Choudhury was jailed for 17 months, where he was tortured and refused medical treatment. He was released only after the US House of Representatives passed a near-unanimous resolution calling on Bangladesh to drop all charges against Choudhury. The charges themselves were not dropped--
Dr. Richard Benkin, an American Jewish international rights activist who helped secure the House resolution, approached countless congressmen and senators about Choudhury's plight. He encountered only one representative who was utterly apathetic about the situation. "Who was the one lawmaker that took a pass on saving the life of an imprisoned U.S. ally and opponent of Islamic extremism?" Benkin later wrote. "That's right, my own Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama."Choudhury is something of an inconvenient moderate Muslim, contradicting the image of Islam that Obama has accepted and made excuses for. Even when it comes to Israel, Choudhury presents a moderate Muslim that runs counter to the image of Islam that powers Obama's foreign policy in the Mideast:
There's a reason President Obama is uninterested in the Choudhury case: Choudhury represents the true face of moderate Islam. He doesn't shilly-shally on terrorism -- he condemns it. He doesn't waver on Sharia law -- he opposes it. He doesn't support the jihad against Israel -- he stands with Israel. That isn't the kind of Muslim Barack Obama likes. He's more fond of the two-faced Muslims who pretend to oppose terror while secretly aiding and abetting it. He likes Muslims who seek Israel's destruction while babbling about apartheid. Choudhury is an unpleasant inconvenience for Obama: He tells the truth about the nature of political Islam and offers a realistic way forward. Obama prefers to live in Cloud Cuckoo Land where radicals are moderates and moderates are outcasts.
Choudhury even puts the lie to Obama's pathetic belief that Islam requires hatred of Israel "Religious Islam surely can accept the existence of the State of Israel," Choudhury said. "The obstacle in relations between Muslim nations and Israel is again political Islam. Israel is the land for the Jews. No good Muslim will ever ignore this."But with all this, there is a problem.
Is there really such a thing as a Muslim who can be viewed as a moderate both by Western standards and by practicing Muslims?
Take this for instance:
Choudhury goes even further. As a practicing Muslim, he recognizes the conflict between the Koranic text and the modern world. Unlike President Obama, he refuses to gloss over that conflict. "Political Islam should definitely be rejected by the Muslims," Choudhury explained. "The Koran should not be a guiding book for any Muslim nation. This is the best way to put aside the Koran, which is a highly political text. Islamic political parties and Islamist politics should be banned in every Muslim nation."We may view him as a moderate, but with views such as that, will Muslims in the street ever view Choudhury as anything but an extremist?
Who is a real Muslim moderate?
Does there really exist such a person?
Technorati Tag: Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury and Moderate Muslims.
This Muslim doesn't sound very committed to his religion. While I naturally stand with him, his level of "moderate" is to the extreme. I, therefore, would have a very hard time calling him a Moderate Muslim. He sounds like the Islamic form of Reform Judaism. However, I appreciate the post. Thank you and good shabbos
ReplyDeleteThe only person whom I can think of that could be called a moderate Muslim--moderate according to Western standards and acceptable to the general Muslim community--is Sheikh Palazzi. From Wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteAccording to scholar Dina Lisnyansky, Palazzi “created his own niche. Being born into an immigrant family, he combined the democratic rights of western Europe with a love for Islam,” but added his Zionist mission. As a result, “he is a radical too, but not on the radicals’ side. He is fighting everything that political Islam promotes.” She explains, “One of the reasons why he is not on some black list in Iran is the fact that he, unlike Rushdie, has never said a negative word about Islam. To extremist interpreters of the Qur’an he doesn’t say ‘you are wrong.’ He would only say: ‘You got something wrong.’ His mission, therefore, is clearly not about reinventing Islam; it is about correcting the perspective.”[10]
The only question is--is Lisnyansky right?
I hear what you are saying, however, I still feel such people, who are fighting their religion, are very similar to Reform Jews. They want to be called Muslim, yet disagree with many of its tenants.
ReplyDeleteI personally would not say they are Muslim. I would say they are people that follow some of the parts of Islam.
If you're right, then we have a big problem on our hands.
ReplyDeleteWe knew that before...
ReplyDeleteTrue, but if there is no chance for moderation, then the possible solutions are fewer.
ReplyDeleteLet's imagine you were right, and he would be considered a full fledged muslim, what percent of Islam do you think he would represent? 0.0000001?
ReplyDeleteNeah, nothing changed.
Hey, that would still be 150 Muslims, right?
ReplyDelete