Promoting Moderate Islam: An Interview with Holland Taylor
BLUM: You are saying that the Muslim extremists have learned and adapted the language of the West for their purposes…
TAYLOR: Yes, the victimology language. And in order to counter it, there needs to be a profound understanding on the part of Western society as to the nature of Islam and the spectrum of views that exist within it — to distinguish between those Muslims who are politicizing Islam to achieve worldly objectives, and the vast majority of other Muslims who either have no axe to grind, or who have a pluralistic, tolerant, or spiritual understanding of Islam.
When any religion is politicized, it becomes an institution for power; and an institution for power is inherently corrupted by human beings. This phenomenon existed in Europe within Christianity; it existed within Islam since its very early stages; and we still see it coursing through the body of Islam today. But there are Muslim leaders who oppose this. Western governments, institutions, the media, and society at large need to ally ourselves with them and with all Muslims who share our humane universal values.
BLUM: You’re saying that the Muslims most visible to the West are those who have politicized Islam to achieve power. How, then, can you expect politicians, bureaucrats, reporters, and the general public to make a distinction between Islam and the actions of radical Islamists? After all, it is the Muslim Brotherhood that has people writing op-eds in the press, heading NGOs, and funding mosques all over the place.
TAYLOR: It’s not difficult to become educated in Islam as a religion and in the history of Islamic movements, past and present. But it requires seriousness. And part of the problem is that people who occupy positions of influence or responsibility in the West often do not take their responsibilities seriously. In addition, the people in the U.S. and most European countries who are tasked with addressing the ideology that underlies and animates terrorism come from non-specialist backgrounds, then occupy positions of responsibility for two or three years. They know nothing when they enter their positions. And even if they learn something while on the job, they’re out of it in a short period of time. This means that they have no opportunity to develop any real expertise. Even more problematic is the fact that, even when such people do gain expertise during their tenure, there’s no methodology for institutionalizing that expertise.
This is not the case among counter-terrorism experts in the West, who tend to stay in their positions. As such, they study what motivates terrorists, and it doesn’t take long for them to ascertain that Islamic terrorism has a strong ideological component. But counter-terrorism professionals are not tasked with delving into the ideology; they’re only tasked with preventing acts of terrorism and capturing terrorists. And so we have in the West is an institutional disconnect, where the people tasked with the ideology don’t understand it, and the people who understand it are tasked only with its violent manifestation.
BLUM: What can be done about that?
TAYLOR: In order to effectively overcome the coherent, systematic, long-term efforts of the Islamists, we have to adopt certain principles. The first of these — like in medicine — is to do no harm. This is better than acting in ignorance. Because if you have a counter-radicalization effort and don’t know what you’re doing, the effort itself is going to be the target of infiltration and control by the very people you’re seeking to discredit. This is what has happened in the West. Run by people who don’t know what they’re doing, counter-radicalization efforts have become the target of the Wahabbi-Muslim Brotherhood lobby, which is pursuing a long-term, multi-generational strategy and has the financing and the operatives to embed itself in Western society.
The second principle is, understand. It is absolutely critical that we develop an understanding of the spectrum of views that exist within Islam, and that we understand who our enemies — and allies — are. Once we understand the dynamics of the Muslim world, Islam, and Muslim theology, we have to institutionalize that understanding. When we have the systems in place to institutionalize that understanding, we have to develop systematic strategies to counter and defeat the extremists, our enemies. As we develop these strategies, we have to implement, adjust, fine-tune, expand, and further refine them, based on our experience in the field. It is a simple program, but it requires coherence.
And herein lies another problem. No prescription can be implemented without a societal consensus on the need for such a prescription. So it’s necessary to begin an educational process in all sectors of Western society. Because, in the absence of a societal consensus, it will never be possible for us to counter the influence of the Wahabbis and the Muslim Brotherhood in the West who are seeking to prevent it from occurring.
BLUM: How can such a consensus be developed, when there are sectors in the West (i.e., academics, artists, writers and politicians) which hold a dimmer view of the United States than of Islamism? Some groups even blame U.S. behavior for the 9/11 attacks in particular and for the radicalization of Muslims in general.
TAYLOR: This is a hard-Left narrative, and I don’t believe that the hard-Left is part of the solution any more than the hard-Right is. The solution lies in the center of both sides of the political spectrum. There are people on the Left with humanitarian concerns, who can be enticed to whitewash Islam, and say that the actions of the terrorists have nothing to do with Islam, because Islam is a religion of peace. Likewise, there are people on the Right with national-security concerns, who can be drawn into the orbit of Islamophobes. There is a battle going on, both on the Left and on the Right. The hard Left is seeking to influence people on the Left who are simply humanitarians; the hard-Right is seeking to influence people on the Right who are simply security-minded. To disable the efforts of the far-Left and the far-Right, it is necessary to build a broad-based coalition, from the center-Left to the center-Right, bringing together humanitarians and security-oriented people. Such a coalition would recognize that both the far-Left and the far-Right thrive on politicizing the issue of Islam and religion. The dangerous situation in the West today is that there are non-Muslims who are politicizing Islam as much as the Islamists are doing so. And while this is going on, the Wahabbi-Muslim Brotherhood lobby is laughing all the way to the bank, because they are turning their enemies against one another.
BLUM: Which brings us back to the question of whether there isn’t too much silence on the part of the non-radical Muslims.
TAYLOR: It is common in the West to hear this claim that Muslims are not speaking up. But Westerners have very little idea about what is being said in the Muslim world. All sorts of Muslims are speaking up — in Indonesia, for example — but they’re not being heard in New York, where no one can hear or understand them.
BLUM: But this is the age of the Internet. How is it possible that the Arab world is conducting what it claims are Facebook revolutions, while Indonesian Muslims are supposedly speaking up, yet no one in the West can hear them?
TAYLOR: Most of what emerges from Indonesia is in Indonesian. This is why the LibForAll Foundation decided to translate a book we published in Indonesia in 2009 into English. The book, The Illusion of an Islamic State, became a national phenomenon, setting Indonesia ablaze against the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahabbism. Written by the most prominent Muslim spiritual leaders in the country, it exposed the theology of radical Islam, its systematic infiltration into all segments of Indonesian society, and its intention to convert that society — which has been historically pluralistic, tolerant, and a non-religious state — to an Islamic state, it had a decisive influence on the outcome of the 2009 elections.
BLUM: Speaking of elections in the Muslim world, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was recently lynched by a mob of Islamists and killed. This, like the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, was celebrated by U.S. President Barack Obama and many others in the West. But aren’t these signs that the moderate Muslims are being abandoned, rather than encouraged?
TAYLOR: A real cause for celebration is when you have a transition to a pluralistic and tolerant state, whose citizens enjoy civil, economic, and religious liberty. Right now, what you have in the Arab world is merely a transition. It’s certainly premature to celebrate.
Islam was created Salman Farsi to erradicate the philosophy of ancient Iran as enshrined in The Zend Avesta. That is the background. It is different to the background of Chritianity, where the fathers of Iran saw the coming of Christ.
Are you saying, Ali Mostofi, that Islam was created BEFORE 600 AD? You are correct concerning the ancient Persians that they understood that Christ was coming; after all, they were most likely influenced by descendants of Adam, the first man, and after that by Abram/Abraham and his people, before the founding of Israel and Judaism. What evidence can you give that what we know today as Islam was created before Mohammed?
BTW, this man claims to be a Christian turned Universalist, etc etc? Ain’t no such thing. If this man were of us, he would have remained with us, he didn’t remain with us and therefore is not one of us. (Yes, that is a paraphrase of the Apostle John from I John, where he says the same thing of Gnostic antichrists.)
Take it from the horse’s mouth: the Islamist Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said in 2007: “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it”. We should take him at his word.
The problem is that “moderate” Muslims, (of whom James Forsyth of the UK SPECTATOR recently commented “never have so few been invoked by so many”), are, in fact, bad Muslims.
We thus end up with the unsatisfactory paradox that: The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim.
You can get a similar argument in Judaism wherein the “Orthodox” and “Ultra-orthodox” believe that the “Conservatives”, “Reforms”, and “Reconstructionists” are not truly Jews. Those standing outside the Jewish community and looking in frequently lack the knowledge to see anything but a difference in clothing and whether or not the member of the Jewish community keeps “kosher” or not.
yes, you are correct; but it is not jews of any stripe that fly planes into buildings, engage in suicide bombings, etc.
I hate to say this, but the reason that radical muslims are taking over muslim lands is because most muslims remain silent and do nothing or, more disturbing, regular muslims VOTE FOR ! ! ! ! ! islamist radicals. Look at Morocco, etc.
Westerners cannot stop the acceptance of radical muslim ideas being accepted or embraced by normal, regular everday muslims any more than western nations were able to stop russia, cuba, eastern europeans, chinese, etc etc. from embracing communism (a RELIGION that has resulted in more mass murder than any other ideology in world history).
The USA, etc. can prepare for the the emergence of nations ruled by radical muslims the same way we prepared for WWII, excepting this time, we should not wait to first be attacked. We need to attack first, with absolute deadly and terribly devastating force and rid the world of these religious communo/nazi scum.
PERIOD !!
You don’t know much about Judaism, do you?! It is a sin for any Jew to think he is better then another Jew for any reason. Kipping kosher and following other commandments is an obligation and not prove of Jewishness.
Being ignorant is not a sin, but presenting one’s ignorance as a knowledge is.
Taylor goes off the rails when he mistakenly equates Germans with Nazis. Not all Germans were Nazis. But all Nazis were Nazis, and all muslims are muslims.
This is a joke, right? You’d have to rewrite the Quran which, for a Muslim, is the a-c-t-u-a-l word of their god. Not “inspired” or such. Actual. A moderate Muslim is a Muslim that is illiterate.
Good one. I couldn’t have said it better. Pretending Mohammed didn’t exist is the apologist’s first step.
Well, actually, there is a fairly good argument to the effect that he didn’t. Everything we “know” about Muhamad was written at least a hundred years after his “death”, and there is zero archeological evidence for his existence.
But setting that aside, who are these “apologists” you mention, who deny that Muhammad existed? Muslims? Martians? Who?
The author is trying to educate you that your analysis of the situation is erroneous. Radical Islam is not the way Islam is practiced in most of the Islamic world. It is the radicals who promote the idea that the Koran must be followed verbatim. Most muslims are secular and were trending more and more that way until hijacked by radicals in the 1970s. You do know that most of the muslims in the world live in Indonesia and Malaysia? These majority muslim societies are, of course, not problem free, but are pluralistic and continue to move in that direction.
Simple example: a couple of months ago a conservative cleric in Malaysia was concerned that muslims were losing their way and not being strict enough in adhering to the Koran. He set up a major Promise Keepers-type rally at and 80,000 soccer stadium to demonstrate the support of the faithful. About 4,000 people showed up.
It is the Islamic radicals and their leftist useful idiot followers in the West who must be fought. The story needs to be spread.
No, not true. Check the news. Indonesia is filled with news storys of muslims murdering, raping, burning, christian school children.
Yes. This does happen, but is quite uncommon these days. 1997 was the last big outburst. It might interest you to know who the christians are in Indonesia (for the most part). The Chinese. Guess what? The killers could care less that they are christian. They are (wrongly) more resentful of foreigners getting rich in their country.
Could be because there are no Christians left? The problem is that the “radicals” are not acting agaisnt the tecahings of their Holy Book. It is the moderates. And that is why the radicals are winning and will win: because they can point others to what the book says.
So. To state it plainly. You are as ignorant as the author. Your shared opinions of this murderous political system have become more and more dangerous as most Americans believe as you believe. ‘Islam is really just a benign belief system. Surely, Muslims are reasonable people they can’t really want to kill Infidels’. Not that you care but, if you were interested to understand what Islam is and what it demands you might start at http://www.prophetofdoom.net. Guaranteed. Adopting your enlightened, politically correct approach to excuse this pestilence will be the downfall of this nation. While we have been rotting from within as a nation for decades, the ground work laid since the days of your youth will afford the chance for sharia to gain its foothold. Thanks for your contribution.
Dear Stool Sample … really … LOL …. I only respond because sensible people will read this too. Ignorant? Politically correct? Pretty funny. Instead of getting my information from websites I actually travel and see for myself. Maybe if you sat in a shopping mall like I have filled with vailed women where they were playing Christian Christmas carols with the lyrics and no one cared you might open your mind a little. I also use observation and sense in how to deal with problems. I know many, many muslims. Extreme Islam is little different than extreme leftists. It is a political way to gain control. How do you deal with people who want control? Marginalize them.
I have read all the comments here and see zero solutions proposed. The author has one. Fight the radicals. All religions have ridiculous tenants which their adherents mostly ignore. Muslims are way behind the curve in modernizing, however up until the 1970s they were coming along fast. We need to rekindle that. Expose and fight the radicals. Same as with the left in the US. Expose and fight.
So. To state it plainly. You are as ignorant as the author. Your shared opinions of this murderous political system have become more and more dangerous as most Americans believe as you believe. ‘Islam is really just a benign belief system. Surely, Muslims are reasonable people they can’t really want to kill Infidels’. Not that you care but, if you were interested to understand what Islam is and what it demands you might start at http://www.prophetofdoom.net. Guaranteed. Adopting your enlightened, politically correct approach to excuse this pestilence will be the downfall of this nation. While we have been rotting from within as a nation for decades, the ground work laid since the days of your youth will afford the chance for sharia to gain its foothold. Thanks for your contribution.
peakview84
” Radical Islam is not the way Islam is practiced in most of the Islamic world. It is the radicals who promote the idea that the Koran must be followed verbatim.”
Your argument falls apart there.
What we consider radical is moderate under Islam.The idea that radicals are a minority is nonsense.Forcing women to wear headgear and sheets is not moderate.
In Kuwait FGM is the law.
Almost every muslim country practices death for apostacy.
Persecution of gays,Christians and Jews is not done by a few fundamentalist.It is taught to be their religious and human right to persecute and drive people from their homes.
Is it 4 pious muslims raping thousands of women in Europe ?
And if you enter their society and attempt to correct anything,they turn on you.The have repeatedly explained the US is creating more radicals by dismantling radicals.
Just looking at the non muslim population in any ME country demonstrates the failure of a fantasy moderate population.
You can not fix something that that 1.6m people believe is perfect.
How did Indonesia and Malaysia become Moslem? Wasn’t it by Moslem conquest?
Then every religion everywhere has spread by “conquest”. What is your point? Indonesia is run by Indonesians. Where is the conquest any more than the US was “conquered” by christians?
How did India become British?
Taylor is absolutely incorrect when he states that the Left is concerned with human rights and the Right isn’t. What the Left is concerned with is destroying capitalism and freedom as they have done over the century. What the Right is concerned with is preserving freedom and responsible liberty and that’s why the Right is concerned with security. The Left couldn’t care less about human rights and the “hard” left’s construction of “reeducation camps” and the “moderate” left’s excuse making for them is an indication of where all Lefts really stand. Expecting the “moderate” left to join in protecting society from Islamists is a fantasy.
Human Rights is a cliché used for political advantage and not to the advantage of an oppressed being.
One needs to just look around and see how the doctrine of human rights is applied depending on which human, what rights and when.
Simon Deng’s speech at the 3rd Durbin Conference demonstrated the hypocrisy at play.
Even though it is true that the world Left has been and still is Fascist and repressive (while using the defense of human right as a facade), Hitler was right-wing Fascism. So were the dictatorships of the 1970s and 1980s in Latin America financed by the U.S.. Please, it is not so black and white: Black, red and islamicist petro funded Fascism are terrible -not only the Left has been Fascist so has been the Right.
Is Taylor saying all we have to do is make Islam pc? Did he really say that?
The liberal answer—We need to educate everybody and once you see things my way, you’ll understand. Then and only then can there be harmony.
It is a haughty individual that believes he or she ( if not suffering from Delusions of Grandeur)can transform the world mind-set.
The fascinating part is that Taylor thinks the answer lies with the moderates.
The recent 20/20 expose on Islam was filled with errors (if you know Islam’s teachings), but definitely shows Western Muslims don’t know their own faith.
I have heard arguments that justify Islamists being allowed to continue climing it is justified because of the Crusades and other Christian dominance movements/events. If we grant that as true, why do we allow two wrongs to be done? Haven’t we become enlightened enough to prevent a repeat of history?
I like to point out that true Christianity is known by examining the life and teachings of its founder, and looking at the first century of followers, especially with those who knew Jesus personally. Only then is the true Christianity known.
Apply the same to Islam. Who was Muhammed? What did he teach? How did he act? Who were the first followers of Muhammed and what did they teach and do? That is the true Islam – all others are imposters, corruptions of the original. Let the truth be known, and see if anyone wants to be a Muslim in the original historic sense.
They might be moderate. But then they have children and then the children become extremists and terrorists.
There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There are only various degrees of dedication. A dedicated Muslim is per definition a terror supporting extremist. Because that is what the religion is. It is the purpose of the religion. So if you are a Muslim who is not a terror supporting extremist, it just means that you are not very much into the religion at that point in time.
It’s like saying a moderate Nazi. A dedicated Nazi will per definition be a violent extremist, because the ideology itself is extreme and violent. So a peaceful Nazi is a Nazi who is not dedicated to the ideology.
I could go on: A moderate Hell’s Angels biker, a moderate Mafia member, a moderate Ku Klux Klan member. We could continue with the animal kingdom: A moderate shark, a moderate alligator, a moderate wolf.
Islam is a sect that is violent in its nature. So to believe that there can be moderate Muslims is a contradiction of terms. Other Muslims will just say that they are not true Muslims.
“Promoting Moderate Islam’: An Interview with Holland Taylor
There is no moderate Islam nor moderate Muslims. those who think of a moderate Islam are deluding themselves or lying out right to deceive non-Muslims. One has to jut read Quran, Mo/allah’s manual of terror and hate to understand this. When Mo/allah himself declares he has been made victorious by terror then who are we to argue with him about the moderate or radical Islam. Those Muslims terrorizing non-Muslims and murdering all over the world are the true Muslims and true followers of this cult. Those who pretend to be moderate and tell us that they are just like any other religion followers are simply hiding the fact of true nature of Islam. It’s the Western apologists of Islam who are responsible for promoting this false concept of moderate Islam. One should not be fooled by this and fight this taqiyya with the truth about Islam.
“Indeed, argues Taylor, radical Islam is a “danger to all of humanity.” And the only way to counter and conquer it is for Muslims and non-Muslims to join forces.”
Oh sure – join forces!
Give the thinking man a break Mr. Taylor –
The following is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:
“Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works :
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Europe , we are already seeing car-burnings and street riots. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam and Denmark , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections.”
Taylor I for one am still waiting for the ‘nice – quiet – gentle Muslims of your world to rise up and bring real hurt on the head chopping – child killing -bus bombing bastards in my world!
The only way is for non-Muslims shwing to the decent people between Muslims the evil in their religion. Then and only then it will be possible to join forrces with these now former Muslims. Believing in joining forces with “moderates” is like believing in joining forces with moderate Nazis (ie without denazifying them) against the radicals in order to shut Auschwitz. Absurd isn’t it? Specially because in both cases it was the radicals not the moderates who were being true to the teachings of the founder of the doctrine.
Before we can make any progress we need to convince Muslims not to read the Koran used by the extremists, we should urge them to only read the one specially edited for moderate Muslims. Wait, I forgot, there’s only one Koran.
My wish for ‘moderate muslims’ is to die, getting hit by a bus. The rest,….at the hands of an American soldier. Moderate, my a**.
If the current Koran is the sole “book” then peace cannot exist between Muslim and non-Muslim. The one and only way some sort of stable peace could come about will be a couple of generations after either a new prophet or a reformation comes to Islam. Good luck with that.
“TAYLOR: Since 9/11, the West, particularly America, has been engaged in what can be called kinetic actions against terrorists. What we have not done is develop and execute any internally coherent strategy to marginalize, discredit, and defeat the ideology of radical Islam, which underlies and animates terrorism. It is very important to distinguish between the efforts to take down terrorists and the efforts to discredit the ideology. Ideology is more dangerous than bombs. There are organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, that very deliberately eschew violence as they seek to influence Muslim populations, acquire control over the repressive apparatus of the state in Muslim-majority countries, influence foreign policy in the West, and neutralize any possibility of Western governments opposing them and their brand of radical Islam.”
The “Muslim Brotherhood very deliberately eschews violence as they seek to influence Muslim populations?” Really? Tell that to Ayman al Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s No. 2 man in al Qaeda, who was also a leading member in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This is kumbaya nonsense. Radical Islam has been around for centuries and the only thing that supresses it is force. It is the only thing these monsters understand and respect. That is why bin Laden called the United States the “Weak Horse” and decided to attack us on 9/11. He didn’t think we had the will for a prolonged fight in a Muslim country, like Afghanistan. He was almost right, when you look at people like Obama and Clinton who are running to leave Afghanistan by next year. If we made it clear to these animals that we would continue killing them for as long as it takes to get them to stop fighting us (and go torment some other people, like the Shiites), they would stop going after us.
But this “Hearts and Minds” nonsense is just what it is, nonsense. Lyndon Johnson once said, “If you’ve got them by the balls, the hearts and minds will follow.” Too bad he didn’t take his own advice and too bad we did not listen to him when going into Afghanistan. The Taliban and al Qaeda see us as weak infidels who cannot measure up to them. If we do not prove to them that they are wrong, then they will certainly be right.
You’re absolutely right, Libertyship46 — the Muslim Brotherhood is at the very heart of the whole world-wide Islamist plague.
The dunderheaded Mr. Taylor should be forced to read Andrew C. McCarthy’s seminal work on all this, “The Grand Jihad”.
In fact, not just Taylor, but everyone should read it — starting with John Brennan and the sorry gang of sinister pollyannas that the Post-American-in-Chief calls his “national security” team.
This is not a ‘hearts and minds’ issue and comparing it to Viet Nam is ridiculous. What is your solution, to spend a decade in each Muslim country spinning our wheels accomplishing nothing while bankrupting the country and killing more civilians than terrorists?
People like you acknowledge the stupid world view of Islamists is based on lies, acknowledge they act on those stupid ideas but then act as if circumventing those stupid ideas won’t work. The 9/11 terrorists are often portrayed as historically aware avengers, out to right the wrongs of U.S. foreign policy but in fact they had a giddy, Wahabbi view of the world; it is not a coincidence they were Saudis. The 9/11 terrorists acted on words disseminated within their culture.
Shaming the entire Muslim world by cutting off immigration from there might get moderates to wake up and realize that being such conspicuous pariahs in the world is not all that much fun. That’s concrete action and it’s free and non-violent.
It makes perfect sense because hearts an,d minds are the ultimate battlefield in a guerrilla/terrorist war. But only if we realize that the real enemy is neither Al Quaida nor Salafism but Islam. That inetad of bending backwards to be respectful awith Islam we should be doing our best to make it ridiculed qand hated in the presntly Muslim countries , for Muslims massively abandonning Islam and burning mosques.
There can be no peace with an ideology who, in the Quran, declares itself at war with the whole worlmd until it has conquered it
The real ironic truth is that pure Islam will suffer the fate of pure Christianity. The more the material world provides for bodily needs, the less spiritualism is sought after. As the Industrial Revolution raged in Europe, the Europeans became more cynical and skeptical of their inherited religion. As America was experiencing its “Great Awakening”, atheism was all the rage in Europe. Even in the last 20 or 30 years, church attendance in America has greatly declined. I suspect that as the secular world continues to creep into the dark recesses of Islam, the younger Muslims will finally cast off their cultural fetters and join in the fun.
The unfortunate irony of all this is that it’s ostensibly a good thing for the West. But do we really want to celebrate the eradication of spirituality? Despite what many uninformed people may say, Christianity (in its pure form) offers the best hope for mankind. It would be sad for all if the only way to conquer the scourge of Islam is to become a bunch of empty-headed fops.
I’m sorry, but …there are over a billion Muslims.
Had Roman Catholics been going around the world blowing up schoolbuses in the name of their religion, had Roman Catholics been on a worldwide mission to kill innocents, there would be an outcry, a backlash, a condemnation so fierce that it would rattle the rafters like a pipe bomb.
If Jews DEFEND themselves too “vigorously”, there is a condemnation that their actions are “not proportioned” properly. There is a loud condemnation.
If Christians dare to proclaim their faith out loud, wish to have it on display…there is an immediate backlash against “proselytizing” and the frothing rage and slander campaign against faith-based folks who are Christian is nothing short of despicable.
So, please pardon me…who needs the outreach program more? Sure seems as if those who use the Bible as their guide, Old Testament or New…seem to be under as much, if not more, constant attack than those using the Q’uran.
More importantly, the radical leftists have joined hands with extremist Islam in order to overthrow the free market democracies. The West is under assault and most especially America and Israel.
What is problematic here, is that the truth is also under assault. Both radical extremist groups try to hide behind a false mask of “centrism”, “moderate”, “do-gooder”, facade.
The very schemes, plots and vicious plans use “moderate” language to hide the intent.
Caroline Glick has penned an essay, titled “Calling Things by Their Proper Names” at Townhall.
http://townhall.com/columnists/carolineglick/2011/11/25/calling_things_by_their_proper_names/page/2
The overthrow traitors, committing soft treason…announced our pullout dates, and are propping up Iran and Syria through intentional inaction, weakening of America and Israel’s defense positions and marginalizing our ability to stave off the corrupt, evil, dastardly and grotesque world dominion bedfellows…the hard left and the mullahfia.
If “moderate” Muslims want a conversation…the first place to start would be with those who oppose the tyranny of radical extremism. Such opposition won’t be found left of center on the political spectrum in the West.
“Moderate” Muslims should first seek to understand, …and then seek to be understood.
Our information stream has been stolen, poisoned and we get NO truth…only distortion…from our mass communication channels. The left is a propaganda machine here.
There are a billion of them and they have done a piss poor job of reaching out, understanding, showing compassion to victims of those who stole their religion for fascist and world domination purposes. They have done a miserable job of condemning the radical extremism. This is a center-right country…but our “news” is a propaganda factory of the radical left.
In order to achieve what is asked for here…the effort has to come not from us…but from them. If they even exist in any real sense. Our government is currently aligned against the center-right, our mass media is aligned against the center-right, and we are in the middle of an attempt to overthrow our free market democracy.
If “moderate” Muslims are center-right and want to join forces…they need to get up off the couch. Or both of us are going to get steamrolled by the radical extremists on their side and the radical extremists on ours.
It is obvious that Taylor is another Islamic apologists among long line of apologists who find nothing wrong with Islam. it’s plain fact the all Islam is a threat to humanity and not the just the so called “radical Islam” since all Islam is radical and there is not even an of “moderate” Islam. The argument that there are millions of “moderate” and peaceful Muslims who follow their religion is just wrong !! These are same peaceful Muslims who become murderers in an instant.
Just forget appeasing Muslims by coddling them and telling don’t worry we are with you and you are a peaceful bunch. Hold their feet to the fire by openly and truthfully showing those murderous and hateful passages who they follow faithfully since these are Mo/allah’s commands that they must follow. When these millions of peaceful Muslims are willing to reject them the only we will consider them peaceful and moderate and a second before that!!!
The Christian who takes the Bible seriously is concerned with wholehearted love of God, love of his neighbour and even love of his enemy and persecutor. The Muslim who takes the Quran seriously, moves in the opposite direction, because he has no clear instruction to love God, neighbour and enemy. On the contrary he has to subjugate or eliminate those opposed to his beliefs. Taylor is either uninformed, ill-informed or simply self-deluded.
I was born at night, but not last night. The only radicals in Islam are called Apostates.
Is Mr. Taylor one of those CFR globalists who believes everyone is good inside? What New Age Horse s###. Islam is following Muhammad.
What did Muhammad do?
I appreciate the post because I know I can safely ignore the pair of them. Paul Sageman tried to flog something similar and when that didn’t work, then he tried another tack.
Actually what we have it not a thinker or anything else, based on a quick review of his site, but rather a squirrel looking for contributions, and he thinks that by making Saul Alinsky type noises he will get money from the ZBWs who believe in such fantasies.
He claims to base his theories on Indonesian experience in the 1600s. Indonesia is a late conversion and like Northern Europe, the conversion never really took.
If this posture was anymore than a local anomaly we might expect it popping up elsewhere, and of course there is no evidence of that.
Lastly the central flaw is the use of a false analogy, much in fashion with the poorly educated. The Indonesian model was internal to the culture. Any Western efforts simply have no cultural standing. Further Islam has shut the door on debate and did so a millenium ago so it is doubtful any outside or inside influence would stand a chance.
The two historical example of a religion giving up on violence are the Thirty Years’ War and the Jewish Wars. Such changes require a lot of blood and Islam will have to pay the same butcher.
As a not Mr. T obviously has provided no quotes to support his views suggesting that either there are none (most likely) or he hasn’t found them (jump ball).
As Bugs Bunny would say “What a Maroon!”
Why we publish this kind of things on PJM ?
1,400 years of history stand against the blathering of the appeasers.
These are the results of the control of the schools by the subversives, people don’t even understand something like “1,400 years of history”, their minds do not run to the places and the battles and the knowledge of the past. They think it is just a sentence, to which you can oppose simple blathering.
Appease this:
Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11;
18,046
Weekly Jihad Report
Nov. 04 – Nov. 11
Jihad Attacks: 31
Allah Akbars: 4
Dead Bodies: 108
Critically Injured: 156
Monthly Jihad Report
October, 2011
Jihad Attacks: 170
Countries: 16
Religions: 5
Dead Bodies: 652
Critically Injured: 1307
From
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
“helping ensure the global triumph of a pluralistic and tolerant understanding of Islam, at peace with itself in the modern world.”
Sounds a little triumphalist in and of itself.
How exactly might you do that, when approximately 1-5% of Muslims throughout the world (estimates vary, may be larger) believe in and foster a highly literal application of the Koran’s virulent, anti-Jew, anti-Christian, anti-infidel, “slay the unbeliever” verses ?
Demand it, in fact, or else you’re not a “good” Muslim ?
Indeed, argues Taylor, radical Islam is a “danger to all of humanity.” And the only way to counter and conquer it is for Muslims and non-Muslims to join forces.
There exists a certain ethos among Muslims to not criticize within the Muslim family, to not condemn members of the violent and virulent faction of Islam, even though they may not belong to it or endorse it.
…true pluralistic and spiritual nature of Islam versus the totalitarian ideology of the extremists.
The Prophet himself was more pluralistic and spiritual in Mecca, and so were the directives he received from the Angel. Both he and the Angel’s messages became more militant and aggressive during the later Medina phase.
So the Koran itself is both “spiritual” and “militant”.
We’re told the later verses take precedence over the former, that the Medina verses “abrogate” the Mecca verses.
We are in accord on many points. But where do you get your 1-5%?
My guess, based only on interaction with moslems in Indonesia and the US, is the reverse.
I can imagine that tacit or covert support for radical Islam is far wider than the usual estimates of fewer than 5% of Muslims.
Who can forget the celebratory dancing in the Arab street immediately after 911 ?
While the so called religious leaders whip up hatred in fiery diatribes in mosques day in and day out, and the foot soldiers of Islam, Islam’s useful idiots, respond on cue.
Very tedious state of affairs for so called enlightened human beings of the 21st century.
I guess that assumption of humankind on an improving or upward trajectory was a myth, since it seems we’re collectively now way dumber than our predecessors.
“Moderate Muslims” are apparently in dhimmitude (sp.?) to their own militant faction.
The very idea of a “moderate muslim” seems to be an oxymoron if these so “moderated Muslims” adhere to their Koran. There is massive hypocrisy looming all over the whole subject of “moderate Muslims”.
….”Indeed, argues Taylor, radical Islam is a “danger to all of humanity.” And the only way to counter and conquer it is for Muslims and non-Muslims to join forces…”–this is grossly idealistic. “Joining forces” in any meaningful, sincere way is simply not going to happen. It can’t, unless their own Koran is ignored. Then emerges this circular business of being an apostate.
We non-Muslims are inexperienced in Muslim taqiyya, and are vulnerable to skilled Muslim speakers, trained in the very techniques of evasion, re-direction, and obscurity.
Efforts expended towards educating all of us Americans in the subleties of Muslim taqiyya is the necessary first step towards a realistic defense of Western Civilization. Only a first step.
It’s not difficult to become educated in Islam as a religion and in the history of Islamic movements, past and present.
I got educated in Islam, post 911. The comparison between Islam historically and that to which it has been turned in real time is not always a useful one.
One big problem currently in America is our large cadre of politically correct so-called leaders that perceives it disadvantageous to call out radical Islam as it truly exists in the world at this moment.
…That crowd that keeps trying to avoid the word “terrorist”, that wants to call horrendous acts of mass slaughter like Mumbai and Indonesia and Madrid and London and Allah knows where else “man caused disasters”, the group that doesn’t want to name all the Brotherhood affiliated organizations working day in and day out in North America to “sabotage the miserable house of the unbeliever from within”* (the election of Keith Ellison to Congress is a nice touch in the “working from within” category), in short, the crowd that likes to keep its head buried in the sand.
*”The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (Muslim Brotherhood handbook 1991)
The Far Left and the Far Right in America, as currently constituted and polarized, will never be able to agree on what to have for breakfast, let alone build some massive cohesive coalition to realistically and cohesively confront radical Islam in today’s world.
The Far Left actually finds common cause with radical Islam, at least when it comes to the objective of destroying western civilization and replacing it with something they perceive as far better and worthier, like socialism or an overarching Ummah.
You are correct in that the Wahhabists and the Muslim Brotherhood are laughing all the way to the bank.
The infidel is such a pushover.
Allahu Akbar, baby !
What a blob of total B.S.!
Islam demands murderous conduct on the part of its adherents and history shows how closely they obey.
Islam labels our Lord, Jesus Christ, as a fake, a liar, a predator. Islam is the enemy of Christianity. The two are absolutely incompatible. Christians may not fellowship Islamists; nor may Moslems fellowship Christians. Both the Koran and the New Testament are clear on this matter. Moslems worship a ficticious entity; the babylonian moon “god”. Christians worship the creator of the universe. Compare the Koran and the New Testament and see which says that we are to love and convert our enemies and which says we are to torture and kill them if they fail to convert.
And, before the objection is raised, lets be careful how we define “Christianity”; living according to the commandments of the New Testament.Crusades, inquisitions motivated by the exhortations of the Whore of Babylon do not qualify as Christianity anymore than the Whore qualifies as Christian.
Islam labels our Lord, Jesus Christ, as a fake, a liar, a predator.
I thought Islam recognized Jesus as a legitimate Prophet, à la Mohammed, but not as divine.
We should try to be accurate, so as not to offend our hosts and writers at PJM
(over and out)
“Islam recognized Jesus as a legitimate Prophet, à la Mohammed, but not as divine.”….thereby (to be accurate) labeling him a fake and a liar, since He claimed to be the Son of God and the “only way to the Father.”
OK, guys, you have now “demoted” the column by lowering it in the page.
But I think that this could be serious.
Are we being lured into becoming ANOTHER help for the islamization of the West ?
I think that PJM should discuss about this column and reject it.
The page is yours, I seriously hope you will not slide down the same trap that caught others in the last few years.
Islam is at war against the West, and Freedom is in mortal danger. There is no space for appeasement.
Unfortunately, even the Conservative Right is so steeped in political correctness, that the one obvious solution, severely curtailing immigration from Muslim countries, is the one solution that will never be used. In a sense, without that measure, everything else is nonsense since America will be, not subverted from within, but its life severely curtailed by yet more wrangling and complaining in the courts and Congress over the proverbial eternal white racists that comprise the American majority.
It is really sad that we have come to lack the resolve to stand up for ourselves cuz someone might call us names. Immigrants have no rights til they come here – cut the middle east off at the knees and keep them out.
“Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another” Quran 48:29
What exactly do we have to “promote” about this ?
Iraq
Afghanistan and…
India and the Sudan and Algeria and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and Nepal and the Maldives and Argentina and Mali and Angola and the Ukraine and Uganda and Kazakhstan and Sweden and…
…and pretty much wherever Islam is taken seriously:
“O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who
are near to you, and let them find harshness in you,
and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty”
Qur’an, Sura 9:123
I cannot believe you guys want to keep this column posted.
Years of work by Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, all the scholars working with them, all the death threats they receive…all is forgotten and you accept a column that includes the words “Promote…islam …”
Moderate islam ? When , where ?
When they were technologically behind, they gave us SOME years without open war.
They destroy our world with the price of their stinking oil, they have invaded and destroyed Europe, they destroys works of art, they massacre thousands upon thousands of people every year, they are preparing the Second Holocaust…
Where is the “moderate islam ” that is NOT a fifth column to introduce the real islam in the west ?
Why are you keeping this column posted ?
What is happening here ?
Shelby Steele had a really bright column here recently and I was surprised at how it largely fell on deaf ears. Now here is another column that gets at the heart of the problem and again it is shouted down in favor of what exactly?
Bombing a billion muslims? Where is a call for a solution, a real solution? You think sheer disdain will solve this problem while thousands of Muslims immigrate into the West everyday? You think mere hatred and calling attention to the problem is enough?
Without solutions, you are just blowing hot air in favor of stubbornly holding on to your right to hate. This article is on the right track and it is better than calling for pre-emptive nukes and Iraq and Afghanistan have accomplished almost nothing. For 1/100th the cost we could’ve translated the real history of the world into Arabic and sent them to the middle east to counter the uncontested story of the world that rules the middle east and here’s a hint: within that story Islam is never wrong and the West never right.
Movies and tv and Western literature are good ambassadors but also bad ones. Targeting the propaganda that comes out of Islam is a great idea.
jane that is the solution. bombing and destroying islam. you want to negotiate, then go buy a used car! you want to live then you need to kill islam. You dont have to like it just accept it and do it. we have tried it your way for how long? far longer than you think! far longer than bush, or america have even been around been around. Just think for a second as an example. the same tactics you want were tries with hitler. remember hitler didnt start off powerful he had to build. he did horrible things before 1941 and we didnt do anything except talk and try to ‘reason’. how many died? how many suffered and were opressed before we got into it? the japanese were suicide bombers as well look what was needed to stop them and there were still those who wanted to kill us for the glory of japan. how many live could we have saved if we just did what was needed? we knew what kind of man hitler was, he openely stated what he wanted and acted accordingly. Why do you think the solution has to be reasonable? whats your definition? why do you have such a hrd time taking these people at their word and actions? what percentage does it have to be for you to do the needed? i have tons of natural and historical examples of where the best way was for the elimination of of the enemy completly. Islam has been this way since its conception. there is no doubt of that and no understanding of the losses in knowledge and light that islam destroyed. to doubt this and to try reason with thoes who openly admit and fight for your death and enslavement as their only and ultimate goal is foolish beyond words. islam is a disease. you do not negotiate with a disease. oj and cream negotiations taste great but never stopped the flu before. you do what is needed, you take the horrible tasting medicine that destroys the virus and be done with it.
I don’t have a hard time taking people at their word, but I have a hard time with the idea of a solution that is not reasonable. If it’s not reasonable it’s not a solution.
Good luck bombing Muslims from Hyderabad to Djkarta to Aman. You got your work cut out for you. We are not combating armies but an ideology and they won’t wear uniforms. How do you bomb that? And what has it accomplished in Afghanistan. The answer after 10 years is exactly nothing.
Jane i dont need uniforms and thats where nukes come in.what did you think i forgot about thoes or are opposed to it? incase you are wondering targets then lets start with Iran..you know where its political and religious leaders are activly developing WMD to destroy us and Israel. how about the large gatherings where thousands and thousands of muslims are screaming “DEATH TO AMERICA ALLU AKBAR!” as followup targets. Jane the targets are there if you open your eyes. no uniforms needed just common sense and balls to do what is needed. again i ask you what evidence do you need to fight back? we have 1500+ yrs to choose from. At what point do you consider it reasonable to be proactive and stop them before they kill again? If you ask anyone “if you could go back in time and kill hitler and stop the NAZIs would you?” I have yet to hear anyone state they would go back and try to negotiate. infact looking back in history the ones who did try that are looked at as fools and cowards by all except the most ignorant of history and anti war pacifists. Now we have a real life opportunity to stop this before it happens as well as the hindsight to know what did and did not work and yet there are thoes who still think that you can reason with these people and that if we just be nice and tolerant they will see the light. Jane they look at you as a fool and as a target. they see people like you as weak and their warped minds believe that your lack of fighting desire is proof that you wish to be conquered by islam. Im not trying to be mean to you and attac, but explain the reality of the situation. so called moderates are either lying to make us drop our guard or they are viewed as traitors and will be killed with us. Again 1500+ yrs of evidence says i am right. how many innocent people(including moderates) have to die for you to see this truth. lack of decision is not noble and the most hardcore of pacifist can only claim that title because a warrior fought and died to give it to them.
Right, we’ll just nuke millions of people and ignore the millions more in friendly countries the wind makes sick as it goes East, including us. Brilliant.
Jane- Yep, it dosent have to be ‘brilliant’ but it does work. andtell me exactly what friendly countries are there to us in the middle east? Israel? well it seems we are doin a good job abandoning them? Pakistan? theones who knew obl was right there in a big ass compund and never told us and got real mad we dared to kill him? Iran? the ones who are working towards NUKES to wipe out said israel and then us. again you really dont state that im wrong only that you do not like the idea which would work as it has already proven to work before. yo fail to acknowlege all the players involved and whats being done and whats at stake. you also fail to provide any solutions of your own opting to ‘roll your eyes’ at the evil man who want to fight win, and be done with it. you have had a min of 10 yrs to prove your case Jane (actually more like several hundred) and have failed. ‘moderates’ havehad 10 yrs in order to join wit us enmasse and fight the so called ‘radicals’ of their religion. instead they have opted to condem anyone who dares stand up against radical islam and declare islamaphobia because we have thenerve not to want to be killed for their beliefs. we did not start this war no matter what PC nonsense they want to lie about. islams goal since inception have been domination at all costs. you can roll your eyes as much as yu like jane, but my way works, yours does not and its been proven. the only thing your way does is kill us, andembolden them while you pretend to be ‘enlightened’ overcomplication is not enlightenment and the longer we wait to do the obvios the more innocent lives you say you are concerned about will end.
I’m sure India and S.E. Asia would appreciate radioactive clouds wafting over their countries and I don’t have to prove you’re wrong. Your comments prove you’re nuts.
Are you guys sending signals to someone ?
I am little, but it is not in my name. And it is not in the name of the large majority of the Readers.
islam is islam 101, thanks to
http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html
The Quran — the Book of Allah
According to Islamic teaching, the Quran came down as a series of revelations from Allah through the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad, who then dictated it to his followers. Muhammad’s companions memorized fragments of the Quran and wrote them down on whatever was at hand, which were later compiled into book form under the rule of the third Caliph, Uthman, some years after Muhammad’s death.
The Quran is about as long as the Christian New Testament. It comprises 114 suras (not to be confused with the Sira, which refers to the life of the Prophet) of varying lengths, which may be considered chapters. According to Islamic doctrine, it was around 610 AD in a cave near the city of Mecca (now in southwest Saudi Arabia) that Muhammad received the first revelation from Allah by way of the Archangel Gabriel. The revelation merely commanded Muhammad to “recite” or “read” (Sura 96); the words he was instructed to utter were not his own but Allah’s. Over the next twelve or so years in Mecca, other revelations came to Muhammad that constituted a message to the inhabitants of the city to forsake their pagan ways and turn in worship to the one Allah.
While in Mecca, though he condemned paganism (for the most part), Muhammad showed great respect for the monotheism of the Christian and Jewish inhabitants. Indeed, the Allah of the Quran claimed to be the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians, who now revealed himself to the Arab people through his chosen messenger, Muhammad. It is the Quranic revelations that came later in Muhammad’s career, after he and the first Muslims left Mecca for the city of Medina, that transformed Islam from a relatively benign form of monotheism into an expansionary, military-political ideology that persists to this day.
Orthodox Islam does not accept that a rendering of the Quran into another language is a “translation” in the way that, say, the King James Bible is a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. A point often made by Islamic apologists to defang criticism is that only Arabic readers may understand the Quran. But Arabic is a language like any other and fully capable of translation. Indeed, most Muslims are not Arabic readers. In the below analysis, we use a translation of the Quran by two Muslim scholars, which may be found here. All parenthetical explanations in the text are those of the translators save for my interjections in braces, { }.
Those Westerners who manage to pick up a translation of the Quran are often left bewildered as to its meaning thanks to ignorance of a critically important principle of Quranic interpretation known as “abrogation.” The principle of abrogation — al-naskh wa al-mansukh (the abrogating and the abrogated) — directs that verses revealed later in Muhammad’s career “abrogate” — i.e., cancel and replace — earlier ones whose instructions they may contradict. Thus, passages revealed later in Muhammad’s career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca. The Quran itself lays out the principle of abrogation:
2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?
It seems that 2:106 was revealed in response to skepticism directed at Muhammad that Allah’s revelations were not entirely consistent over time. Muhammad’s rebuttal was that “Allah is able to do all things” — even change his mind. To confuse matters further, though the Quran was revealed to Muhammad sequentially over some twenty years’ time, it was not compiled in chronological order. When the Quran was finally collated into book form under Caliph Uthman, the suras were ordered from longest to shortest with no connection whatever to the order in which they were revealed or to their thematic content. In order to find out what the Quran says on a given topic, it is necessary to examine the other Islamic sources that give clues as to when in Muhammad’s lifetime the revelations occurred. Upon such examination, one discovers that the Meccan suras, revealed at a time when the Muslims were vulnerable, are generally benign; the later Medinan suras, revealed after Muhammad had made himself the head of an army, are bellicose.
Let us take, for example, 50:45 and Sura 109, both revealed in Mecca:
50:45. We know of best what they say; and you (O Muhammad) are not a tyrant over them (to force them to Belief). But warn by the Qur’an, him who fears My Threat.
109:1. Say (O Muhammad to these Mushrikun and Kafirun): “O Al-Kafirun (disbelievers in Allah, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar {divine foreordainment and sustaining of all things}, etc.)!
109:2. “I worship not that which you worship,
109:3. “Nor will you worship that which I worship.
109:4. “And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.
109:5. “Nor will you worship that which I worship.
109:6. “To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism).”
Then there is this passage revealed just after the Muslims reached Medina and were still vulnerable:
2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut {idolatry} and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.
In contrast, take 9:5, commonly referred to as the “Verse of the Sword”, revealed toward the end of Muhammad’s life:
9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Having been revealed later in Muhammad?s life than 50:45, 109, and 2:256, the Verse of the Sword abrogates their peaceful injunctions in accordance with 2:106. Sura 8, revealed shortly before Sura 9, reveals a similar theme:
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).
The Quran’s commandments to Muslims to wage war in the name of Allah against non-Muslims are unmistakable. They are, furthermore, absolutely authoritative as they were revealed late in the Prophet’s career and so cancel and replace earlier instructions to act peaceably. Without knowledge of the principle of abrogation, Westerners will continue to misread the Quran and misdiagnose Islam as a “religion of peace.”
Dar al-Islam and dar al-harb: the House of Islam and the House of War
The violent injunctions of the Quran and the violent precedents set by Muhammad set the tone for the Islamic view of politics and of world history. Islamic scholarship divides the world into two spheres of influence, the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-harb). Islam means submission, and so the House of Islam includes those nations that have submitted to Islamic rule, which is to say those nations ruled by Sharia law. The rest of the world, which has not accepted Sharia law and so is not in a state of submission, exists in a state of rebellion or war with the will of Allah. It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to make war upon dar al-harb until such time that all nations submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law. Islam’s message to the non-Muslim world is the same now as it was in the time of Muhammad and throughout history: submit or be conquered. The only times since Muhammad when dar al-Islam was not actively at war with dar al-harb were when the Muslim world was too weak or divided to make war effectively.
But the lulls in the ongoing war that the House of Islam has declared against the House of War do not indicate a forsaking of jihad as a principle but reflect a change in strategic factors. It is acceptable for Muslim nations to declare hudna, or truce, at times when the infidel nations are too powerful for open warfare to make sense. Jihad is not a collective suicide pact even while “killing and being killed” (Sura 9:111) is encouraged on an individual level. For the past few hundred years, the Muslim world has been too politically fragmented and technologically inferior to pose a major threat to the West. But that is changing.
Taqiyya — Religious Deception
Due to the state of war between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, reuses de guerre, i.e., systematic lying to the infidel, must be considered part and parcel of Islamic tactics. The parroting by Muslim organizations throughout dar al-harb that “Islam is a religion of peace,” or that the origins of Muslim violence lie in the unbalanced psyches of particular individual “fanatics,” must be considered as disinformation intended to induce the infidel world to let down its guard. Of course, individual Muslims may genuinely regard their religion as “peaceful” — but only insofar as they are ignorant of its true teachings, or in the sense of the Egyptian theorist Sayyid Qutb, who posited in his Islam and Universal Peace that true peace would prevail in the world just as soon as Islam had conquered it.
A telling point is that, while Muslims who present their religion as peaceful abound throughout dar al-harb, they are nearly non-existent in dar al-Islam. A Muslim apostate once suggested to me a litmus test for Westerners who believe that Islam is a religion of “peace” and “tolerance”: try making that point on a street corner in Ramallah, or Riyadh, or Islamabad, or anywhere in the Muslim world. He assured me you wouldn’t live five minutes.
{A} problem concerning law and order {with respect to Muslims in dar al-harb} arises from an ancient Islamic legal principle — that of taqiyya, a word the root meaning of which is “to remain faithful” but which in effect means “dissimulation.” It has full Quranic authority (3:28 and 16:106) and allows the Muslim to conform outwardly to the requirements of unislamic or non-Islamic government, while inwardly “remaining faithful” to whatever he conceives to be proper Islam, while waiting for the tide to turn. (Hiskett, Some to Mecca Turn to Pray, 101.)
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269; Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “War is deceit.”
Historically, examples of taqiyya include permission to renounce Islam itself in order to save one’s neck or ingratiate oneself with an enemy. It is not hard to see that the implications of taqiyya are insidious in the extreme: they essentially render negotiated settlement — and, indeed, all veracious communication between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb — impossible. It should not, however, be surprising that a party to a war should seek to mislead the other about its means and intentions. Jihad Watch’s own Hugh Fitzgerald sums up taqiyya and kitman, a related form of deception.
“Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers. A related term, of broader application, is “kitman,” which is defined as “mental reservation.” An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse — “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” {2:256} But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims.
“Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.”
In times when the greater strength of dar al-harb necessitates that the jihad take an indirect approach, the natural attitude of a Muslim to the infidel world must be one of deception and omission. Revealing frankly the ultimate goal of dar al-Islam to conquer and plunder dar al-harb when the latter holds the military trump cards would be strategic idiocy. Fortunately for the jihadists, most infidels do not understand how one is to read the Quran, nor do they trouble themselves to find out what Muhammad actually did and taught, which makes it easy to give the impression through selective quotations and omissions that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Any infidel who wants to believe such fiction will happily persist in his mistake having been cited a handful of Meccan verses and told that Muhammad was a man of great piety and charity. Digging only slightly deeper is sufficient to dispel the falsehood.
And out of all these vacuous posts you haven’t offered one single solution. We understand the problem; we’re trying to work on a solution – let the adults talk.
Who the hell are you to tell PJM where to put their posts? You’re not even debating, just frothing. Get some investors, some SEO going, promote your site – this isn’t it.
Read the first sentence again or go join the frickin’ army.
It is a fallacy that there is moderates in Islam. People forget the millions who march in the streets declaring America the great Satan. The Fort Hood Doctor who murdered dozens of American soldiers. These are not terrorist in the media sense. These people are Muslims! Their religion determines there action. Don’t delude yourself into thinking there are moderates of Muslims. All have one goal, the domination of Islam over the world. If you study history of the middle east up to modern time you will see that deception and deceiving are very predominant in Islam. They are masters at deception and lying. The highest honors go to those who can maneuver their enemies to help defeating themselves. You can see this today in Pakistan and Palestinians who take our aid and money then use some of it to finance terror groups. It is a two sided war against the World. One terrorist one others pretending to be our friends. There Koran determines their morality and there is none in the Koran. It is about conquering, dominating, and enslaving.
I don’t mean to be unkind, but Taylor sounds like an intellectual elitist who doesn’t have a clue. I suspect he sees a niche he thinks he can fill that will lead him to some measure of self importance… a spiritual opportunist looking for followers perhaps? I hope I’m wrong.
There are only two options available to those of us who would resist, and seek to defeat, the Islamist threat. The first is to engage in raucous and relentless humiliation of all things Islamist… enough to shame them on a world wide stage… Enough to discourage others from following the self deluded, whiskered, mean-faced haters who espouse such idiocy and who engage in such barbarism. The second option is all out war if the humiliation option fails. If these pariahs aren’t willing to slink away in disgrace, they should be shown less mercy than they are willing to show their women…. which is none. Where the monumental crime if Islam is concerned, the civilized world must stand for, and seek, justice.
I agree with the strategy; for westerners to understand more about Islam. That should have been the strategy from the beginning. I wish G.W. Bush had followed it. However, I believe that anyone with an open mind who reads the Islamic trilogy (Koran, Hadith, Sira) will understand that there is little hope of reforming Islam. Mohammed was a terrorist, and was not successful until becoming one. He hated the Jews because they would not accept him as a prophet. He created a conspiracy theory that the Jews and Christians wrote him out of the scriptures. To criticize Mohammed is blasphemy. Islam has already undergone its reformation. Radical Islam is Islam. It’s terrorist followers are its disciples.
But, I aree that Islam can only be fought by removing the veil, examining it for what it truly is, and challenging it constantly and openly with a good argument.
Joining forces sounds like a different way of submitting. Muslims can best reform Islam by abandoning it.
Of all the candidates Newt Gingrich has the most correct understanding of Islam and the menace it presents. Listen to his hard-hitting 2010 speach at AEI here (http://www.aei.org/events/2010/07/29/america-at-risk-camus-national-security-and-afghanistan-event/).
Read the Qur’an, the Hadiths, and the Sira—the three fundamental texts of Islam–and you will discover that they are a manual for violent, predatory, eternal war against all “unbelievers” and the religions, nations, cultures, and civilizations comprising what Islam calls our “House of War,” until Islam and Muslims have conquered the entire Earth and all its peoples, religions, nations, cultures, legal systems, and civilizations and, “all is for Allah”; the Qur’an, supposedly the direct, infallible, eternal, unalterable, and complete word of Allah; the one and only true God. Yet, Taylor says that Muslims will have to drastically modify these documents (or their interpretation), the vast majority of whose texts deal with war against all unbelievers and only an estimated 10% with religion. And, frankly, with all the violent, xenophobic, predatory, war-like parts removed, Islam collapses into a few basic “religious” requirements, the ”Five Pillars” that require a confession of faith, almsgiving, the pilgrimage to Mecca of the Hajj, prayer, and fasting i.e. there really would be no “Islam” left.
How have these documents and the Islamic ideology and Shari’a law that grow out of them been expressed by Muslims throughout the last 1,400 years? Eternal war by Islam and Muslims against all unbelievers–intimidation, subversion, conquest, occupation, extortion, oppression, slaughter, looting, rape, slave-taking, and terror. Yet Taylor would have us believe that we misunderstand Islam and its ideology, and that there are, on one side, the violent Wahabists who misread and twist Islam and, on the other side, the “moderate Muslim’s” who somehow see the war manuals as peaceful, moderate documents or that they can, somehow, be made so.
As to the commonplace objection that the supposed “moderate Muslims” never show up, Taylor says, well, they are objecting to and fighting violent, Wahabist, militant Islam, but since they mostly speak foreign languages we never hear of them.
I think that the evidence points to a different conclusion, and that is that the ever silent hundreds of millions of “moderate Muslims” support the Jihad by their silence and inaction. They are taught the same Qur’an, Hadiths, and Sira as the active, violent Jihadists, they are familiar with the doctrines and viewpoint of Islam, they have been taught the same hatred and disdain for the “unbelievers,” but they are not, yet, willing to actively join in the Jihad; I view them as Islam ‘s gigantic reserve divisions.
Thus, while “radical” Muslims can apparently mobilize hundreds of thousands or even a million Muslims to scream “Death to Israel” and” Death to America” somewhere in the world almost on a weekly basis, we never see even a hundred “moderate Muslims” in the streets anywhere in the world—even here in the U.S.– mounting a counter demonstration. When the latest terrorist attack or attempt by Muslims occurs or is thwarted, all we see or hear is “un-indicted co-conspirator” CAIR attempting to deflect blame or, offering a facile, slippery Takyya and Kitman response that seems to condemn terrorism by Muslims but really doesn’t. And again, no demonstrations against such attacks by moderate Muslims. Even in the Islamic states touted by Taylor as “moderate” like Indonesia, attacks against unbelievers are routine and mounting (see http://thereligionofpeace.com/) .
As Turkish Premier Edogan recently said about the term “moderate Islam”:
“These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/09/turkeys-pm-erdogan-the-term-moderate-islam-is-ugly-and-offensive—-islam-is-islam.html)
Finally, to quote the late Ayatollah Khomeini:
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/quote-of-the-day-khomeini-spits-on-those-who-say-islam-is-peaceful.html)
There are, undoubtedly, many genuinely moderate Muslims, and moderate imams–people who would be satisfied to be left alone, to have the freedom to pass on their beliefs and values to their children, and to make life for them better than it has been for themselves.
The problem lies, however, within the text of the Koran itself. Unlike the Bible, a library of 73 different books (Catholic version) written by numerous authors over 1800 years and in different genres, the Koran is entirely the work of one man, Mohammed, written over the course of his own life.
Finding a violent passage in the Book of Joshua, for example, does not translate into a general prescription for Jews and Christians to wipe out their neighbors. It can be pointed out that the command to eradicate the inhabitants of Canaan was a specific command given to specific people at a specific point in time. Irenaeus in the 2nd Century AD instructs Christians to interpret such scriptures through the lens of Christ’s passion and death; which means at our end of history, we are to take the command given to Joshua to mean that we are to give sin no quarter in our own lives.
This is more difficult with the Koran, where most of the instruction to live peaceably with others, written while Mohammed was living among the Jews of Medina, is countermanded later on by commands to carry out actual warfare and persecution against unbelievers, including Jews and Christians, written after he had achieved power over his Meccan enemies.
The problem is further compounded by the presence of so many “moderate” Islamic leaders who act in tandem with the violent Islamists to diffuse concerted and effective action against terrorism.
Genuinely moderate Muslims will only find the courage to speak forcibly against the Islamists when those groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are crushed and discredited.
I think this is a very canny article that reflects an understanding of the true nature of the menace that emanates from within Islam. As for the question of moderates, to me that question is not whether moderates exists within Islam because of course they do, and in large numbers. The real issue is what kind of energy do moderates bring to the table within Islam and the answer is very little.
By definition a moderate will be non-confrontational and uninvolved and so a minority within Islam does indeed win because of “manipulation, intimidation, and violence.”
I very much like the way this article also reflects an understanding that words do indeed kill and that the greatest enemy is not terrorism but hate speech and the propagation of deluded retrofitted versions of history in the middle east that wrongly decontextualize and demonize the West as imperialist “Crusaders”; common place in that area of the world.
The article also understands that subversive Muslims understand America’s addiction to Critical Pedadgogy/Political Correctness and exploit that largely race-based vulnerability to the max. America’s Constitution has become a suicide pact where the captain will go down with the ship rather in the least compromise his “values” to appear racist or a profiler. In Third World countries, it’s India for Indians and Thailand but in the West Great Britain and America for everyone, merely airports at the service of the economically disenfranchised of the Third World and self-styled, self-prophesied and self-appointed politically disenfranchised of America.
In short, a disdain for success and an attraction to failure based on the idea that the West is comprised of people who are endemic racists and Muslims are going right for the throat on this issue.
Why do we keep treating the islam problem like it is only a couple hundred inbred backwood yahoos being stupid and making crank calls like westboro baptist morons? These are millions of people who believe in radical islam. these are known world leaders, high ranking and low ranking military, the most powerful religious leaders and millions of civillians and ‘educ ated professors’ all preaching that islam must dominate at all costs and that jihad and killing is the best way. ISLAM IS MURDER. everything from ideology to practice of islam is designed for 1 thing, the supremecy if islam over everything. There is no such think as moderate islam or liberal islam, just like there is no such thing as a moderate hand grenade. islam is created to destroy and take over by any means needed. Kind of like the AIDS virus. AIDS starts off quietly as ‘moderate’ HIV infecting but non fatal in that form until it turns into ‘radical’ HIV otherwise knows as full blown AIDS, which is what kills. There are far far too many instanced of ‘moderate’ islamists turnning around and killing. if there are moderates(lol) then guess what you are doing a terrible job stiopping islam ‘extreamists”. you need to quit crying about us not tolerating being blown up and start wiping out the so called extreamists in your religion! if you truly are the majority then this should be no problem in combining with copts and other groups persecuted by the islam extream and wiping EI out for good. but it wont happen…why? because you want to talk to the people who want you dead. Its time we stand up and FIGHT. either you are with the west or against the west. join us and live in prosperity and freedom. or you can ride the fence \ join them and live in filth and opression for the ‘glory’ of mohammhed (piss be upon him)and islam.
Excellent post jmz.
I think you’re half right: they are millions of Muslims who give tacit and passive moral support in a manner that was not true for example wit Timothy McVeigh in the U.S. McVeigh was isolated in his views.
Tacit support encourages mad behavior by a small minority. If a lot of Americans did nothing more than say “right on” after the McVeigh bombing, there’d arguably more McVeighs.
The observant muslims (i.e. the “extremists) will begin waging war against non-muslims and less observant muslims in Asia as everywhere else. The “moderates” will not stop them. In fact, they are likely to preempt them by trying to appear more authentically “islamic” themselves. The murders of Ahmadya are given miniscule sentences. Churches are attacked and burned. Alleged proselytisers are hunted down and persecuted by the police (see the report concerning one recent criminal “church Luncheon” and its consquences). Muslimas who do not cover are afraid to be identified in the press. As trends go, this is a difficult one to reverse.
“Rise of Strict Islam raises tension in Malaysia”
“Norhayati Kaprawi is a Malaysian activist whose recent documentary Aku Siapa (Who Am I) deals with the issue of how women in Malaysia should dress. She found some women unwilling to show their faces in her film – not on religious grounds, but because they feared reprisals. . . ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-14649841
Anyone who believes that there are moderate muslims is only kidding themselves. Just read their holy book the quran, it is their duty as a muslim to kill anyone that will not except allah as their god or they make the non believers pay a tax and basically the non believers their slaves!
The recent 20/20 expose on Islam was filled with errors (if you know Islam’s teachings), but definitely shows Western Muslims don’t know their own faith.
I have heard arguments that justify Islamists being allowed to continue climing it is justified because of the Crusades and other Christian dominance movements/events. If we grant that as true, why do we allow two wrongs to be done? Haven’t we become enlightened enough to prevent a repeat of history?
I like to point out that true Christianity is known by examining the life and teachings of its founder, and looking at the first century of followers, especially with those who knew Jesus personally. Only then is the true Christianity known.
Apply the same to Islam. Who was Muhammed? What did he teach? How did he act? Who were the first followers of Muhammed and what did they teach and do? That is the true Islam – all others are imposters, corruptions of the original. Let the truth be known, and see if anyone wants to be a Muslim in the original historic sense.
I could not agree more with you. I do not know how to be succinct and not sound bigoted or prejudiced but the fact is that in history both those who call themselves Christian and those who call themselves Muslim have done horrible things to people in war and forcing their culture on others. These actions are antithetical to the teachings and writings of Christianity even thought many acts were done in the name of Christianity. On the other hand the very same abhorrent acts committed by Muslims are clearly spelled out in Islam and are done by following the example of their prophet. That is a very specific difference. Even if many American Muslims turn a blind eye to the aspects of Islam they do not like the fact remains that if Islam were fully in any society those that are called “radical” would come again and again because that is what Islam is. This is an attempt to make people believe that Islam is peaceful, which it is clearly not.
If people say they’re Muslims and they’re not dead like the original Muslims then they’re Muslims.
Sunnis in Hyderabad have celebrated Shia festivals which is turn have been Hinduized. They certainly would take a dim view of that in Cairo and Isfahan.
Taylor has a deep misunderstanding of islam. Ibn Warraq has a deep understanding of islam (as does Hugh Fitzgerald):
http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Islam/IbnWarraqWTC.htm
“There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind. All the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the Hadith – Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian construct derived by Muslim jurists from the fundamental and defining texts of Islam. The fundamentalists, with greater logic and coherence than so-called moderate or liberal Muslims, have made Islam the basis of a radical utopian ideology that aims to replace capitalism and democracy as the reigning world system. Islamism accounts for the anti-American hatred to be found in places far from the Arab-Israeli conflict, like Nigeria and Afghanistan, demonstrating that the Middle East conflict cannot legitimately be used to explain this phenomenon called Islamism….”
The “liberal” muslims which Taylor asserts are relatively irreligious or undevout rather than religious and devout. When they discover or rediscover piety in islam, they generally don’t become “liberal”, they overwhelmingly become jihadis. The few who are, or become “liberal” have extremely heterodox or idiosyncratic beliefs, which do not propagate at all easily due to their very nature as heterodox and idiosyncratic. They easily and quickly lose theological debates based upon the texts of islam, or are imprisoned or killed outright in places like sudan , iran, saudiland. But they do provide cover for the jihadisneed also to widely realize that islam is not a personal-faith. It is a total and totalitarian belief-system which includes politics, the way entire societies are structured and governed. Islam should not receive the benefits of protection as a religion unless it becomes merely a personal faith. Did nazism or communism receive protection as religions?
Jane Stairs idea to stop muslim immigration into Western societies is a good idea. Nevertheless, it is not a complete solution. The whole idea of searching for “a solution” is somewhat misguided. The only real “solution” would be completely discrediting islam as an ideology. Outsiders can’t really do that, and can only help by non-interference, where non-interference includes no assistance, no immigration, no technology, no healthcare, no nation building, an end to petroleum revenues, etc. It is preferable to look at the situation as managing the problem, over a long period of time, than to look for a quickie solution.
Muslims need to recognize the dysfunctional insanity inherent in their societies and its overwhelming basis in the texts of islam and figure of their so-called prophet. Further, calling for a “reformation” in islam, as some do, demonstrates a lack of understanding. The wahhabis are the “reformers” — back to the root (in Latin, radix), i.e. radicals. Muslims need to trash islam. That will inevitably take time.
The only time ‘Moderate Islam’ existed was during Muhammeds first 10 years of ‘prophethood’ in Mecca where he was an abysmal failure.
After leaving Mecca for Medina, Muhammed discarded moderation and adopted the tactic of holy war, Jihad, which was the mechanism of its ascendancy. It was not just ‘holy war, however, but rather a totalitarian doctrine of religious supremecist terrorism.
The hard truth is that Muhammed was a sadistic sociopath consumed by unquenchable sexual lust, material greed and militant bloodlust driven by gran mal narcissism. Muhammed was in every respect an Arabian Hitler, only worse, a literal ‘ANTI-CHRIST’.
Muhammeds actions formed the foundation for the establishment of Islamic morality and law, which are entirely antithetical to every other religion and value construct inb the world, except perhaps Charles Mansonism.
Thus, there can never be such a thing as ‘moderate Islam’, as Islam itself is simply a reflection and embrace of Muhammeds barbarity and the two can never be separated.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Another thought…
Islam, like NAZI’sm, is a supremecist totalitarian terror ideology.
In WW2 there were thousands of ideological NAZI’s who were not killers. They were the bureacrats, administrators, financiers, industrialists and businessmen who supported, promoted and propogated the NAZI ideology indirectly.
Although these people didn’t kill, they shared the same ideology as Hitler. No one then or now would dare call these people ‘Moderate NAZI’s', because everyone knows the term ‘Moderate NAZI’ is an absurd oxymoron. They were NAZI’s, pure and simple, and NAZI ideology was evil, pure and simple.
Today, we face a similar situation in which thousands and thousands of people support, promote and propagate a supremecist totalitarian terror ideology. Only today it is called Islam, not NAZI’sm.
The so called ‘moderate Muslims’ are actually just like the NAZI ideological supporters that made that evil infrastructure possible.
There is no ‘moderate NAZI’sm’ and there is no ‘moderate Islam.’ There are is no such thing as a ‘moderate NAZI’ and there is no such thing as a ‘moderate Muslim.’
~ The Infidel Alliance
I don’t believe there is a moderate form of Islam either. There are Muslims who don’t participate in terrorism or violence directly, but many of them support those who do. The group that doesn’t support violence still holds more allegiance to their own kind than Westerners.
I base this on the fact that anywhere in the world where Muslims have attained critical mass, Sharia law and extremism are sure to follow. Their record on basic human rights and any measure of quality of life are abominable.
We cannot change their culture or world view for them. It must come from within. Maybe after a hundred more Arab springs or so they will begin to see the light. I think we need to be very careful about letting Muslim conclaves form within the US, we don’t want Londonistan happening here.
This is a spiritual battle. “We fight not against human flesh but against the princes and powers of the air” to quote the apostle Paul. I believe a veil has been thrown over the minds of the secular world. To try to lift that veil by exposing Islam is surely a noble cause, ultimately the world does not have the strength or stomach for it until it turns to God. God may very well be “raising up” Islam to force the world into a corner where it has no choice but to deal with its own spiritual depravity; just like He did with the Chaldeans and Babylonians to further His plans for Israel.
Holland Taylor:
“But, using the WWII analogy: in seeking to defeat the Japanese or the Germans, we didn’t say that it was up to all the good Japanese or Germans to defeat Hitler. We didn’t say that it was up to the Russians or the Chinese to defeat the Germans or the Japanese. And it may well have been that even the United States could not have defeated Germany without the presence of Russian forces on the Eastern Front.”
That is certainly true. What is also true is that millions of innocents died in that war, and their deaths were not avoidable. What is necessary is deeply disturbing to me, repugnant, even. Just as Japan and Germany were taken over by warlords, islam has been as well. If the moderates aren’t out-manned, they’re definitely outgunned.
And as Mr. Holland notes:
“…because of the particular strategy that’s being employed by the extremists, who are masters of manipulation, intimidation, and violence. We can see this, for example, in the Gaza Strip, where it is simply not possible for Muslims to oppose Hamas. Those who do so are killed. Another example is Pakistan, where moderates are liable to find themselves with a suicide bomber showing up at their madrassa during Friday prayers to kill the sheikh who’s been condemning the Taliban.
And there you have it. And as he also notes, the Muslim Brotherhood is infiltrating all eastern and western strata, the “good cop,” as it were. They and the jihadists are one in the same.
There is no “clean” way out of this. Western Civilization cannot sustain itself unless it is willing to broaden, as in WWII, it’s strategies, tactics and targets. The enemy must be put on the defensive and the only way to do that is to; first, decide that We Will Not Submit, either to keep the peace or to spare innocent life and, second, exact a price that will preclude the possibility of nations or organizations siding with the enemy.
What a load of apologetic, delusional rubbish that C. Holland Taylor and his org are espousing.
That is like telling a coiled rattlesnake to be nice and friendly to rabbits.