This just in from the Oxymoron Department of Muccings:
I just got back from attending a meeting where Usama Dakdok was the guest speaker. His topic:
Moderate Islam: Fact or Fiction?
Usama is an Egyptian-born Christian who speaks fluent Arabic, translated the Qur’an from Arabic to English, is an Islamic expert and who speaks around the country teaching the truth about Islam.
Usama went to great pains in his 1 1/2 hour presentation to convincingly make the case that 1) A Muslim of any sort (moderate, Sunni, Shia, radical, etc.) considers himself to be a follower of the Qur’an and Muhammad (through cultural association or through study), otherwise he would not call himself a “Muslim”, 2) the Qur’an and Muhammad teach that the infidels (Jews and Christians) are evil and must die by the sword, and 3) therefore there is no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim.
A comment from the audience cited Zudhi Jasser, self-described as a “devout Muslim”, as an example of a “good Muslim” (from the non-Muslim perspective) because he speaks of freedom and democracy and against the Muslim Brotherhood while traveling his FOX News circuit among other news outlets.
Usama attempted to convince this person from the audience that nothing could be further from the truth; that Jasser, like all Muslims who feign “moderation”, is a deceiver. He is buying time to allow the water to reach the boiling point so that the frog (us!) become inert enough so that we are incapable of jumping out of the pot.
Was Usama successful convincing this person? Time will tell.
But let me put some logic into perspective to help this person over the mental hurdle which is currently an oxymoron.
1. Islam is an ideology based entirely on the life and teachings of Muhammad which is reflected in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Suna.
2. This “trilogy” of books has been the basis for the teaching and belief of Muslims for over 1400 years.
3. Those who call themselves “Muslim” do so on the basis of at least identifying with the teaching of Muhammad and the Trilogy, if not actual faith in every word.
4. The core teaching based on predominant historical orthodox interpretation of the Trilogy is that the infidel (Jews and Christians) who do not convert to Islam shall be killed. Many Qur’anic verses state this. There are many other satanic proclamations of the Islamic Trilogy that call for other forms of equally vile treatment of unbelievers as well as fellow Muslims.
5. Islam clearly teaches the practice of “taqiyya”, lying and deception to further Islam.
5. Zudhi Jasser calls himself a “devout Muslim.”
Question: How can Jasser be a “devout Muslim” while dismissing major portions of the Islamic Trilogy and most of the teachings of Muhammad? Taqiyya, anyone?
Why, after listening to one and one half hours of the Dakdok presentation would anyone retain their belief that a person who claims he is a “devout Muslim” be trusted and respected for whatever else he claims to be?
What is the basis for insisting that Jasser is a “good Muslim?” The only basis I can think of is from the perspective of Islam. Jasser is buying time through confusing the truth of Islam so the pot can be brought to a boil. If he is thought to be a “good Muslim” from the Judeo-Christian perspective, he is a “bad Muslim” or “apostate Muslim” from the Muslim perspective, NOT a “devout Muslim”.
Here is a partial explanation of why this member of the audience would consider Jasser an ally: Her reliance on the use of the word “reform” as applied to Reformed Jews. Reformed Jews gave up many “Orthodox” Jewish traditions. They gave up a number of outward traditions. They did not give up the heart of Judaism. Similarly, Reformed Jews hope that there is such a thing as “reformed Muslims”: those Muslims who give up many of their Muslim traditions. That is a severe case of “wishful thinking”, especially when referring to a Muslim who insists he is “devout.”
A Muslim becoming a Zudhi Jasser has to do a lot more than give up a few whacky Islamic traditions to be considered a “good Muslim” from our perspective. He would have to extinguish hundreds of verses, thousands of words, and centuries of Islamic teaching from the Trilogy – he would have to jettison the heart of Islam. That would not be Islamic “reform”; that would be Islamic “obliteration”: making Islam into something it never was.
“Reform” in most other religious contexts, especially in the Christian context, refers to a reform back to the original teaching of the founders of the religion. The Christian “reformation” attempted to reform Catholicism back to the pre-corruption basics of the faith.
The only version of Islam that has been corrupted is that which deviates from the teaching of the Qur’an and fails to emulate the life of Muhammad. “Reforming” Islam would be to eliminate the corruption of Islam that FAILS to perform Jihad, intolerance, and supremacism for the sake of Allah. Islam’s current resurgence is the result of Islamic reformation. Jasser’s version of reform is an oxymoron.
Those who believe Jasser is promoting Islamic reform are those who failed to understand what Usama Dakdok had to say throughout his one and one half hour presentation. The ultimate question is: Do you believe Jasser, the devout Muslim, or Dakdok, the devout Christian? What makes the most sense? Which one eliminates the oxymoron?