I disagree. He is defending his faith only and not the miscreants who carry the terrorist banner
He is defending his faith by denying that terrorism has anything to do with it, except for, you know, that tiny minority that "hijacked" Islam. This is simply untrue. Then instead of marshalling facts he hurls insults.
This has very little to do with the state of the Modern Middle East, where you can go from major Islamic scholar to major Islamic scholar without finding dissession on the topic of suicide bombing. Everybody agrees that blowing up Jews in pizza parlors is totally Islamic. You have some dissension on whether it's okay to kill Muslims too, or to send women to do it, but it's dissension at the margins. Major TV preachers like Qurudawi give fatwas permitting it.
Probably somebody somewhere condemns suicide bombing in the Mideast, but it's hard to notice them. They don't get any publicity. I have seen scholars who condemn terrorism, but they seem to be working out of London or the USA.
Salafi Islam is a major segment of Islam today. Fact. A form of Salafi Islam called Wahhabism is the official religion of Saudi Arabia. Fact. Salafi Islam is backed by Saudi oil money in a wide spread proselytizing campaign that has been going on for 30 years. Fact. As a result, Salafi Islam is taking hold in places it didn't used to be in, like Indonesia. Fact.
Now rough's response to this simple pointing out of fact is to call me a liar and hurl other insults, saying I claim Salafi Islam is the "true" Islam. I have never claimed it. I don't judge whether Salafi Islam is "true" Islam, anymore than I judge whether the Catholics or the Southern Baptists are the "true" Christians. However, I expect to be able to point out that both Catholicism and Baptism are major creeds in Christianity without being insulted for it. I expect the same about pointing out the rise of Salafi Islam. |
