Reddit reviews The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror

Yes but in the creation of mosques they are not proud about owning up to it. This book does a great job discussing this larger issue (the big one we're skirting around; the "two faces" are of moderate, "regular" Islam and Wahabbi/Salafi) but also this exact point we're discussing right now, about how Salafis mosques are built without publicizing their actual type of Islam.

> These are not "extremist" views; these are Muslims following the Qur'an's views in it's full extent. Sorry.

I can see how many people believe that. Just reading parts of the Holy Qur'an out of context can lead one to conclude that Islam advocates senseless violence and slaying of all that stands in its way.

However, most of the people who 'study' Islam and make these claims never take the time to read and understand the tafseer (commentary) on these verses.

One such verse that is frequently quoted is "and slay them wherever ye catch them…” If you were to take the time to read this verse in context and analyse the tafseer, you would realize that it is talking about fighting in retaliation. Islam does not condone the killing of anyone save in retalition or self defense.

If you would really like to learn more about how the notion of Islam as a violent and intolerant religion came about, read The Two Faces of Islam by Stephen Schwartz (who is ironically a Jew.)

Hi Jack_Kehoe, thank you for yr comment on bigotry and the need to condemn every single Muslim. I am aware that any reply of mine would not do justice to either your argument or mine and is off-topic for this thread on Q. So just a few remarks because it might be better to have a separate thread on religion, and my aplogies to others on this thread for the length. It is a very complex subject!

It is precisely the complexity of the argument that forces me, firstly, to declare your judgement of Islam as a "savage and degenerate religion that literally victimizes anyone who isn't a male Muslim" as shallow and ill-considered. That you proclaim your anger "righteous" suggests to me that you are religious and might hold “beliefs” that others who are not of your religion might consider, in turn, bigotted and ignorant! The statement turns your own criticism back upon itself. Look to the beam in your own eye before you try to remove the speck in the other’s, you might say! Notice that I am not saying you are bigotted and ignorant, just that others might see you this way.

The Old Testament is a violent, intolerant ‘book’ that shows an unforgiving God. It has similarities with the Quran. And let’s not get into the Torah or Talmud, the latter book being a Hebrew version of Sharia Law! The New Testment brought a revolutionary air that turned this upside down and taught love, to love thy neighbour as oneself. These three religions worship the same God, with different names.

Scholars will fight and argue over “interpretations” for thousands of years and we can’t do that here. But here is a different tale:

>Here is an interesting brief review (by Morgaan Sinclair) of a book mentioned by David Livingstone in his article, Stephen Schwartz's The Two Faces of Islam : The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror.
In the very short space of several hundred pages, Schwartz does something really remarkable: Out of the backdrop of a solidly-researched and tautly-written history of Islam emerges the picture of a river splitting in two. One branch, the original river of Islam, having emerged from earlier wars and the Crusades, meanders on, mostly peacefully. But another branch diverges and becomes a virulent strain of psychopathically-distorted religious fundamentalism. This nightmare began to take shape from 1703 with the birth of Mohammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the world's first Islamist terrorist, and descends to the present in its alliance with the Al Sa'ud. The Wahhabis — the Haters of Music — have always claimed all other forms of Islam to be heretical and have waged a 250-year war against all those who have resisted its ultra-puritanical doctrine — Shi'as, Sufis, Christians, Jews. Now that war comes to us. In a brilliantly, and often beautifully, written book, we watch the two rivers separate and flow down into our time. Schwartz's condemnation of Wahhabism is unapologetic, as is his antipathy for the duplicity of the Royal House of Sa'ud. But it is condemnation and antipathy irrefutably supported by the facts. And in this time it is a book of unmatched value: For with the information contained within this masterpiece on contemporary Islam, we are able to separate mainstream Islam from its evil twin and fight a more intelligent and more compassionate War on Terror. It is a profound and often lyrical book, and Schwartz is remarkably brave to have written it (after you read it, you'll understand why). If you read only one book on Islam in our time, let it be this one.<

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385506929/002-7946841-7451229?v=glance


More links to explore further:

Globalists Created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State. by David Livingstone

The 'House' of Saud — no more Islamic than Billy Graham
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/livingstone.htm


Here’s a tale from a man who constantly criticises the Left, but whose sympathy for Muslim resistance takes a different, interesting view:
http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/jazz_and_jihad.htm

And finally a man who speaks at length about his religion but who is far from being either bigotted or ignorant, a true scholar:
http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php/video-resources/86-world-rule/1025-world-war-three-sheikh-imran-hosein


We should try to understand other cultures and could spend entire lifetimes doing so.