My comment to the aussiconservativeblog:
Well articulated. I’m not sure you have this right. Modern Islamic clerics, especially here in the U.S., say that this was never set in stone. That most modern Islamists do not hold the views of all jihad all the time. From Wikipedia:
“Islam has never had any officially recognized tradition of pacifism, and throughout its history warfare has been an integral part of the Islamic theological system. Since the time of Muhammad, Islam has considered warfare to be a legitimate expression of religious faith, and has accepted its use for the defense of Islam. While the use of warfare for the propagation and dissemination of Islam is forbidden, still during approximately the first 1,000 years of its existence, the use of warfare by Muslim majority governments often resulted in the defacto propagation of Islam.
While the early spread of Islam was often borne on the back of military conquest, within Christianity its early spread was often a matter of political expediency. The minority Sufi movement within Islam, which includes certain pacifist elements, has often been officially “tolerated” by many Muslim majority governments. Additionally, some notable Muslim clerics, such as Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan have developed alternative non-violent Muslim theologies. Some hold that the formal juristic definition of war in Islam constitutes an irrevokable and permanent link within Islam between the political and religious justifications for war. The Quranic concept of Jihad includes aspects of both a physical and an internal struggle.”
From the writings of Thomas Friedman at the NYT, I’ve learned that the majority of modern Islamic clerics even in the middle east, do not support or agree with the radical militants who argue that their killing is supported by their religion. It would be wrong to assume that the many are the same as, for instance, the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia, who are certainly supportive of jihad against all non-muslims.
I recall back in December 2015, when Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, called for a blanket ban on Muslim immigration.
During this time,I supported Trump’s proposed Muslimban, and 18 months later, I also support theevolved ban, which has moved to prevent immigration from 7 Islamic countries riddled with terrorism, instead ofall 57.
Predictably, Trump has taken tremendous heat both in American media and across the world.
But there are many issuesin the arguments ofthese armchair critics.
First, critics of Trump’s immigration ban generally lack a basic understanding of Islam. Certainly, I am open to debating any idea put forward while discussing how to counter Islamic terrorism.
But withoutfirst acknowledging the factthat Islam compels its followers to wage war against disbelievers, and pushes towards establishing Islamic supremacy with the ultimate goal of installingSharia law, they are unqualified to meaningfully discuss this subject. Because these pundits don’t understand Islam, they…
View original post 510 more words