Replies

I am willing to recognize the difference between "moderate" Islam and Islamism.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that there is no philosophical barrier between the two. There is no sticking point. "Moderate" in this context merely means that you don't follow it rigorously, or "religiously"; if you did, you are headed down the continuum toward "Islamism", and as we've all been blessed to learn, between the Islamists and the head-choppers there is, again, no philosophical barrier. There is nothing upon which a moderate can reject Islamism and still be a muslim in good standing, and there is nothing upon which an Islamist can condemn the headchoppers other than mere tactical considerations.

And they don't. Typically a moderate will not condemn an Islamist, and not only out of fear. They recognize the Islamist as the dedicated muslim they ought to be. The so-called "moderates" can not even bring themselves to condemn the head-choppers, for the very same reason. Their response gives the lie to the idea that there is any difference philosophically.

With most of the religions of the world you may imagine that increased dedication might make you a better person. Sadly, in the case of Islam it does no such thing.

Again, it is a supremacist ideology.

It is permissible to lie to non-muslims.
It is wrong to question the faith of another muslim (even a practitioner of the "non-real-Islam" death cult).

Inherently there is a double standard within Islam. Non-muslims may complain because we get the short end of the deal.

At extremism, Islam says the life of a muslim is worth more than the life of a kufir. So a non-muslim who kills a muslim is more wrong than a muslim who kills a non-muslim. The idea has been expressed that it makes no difference to enslave or kill a kufir because it is the same as any lower animal (say a cow or fish).

Another element of this is the double standard when a muslim converts away from the faith. A non-muslim can practice a different faith without receiving a death sentence whereas a muslim who leaves the faith offends muslims and becomes a "lesser" being (he was already "saved" and gave it up, non-muslims never had it to begin with).

"There is nothing upon which a moderate can reject Islamism and still be a muslim in good standing,..."

The author considers himself a muslim in good standing.

"They recognize the Islamist as the dedicated muslim they ought to be."

I don't know where you got that.
Does it sound as if Dr. Jasser thinks that?

Typically a moderate will not condemn an Islamist, and not only out of fear. They recognize the Islamist as the dedicated muslim they ought to be.

Bull. Your analysis is FAR too accepting of the false and central claim of Islamists to represent normative Islam. Nor is your second sentence remotely accurate of genuinely moderate Muslims.

Yes, I certainly recognize there are faux-moderates. Indeed real moderates -- e.g. Khalid Duran, Tashbih Sayyed, etc. -- are frequently the first to finger them as frauds.