Submitted by Kevin Shannon(United States), Apr 6, 2004 at 23:42
Isn't it presumptous for any non-Muslim to speak of "Fixing Islam"?
I agree that Islam and its adherents can be studied by non-Muslims but this is something very different from "fixing" Islam.
Is it not possible that the version of Islam preached by the Wahhabi's and Al Qaeda is the true Islam? Muhammed and his immediate successors as leaders of the Islamic community did not seem to have any problem using force and violence to spread their rule. Indeed, they seemed to believe that it was religiously mandated and required for them to do so in order to be pleasing in the eyes of Allah. Is this so different than what militant Islam preaches?
I am well aware of force and violence was used in the Crusades and other circumstances to punish heretics or spread Christianity. However, the religious significance of these endeavors would be very different if it were Christ and his apostles that were leading those armies. This set of facts does exist in Islam. It creates extreme difficulties in seeing an authentic peaceful and non-coercive Islam.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but not hostile, libelous, or otherwise objectionable statements. Original writing only, please.
