Interesting. A couple of decades ago I would have thought Mr. Pipes distinction plausible. Having seen the impact Islam is having on the West, however, I am not at all convinced. There is now a deep unease about the number of Muslims in our public services in the UK. I would be interested to know what we are to make of the UK's Home Secretary, Shabanah Mahmood, when she says that her faith informs every decision she mades
Based on your analysis, here are five sharp questions that implicitly answer the assertions made in the IDI interview:
1. If Islam is a monolithic "House" with a fixed blueprint, how do we account for fourteen centuries of jurisprudential divergence—from the Hanafi to the Ja'fari schools—on the very questions of governance and jihad?
2. Is it historically coherent to label the 7th-century Medinan confederation "totalitarian" while exempting the state-church fusion of Theodosian Rome or the Papal States from that modern, Arendtian category?
3. If scriptural regulation of slavery renders a faith "inherently violent," does the Biblical mandate for perpetual bondage (Leviticus 25) or the "Curse of Ham" render Christianity equally irreformable?
4. Does the "civilizational" threat lie in Islam, or in a shared Abrahamic history where the Doctrine of Discovery and Christian Zionism weaponized scripture for global dispossession?
5. If Islamic reform is merely "tactical dissimulation," why have scholars like Mahmoud Mohammed Taha faced execution by authoritarian regimes for the very theological convictions that Pipes dismisses as public relations?
I couldn’t read more than a couple paragraphs. Pipes is on the entirely wrong track and his take on things, as a supposed knowledgeable person on the subject, is dangerous, providing another large and gaping opening for jihadists, the children of Muhammad, to wreak havoc. I don’t have the time or inclination to read or listen to his deranged views for another second. We have real work to do.
Much as we owe Daniel, something seems to have turned him.
A Muslim follows Islam. If he's active ,he'll be an Islamist.
Muslims have played no part in combatting what their coreligionists have long been doing. To parse between Muslims and Islamists is a distinction without a distance
The moderate will simply pay to have you beheaded ,or to take the slow road to domination .
If we had made moderation pay, then we'd have a lot more moderates of good will. But we didn't , we still don't support the Islamists enemies. Because we are religiously illiterate and don't want to know.
Interesting. A couple of decades ago I would have thought Mr. Pipes distinction plausible. Having seen the impact Islam is having on the West, however, I am not at all convinced. There is now a deep unease about the number of Muslims in our public services in the UK. I would be interested to know what we are to make of the UK's Home Secretary, Shabanah Mahmood, when she says that her faith informs every decision she mades
Based on your analysis, here are five sharp questions that implicitly answer the assertions made in the IDI interview:
1. If Islam is a monolithic "House" with a fixed blueprint, how do we account for fourteen centuries of jurisprudential divergence—from the Hanafi to the Ja'fari schools—on the very questions of governance and jihad?
2. Is it historically coherent to label the 7th-century Medinan confederation "totalitarian" while exempting the state-church fusion of Theodosian Rome or the Papal States from that modern, Arendtian category?
3. If scriptural regulation of slavery renders a faith "inherently violent," does the Biblical mandate for perpetual bondage (Leviticus 25) or the "Curse of Ham" render Christianity equally irreformable?
4. Does the "civilizational" threat lie in Islam, or in a shared Abrahamic history where the Doctrine of Discovery and Christian Zionism weaponized scripture for global dispossession?
5. If Islamic reform is merely "tactical dissimulation," why have scholars like Mahmoud Mohammed Taha faced execution by authoritarian regimes for the very theological convictions that Pipes dismisses as public relations?
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, India
I couldn’t read more than a couple paragraphs. Pipes is on the entirely wrong track and his take on things, as a supposed knowledgeable person on the subject, is dangerous, providing another large and gaping opening for jihadists, the children of Muhammad, to wreak havoc. I don’t have the time or inclination to read or listen to his deranged views for another second. We have real work to do.
OMG. Momo was the original islamist f.f.s
Brother Rachid abrogates Daniel Pipes
Much as we owe Daniel, something seems to have turned him.
A Muslim follows Islam. If he's active ,he'll be an Islamist.
Muslims have played no part in combatting what their coreligionists have long been doing. To parse between Muslims and Islamists is a distinction without a distance
The moderate will simply pay to have you beheaded ,or to take the slow road to domination .
If we had made moderation pay, then we'd have a lot more moderates of good will. But we didn't , we still don't support the Islamists enemies. Because we are religiously illiterate and don't want to know.
But we'll have to learn soon enough.