Snet islamists come in

[AhlulbaytSoldier]

Mujahidiinta Ahraar Al Shaam




Allahu Akbar!

[ZubeirAwal]

Ka dhigayan dagalka like football teams, smh.

This syrian war is going to end with a catasrophic loss to the muslims.

[grandpakhalif]

Aslong as men like this exist there's hope for this ummah

[ZubeirAwal]

I would pay to see all of your faces when Israel shatters these factions who are busy killing each other, because then you'd know Allah said " Wa'tasimu bi hablillaahi jamii'an, wala tafarraqu". The consequences will be evident, everyone dances when they hear a muslim yelling Allahu Akbar and blasting a ak into the air, am I the only one thinking victory is far from being near?

This year will mark the beginning of WW1, the war which was waged with several aims, the most important of them all to deliver a blow to the Ottoman Caliphate, which was abolished 10 years later on the third of march. Instead of the muslims cleaning up the filth that they installed in Al Ardh Al Islam (Saudi Kingdom, Bahraini Kingdom, Jordanian Kingdom, UAE, Qatar,Kuwait) they are racing all in one direction towards Syria just because of the sole fact that the US and her allies wanted them to. Manipulated like the dogs they are.

[Arabman]

Aslong as men like this exist there's hope for this ummah

The ummah shall arise, insha'Allah.

[GalliumerianSlayer]

Someone is watching this thread

[AhlulbaytSoldier]

Aslong as men like this exist there's hope for this ummah

The ummah shall arise, insha'Allah.

shut up cia agent

[Niya]

No, Niya, quite the contrary.

http://beyondthenewsblog.wordpress.com/ ... -be-heard/

"Beyond those two confuse and biased views we have with us one other view which needs to be listen and heard and that view is of Dr Daniel Pipes who from the very beginning says that radical Islam is the problem and Moderate Islam is the solution."

Of course, if you are a radical, you refuse to make this distinction.

Grant, the blogger you quote sounds like a Hindu apologist and I am not surprised what Pipes writes appeals to him. In any case, my opinion is that D. Pipes is a man with an agenda who has promoted Islamophobia and enriched himself in the process.

Niya,

I'm glad we've got it down to your opinion. The nationality or the ideology of the observer does not change the nature of what Pipes has to say. He absolutely does demonize radical Islamist theology such as that associated with bin Laden, Awlaki, Godane, etc. What he does not demonize, and, in fact, supports, is the moderate, or traditional, Islam. It should not take a genius to see that "The War on Terror" is, in largest part, a civil war within the religion itself. Certainly Syria is proving this, even if Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, etc. left doubts. Pipes is right, radical Islamism is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. He is not an Islamophobe. He is a Salaafi/Taklfiiriphobe. There is a difference.

What are your views on political Islam?

Grant, it is not just my opinion, and as I said there is plenty of material online about this guy if you want know the truth. I for one am not convinced by his divisive tactics. Instead of relying on just what he writes, read what others have to say about him.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Daniel_Pipes

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/daniel ... cit-funds/

http://www.voltairenet.org/article136260.html

http://rehmat1.com/2013/12/06/daniel-pi ... g-islamic/

As for Politcal Islam, it is nothing more than the desire by Muslims to rule themselves by Shariah Law. That is not a problem. The problem is the West's fear of Islam and Islamic States. The West, or more accurately the US feels threatened by an Islamic State unless it is in its sphere of influence and control like Saudi Arabia. Western media point at movements and label them terrorists etc with-out consideration of what the locals want. Islamists won a fair election in both Algeria and Egypt, but both were destroyed directly or indirectly, a fact which has the potential to radicalize the population. Islamic movements are never given a chance to evolve. Non violent political movements like al-Islah or the Muslim Brotherhood that long renounced violence are repressed just because they want to implement the Shariah Law.

[Grant]

There's much propaganda on all sides of this issue. One comment on the "Loon" article suggests the site is connected to Hamas. For sure, all of the articles are polemic. As a noted scholar with large credentials and platform, Pipes is bound to attract the attention of his opposition.

Note this quote from the first article you posted:

"Pipes has called for a war on Islamic extremism, declaring in one post-September 11, 2001 interview, "What we need to do is inspire fear, not affection." Pipes also promotes the support of moderate Muslims against militant islamists. He criticizes organizations such as Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for failing to distinguish between moderate Muslims and islamists when labelling him as 'islamophobic'."

One example Pipes gives is alcohol in Sudan. Traditionally, non-Muslims there were allowed to drink, but the Islamist administration changed this so that no one in Sudan could have Khamri, or in effect practice their separate religion. It is this kind of thing Pipes points to when he condemns Islamists and their versions of Shariah. Apparently, at least some folks agree with him, as shown by the creation of the Southern Sudanese state.

What version of Shariah do you feel Muslim people want to live under? Shabaab's? It is my understanding there is no agreement on the versions and that no country today has a version that is universally acceptable to the Ummah. If there were, this would be a different issue and Pipes would have a different argument.