Is Islam Innately Evil or Is Islam Innately Good? asks Barry Rubin.
Saudi initiated and based OIC, with its Egyptian born Turkish Fuhrer, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, has on top of its agenda:
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?
Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA)
Center: There are many important points they (contemporary
revolutionary islamists and those non-muslims who think islam is inherently evil)
miss but here are five of them:
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:
·
"the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as
personal life",
·
"the [Islamic] ideology that guides society as a whole and that
[teaches] law must be in conformity with the Islamic sharia",
·
an unsustainably flexible movement of ... everything to everyone: an
alternative social provider to the poor masses; an angry platform for the
disillusioned young; a loud trumpet-call announcing `a return to the pure
religion` to those seeking an identity; a "progressive, moderate religious
platform` for the affluent and liberal; ... and at the extremes, a violent
vehicle for rejectionists and radicals.
·
an Islamic "movement that seeks cultural differentiation from the
West and reconnection with the pre-colonial symbolic universe",
·
"the organised political trend, owing its modern origin to the
founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928, that seeks to solve modern
political problems by reference to Muslim texts",
·
"the whole body of thought which seeks to invest society with Islam
which may be integrationist, but may also be traditionalist, reform-minded or
even revolutionary",
·
"the active assertion and promotion of beliefs, prescriptions, laws
or policies that are held to be Islamic in character,"
·
a movement of "Muslims who draw upon the belief, symbols, and
language of Islam to inspire, shape, and animate political activity;" which
may contain moderate, tolerant, peaceful activists, and/or those who
"preach intolerance and espouse violence.
· a term "used by outsiders to denote a
strand of activity which they think justifies their misconception of Islam as
something rigid and immobile, a mere tribal affiliation.
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?!).
Klevius crushing of this ignorant, confused and naïve (or
bribed?!) balancing-in-the-empty-middle (does Saudi Wahhabism really fit
there?!) view on islam: Wrong so wrong! Saudi based OIC is the perfect proof
that Barry Rubin is wrong (or a deliberate cheater). OIC is undeniably islam
today. It’s the world’s muslims’ world organization! And it has abandoned Human
Rights precisely because islam cannot be changed to fit the non-racist and non-sexist thought about
Universal Human Rights. And OIC is intimately connected to the world’s most
intolerant and Human Rights abusing nation, Saudi Arabia. Is this why Barry
Rubin didn’t want to include Wahhabism among evil extremist islamists?!
And why should we
give islam more time to create more victims?!What muslims need is to get rid of islam!
Next time you see "fly Qatar" on your news channel, see it for what it is
- a disgusting sign of islamofascist bias!
.
.
