Qantara.de - Dialogue with the Islamic World

Anonymous, 5 August 2011

on: Aftermath of the Attacks in Norway: Isolate the Intellectual Incendiaries, by Stefan Weidner

The Oslo killer who committed the Oslo massacre is a Neoconservative Extremist. His manifesto which describes the rational for his actions references extreme neoconservative theorists and websites which promote irrational hatred and fear of Muslims. The Oslo killer's belief that Muslim immigration is a mortal threat to western culture is a common neoconservative ideology.

Neoconservative extremists like the Oslo killer believe that Muslims will continue to immigrate and breed until they outnumber non-Muslims in western nations. When that happens Muslims will use democratic means to impose Sharia law and enslave non-believers into Dhimmitude.

Extreme neoconservative ideology promotes the idea that western nations must protect themselves from the Muslim cultural threat through forced assimilation, banning Muslim immigration and cultural isolation. Based on this extreme neoconservative ideology, the Oslo killer concluded the real enemy to Norwegian culture aren't Muslims who can't help being what they are.

The real threat are Norway's political leaders who embrace multiculturalism and are blind to the threat posed by Western Islamization. The Oslo killer's extreme neoconservative ideology regarding the Muslim threat to Norwegian culture was his primary motivation to attack and kill as many Norwegian politicians and members of their families as possible. Since the Oslo killer's extreme neoconservative ideology was the primary motivation for his atrocity he is correctly identified as a neoconservative extremist.

Other examples of neoconservative extremism include the gunman who attempted to assassinate US House of Representative member Gabrielle Giffords and every website and person named in the Oslo killer's manifest which promotes irrational fear and hatred and illegally incites violence.

Haytham Khoury, 16 June 2011

on: The Opposition and the Church in Syria: A Slap in the Face for the Pro-Democracy Movement, by Claudia Mende

Talking about Syria as there is only one church is a misrepresentation of the reality. Indeed, in Syria there are around 13 Christian denominations. These can be generally divided into three main groups. The Orthodox ones (Greek, Syriac, Assyrian and Armenian), the Catholic ones (Melkite, Syriac, Maronite, Chaldean and Armenian) and Protestants (there is a couple of them).

Each of these churches has its own leadership. Indeed, the attitude of the Churches' leaders from the revolution is not uniform. While the Catholic churches supported the regime openly because of their fear of chaos, the orthodox churches showed somewhat explicit support to the demonstrators. I have no clear idea regarding the position of Protestant churches.

The Christian public attitude is still split. The extent of Christian public support to the revolution varies according the region. While it is relatively low in Aleppo and Damascus, this support reaches 80-90% in some areas, including Homs, Hama, Damascus suburbs and the west coast.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that in Christians' political views and attitudes in Syria there is complete separation between Church and State (from this point of view, there is clear difference between Egypt and Syria).

Bashy Quraishy, 8 July 2011

on: Reformist Islam after Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, by Angela Schader

I have tried to make head or tail of what Angela Schader has written in her rather confusing article.

Alone the title of the article is misleading when one reads the whole text of the article and what various speakers in the German conference. I had the pleasure to meet Professor and Koranic scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd at a conference in Germany a few years back and had a lovely discussion with him about his idea of a interpreting some statements and regulations formulated in the Koran within their historical context and filter out those ethical and moral principles which are outdated and has no relevance to the present time.

One of the most beautiful remarks he made which did touch me most was that "Most Muslims do not understand Quranic language and finer nuances and thus interpret some verses literally. There is thus a need to interpret the text in a careful ay so that Quran is understood as clearly as possible."

He also talked about looking at the whole issue of Islam, Quran and the west with critical eyes. I do not recall that he liked calling himself an Islam reformer or innovator. These titles were pinned on him by western media who wanted to project him as a reformer. He did not see problems with Islam but with Muslim religious elite and such Islam scholars who declared him divorced from his wife against his will in 1995 as a result of his very cautious attempts to stimulate reform in Egypt.

I am not an Islamic scholar but a student of my religion as every person with an Islamic background should have. I take exception to the fact that Western intellectuals and politicians are hell-bent on treating Islam as an out-of-touch with reality religion and are proposing to change it to fit with western norms. I know that questions that are constantly being asked and addressed in Europe are not for the benefit of Muslim masses or those who look at Islam as their salvation but due to the political expediency.

Islam does not need reformation, instead its followers have to understand it in its true spirit and purpose; to fill the spiritual void among its followers. By the way, Islam and the Quran is not asking non-Muslims to obey its commands but if Muslims want to live their lives according to their own needs, why is the west so occupied to deny them this pleasure. After all, Muslims do not attack Christianity or Bible.

Kind regards, Bashy Quraishy