Since we have had a number of casuistic posts that rapturously equivocate
about the "expert" credentials of Patrick Sookhdeo, and his politically
pretentious front organisations the "Barnabas Fund", "Isaac Publications"
and "Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity", that are
"critical" of Islam and Muslim beliefs.
What do we know about the nefarious capacities of these extreme right-wing
activists and their suspect organisations? Do they have a hidden
ideological
agenda? If so, what is it? Are they and their mindless sup****ters being
hypocritical and duplicitous by spreading lies and disinformation? I
thought
that this illuminating article - The Myth of "The Myth of Moderate Islam"
-
by Vincenzo Oliveti, might keep unaware subscribers better informed.
Here's
the relevant link where you can read the full exposé:-
http://www.islamicamagazine.com/Issue-15/The-Myth-of-The-Myth-of-Moderate-Islam.html
<Quote> ...
The Myth of "The Myth of Moderate Islam"
In a recent article in The Spectator magazine in the UK, the evangelical
leader Patrick Sookhdeo takes a swipe at Muslims and their religion. Does
his case stand up to scrutiny?
by VINCENZO OLIVETI
Patrick Sookhdeo's Article (July 30, 2005) in London's The Spectator, "The
Myth of a Moderate Islam" reflects a dangerous trend in the war on terror.
Under the guise of informing Westerners about Islam, he is in fact
spreading
the very same disinformation that anti-Islamic polemics have been based
upon
for over 1,000 years. This plays directly into the hands of Osama bin
Laden,
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and others, for it encourages the "clash of
civilizations" they so appallingly desire. It is indeed of the utmost
im****tance that we learn more about Islam and fight the scourge of
extremism
with all the tools possible. But Sookhdeo and those like him corrupt this
process, seeking to advance their own agenda by turning the war on terror
into an ideological war against Islam.
Muslim Violence
Sookhdeo's bias is evident from the outset. He argues that terrorists
truly
represent Islam, writing: "If they say they do it in the name of Islam, we
must believe them. Is it not the height of illiberalism and arrogance to
deny them the right to define themselves?" The remainder of the essay,
however, is an extensive effort to deny other Muslims the right to define
themselves by rejecting extremist interpretations of Islam. In fact, less
than 5% of Muslims could be classified as fundamentalist in outlook, and
of
that 5%, less than 0.01% have shown any tendency toward enacting terrorism
or "religious violence." It is thus "the height of illiberalism" to define
as terrorists over 1.3 billion Muslims who have nothing to do with
"religious violence" because of the misdeeds of a fringe minority of
0.005%.
At most, one in every 200,000 Muslims can be accused of terrorism. That is
to say there are a maximum of about 65,000 terrorists worldwide-roughly
the
same figure as the number of murderers on the loose in the U.S. alone,
with
over 20,000 homicides a year and a population of only 300 million.
Sookhdeo claims that Muslims "must with honesty recognize the violence
that
has existed in their history." However, given that the majority of books
that record the transgressions of Muslims have been written by Muslims, it
is difficult to argue that Muslims have chosen en masse to ignore the
atrocities of their past. Of course, there are Muslims who deny many parts
of this past, just as there are British people who still deny the
atrocities
of colonialism; Americans who deny the massacre of the Native Americans;
and
Germans who deny the Holocaust of 6 million Jews. But the fact remains
that
Christian civilization has given rise to many more atrocities than has
Islamic civilization, even relative to its greater population and longer
age. ...
[Read on ad nauseam ...]
<Unquote> ...
What do open-minded readers make of this thorough critical non-Muslim
analysis, by Vincenzo Oliveti, about the nefarious activities of Patrick
Sookhdeo and his cohorts in this forum? Is this a ****ning example of what
Ban Ki-moon recently described as :
<Quote> ...
We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and
Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small
minorities of extremists, on different sides, with a vested interest in
stirring hostility and conflict." [Ban Ki-moon] ?
<Unquote>
How does Sookhdeo's 'Muslim ba****ng' activities relate to the 'vested
interests' of the Israeli's? Can anyone tell? Interested readers may want
to visit these additional links for the other "critical" side of the
"perception management" coin:-
http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2005/07/31/patrick_sookhdeo_on_moderate_i
http://www.occri.org.uk/Articles/ResponsetoSpectator270305.htm
http://www.occri.org.uk/Articles/sookhdeo300705.htm
But the undoubted "faked evidence" clincher in the Muslim ba****ng game
might
be in this informative Guardian article - "Cameron must rein in these
toxic
neocon attack dogs" - by Seumas Milne, at this freely available link:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/20/thinktanks.conservatives
Someone recently asked elsewhere in this forum about use of the term
"so-called 'critics'". Perhaps, the answer is, as Seumas Milne
perceptively
suggests, they are simply unrestrained "toxic neocon attack dogs" posing
as
"critics"! What do you think?
--
Peace
--
"Perception management" is another term used to describe the process of
transforming public opinion to conform to a premeditated political agenda.
[Michael Carmichael]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko.azumazi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
