The mendacity of the "moderate" muslim and the "liberal" non-muslims (like the despicable sh!thead Christine Fair) who celebrate shariat while at the same time calling anyone who points out that the virulence is in the core of islam, the religion, as a "racist bigot", because you see "Islam is a race".
It is very easy to pick apart the flimsy defense of Islam in this article, which is applauded as "brilliant" by the dimwitted liberal arts imbeciles who seem to infest policy making circles everywhere.
http://religiondispatches.org/ayaan-hir ... s-jihadis/
The summary of the article is "Islam does not need reformation because muslims are the biggest victims of islamist violence" (apparently the targeting of non muslims by majority muslim populaces in most muslim countries is just an abberation). Anyone else see parallels with "Pakistan is a biggest victim of pakistani terrorism" in this argument?
Most of the "arguments" in that article are just straight forward polemic with zero logic, so I will skip to the core "argument" of this pro-shariat "moderate" muslim Haroon Moghul.
First, and ‘most problematic,’ are the ‘Medina Muslims’ (though she started with ‘fundamentalists,’ before mooting and dismissing ‘Millenarian Muslims’—it takes her time to settle on ‘Medina Muslims.’) Medina Muslims want us to be ruled by ‘sharia’, or ‘Islamic religious law,’ one of countless indicators she’s in over her head. Hirsi Ali believes roughly 3% of the world’s Muslims are Medina Muslims, but that’s ~45,000,000 too many. She and I are in concord. The belief that ‘sharia’ exists to be forcibly imposed must be rejected.
So (a) "sharia" exists but will not be forcibly imposed and such arguments must be rejected. Why? Because Haroon Moghul says so, and he don't like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Moghul then comes up with this statement demonstrating mastery of duplicitous islamist rhetoric.
Though not any kind of scholar of any kind of Islam, Hirsi Ali must know that no Muslim would accept these conditions. Not just because they’re anathema, but because they’re nonsensical, something even National Review editor Rich Lowry agrees is obvious.
What are these tenets of Ayaan Hirsi Ali that is grabbing the goat of this "moderate" muslim?
(a) Rejection of ‘the Prophet Muhammad’s semi-divine and infallible status along with the literalist reading of the Qur’an, particularly those parts that were revealed in Medina.’
(b) Rejection of ‘Sharia, the body of legislation derived from the Qur’an.’
So essentially, no muslim will ever give up the tenets in the Quran (but the ISIS are not true muslims because they...err...follow the tenets in the Quran quite strictly) and no muslim can reject the "shariat" as the core set of rules for all muslims, even above other rules laid down by constitutions. So why should "islamophobic" non muslims not be concerned that the shariat will be in force once the muslims numerically outnumber the non muslims, as has already happened in many many countries? Because Haroon Moghul and the "liberal secularists" of Christine Fair's ilk say so. What are you, a bigot like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that you actually think these tenets are not a display of islamophobia and muslim hating?
Second are ‘Mecca Muslims,’ who practice Islam the way Hirsi Ali thinks Christians and Jews do, which is really the wrong way, because it’s contrary to Islam. Mecca Muslims refuse to recognize that ‘Islam is not a religion of peace’; that groups like ISIS haven’t ‘hijacked’ the faith, they are the faith.
That most Muslims disagree, that most of those massacred by ISIS are other Muslims, or that most of the men and women taking up arms against ISIS are Muslim doesn’t deter Hirsi Ali. Indeed no evidence can, because that which rests on no evidence cannot be undermined by any evidence.
So according to Moghul ISIS has "hijacked" the faith, even though all that the ISIS is doing is explicitly and faithfully adhering to every word in the Quran, but that does not matter because "muslims are the biggest victims of ISIS" just like "Pakistanis are the biggest victims of pakistani terrorism."
so who is this "moderate" muslim Haroon Moghul you ask?
Haroon Moghul is the Fellow in Muslim Politics and Societies at the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School. He's a graduate student at Columbia University, a widely-recognized speaker on Islamic thought and Muslim history, and the author of The Order of Light (Penguin 2006). Haroon's writings have been featured on Foreign Policy, Boston Review, Salon, Tikkun, Religion Dispatches, Al-Jazeera and Dawn. He is a Fellow at the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding and Senior Editor at The Islamic Monthly. His essay, "Prom InshAllah," is featured in Salaam, Love: American Muslim Men on Love, Sex, and Intimacy (Beacon 2014).
This guerrila islamist with harvard creds is apparently a "liberal muslim" who just happens to think that the Shariat and the Quran cannot ever be reformed, and anyone who says otherwise is an islamophobic muslim hater. Just goes to show what an utter sh1thole harvard and columbia are, when it comes to humanities.
This disease is larger than just the "moderate" muslims, "liberal" christians and religious people want to defend these islamist thugs because they are afraid that their own regressive religion will be targeted next.
To twist around Martin Niemoller's oft quoted cliche:
"when they came for Islam, I did not speak up, and when they came for christianity I did not speak, and when they came for X, I did not speak up, and when they came for Y, I did not speak up, and now my pet delusions are being targeted, and I have no one left to defend my insanity"
And what would we all do in a non delusional, religion-free world, huh? would be utter disaster.
To quote Ricky Gervais: "To suggest that I hate people practising religion because I hate religion, is like suggesting I hate people with cancer because I hate cancer". The atheist version of christian babble "hate the sin, not the sinner".