|
Interesting, and insightful article. I would agree with its subdivisions of Islam, but I really don't get the writer's point. Clearly he calls for understanding when dealing with Moslems, and the realization that they're not all extremists, but what is the point of pointing those things out? It would suggest that he's worried, and if so, about what? Any western action taken against Islam has been mild, and imho, justified.
My own note:
Islam is an interesting religion. The Qu'ran clearly preaches killing non-Muslims if they do not convert willingly, but they (Moslems) seem to always gather enough Western sympathy that discourages decisive action against that particular attitude. They turn into a discrimanatory, and racial issue. I know there are moderates, but the Jihadists are actually the people "in the will of god" when it becomes clear that a nation, ethnic group, or person will not convert: it says that it is alright to kill them for the greater good. If these people oppose universal Islam, the greater good, than the people loose their innocence, and can be killed. I'm not for "wiping out Islam": I'm against them wiping out us, and if that means we make war against them as a religion then so be it. But if they're willing to live with us then I can live with them. The only line I will draw at that point is the United States becoming an Islamic "Republic": I will fight before I let that happen. And that doesn't mean I'm anti-Moslem: it means I'm anti-bloody religious dictarorship! And when Moslems display the attitude I've just described, you can feel sure that I'll be "Islamophobic". When certain factions of Islam, which is a sympathized religion, were ploting your, and/or your country's demise: wouldn't you be "Islamopobic"?
__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson
|