| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
What does it mean to use the phrase “a tiny minority of extremists”? What must it mean, in order to make sense? It means that there is a political doctrine, a belief-system, a cult, a “religion” or a “major world religion,” some of whose adherents are apparently extremely extreme in their embrace of that (choose: major world religion, religion, cult, belief-system, political doctrine), which is to say that they take it really seriously, especially as they see what they are required to do as adherents of that (choose one: same choices as before) X or Y or Z.
An “extremist” has to be an “extremist” about something. So this is what Youth Wants to Know. What is that “something” the belief in which leads us to call some of that something’s adherents a “tiny minority of extremists”? That something is, of course, Islam. And what is it, precisely, contained within that Islam that that “tiny minority of extremists” believe in just a bit too deeply, take a bit too seriously, act upon a bit too readily? Is it something that is in that religion/belief-system/cult? Or is it not there at all? Is it something that they have imagined, have invented? Or is it in fact there to be found, there to be found quite naturally, and in fact it might even take an effort to avoid seeing, to pretend is not there?
What are the texts, what are the passages, upon which Sheik Nasrallah, or the late Sheik Yassin (“spiritual adviser” of Hamas), or Bin Laden, or Al-Zawahiri, or the Indonesian mastermind of the Bali bombings, or those who belong to Sunna al-Islam in Iraq, or Jaish-e-Muhammad in Pakistan, or Gemaa Islamiya in Egypt, or this or that local succursale of the world-wide Muslim Brotherhood, the Ikhwan, rely? Are they apocryphal texts that only they take as true? Are they texts that they endow with a meaning that Muslims have not, over the past 1350 years, steadily endowed with the same meaning? Are they Hadith that the most authoritative muhaddithin have dismissed as unreliable in their isnad-chain, that this “tiny minority of extremists” has decided to raise to the top level of “authenticity” despite the considered judgments of Bukhari and Muslim? Do they rely on fabricated details of the life of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil? Is their view of non-Muslims, and of the proper relation between Muslims and non-Muslims, Believers and Infidels, distinct from that which Muslims have believed in the past, and acted on, over 1350 years of recorded history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims?
Have you, in the past five years, read anywhere, any apologist for Islam, explaining to us exactly those invented texts, or those incorrectly elevated Hadith, or those fabricated details of the Life of Muhammad, on which that “tiny minority of extremists” have apparently been relying? Do you know of a single Qur’anic passage that has been used by Bin Laden or Al-Zawahiri or any of the others, that was made up? Do you know of any wild interpretations offered by that “tiny minority of extremists” that can be refuted, easily, by the vast majority of “peace-loving” Muslims whose Islam, whose understanding of Islam, we are repeatedly told is completely different from that of that “tiny minority of extremists” who have “perverted a great religion”?
We want to know more. We want to know exactly how that “great religion” has been “perverted.” We want to have chapter and verse. Tell us, someone – Karen Armstrong, John Esposito, Carl Ernst, Ralph Peters, the ghost of Sheikh Bin Baz, the Sheikh Al-Azhar, Al-Qaradawi, James Akins, Raymond Close, Lt. Gen. (ret’d.) William Odom, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Tom Friedman, Nicholas Kristof, Alistair Crooke, Javier Solana, the entire staff of the E.U. and the U.N. and the editorial boards of The Times, The Post, The Guardian, Le Monde, anyone at all among those who presume to instruct or protect us, including of course George Bush -- the man who looks forward to the day when those freedom-loving “moms and dads” in the Middle East will sit down to their Norman-Rockwellian or Leave-It-To-Beaver existences, just like all of us, as we each worship solemnly on the same Thanksgiving Day. (Oh, by then it will be a worldwide holiday, as we will all give thanks in just the same way, to the very same God of those very same three-arabahamic-faiths -- faiths that everyone in the whole wide world will embrace along with democracy and freedom and toys and good things to eat for all the boys and girls on the other side of the mountain.)
Tell us what the word “extremist” modifies. Explain to us exactly what the “extremists” believe, and where they get their crazed ideas. If there is reason to believe that they understand passages in the Qur’an and stories in the Hadith in a strange and “perverted” way, the way that those who would “pervert a great religion” would be expected to, please tell us exactly which passages and which stories are being read in false versions, or are being interpreted in a way that is false, false to the doctrine of Islam, false to the history of Islam. Explain to us just how they “pervert a great religion.”
We want to know, from all those who describe “the terrorists” as “extremists,” exactly in what way those “extremists” are “extremists,” and in what way they are to be easily distinguished from all the quiet, peaceful, pluralist Muslims we are assured make up not merely the majority, but the “vast majority,” of Muslims. We’d be pleased to find out exactly which texts need revision, need to be dealt with, and just how the word can go out, so we can all, Muslims along with their non-Muslim friends and brothers, mock into non-existence those “extremists” who are causing misunderstood Muslims such undeserved anguish, such undeserved grief. And surely, as we could see from so many stories in the newspapers on the Fifth Anniversary of the 9/11/2001 attacks, that the feelings of Muslims is perhaps the most important thing for all of us, at this stage of events, to consider, to worry and fret about. So we must make sure that we clearly identify what it is that distinguishes the beliefs of the “extremist” tiny minority from the vast majority of non-extremists. Just so we’ll all be completely clear on this.
So help us out, please. Perhaps we are a little slow. Perhaps we do not see things with the pellucid clarity of the bakers and brzezinskis, the espositos and the ernsts and the armstrongs and the peterses, and all those who think that the “tiny minority of extremists” have nothing to do with the real Islam. And if we need to worry, we don’t want to have to worry about anything other than that “tiny minority of extremists” who can be defeated, who can be caused to disappear. For otherwise we might inadvertently worry about Muslims who are part of some majority, and not part of that “tiny minority.” And their feelings would naturally be hurt. And as we learned this week, in all the attention given to the feelings of Muslims, their wounded sense of being under suspicion, the most important thing – by far – is surely not to offend the feelings of Muslims. For that would make them mad. That would force them to do things. That would force them, quite possibly, to begin to misinterpret the Qur’an and Hadith the way the “extremists” do.
So tell us what that way is, and then perhaps we can prepare a dossier to show how crazed are the interpretations, how false the passages, on which those “extremists” rely.
We’re waiting eagerly for this answer. But we’re not waiting forever.
Posted by Hugh at September 13, 2006 11:24 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
That would force them, quite possibly, to begin to misinterpret the Qur’an and Hadith the way the “extremists” do. - sez Hugh above
Case in point:
This happened on Monday, 11th in Germany, during the Pope's visit to that same country:
http://www.kreuz.net/article.3857.html
German in the original
"A young Turk had been threatening the two Salesian priests in Kassel, Germany for months. He accused them of being the embodiment of evil.
Yesterday he launched a knife attack.
A 70-year-old Catholic priest has been seriously injured in a stabbing. According to the police, 28-year-old Mukterem Gokhan is the main suspect in the multiple stabbing of Salesian Fr. Aloys Weber.
The attacker rang the doorbell of the Catholic presbytery of St. Kunigunde in Kassel at around 2 pm. When the chaplain opened the door, he stabbed him several times. Then he fled.
The parish priest, Fr. Leo Hillebrand, who was in the house on his lunchbreak, heard his fellow-priest's cries and found him slumped on a chair with serious stab wounds.
Both the victim and the attacker knew one another. Gokhan lives in the neighbourhood. He had been threatening the Salesian fathers for months. But neither of them took him seriously.
Fr. Hillebrand said on 'hr-TV': "He told us that Fr. Weber and I were the embodiment of evil, and that the church was also full of evil spirits and should be
burnt down."
Witnesses put the police on the trail of the suspect and a manhunt was started. According to 'hr-TV' the 28-year-old Turk was arrested the same evening in
his apartment. The weapon has not yet been found.
The background to the attack is still unclear. The circumstances would seem to point, however, to a mental illness."
There is no report that I can find on this in English. Even in Germany, apparently, it is getting very little coverage.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://swap.stanford.edu/was/20100322163935im_/http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 13, 2006 11:55 AM
From her statement during yesterday's 'Special Report' segment on Fox News, please add Mara Liason to your list, if you haven't already.
"Islam and what we're fighting are two different things."
Posted by: PRCS at September 13, 2006 11:56 AM
"please add Mara Liason to your list, if you haven't already."
-- from a posting above
It would be easier to make a list of those who don't qualify for inclusion on the original list.
at September 13, 2006 12:13 PM
The Iraq Iran war also discredited both governments and society elements that supported the wars, including religious leaders in Iran. Just as we argue over the film "Path to 9/11" over the blame because of our loss on 9-11, they argue over the blame for their wars with each other. WWI discredited Western governments and let in communism in many countries and then fascism.
If the US leaves Iraq, the civil war will go on and on and be blamed on their leaders and institutions, which include religious ones involved in politics. Perhaps it will discredit their leaders as much as WWI discredited the West's institutions in the eyes of its people. We just need to keep Iran from getting nukes, and get Pakistan to give its up while this process goes on.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at September 13, 2006 12:14 PM
Be wary of Muslims in your neighborhood who act abnormally. Signs may include continuous chanting,a wild eyed stare, finger pointing, open threats, rambling on with verses from the Qur'an, buying hundreds of cell phones, tons of fertilizer, barrels of diesel, several tanks of propane, anti social and weird behaviors such as becoming incensed when you do not allow them to butt in line or you do not allow them to demand submission from you, calling you names such as infidel, kaffir or worse.
Remember, if a Muslim says he will attack or kill you, he probably will try.
Be on your guard.
at September 13, 2006 12:43 PM
You are right on the money, Hugh.
As Clinton used to say, "the devil is in the details", and it seems as if nobody wants to confront the devil. It's much more comfortable to have a "foggy" area where we just don't go (for serious inquiry). My God, you don't think that all muslims are potential "extremists", do you?
I do.
at September 13, 2006 12:47 PM
Along these lines, we hear over and over again that islam is peace, and that a tiny minority has hijacked it.
Why is Islam is the only "religion" that is being
taken, or hijacked from the path? Why do you not see HUNDREDS of groups (i.e. The Christians of God, The Army of Christ, The Followers of Christ, etc) hijacking , converting, killing in the name of Christ? Putting out videos of terror, sending letters to convert, or die? I just don't see anything along the lines of this, other than with Islam. Why?
Some will bring up The OK city bombing, but this is a weak try. He did not even put out a video.
If Islam has been hijacked, why are they alone on this path?
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 13, 2006 12:48 PM
Good essay, thanks, Hugh.
"Like the Pope, all of us are frightened to the bone! No one is really daring to tell the whole truth about this monsterous and evil religion! No one!"
Henry, you are wrong. Yes people are frightened, for good reason. But many go bravely beyond their fear and speak and act in defiance of this evil cult, such as Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson and others.
Last night I heard Brigitte Gabriel and Walid Shoebat in all their shining glory tell the Truth, regardless of the consequences they face at the hands of our enemy. Walid, especially, for he is an apostate of the worst sort and is, I'm sure, a prime target for the jihadis.
The ignorant and the dhimmis don't speak and act. Courage is of short supply in our civilian culture, but it is still flourishes in some hearts, and will, eventually, in many others as the Truth spreads and the Free join forces.
Posted by: the poetess at September 13, 2006 12:55 PM
Let us not ask these questions to the poor opressed muslims for they might all turn into terrorists and then we are surely fucked!
Posted by: bff at September 13, 2006 12:59 PM
In the West, the culture of Christianity and Judaism exhibit the phenomenon of "extremism" with the same logic Hugh is describing about Islam (i.e., taking the foundations of their religion literally, logically and seriously); however, there are two key differences:
1) the foundations of Judaism and Christianity, even when taken literally, logically and seriously, tend to be less malignant than the foundations of Islam (and in many respects, tend to be positively benign and beneficent);
and, more importantly even:
2) the culture of extremism in Islam is more normative and has not been profoundly diluted and deconstructed by a sociopolitical development of secularism, as has Judaeo-Christianity over the past 300 years (with each passing generation, each passing decade bringing more radical dilution and deconstruction).
at September 13, 2006 1:01 PM
Re: the Mara Liasson comments above, last night, on Special Report with Brit Hume
on FNC, during the Allstar Round table, this topic came up during a discussion on whether Senator Russ Feingold's admonition to the President to stop using the term 'Islamo-Fascist' due to its
association of Islam with Fascism was valid or not. Note that Feingold's contention was the fear that it would alienate Muslims in the Islamic world and give them the impression that we are against Islam. Heavens forbid.
Summary of the Round-Table discussion between Brit Hume, Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke and Mara Liasson:Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold is calling on the president to stop using the phrase "Islamic fascists" to describe terrorists, saying it "causes people to believe their religion is under attack."
Butwhile Feingold called the term "insulting," he's not saying the terrorists aren't Islamic and he's not saying they're not fascists. Instead, he says using the two together "puts the name of Islam in an exceptionally negative light."
Feingold suggests calling the terrorists "extremists who exploit Islam," but his complaint may be moot. President Bush hasn't used the phrase "Islamic fascism" since August 10.
Mara Liasson: Fascism is National Socialism, and is usually attached to nationalist movements, like in Italy and Germany. This movement here is spread out over several countries, all over the Muslim world, which is why the term 'Fascism' is inappropriate for its use.Posted by: Infidel Pride
Mort Kondracke: I agree with Senator that calling them Fascists alienates them. I'd rather call them what they call themselves - Jihadists.
Fred Barnes: The term 'Islamo-Fascist' is accurate, since these people want to take the whole world to the 9th century, to the time of the Caliphate, where they'd have a central ruler who ruled over all Muslims.
Mara Liasson: That's precisely why the term 'Fascist' doesn't apply here
Brit Hume: Okay, here is the meaning of the word Fascist:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of oppositionMort Kondracke: Which is why we should avoid using this term, and get them on our side. I'd rather win this war.
Fred Barnes: I'd rather win this crusade!
at September 13, 2006 2:02 PM
Readers may wish to google "Islam, the Middle East, and Fascism" in order to pull up the article on the extent to which Islam meets the definitional criteria for Fascism -- an article by Ibn Warraq.
Posted by: Hugh at September 13, 2006 2:18 PM
Henry, those who bring us the doctrine of islam in its unadulterated form, who comb history for events of jihad such as Robert and Andrew Bostom etc. don't have to spell out anything, (although they usually have comments). They have spent their time and money for the salvation of our lives and culture. These people are heroes.
I say it doesn't matter what piece of the islamic puzzle anyone brings to the picture or whether they change their name or whether they tell the complete story, no matter. All of these humans bring us information we need to learn for ourselves how this evil manifests and how its followers think and act. Please, Henry, don't spend your energy on this type of thing. There is too much to learn and too much to do, each according to their own talents.
Posted by: the poetess at September 13, 2006 2:20 PM
Teacher Charged After Uproar Over Arabic
A substitute teacher was charged with disorderly conduct Monday after she allegedly lashed out at a group of Gaithersburg high school students for using words in Arabic while practicing a commemorative speech to mark the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201401_pf.html
Freedom of speech eh?
Posted by: witness at September 13, 2006 2:28 PM
The link to the story of Catherine McVey, the Gaithersburg teacher, is more than merely a matter of the use of Arabic words. The teacher of these students obviously preparing for some school assembly, decided to carefully direct them into something that would emphasize the "Religion of Peace" business, so that teacher, a certain Mr. Malik, had the students incorporate into their presentation -- quite uncessarilly -- an Arabic greeting, no doubt to ensure that no one could conceivably get the idea that Islam was anything but benign and certainly had nothing to do with the attack that was being commemorated.
Reading between the lines, one can imagine the whole scene, and sympathize comletely with the substitute teacher, who had stumbled across this pedagogic travesty that, no doubt, will be presented as entirely innocent, and she as having been an intolerant "islamophobe." From this distance, she sounds as if she has more in common than another local Maryland girl, Barbara Fretchie.
"Shoot if you must this old grey head, but spare your country's flag" she said.
Perhaps she couldn't stand the cunning manipulation of these naive students by Malik. Perhaps she just couldn't stand the whole phony business. She should not be punished. It sounds as though what she uncovered -- subtle brainwashing on behalf of Islam, too subtle for its young victims to comprehend -- should be exposed, examined, and Mr. Malik watched like a hawk.
As for the substitute teacher, she deserves not so much to be subject to a hearing, but treated to a heroine's welcome.
Posted by: Hugh at September 13, 2006 2:57 PM
Islofob IS-1,
Don't kid yourself about the Oklahoma City bombing not being related to Islamic terrorists.
Read "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis, a television reportor working in Oklahoma City at the time of 1995 bombing.
According to her very intensive (and credible) investigative reports, the bombing was actually actuated by ex-Iraqi nationals living in 'political asylum' in OKC. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were their 'lily-white' pawn recruits of the jihadi.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it sure looks like the apologist FBI sure wants to keep the egg off their face for totally blowing this one (and many more).
Far too many of these events are dismissed as 'not terrorist related.'
Nothing to see here, move along.
Posted by: Al Jay Z at September 13, 2006 3:04 PM
The collective western mind is not compatible with Sharia Law. And it will not fall to Islam for several reasons that include our numbers, modern communications, and the West’s ability to organize.
The Muslim street will have a difficult or impossible time with large scale assimilation due to the fact that when grievances are perceived, it is all to easy to blame the grievance on the host population’s biases. The next likely stop is the message of the Qu’ran. And any attempts to limit the poisonous societal implications of the Qu’ran by the host population will bring us back to the top of the paragraph. And after a few rotations, things can get very ugly.
The 100-yr future may very well turn out to be a two-state solution. The sooner the world can call ‘extremists’ what they really are, ‘believers’ or 'followers', the more humane the options will be.
at September 13, 2006 3:35 PM
“a tiny minority of extremists”
What about the rest of the extremists - the ones who believe in submission? Are they the large majority of moderate extremists. Is there a vaster minority of extremists we do not know about, yet? Maybe we could call them the extreme moderates? Or maybe while we invent ways to describe them they could kill more of us.
Posted by: Kreuzueber Halbmond at September 13, 2006 4:17 PM
EXTREMISM??
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Posted by: ontheleftcoast at September 13, 2006 4:43 PM
that quotation was from Barry Goldwater, of course
Posted by: ontheleftcoast at September 13, 2006 4:44 PM
Hugh-
I do not understand how you can criticize a Zachary Smith Professor (2000-2005) who is now a William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor (2005- ) and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations.
at September 13, 2006 5:43 PM
There is something creepy about this Carl Ernst. There was a leader of Hitler's Storm Troopers named Karl Ernst who was a friend of Ernst Rohm. He might be a relative-and that's why I get the creeps when I look at Carl Ernst's photo at his website.
Posted by: Frank at September 13, 2006 5:52 PM
"Hugh, your papers please."
Posted by: Frank at September 13, 2006 6:08 PM
Henry, I meant spending time worrying about no one out there telling the "whole truth." There are many people telling the truth from their experience and understanding and we should support them.
The majority of people in our nation don't want to hear the "whole truth." So, they are take in the information to the best of their ability and level of consciousness.
Last night at the Gabriel/Shoebat event at an evangelical church, Jewish rabiis heard more than they could assimilate when a Lebanon Christian told them how much she loved Israel and an ex-jihadi from the mid-east told them how deep the anti-semitism was in Islam and how they shouldn't get cuddly multicultural with Muslims who want to kill them and wipe Israel off the map.
Then they had to contend with the local pastor who said if Christians had done better with conversion in the mid-east perhaps all this violence and bloodshed wouldn't be a problem. Christian evangelism is many Jews worst nightmare. Maybe it keeps them from worrying about the threat of Islam. It will be interesting to see what comes of this historic event in the Jewish community.
Posted by: the poetess at September 13, 2006 6:25 PM
This discussion of moderate, extreme, marginal, in-name-only subject has come up a few times in the past and I'm not sure that it has been resolved. Let's agree that a muslim in name only like his or her Christian counterpart is in that netherworld of not givng a damn. The typical Muslim in name only (I have known many) hasn't been to the Mosque since he was a child, lost his prayer rug years ago, had wudu spoiled in 1965, drives a Mercedes which is financed at a very haram credit union, and will probably not like to see America Islamized. His favorite drink is Jack Daniels and loves American football.
On the other hand is the devout Muslim who prays five times, makes sure that he is properly cleaned before prayer, carries his prayer rug in the back of the car, and does not own a house because he cannot find a halal bank. This guy secretely wants the US to become Islamic but has not yet acted out his fantasy.
Then there are the Imams and Muftis, these are the guys who are causing the trouble through their sermons, they have leadership roles, and are not moderate. These troublemakers are the root of the jihad problems in the the US. The truly moderate Imams are pushed aside never to have any influence. This is very simple to understand; the Imams who preach against jihad and in favor of tolerance do not have a theological leg to stand on.
Let's just stipulate that there are no moderate Muslims with any influence and get on with the battle.
Posted by: Pelayo at September 13, 2006 8:59 PM
"I do not understand how you can criticize a Zachary Smith Professor (2000-2005) who is now a William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor (2005- ) and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations."
-- from a posting above
Oh yes you do.
Posted by: Hugh at September 13, 2006 9:48 PM
In the Muslim world there is no concept of extremism.
A religion based on murder,war,rape as set forth in the Koran is beyond extreme. There is no concept of a "moderate" muslim, only a good or bad one. The Koran says a good Muslim is one engaged in Jihad, and one who is not a Jihadist is a bad Muslim.
Any religion that has a "convert-or-die" aim, and has elevated to an honorable tactic of Jihad lying in all its forms, cannot be reasoned with. The muslim education system ensures an unending supply of brainwashed suicide bombers and budding terrorists.
All we can do is make the consequences of attacking the U.S. so costly that they will hesitate before trying again, but try again they will.
The only true way to reason with Islam in its present virulent manisfestation is at the end of a bullet or bomb.
at September 14, 2006 11:41 AM
Straight from the horse's mouth (or other orifice)
Mahathir Mohamad, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, and international Islamic terrorism
is all Israel's fault. There's a surprise!
Time to bin Islam, and return the bins to the Adelaide railway station concourse, removed some time ago to deter followers of "RoP" (religion of peace from leaving "surprise packages". What a wonderful contribution RoP makes whereever its slimy
"god" leaves its trail of death & destruction.
=================================================
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=4708
Mahathir blames 9/11 on Israel
Malaysia’s former prime minister said international Islamic terrorism
was a result of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.
Mahathir Mohamad, who drew censure for making anti-Semitic comments
during his 22-year rule, said Thursday that the Sept. 11 attackers
were motivated by sympathy for the Palestinians.
[...]
The 81-year-old former premier also said that there is no such thing
as a “moderate” Muslim.
“We follow the true teachings of the religion and the true teachings
do not teach us to bomb and kill people without reason,” he said.
at September 14, 2006 12:57 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)