well-versed in the Koran and in the teachings of the Islamic religion. In fact, it was precisely the Koran that brought him to an encounter with Jesus Christ and with the truth of the Catholic faith. But his conversion did not come without difficulties; as a consequence, he has undergone grave persecution. How has he attained his intense love toward the Church, the Cross and Heaven? He himself tells us in this week’s impacting episode of Changing Tracks.