There is no "radical Islam" and there is also no "moderate Islam"

There is no "radical Islam" and there is also no "moderate Islam" (INN). By Dr. Mordechai Kedar.

Beginning more or less with 9/11, the expression "radical Islam" became the accepted way for the media, politicians and public to define the religious and ideological foundations of Islam-based violence when referring to what the world calls "terror." This expression was meant to be contrasted with "moderate Islam" which presents Muslims as ordinary people who wish to live in peace with all of mankind - Christians, Jews, Buddhists, unbelievers and the rest of us. The world created the image of two Islams, one radical and impossible to live with, and one moderate and "just like us."

This differentiation between "radical" and "moderate" Islam is what gave rise to the claim that Islam had been "hijacked" by the radicals, implying that the real and original Islam is the moderate, not the false, radical one.

This is what allows today's Europe to relate positively to the wave of mostly-Muslim illegal immigrants washing up on its shores -- they represent "moderate Islam" and all they want is to live in peace and harmony with their European neighbors.

Permit me to raise some doubts concerning the psychological mindset that claims the existence of two types of Islam. In order to do this, let us clarify an important point: Islam is a text-based framework of ideas and behaviors, covering religion, culture, strictures, politics, law and economics. It is an all-embracing way of life. The most basic text is the Qu'ran, followed by the Hadith (oral law) and the Sura -- biography -- of Muhammad. The Sharia, Muslim law, is a system of binding laws and injunctions that Muslims are obliged to obey.

There are no two Islams, no moderate one and no radical one, there is just one Qu'ran that includes everything: verses on Jihad and all out war against unbelievers along with verses that speak of recognizing the "other" and living beside him.

There are no two types of hadith, one radical and the other moderate; there is just one body of hadith that includes everything, both violent and moderate ideas.

Muhammad does not have a moderate biography and a radical one; there is only one life story of the prophet of Islam and it has stories that express a radical, violent approach and others presenting a moderate one.

There is also just one Sharia that includes everything, from the radical cutting off of a thief's hands to the unquestionably moderate admonition to care for the poor and indigent.

That being the case, there is no "moderate Islam" and no "radical Islam", just one Islam that incorporates both terms, ranging from extreme radicalism to extreme moderation. In practice, we see people with different cultures, some of them extremists and some moderates, all finding verses, ideas, precedents and laws that support their views on life and society in the same Qu'ran, Hadith, Sura and Sharia. The radical Muslim chooses to quote sources that support his extremist approach, while the moderate Muslim finds sources to buttress his moderate approach.

Those two Muslims, the most extreme and the most moderate, are "kosher", because they both rely on legitimate Islamic sources, and neither can claim that the other "hijacked" Islam. All the Muslims in the world, all one and a half billion of them, men, women and children, are to be found somewhere on the moderate-extremist continuum. They may live alone or as part of families, tribes, organizations and societies.

Islamic State is a state established and continuing its operations with the participation and cooperation of a large body of Muslims and converts to Islam who are on the extremist tip of the continuum. Al Qaeda is right there next to them, as are Hamas, Hezbollah and all the other terrorist organizations. On the other end of the continuum, the moderate one, are the members of the "Muslims for Tomorrow" organization, a totally moderate group of Muslims living in Toronto, Canada.

Along the scale connecting the endpoints of the continuum, one can find all the other Muslims in the world, each one on a point of his choosing, somewhere between radicalism and moderation. His place on the continuum is a dynamic, not a static one, and a once moderate Muslim can undergo a process of radicalization, while another, who was an extreme radical can change his views and become more moderate. Life has a way of moving people along the continuum, making it harder to predict the future of an individual or group.

Moderate Muslim migrants live in harmony with the foreign societies to which they have migrated. They blend in nicely, work for a living, are law abiding and contribute to the economy and society that absorbs them. More radical Muslims who migrate to new societies tend to live in the enclaves that preserve their culture and way of life, only partially blending into society and the work force and constantly attempting to influence and change for their own ends the society that let them in.

If they are on the violent side of the continuum, that violence will be turned on the society that accepted them - a fact that is most evident in today's Europe.

Translated from Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky, Arutz Sheva Op-ed Editor.

PS: After the Qur'an, the hadith (reports on the sayings and acts of the prophet) is the second most important source of Islamic law (Shari'a). In hadith collections, jihad means armed action; for example, the 199 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, all assume that jihad means warfare.7 More broadly, Bernard Lewis finds that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [i.e., specialists in the hadith] . . . understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."8
http://www.meforum.org/357/what-does-jihad-mean

'Moderate' Iran cleric says opposition leaders deserve death.

'Moderate' Iran cleric says opposition leaders deserve death.(TOI).

TEHRAN, Iran — A prominent Iranian cleric says two opposition leaders placed under house arrest after the country’s divisive 2009 presidential election deserve to be hanged.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati didn’t mention Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi by name. Instead, he referred to them as “leaders of sedition,” a popular phrase used by hard-liners to describe them. Jannati made the comments in his Friday prayers sermon. State radio broadcast his remarks live.

Jannati said the two are alive because of “Islamic mercy.”

Reformists claim Mousavi was the real victor of 2009 elections and that former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won through widespread fraud. Massive protests by Mousavi supporters were crushed by security forces. Both Mousavi and Karroubi were put under house arrest in 2011 amid the Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East.

U.S. Senators press Obama to stand firm on Iran.

U.S. Senators press Obama to stand firm on Iran.(NCR).

Senators called on President Barack Obama to reiterate that the United States will not accept a nuclear-capable Iran and that crippling economic sanctions on Tehran will continue despite Iranian President Hasan Rouhani's recent overtures to the West.

In two separate letters, top Democrats and Republicans said Obama should use his speech to the U.N. General Assembly this week to restate longstanding U.S. policy that it will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Iranian officials have said their nuclear work is for peaceful purposes.

"Iran must show it is serious about reaching a legitimate diplomatic solution accompanied by full and verifiable compliance. Talks cannot be merely a stalling tactic, while Iran continues to move forward with aggressive enrichment of uranium," Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., wrote in a letter to Obama.

The two said the U.S. should not relent on sanctions.
"Now is not the time to let up on this pressure," Schumer and McCain wrote. "Removal of any existing sanctions must depend on Iran's halting of its nuclear program. Conversely, the continuation or expansion of its nuclear activities will only lead to more sanctions led by the United States and our friends and allies."

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also sent a letter to Obama pressing him to restate U.S. policy toward Iran.
"Like you, we viewed the election of Hasan Rouhani as an indicator of discontent among the Iranian people and we have taken note of recent diplomatic overtures by Iran," Menendez and Graham said. "However, whatever nice words we may hear from Mr. Rouhani, it is Iranian action that matters."

They argued that only a verifiable agreement with Iran over its disputed nuclear weapons program would be credible."Iran is not a friend whose word can be taken as a promise," Menendez and Graham wrote.

Obama arrived in New York on Monday and will address the U.N. on Tuesday. No meeting between Obama and Rouhani is scheduled, but U.S. officials have left open the possibility that the two leaders might talk during the annual international gathering. If it happens, it would be the first meeting of U.S. and Iranian leaders in more than 30 years.