mercoledì, Dicembre 8

Fighting Islamic terror ISIS’ fundamentalism cannot be defeated on battle fields

1 2

According to Hammond, after reaching 30%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in Ethiopia, Chad and Lebanon. From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of nonbelievers of all other religions (including nonconforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in Albania, Malaysia and Sudan. After 80%, one has to  expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is ongoing in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

“100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’—the Islamic House of Peace”.  Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in Saudi Arabia.  But is there peace even here? As Hammond writes, “ Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons”.

What then is the way out?  Here, I think the best course has been advocated by the American scholar Haroon Moghul. He talks of the need of a real “Islamic Caliphate”, not the one proclaimed by the IS.  His Caliphate is based on the teachings of the great Indian poet from Kashmir, Muhammad Iqbal, who was against a Caliphate in its prior, monarchic and imperialistic form. Iqbal was not in favour of investing a single person with authority over hundreds of millions of diverse believers. Let me cite here an exhaustive quote of Moghul.

He writes. “Iqbal argued rather creatively in favor of republicanism—democratically governed Muslim societies that gave room to ethnic groups to express their unique identities. He believed that these new governments could voluntarily affiliate with one another, and that a future caliphate would look like today’s European Union, a consensual form of affiliation whose purpose would be  ‘neither nationalism nor imperialism,’ but a multicultural democracy.

“That was his answer: elections, accountability, representation. What is ours? The monarchic caliphate failed. The model of an Islamic state has never worked. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is governmental, and doesn’t reach the rising numbers of Muslims who live as minorities. We need institutions that accept our global diversity. We are Sunni and Shia, Ibadi and Ismaili, religious and secular. We are confronted by common concerns—extremism and sectarianism, patriarchy and authoritarianism, climate change and poverty—even as we live all over the planet. We need a new kind of caliphate.

“It must have a voice to challenge ISIS, and those who claim to act in our name, and use violence to achieve their ends. It must address the grim reality of authoritarianism and autocracy. It must allocate resources to find productive solutions to endemic problems. Models for this 21st century caliphate include religious federations, global universities, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, the outstanding work of the Ismaili Aga Khan Development Network, as well as even a peace corps. Perhaps the end result will be a dynamic combination of all of these, funded independently of any government”.

I cannot agree with Moghul more. A reformed and moderate Islam is the only antidote to the ISIS menace.


L’informazione che non paghi per avere, qualcuno paga perché Ti venga data.

Hai mai trovato qualcuno che ti paga la retta dell’asilo di tuo figlio? O le bollette di gas, luce, telefono? Io no. Chiediti perché c’è, invece, chi ti paga il costo di produzione dell'Informazione che consumi.

Un’informazione che altri pagano perché ti venga data: non è sotto il Tuo controllo, è potenzialmente inquinata, non è tracciata, non è garantita, e, alla fine, non è Informazione, è pubblicità o, peggio, imbonimento.

L’Informazione deve tornare sotto il controllo del Lettore.
Pagare il costo di produzione dell’informazione è un Tuo diritto.
"L’Indro" vuole che il Lettore si riappropri del diritto di conoscere, del diritto all’informazione, del diritto di pagare l’informazione che consuma.

Pagare il costo di produzione dell’informazione, dobbiamo esserne consapevoli, è un diritto. E’ il solo modo per accedere a informazione di qualità e al controllo diretto della qualità che ci entra dentro.

In molti ti chiedono di donare per sostenerli.

Noi no.

Non ti chiediamo di donare, ti chiediamo di pretendere che i giornalisti di questa testata siano al Tuo servizio, che ti servano Informazione.

Se, come noi, credi che l’informazione che consumiamo è alla base della salute del nostro futuro, allora entra.

Entra nel club L'Indro con la nostra Membership



End Comment -->