A "moderate muslim" now provides covering fire for the IS bigots with this rebuttal to the Graeme wood article, because you see, "Islam is a religion of peace" onlee.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/is ... a-87953877
First the standard boiler-plate "moderate" muslim response that Graeme Wood is an "islamophobe" -- if a majority of the muslims
didn't selectively read the Quran, then we would see all of them behave like the IS...but we don't...QED. I can't tell if this "moderate" muslim double-speak is conditioned response or a deliberate lie.
Moreover, he falls for what he accuses the majority of Muslims of: selective reading of the tradition. This has caused a great deal of confusion for many who try to put ISIS within a framework that places the group in a familiar category. Furthermore, Wood’s article and others like it can aptly be described as Islamophobic.
Wood swiftly dismisses the validity of beliefs the majority of Muslims hold with regards to Islam, disregards the official position most Muslim theologians have expressed on ISIS and violent extremism, and grants Islamic doctrinal legitimacy only to that which is being promoted by spokespersons from ISIS or their fans.
So why don't these "most muslim theologians" openly state their position of how they would interpret the very verses used by the IS and their theologians to support their bigoted, violent, islamism? Glossed over by this "moderate"muslim's response to Graeme Wood.
The argument posed in the article is that the only group of Muslims who take their Islamic texts seriously is ISIS.
This is a bare-face lie and a mischaracterization of Graeme Wood's position -- the position taken by Graeme Wood is that the arguments made by IS mullahs and "theologians" is just as well-learned and well-considered as the positions of the "moderate islamic theologians" that this "moderate" muslims waves his hand about.
In short, the only people who understand what Islam is really about as far as Wood is concerned are ISIS and academics who say what ISIS militants do is authentic Islam. As for the rest of over 1.6 billion Muslims and their theologians, they have what in the words of Haykel calls it, “a cotton-candy view of their own religion.”
If the "moderate muslim" who wrote this cannot explain to rest of us non muslims why he and his ilk are selectively ignoring the very phrases highlighted by the IS islamists, then he and his ilk
*are* selectively reading their own religious texts as stated by Graeme Wood. These "moderate muslims" cannot claim that they are
not selectively reading the quran and also not explain
why they choose to selectively read the quran by not interpreting the very verses, then observers can only claim that these "moderate muslims" are being less than truthful and disingenuous in their innocent protestations.
In fact, if we were to ignore politics for a moment and focus on a religious contribution for radicalisation, quietist Salafism, as well as state-sanctioned Sufism in MENA, are currently the strongest recruitment tools for ISIS.
First, this "moderate muslim" needs to clearly state why he does not consider why the Quran is not a political document in addition to being a religious document -- only a selective reading of the islamic religious texts will allow "moderate muslims" to pretend that the IS is following a "wrong" version of islam unlike the "moderate" muslims who are so moderate that they get to pretend that the verses and interpretations of them that they use every time they commit murder and mayhem are not relevant, and therefore islam is blameless.
All in all, if this is the best defense these "moderate muslims" have for the inherent bigotry in their texts and pretending the IS behavior has nothing to do with the tenets of islam as spelt in the Quran, then they are being less than truthful than the IS people who are at least very open as to how they choose to read the Quran.
All of this horsesh!t response from the "moderate muslim" culminates in the usual "root causes", i.e., palestine, drone attacks, etc. etc. etc., and therefor Graeme Wood and his kind are all islamophobes -- islam and muslims are just the victims onlee, as always.
An analysis of what ISIS is about and what it wants that looks to Islam as a causal source of their behaviour is not only misguided, but also harmful. It obscures the root causes for why we have an ISIS, an al-Qaeda, an Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, and any of the other groups that have risen and continue to arise. It creates further confusion and contributes to a rising Islamophobic sentiment in the West. And when given the guise of academic rigour, it accomplishes all of this rather perniciously.
Pathetic.
The author is a "trained student" of islam which explains his duplicitous two-faced rhetoric as he defends the indefensible...real smooth.
Mohamed Ghilan is a classically trained student in Islamic law and theology and is currently a neuroscience PhD candidate at the University of Victoria, Canada.
What is more amusing is that all the oiseaules like the editor of Middle East eye who pretend there is this "new atheism" that is somehow really different from "vanilla atheism". Ignore what is being said and pretend that the problem lies with messengers since the message is "islamophobic" entirely buying into lingo of bigoted islamists in CAIR and other hard core islamist groups.
CJ Werleman @cjwerleman · 2m 2 minutes ago
Obama: "We are not at war with Islam" @SamHarrisOrg: "We are at war with Islam" Confusing times for Obama voting New Atheists.
Christian fundamentalists are bigots. Islamic fundamentalist are bigots. New Atheist fundamentalists are bigots.
So essentially challenging the "word of god" in religions is "bigotry" -- black is white and day is just a brighter night according to these neo-liberal mofos who are not liberal by a long shot, just apologists for religious fundamentalism of some stripes.