Replies

Replying as I scroll down.

To begin with, Sheikh Palazzi isn't apologizing for radical Islam or touting the CAIR line that radical Islam is only adhered to by a small minority of Muslims (hence the 80% figure). Nor is he trying to say that the problem needs the kind of band aid fix that CAIR and AMC suggest. So he is hardly touting the "standard Islamist line" that we've heard far too much since 9/11.

He isn't calling Islam a religion of peace. He recognizes quite clearly that it is not. However, he sees a way that it could become a religion of peace by breaking the stranglehold of the Saudi Wahhabis. You may not regard what he is trying to create as being "true" Islam or consistent with the Qur'an, but that's fine. Many Protestants don't regard any number of doctrines I believe in (Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Communion of the Saints, ad infinitum) as being "true" Christianity or consistent with the Bible, but I disagree. Sheikh Palazzi is holding to the exact same thing in regards to Islam, and I see no reason to begrudge the man his goal.

"Here are additional sources for your perusal...(to obtain Links, enter islam and proceed)..."

I am a regular (and rather avid) reader of "First Things," so I've already read most of these articles. I think they give Islam a fairly even treatment, noting both the nasty and the nice (if you'll notice, they distinguish between Islam and Islamism and note that traditionally jihad has been defined by the state, not by the individual). This isn't exactly the same as the whole "Islam is evil" opinion held by many in this thread.

For example, here's another excerpt:

"There have been great struggles between Christendom and Islam in the past: the Muslim conquest and conversion of the eastern and southern shores of the Mediterranean, until then part of Christendom; the battle for Spain that began with the Moorish conquest and ended eight centuries later with the completion of the Christian Reconquest; the repeated attempts of the Crusaders to reconquer the Holy Land, ending in their final defeat and departure; the rapid advance of the Tatars and Turks in east and southeast Europe and their long drawn-out retreat; the Chris- tian counterattack in Russia and Iberia, pursuing their former conquerors and masters into their homelands and establishing a European imperial domination over most of the lands of Islam. With the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the last of the European empires to dominate Muslim lands, that phase too has come to an end, and a new era of peaceful coexistence is possible.

"There are still some on both sides who see world history in terms of a holy war between believers and unbelievers, in which struggle is a divine commandment and victory a divine promise. Even among modern Westerners, no longer inclined to see the course of events in such terms, this perception is nevertheless encouraged by repeated stories in the media of militant Muslims and of what they say and do.

"Anyone with even a moderate knowledge of Islam knows that most Muslims are neither militant nor violent. This more balanced perception of the Muslim religion and of those who profess it will not be encouraged, either among non-Muslims or among the new and growing population of English-speaking Muslims, by an encyclopedia that gives such disproportionate emphasis to militant Islam and its practitioners."

So there are opinions on both sides of aisle to be found at "First Things."

"OK, I'm no expert and I'm probably going to get egg on my face, but the way it was explained to me, if they're sunni they can't be wahhabi."

Wahhabis are Sunni, but most traditional Sunnis (i.e. members of the four major Muslim sects) don't regard them as such because most Wahhabis don't regard non-Wahhabis as fellow Muslims. There are some Wahhabis who call for a more tolerant stance towards their bretheren (so as to have more foot soldiers with which to destroy the Kufr) but this view has yet to gain a rather wide appeal.

"At least that's what I was told by a sunni member of hamas when he was explaining the sects to me (during a prolonged futile attempt to convert me). This was a year or so before 9/11. He (and his fellow hamas friends) really despised wahhabis because of this and their collusion with the British."

Wahhabi and Wahhabiyyah Islam are both terms that aren't used by actual Wahhabis to describe themselves. They don't call themselves Wahhabis, they simply regard themselves as "true" Muslims. Hence, their criticism of Wahhabis was likely either deceptive in nature or else a reference to the rulers of Saudi Arabia, who ARE referred to as Wahhabis in a disrespectful sense.

"They were palestinians living in the US. Did they BS me or does the term wahhabi have multiple meanings?"

Hamas is a Wahhabi organization to the core. It originally grew out of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a Wahhabi organization founded in the 1920s to fill the power gap left by the destruction of the Ottoman caliphate.

"Based on recent trends in islam, it is reasonable (even probable) that some major mullah will edict a fatwa, calling for this guy to be murdered."

Perhaps so. Khalid Duran, another Muslim cleric mentioned in the article, has been threatened, harassed, and slandered by CAIR for exposing their connections to Hamas.

"The professor in Iran, sentenced to death by whatever body does such things in that far away fair land, was merely calling for islam to adjust to the modern world."

Not exactly. He was saying that there was no religious basis for the type of theocracy that has existed in Iran since 1979 and was calling upon the ayatollahs to adopt a more ceremonial position similar to what you might find in a constitutional monarchy. This was quite enough for Khameini, who has wanted this man dead for a long time. I should note that thousands of students (all Muslims) protested for his release.

"What are the author's creditionals?"

Secretary-General of the Italian Muslim Association and Director for the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community. He's one of the top non-Wahhabi clerics in Europe.

"And, if they are legitimate, and his arguments at least are among the few rational ones I've ever read - why should we believe (or rank above all others) his single position against that of hundreds of others who only spew propaganda?"

For starters, because he's on our side. What I wanted to demonstrate by posting this article was that we do have allies (or potential allies, at any rate) within Islam for our War on Terror who recognize the problem and are willing to assist us in arresting, stopping, and eradicating their more militant bretheren. I am not saying that this is representative of the majority of opinion in the Muslim world (if you read the article, even Sheikh Palazzi doesn't say that) but rather that Islam cannot be painted with such a broad brush as to regard all of it and its followers as evil incarnate. This guy is one of the moderates, and I think he needs to be recognized as such, just like those Iraqi Americans who showed up at the FR rally in DC.

"This is scary, 80% of the imams in the USA are islamists, who are breeding terrorists. The Homeland Sec. dept. has a BIG JOB."

It could (and should) start by taking away the AMC's exclusive right to appoint army chaplains. If you're wondering why at least 4 al-Qaeda (or more, if you count John Mohammed as such) have had some form of US military service, you need look no further than AMC and its masters in Riyadh.

"Alrighty, then reconcile this:"

Here again is a tried and true tactic that Jason brought up earlier. Using Scripture verses that appear to support violence if interpreted literally. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case as most Christians don't go around hacking out their eyes because they believe that it causes them to sin. Islamic scriptures, like any other religious document, can be interpreted in manifold ways, especially the not necessarily violent ones.

Also, if Islamic scripture is as cut and dry as some Freepers want to paint it out to be, I might suggest you enlighten me with whether the Islamic Ummah is to be run through consensus or through the direct rule of the descendants of Ali.

More to the point, who exactly do you think supervises the printing of English Qur'ans and their distribution worldwide and on the net? Where do you think they get the money to do that?

He isn't calling Islam a religion of peace. He recognizes quite clearly that it is not. However, he sees a way that it could become a religion of peace by breaking the stranglehold of the Saudi Wahhabis. You may not regard what he is trying to create as being "true" Islam or consistent with the Qur'an, but that's fine. Many Protestants don't regard any number of doctrines I believe in (Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Communion of the Saints, ad infinitum) as being "true" Christianity or consistent with the Bible, but I disagree. Sheikh Palazzi is holding to the exact same thing in regards to Islam, and I see no reason to begrudge the man his goal.

I certainly do not begrudge Palazzi his goal. I most certainly do not wish Muslims to enter upon prolonged residence in the West until the good Sheik's goals are met. Neither do I believe the Wahhabis are the only violent sect within Islam.

Just as you and I are formed by the relentless logic of the Christian West, Muslims are formed and driven by a logic that is completely alien to us and has not matured beyond the era of strife and bloodshed in the name of sectarianism epitomized in our own history by the point and counterpoint of a Cromwell and a Bloody Mary. Furthermore, the Muslims Palazzi (and you and I) consider "Bad" want to wipe out all Christian Sects. Luther? The Pope? Calvin? Zwingli; The Vicar of Brae? Makes no difference to them.

Besides the philosophical differences which are now causing bloodshed, slavery, mutilation, and enforced conversion of Christians across the globe, there is the simple question of today's numbers. Cromwell did not have even 50,000 troops with which to oppress Ireland. Bloody Mary burned hundreds at the stake. Ditto Zwingli and Calvin. They executed 15 witches at Salem. The Romans executed thousands.

This sordid litany pales in comparison to the damage now being done in the Sudan and which was done in East TImor. And the number of oppressors in the name of religion dwarfs any total of the worst ever known. The tiny percentage of Muslims who are Islamists, or jihadists, or "Bad" Muslims in Palazzi's book number in the 10's of millions, at the very least.

How many 9/11s does the good Sheik think might occur while he is working his ambitious process? How long does he think it will take him to bring 50MILLION vicious dogs to heel and lead them to the sweet light which he claims radiates from the teachings of Muhammed, May Peace Be Upon Him?

Let the good Sheik make his circuit of the watering places and raise all the money he can for his project. Perhaps the europeans, or our government will back his foundation, or whatever mechanism he develops. But if it includes any more Muslims taking up residence in the West, I'll fight it. I won't be alone, as I predict you'll see if the "bad" Muslims commit any atrocity soon in the West.

What I think you ought to fight is logical relativism. You probably cannot profitably apply the thought processes of the West to Islam. In fact, I think Palazzi is trying to apply a thought process from the East ;;;; Good Kharma. But east or West, if you and the Sheik wish to reform Islam, don't do it in my backyard.