Thursday, February 19, 2015

This Will Fail, Too: Islamic State, et al., Are Not Islamic?

Obama Tries to Split Religion From Terrorism at Summit

(Bloomberg) -- The conference on extremism convened by the Obama administration in Washington this week includes leaders from Muslim groups, focuses on U.S. cities with large Muslim populations, and involves foreign leaders struggling to avert radicalization in their Muslim communities.

One phrase that won’t come up much: Muslim extremism.

President Barack Obama and his staff have gone to lengths to avoid characterizing the ideology driving Islamic State and other terrorist groups as religious extremism. The semantic exercise is intended to avoid legitimizing acts of terror as expressions of religious belief. It’s also part of a strategy to draw in the domestic Muslim leaders who Obama is leaning on to identify and isolate potentially violent extremists.

“For us, terminology is very, very important,” said Riham Osman, spokeswoman for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, one of the groups participating in the three-day conference. “Using words like ‘radical Islam,’ we believe is actually hurting the cause.”
How about terminology like Sunni and Shia and American Satans etc.?

How about we deal in fact? The facts are that Muslims of every stripe (there are many) are all elimintationist in their beliefs because - the causal "because" - that is precisely the behavior of their idol, Muhammad. The secondary issue for each band or subset of Muslims is just who should be eliminated.

There is no such thing as The Leader of Islam. Every Muslim man can, if he wishes, become an imam and make all sorts of religious decrees including eliminationist fatwas. There is no worldwide caliph, but there are lots of local ayatollahs, clerics, imams, muftis, etc. depending on the strain of local Islam. But the violence is fundamental; it is built in; it is perfectly in line with the behavior of Muhammad.

So no gathering of a building-full of mullahs, etc. is going to affect any religious decisions by the remaining kazillion mullahs who do not report to anyone but Muhammad.

The pretension that ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, on and on and on, are not motivated by the life of the prophet is absurd. Of course they are. And their form of prophet mimicry is more accurate than those fake Muslims who do not acknowledge the entirety of the Qur'an and the example of the life of the prophet himself.

This entire exercise is an attempt at social prestidigitation, a shell game to leave the public wondering, under which cup is the real Islam? But the public is not as stupid as the Left thinks, and the public no longer gets its news from the MSM newsliars. Muslims hate and kill; it's all part of Islam because it was Muhammad's way. It even applies to killing other Muslims and always has: they are merely declared heretical and worthy of slaughter. The western public is no longer ignorant of the barbarism that lies at the heart of Islam, and that was in the heart of the prophet.

So this deception will fail, because it is too clumsily false to succeed (unless it is merely intended to deceive certain Muslims and Leftist voters, of course).


Dragon fang said...

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said:
One who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims - if he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya (i.e. would not die as a Muslim). One who fights under the banner of a people who are blind (to the cause for which they are fighting, i.e. do not know whether their cause is just or otherwise), who gets flared up with family pride, calls (people) to fight for their family honour, and supports his kith and kin (i.e. fights not for the cause of Allah but for the sake of this family or tribe) - if he is killed (in this fight), he dies as one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya. Whoso attacks my Ummah (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his promise made with those who have been given a pledge of security - he has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with him.
-Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Hadith 4555

Narrated `Ali:
I heard the Prophet (PBUH) saying, "In the last days (of the world) there will appear young people with foolish thoughts and ideas. They will give good talks, but they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out of its game, their faith will not exceed their throats. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for there will be a reward for their killers on the Day of Resurrection."
-Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 577

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri ; Anas ibn Malik:
The Prophet (PBUH) said: Soon there will appear disagreement and dissension in my people; there will be people who will be good in speech and bad in deeds. They recite the Qur'an, but it does not pass their collar-bones. They will swerve from the religion as an animal goes through the animal shot at. They will not return to it till the arrow comes back to its notch. They are worst of the people and animals. Happy is the one who kills them and they kill him. They call to the book of Allah, but they have nothing to do with it. He who fights against them will be nearer to Allah than them (the rest of the people).
-Sunan Abi Dawud, Book 41, Hadith 4747

More claims based on ignorance and motivated by irrational bias.
Simply put, if someone is not a licensed scholar, then his/her personal opinion about any issue in Islam is not associated with the Islamic tradition. 'Sharia' is a purely academic discipline; you don't see unlicensed lawyers, unlicensed judges, or unlicensed jurists, do we? There are different legal schools of thought, the major ones formed over 12 centuries ago. For a person's opinion to matter on a legal matter, it must be relevant to any of the legal schools of thought and adhere to the methodologies and legal theories adopted by said schools of thought, otherwise the opinion is worthless and not associated with Sharia as Sharia doesn't exist outside these schools of thought. To get a license (Ijaza) you need to be approved and connected to a chain of authority (Sanad) which leads all the way up to the Prophet himself.

Robert Coble said...

More taqiyya and kitman!

For a person's OPINION to matter on any matter (legal or not), it suffices for that person's followers to accept that person as an authority. It does NOT require any relevance to any legal school of thought (which is directly and irrevocably tied solely to that person's interpretation of the Qu'ran). Sharia is whatsoever the interpreter believes it to be, and whatever can be forced upon all others.

I'm glad to see that the Prophet reserves to himself the authority of final approval of all licenses. Silly me: I thought that the Prophet went on to his reward of 72 virgins a few years back. . .

I'm also glad that Islamic "legal" schools of thought (which are RELIGIOUS through and through) have remained constant for over 12 centuries. I certainly wouldn't want there to be any inconsistencies between the various sects of Islamic thought on what is (and is NOT) "legal."

I've missed you, Dragon fang! It's so boring without you to light up the skies with your fiery defense of the indefensible.

Are you attending the Presidential "Jobs for Jihadis" conference on "violent extremism" caused by the Crusades and the Inquisition?

Are you currently gainfully employed in some capacity other than Muslim apologist?