1 Sharia (Cairo declaration) instead of Human Rights.
2 Criminalization of criticism ("islamophobia") against the worst racist/sexist hate crime ever against humanity.
Barry Rubin doesn’t want to talk about evil islam. And doesn’t count Saudi wahhabism as radical! Wonder why?
1 For most of history, the systematic interpretation and praxis of Islam held by contemporary revolutionary Islamists did not exist (Klevius: Oh yes, it existed, it’s called the Koran and was put together under Malik a few generations after the alleged Mohammed allegedly died). Thirty years ago, the radicals and their ideas (i.e. Koran) were marginal, viewed as crackpot by most Muslims (Klevius: Really! Sure it wasn't lack of those resources and that power that the Saudi's & Co have used for hate mongering?!). The Islamists (Klevius: And muslim feminists - see Klevius definition of feminism!) are well aware of this, and are themselves quite critical of Islam as it has been practiced since the seventh century or so.
Indeed, that “pristine” Islam they (Klevius: I.e. islamists and feminists) claim is the only proper Islam never existed. In his new book, Did Muhammad Exist?, Robert Spencer (Klevius: Who, together with Pamela Geller, is eagerly spat on by CAIR etc muslim front organizations in the US) argued persuasively that this mythical “fundamentalist” Islam didn’t even exist in the era of its birth and expansion (Klevius: Well duh, according to Hugh Kennedy, professor of Arabic language and Arabic history,"before Abd al-Malik, caliph 685-705, Mohammed, who allegedly died 632, is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever...", and according to Klevius, one has to differ between the evil plundering, enslavement and rapetivism in the vacuum after the Romans, and its “moral” institutionalization – by blaiming Allah – a couple of generations later under Malik!). What is indisputable is that within a few years of Muhammad’s death, both the caliphate and political rule over Muslims passed to the Umayyad dynasty which compiled much of what we know today as Islam and yet is considered to have been rather irreligious in practice (Klevius: Told you! Although looting and rapetivism constitute the backbone of “monotheism” it’s never admitted by the religious ones) by most Muslims. The Shia hate it (Klevius: And are therefore punished - now by Saudi & Co and their Western useful idiots!). Then came the not wildly pious Abbasid dynasty (see Klevius Origin of Vikings) eventually followed by the equally worldly Turkish dynasties. Over the course of 1200 (sic) years the “caliphate” was pretty much a matter of, to use Mao Zedong’s phrase, politics in command (Klevius: All islamic societies have lived on slavery and when slavery was abolished or made difficult by Europeans the Ottoman "empire" immediately stagnated).
The period when Islam was supposedly conducted according to the ideal of the Islamists and the Islam-is-innately-radical (Klevius: sic – evil became suddenly ‘radical’?!) crowd was for about a quarter-century after Muhammad’s death. And even during that brief era two of the three caliphs were assassinated and there was a bloody civil war that deposed the fourth one. Even according to Muslim calculation, then, the actual golden age of unity over what Islam meant and how it should be organized lasted two years after Muhammad’s death.
Consequently, the Islamists (Klevius: Now they’ve transformed into ‘islamists’) claim that for almost all of the 1200-plus years since Muhammad died virtually all Muslims—including the strict Saudi Wahhabis (Klevius: So the Saudi Wahhabists don’t count as radical, evil or islamist!? Someone ought to check Mr Rubin’s financial flow – does it stem from Riyadh?) –misunderstood Islam! So how can it be claimed by Western non-Muslims that all of those qadis, scholars, preachers, and pious Muslims were doing it wrong and that the radical Islamists are the truly correct Muslims?
And that’s how most Muslims have thought until very recently. I call this actually-existing religion that the Islamists condemn “conservative-traditionalist Islam” (Klevius: And the muslim feminists – who, like the “islamists”, also want to go back to the “roots of islam” - condemn “conservative- patriarchal islam”!). It was definitely not liberal or tolerant but it was and is quite different from the contemporary Islamist groups. Of course, there were many Sharia-mandated laws and practices in common with the Islamists, but many other points were not observed in practice, while other Islamist interpretation were not accepted at all. Certainly there was not a completely religious regime that matched the goals of an Usama bin Ladin, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, or Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Klevius: Oops, no mentioning of the most intolerant of them all, Saudi Arabia and its allies, e.g. Sudan, Bahrain etc!?).
Klevius crushing* of this ignorant, confused and naïve (or bribed?!) balancing-in-the-empty-middle (does Saudi Wahhabism really fit there?!) view on islam: The Turkish Ottoman Caliph! Hello Mr Rubin, are you awake! His name is Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, and the Ottoman Empire is now the OIC Caliphate that he leads together with the Saudi caliph (yes, there have been more than one caliph defore), who gets his position as “the Guardian of islam” because the Sauds’ right hand happens to possess the stolen land where Mecca and Medina are situated as well as the oil that generates the Saudi wealth! OIC’s Fuhrer, Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu himself said “that for 13 centuries, Muslims had shared a feeling of belonging to the muslim ummah, or global community, bound together under the banner of the caliphate.that ended when the modern Turkish republic succeeded the Ottoman Empire in the years after World War I. Following the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate, many Muslims found themselves, for the first time throughout their history, facing the absence of the polity under which they lived for several centuries. The establishment of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now name changed to the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation) can be seen as the embodiment of the concept of Islamic solidarity in the contemporary world”.
What is completely missing from Barry Rubin’s nonsense “analysis” is an often neglected detail. But a detail with proportions bigger than anything else on the planet Earth, i.e. what Klevius names ‘rapetivism’ and which is a consequence of sex segregation/apartheid, and which Klevius described in Angels of Antichrist, 1996:
In 1897, the first female Nobel prize winner in literature, Selma Lagerlöf from Sweden, wrote in her novel Antikrists mirakler ("The Miracles of Antichrist") that socialism is the disguise of Antichrist, conceived as the power of evil in the mask of goodness. Lagerlöf, however, also described women voluntarily helping poor people while bearing the growing idea of socialism in their hearts. She ended the novel in a rather optimistic mood, saying that we need not fear Antichrist if we just place the picture of him beside the picture of Christ. Although the simple Sicilian women in Lagerlöf’s novel, following the Good Samaritan, showed no signs of evil, they were certainly part of a movement that would become the most widespread political force ever. The question, however, remains; is it an evil one?
Apart from the obvious fact that they both have eliminated the concept of “god”, either by denying its validity altogether, or abusing it as a recycle bin for moral excuses, socialism and islam have in common the idea of an ideal “social state” as opposed to the not trustworthy individuals occupying it. This is why the so called Negative Human Rights, i.e. the very basis for freedom from state or religious oppression, never have been popular among true socialists and communists, and completely unacceptable in islam (this is why OIC has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia in their manifesto, the so called Cairo declaration on Islamic “human rights”).
Not only are people in general, due to gross misinformation about islam, mostly unaware of OIC’s open violation against those Human Rights that were introduced to protect us against totalitarian ideologies, and that OIC wants to criminalize scrutiny (called “defamation”) of the worst ever racist/sexist hate crime against humanity, they are also cheated by the confusing mixing of the term ‘human rights’ in media etc with “islamic human rights”, i.e. Sharia, where the ‘islamic’ is usually left out.
*No one can be that stupid so Klevius assumes foul play, and therefore the harsh language.
2 The revolutionaries also pick and highlight the portions of the Koran and hadith they want while putting emphasis on those respected commentators of the past who support their basic interpretation and downplay those who held different views (Klevius: Isn’t that precisely what you do right now?!). To make Islam identical with revolutionary Islamist political ideology, which is in many ways is also a modern creation, is absurd. Just because the Islamists claim that they are the only “proper” Muslims doesn’t make that true.
Klevius crushing of this ignorant, confused and naïve (or bribed?!) balancing-in-the-empty-middle (does Saudi Wahhabism really fit there?!) view on islam: So where does the peaceful “moderate” muslim get his “truth” identical with islam? Let Klevius try to make it easier to understand for you. There are millions of stamp collectors out there. Most of them started as children, and most of them stopped collecting while keeping the collection in a long forgotten drawer or something, yet still often calling themselves stamp collectors if asked, despite the fact that, unlike islam, there’s no punishment for quitting. Now, the wider you define a stamp collector the more you will find. However, is this mass of collectors really representative of the devoted stamp specialists? Whom would you rather let inform you about stamps?
3 While the idea that Islam has been “hijacked” by Islamists ignores the fact that they have a strong claim to legitimacy, the claim that Islamists represent authentic Islam argues that the majority of the world’s Muslims are the hijackers? Neither side are heretics or hijackers but contenders for power. The Islamists seem to be succeeding—helped by the blindness and foolish policies of the apologists—in seizing control of Islam. That proves hey are dangerous but it doesn’t prove that they’re right.
Klevius crushing of this ignorant, confused and naïve (or bribed?!) balancing-in-the-empty-middle (does Saudi Wahhabism really fit there?!) view on islam: This paragraph is unintelligible but it could be said that the majority of the world’s Muslims are hijacked by islam in that they, due to apostasy ban and the confusing of ethnicity/culture with islam, are “useful idiots” used precisely as Barry Rubin does here, namely to boost and cover real islam. This is why Turkish PM Erdogan and other islamists love saying “there is no moderate islam, only islam”!
4 If the Islamists so obviously represent the proper fulfillment of Islam then why are the biggest opponents of Islamism pious Muslims willing to fight and die to defeat the revolutionaries? Why have the Islamists had such an uphill battle and so often been defeated by other Muslims? If the opponents view Islam as compatible with other interpretations—by no means necessarily liberal but anti-Islamist ones–isn’t that equally valid?
Klevius crushing of this ignorant, confused and naïve (or bribed?!) balancing-in-the-empty-middle (does Saudi Wahhabism really fit there?!) view on islam: First we need to guess what Barry Rubin really means with the term ‘islamism’. Based on his own text Barry Rubin seems to conceptualize islamists as those who want to impose a Sharia dictatorship, seek to destroy U.S. and Western interests (or the West itself), and, because they hate Israel they are prepared to risk their lives and devote extensive resources to trying to commit genocide against it.
However, Wikipedia gives the following definitions:
What puzzles Klevius is how on Earth can’t Saudi Wahhabism fit in at least some of these quite broad definitions?!
5 Other religions have also evolved over time due to changing interpretations and adaptations to different times and conditions. If you were to argue in the Middle Ages—when the dominant interpretation of Christianity was often quite bloodthirsty (Klevius: Let’s see, what happened in the Middle Ages in Europe? Nothing special, except that islam first tried to conquer it and then enslave the more vulnerable of the Europeans – just as it did in Africa and Asia. See Origin of Vikings) —that the Spanish Inquisition or Crusaders (any thought whether this Christian jihadism had anything to do with islam’s previous atrocities? In fact, to such an extent that Klevius has asked whether the strength of Christianity in Medieval and Renaissance Europe was caused by islam’s attacks) were not inevitably the proper view of Christianity, do you think that would have been persuasive at the time? True, Christian texts are far more peace-loving than what is in the Koran, but so what? Try that one on Savonarola or those massacring Protestants in France or executing priests in England just four centuries ago (Klevius: This sentence is so childish so it’s not worth a comment). They would have explained to you that they obviously represented proper Christianity (Klevius: Yes, why wouldn’t they? Haven’t you all the time argued that different groups of muslims claim representing proper islam?!).
Next time you see "fly Qatar" on your news channel, see it for what it is
- a disgusting sign of islamofascist bias!