Moderate Muslims
Do those mythical beasts, moderate Muslims, exist? Or are they more like unicorns?
I say they exist, and this video is evidence of how they are overshadowed by the more vocal, influential, powerful, violent, and perhaps more numerous, radical Muslims (hat tip: J.J.):
So there are plenty of moderate Muslims, people who are sincere in their “live and let live” attitude and are not practicing some sort of taqiyya about it to fool us. For the most part, they are frightened and repelled by their Muslim brethren who think otherwise.
But their (and our) problem is that, although these moderate Muslims consider themselves to be Muslims, the more extreme Muslims (shall we call them immoderate Muslims, or just plain Muslims?) consider the moderates to be no Muslims at all but apostates instead, perhaps even worthy of being murdered—and these immoderate Muslims constitute the mainstream of the Muslim religion rather than a fringe group. The moderate Muslims do not constitute a bona fide wing of the religion, they merely are people who don’t practice their religion very strictly and don’t follow all its tenets and precepts. They are lapsed or lax Muslims.
This differs from Christianity or Judaism in a profound way. Yes, there are some orthodox or fundamentalist Christians and Jews who also believe that those following the more moderate wings of their religions are not real Christians or Jews, are not following the true faith. But moderate sects and movements most definitely exist in both religions—as opposed to people who just are not very observant in their beliefs—and for the most part are an accepted part of the mainstream.
There is no official moderate Muslim wing, unlike the many intermediate choices a Christian or a Jew can make and still be a Christian or a Jew in the official, approved sense, although Islam doesn’t lack for disputes between wings (bitter ones, at that). There may be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.
As the video reports, when the moderates try to speak up, the fanatics try to silence and intimidate them. They are often very successful. It would take a lot of courage to not be intimidated, given the violence of so many of the Islamist fundamentalists, and their determination to wipe out the opposition and to dominate a West that has welcomed them into its fold.
Islam is both a religion and a totalitarian political movement, and the religious part has masked the political aims for long enough to allow Islam to get a toehold in Europe, a grip it has then expanded through reproduction and more emigration, until it now threatens to overwhelm countries such as Belgium. This is exceedingly worrisome, and not for racist reasons. I don’t care whether these people are black, brown, or purple (in fact, I resemble them physically far more than I resemble a native Belgian). It is their belief system and their actions and their goals that threaten the West and the Enlightenment. And they are not even shy about saying so.
Moderate Muslims are like moderate Democrats.
In the end, the bitter and burning end, their “moderation” will not matter.
Of course “there are plenty of moderate Muslims, people who are sincere in their “live and let live” attitude and are not practicing some sort of taqiyya about it to fool us.”
The twin factors that define ‘moderate’ Muslims are that, they are more accurately described as ‘cafeteria’ Muslims, picking and choosing which Islamic tenets they practice, as the larger society within which they live allows. That is an important factor in why 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy while only 1 in 8 Muslims currently do in America. In the UK it is 40%…
The other factor is that moderate Muslims are in willful denial as to Islam’s fundamental tenets. To illustrate just how much in denial they are, a Christian merely need ask themselves, if absolute proof were discovered tomorrow that Jesus had in fact supported offering the sole choice of forced conversion, second class slavery or death, could you remain a Christian?
Which leads to a related point; “But their (and our) problem is that, although these moderate Muslims consider themselves to be Muslims, the more extreme Muslims (shall we call them immoderate Muslims, or just plain Muslims?) consider the moderates to be no Muslims at all but apostates instead, perhaps even worthy of being murdered–and these immoderate Muslims constitute the mainstream of the Muslim religion rather than a fringe group.”
‘Immoderate’ Muslims are NOT offering an opinion that moderate Muslims are apostates. Islam proclaims them to be apostates. Immoderate or rather devout Muslims are simply stating what Islamic ideology unequivocally proclaims.
Moderate Muslims KNOW this and KNOW that the ‘immoderate’ Muslims hold Islam’s theological high-ground and that is why they are silent. As confirmation, simply ask where are the anonymous condemnations of ‘extremest’ Muslims by ‘moderate’ Muslims on the internet blogs and media cites? There’s no fear of retaliation when posts and comments are anonymous but all we hear are the sound of crickets chirping…
Can a religion of hate that offers only forced conversion, second class slavery or death to non-Muslims be a religion? Not in my book it can’t. Which makes Islam an expansionist, totalitarian ideology wrapped within a facade of religious trappings.
Europe is gone, they merely won’t acknowledge it yet.
The most popular boys name in London and Oslo is now… Muhammad. A popular t-shirt worn by young Muslims states, “2030 – that’s when we take over”. Muslim rape gangs are common in Europe and then there’s the British reaction or lack of, to Rotherham, England. 1400 children repeatedly raped and abused, some as young as 11 and it’s being swept under the rug. That is a statement of surrender that shouts far louder than mere words.
Obama likens white cops in Ferguson to the Islamic butchers of ISIS
http://floppingaces.net/2014/09/25/obama-likens-white-cops-in-ferguson-to-the-islamic-butchers-of-isis/
I have sent that video to all of my e-mail correspondents. There has been quite a reaction among those who are LIVs or progs. It has torn the scales from a few eyes.
IMO, a lot of our problem stems from the fact that so many people are in denial or ignorance about the intentions of the “real” Muslims. The video lays it out pretty nicely. They intend to rule and they are using violence but also stealthy takeovers to achieve their ends.
As I told one LIV who reacted to the video: “Nazism and Communism are totalitarian political systems with no religious trappings. Islamism is a totalitarian political system that wraps itself in the shroud of religion to cloak itself in respectability.”
Knowledge of the enemy is an important part of defending and defeating the Islamists.
Can a religion of hate that offers only forced conversion, second class slavery or death to non-Muslims be a religion? Not in my book it can’t.
A religion isn’t defined by whether you like their beliefs or not.
A religion isn’t defined by whether you like their beliefs or not.
But freedom of religion is.
To Geoffrey Britain’s point about moderate Muslims and immoderate Islam — spot on.
Now to my point. Radicalized muslims are not of the phenomenon ‘spontaneous combustion’, they are of the phenomenon ‘self-immolation’ — first you douse yourself with Islam.
So what do we do about the problem of the violence/totalitarianism inherent in Islam? We can’t kill all Muslims. But can we contain Islam? Or can we help jump-start a Muslim Enlightenment?
It does not matter if there are plenty of moderate muslims who abhor the actions of the jihadists. Very few denounce the jihadists and it seems none of them are willing to actually turn on the so called extremists and ostracize them.
“A religion isn’t defined by whether you like their beliefs or not.”
Absolutely true.
Merriam-Webster’s defines re·li·gion as:
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
Strictly by that definition, Islam qualifies as a religion. Nor am I disputing that Islam qualifies as a religion by those criteria. It is in Islam’s fundamental theological premise that God, Allah, Yahweh, etc. demands conversion and mandates coercion with the penalty for a refusal to convert as either slavery or death wherein I dispute that Islam is a religion. That is the fundamental criteria for a death cult because it implicitly worships death.
That is the fundamental criteria for a death cult because it implicitly worships death.
I don’t think of religions as always being good things. So a death cult, to me, is still a religion. Just like Global Warming would still be a religion even after they killed 99% of the human race and returned it to pristine Gaia. They would still be a religion because their religious dogma is what made them do it.
Societies need ways to manage guilt, atonement, and people’s emotional problems. That’s where religion comes in, but how they do it and whether it is good or evil, is a different issue.
But freedom of religion is.
That’s a cultural belief of the West, although still dying in potency without the courage to stand up to those beliefs. If people want the freedom part of things, they’re going to need the courage to do something about it. What was Hussein, the symbol of America, doing during the Iranian protests and riots again?
Or can we help jump-start a Muslim Enlightenment?
After the US Regime, in charge of your comfort and security, killed off the Iraq and Afghanistan projects, I doubt that’s a feasible option any more.
I question the figure of 60 hands cut off in 1,300 years. It seems to me that in Dexter Filkins book, The Forever War, he wrote of witnessing some of these occurrences. They were held on the football fields and spectators (men, women and children) would be in the stands.
“So what do we do about the problem of the violence/totalitarianism inherent in Islam? We can’t kill all Muslims. But can we contain Islam? Or can we help jump-start a Muslim Enlightenment?” Ann
I have long argued that Islam’s fundamental theological premises make reform and enlightenment impossible. That is because to do so, Muslims would have to agree to reject Muhammad’s most fundamental claim, that the Qur’an is Allah’s direct testimony, transmitted and dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. Which makes every word and comma inviolable, as mankind cannot ‘correct’ God. Reject Muhammad’s claim as to the Qur’an’s authorship, in order to revise it and you implicitly declare Muhammad to either be a liar or deluded. In either case, Islam’s theological foundations collapse.
I do believe that Islam could be contained, though the political will to do so is currently insufficient. But containment would I believe be effective because I perceive that Islamic terrorism in our time is basically reactive. Islam is not reacting to any intentional offense by the West but rather the subconscious perception that cultural exposure to the modern world (movies, TV, the Internet, travel, etc) is a mortal threat to 7th century Islam’s viability and survival. Islam cannot IMO survive another century of cultural exposure to the modern world. Iran under the Shah demonstrated just how susceptible young Muslims are to the modern world and their embrace of modernity fueled the reactionary Islamic revolution in the 70’s. IMO, where the West went wrong was in not firmly confronting Muslims who wished to emigrate to the West with Islam’s fundamental incompatibility with western norms and civilizational precepts. You cannot honestly embrace Islam and also the precept that all men have the inalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
No, we neither can kill all Muslims nor should we want to but we can make the price for continued terrorism against the West unacceptable to the devout fundamentalist Muslim. We do that by applying leverage and identifying the fulcrum upon which to apply that leverage and we determine that through their own beliefs.
Jihadist’s personal goal is paradise through jihad and martyrdom. We remove the terrorist’s ability to attain paradise by placing them in a state of ‘uncleaniness’ just prior to death and execution. A Muslim who dies having not been ritually cleansed after contact with a pig’s blood cannot, by their own beliefs, enter through the gates of paradise. Were Islamic terrorists to know that they faced a high probability of denial of paradise, recruitment would decline precipitously.
We also remove the jihadist’s mentors and agitators by targeting the Mullahs and Imams and make sure the weapons of their execution have a nice coating of dried pig’s blood as well and of course we announce and continually publicize that policy. We don’t avoid Mosques we target Mosques. They have to know the price they will pay, which will be eternal separation from Allah.
Islam’s goal is spreading Islam through force and the symbolism inherent in Islam’s tenets. Force depends upon recruitment and the above addresses that, while the symbolism inherent in Islam’s tenets is contained within Islam’s holy sites. Mecca, the Kaaba in Mecca, The City of Qom and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem are Islam’s three holiest sites and Islam places an inordinate importance upon them.
The closest analogy is Catholicism’s Vatican and it is not even in the same ballpark as any of the three Islamic sites. Pilgrimage to Mecca, at least once in every Muslim’s life is a religious obligation. It is one of the Five Pillars of Islam.
Our policy should be to hold hostage the survival of those sites to Islam’s good behavior. Make the consequence of terrorism unacceptable and you reduce its incentive.
Refuse to do that and you continue upon a path where the eventual choice is either surrender or genocide.
“Societies need ways to manage guilt, atonement, and people’s emotional problems. That’s where religion comes in” Ymarsakar
If your perception is that a societal need for managing “guilt, atonement, and people’s emotional problems” is the primary motivation for religious belief among virtually every society that has ever existed, then I would posit that you haven’t the least clue as to what religion is really all about. Try considering that religion is a formalized attempt at reconnection with the divine, to address the essential human condition; the huge hole in all of our hearts, that our disconnection from the divine has left us with, we are all in a state of essential aloneness.
“I question the figure of 60 hands cut off in 1,300 years” Sharon W
Six MILLION would be far closer, Saudi Arabia today cuts off far more than that in just a decade, if not a year. That a ‘moderate’ Muslim makes that factual lie, of which he must be aware, indicates an activist apologist who is willfully aware of his denial.
GB-The Muslim being interviewed in the video made that statement. Such an obviously false statement.
if we have a, say, Beslan, the moderate Muslims’ moderateness won’t save them.
9-11 looked like a one-off by some nutcases. Since then, the actuality if Islam–footwashing basins in schools, cabbies not taking service dogs, more terrorism, more excuses, more special pleading, taking over chapel spaces on campus, etc.–and that’s in the US has changed the popular conception.
I’d be interested in how many would-be terrorists are turned in by their coreligionists in this country. How many honor killing perps get away because, “I didn’t see anything before or after….”?
is the primary motivation for religious belief among virtually every society that has ever existed
People believe in various religious dogmas and symbols for their own reasons. But the existence of religions is a human thing, and it’s something of a higher level existence. It exists to serve other goals than what people desire.
Society’s goals are not an individual’s goals, necessarily.
You, GB, confuse individuals with societies and think the need of both are the same. The need of both are not always the same, and probably not usually the same either.
The Leftists use religion to control the people and make the cannonfodder do what the messiah deus ex machina god says. But just as there are moderate Muslims, who don’t matter, there are moderate Democrats that believe in their religious for personal reasons, that also don’t matter.
What society wants, it will get, if power is given to the elites. And power was certainly given to the Left, even though many of us told people the consequences.
Saw a lady in full burka today at the park. Charming.
The Tragedy of the Arabs
July 16, 2014 by Rogers Emerson
There is a way to put islam back into its sandbox: economic boycott, port blockades, and no fly zones. They begin to starve, even the oil sheiks, within 6 months. Of course the west will never do this, but it is a relatively inexpensive means to bring islam to its knees.
Geoffrey Britain
I have long argued that Islam’s fundamental theological premises
To The religionists in the West: do you ask from where your social aid comes From?
Today I want to go from pretending to religiosity in the West (or maybe they really are religious) and they live on social assistance by a legitimate question:
What is the source (or sources) of this aid? Are they not the State levied fees and taxes on various business and social activities? Not included in these factories and shops selling liquor and non-halal meat shops, gambling, prostitution, pornography, masturbation, and other benefits in the sacred action under Sharia?
Isn’t it all comes from haraam is impure and forbidden? How, then, accept charge know that comes from haraam, haraam according to sharee’ah? You eat and drink and they feed your children and then practicing rituals of worship regularly and some elders Dean?!?!?
I was not directed to of not pretending to adhere to religion as I do not get all the financial resources in the Grand but if I was told that the money which is mixed with Haraam and halaal analysis should he recommend or his quintuplicating comes the question then do you really do it?!?
They don’t want to get killed. Everything else is horse shit.
Wish I could find the article on PJ Media by a young man who wrote a piece explaining there’s really no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Neo you may know of it it since you’re a contributor there – his contention, which he supported with a lot of passages from the Koran, was that one of the core missions and beliefs is to convert non-Muslims or kill them. He referred to it as a religion whose primary goal was intended to be conquest. For some reason, I want to say he held and advanced degree of religious studies, but I just don’t remember his bio or name.
At least in so far as the Koran is written, he contended there’s no such tolerance granted to non-believers. Those who do live and let live, are inviting retribution themselves from the “true believers”. He made a compelling argument, and I’ve put the holy book of Islam on my reading list so I can decide for myself what it says.
The holy book of Islam is crap. It’s not good for much of anything.
The history of Islamic conquests and slave empires tells the real story.
They begin to starve, even the oil sheiks, within 6 months.
They won’t starve so long as they have children to cook.
In Britain and the US, they will do a few things.
1. import in British girls to feed on, via persuading them to break the blockade.
2. use the Left’s Child Protective Services and ACORN stations in the US to import in much of the same.
One Democrat congress person, after all, did her black duty and rode a supply ship all the way to Gaza.
Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe. The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all. Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim. An early generation of Western leaders sought the affirmation of their national destinies in the divine. This generation of Western leaders seeks the affirmation of their secular liberalism in a moderate Islam. Even if they have to make it up. Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode. Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear. If there is no moderate Islam, no moderate Mohammed, no moderate Allah, then the Socialist Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has to go in the rubbish bin.
Daniel Greenfield
http://sultanknish.blogspot.ca/2014/09/moderate-islam-is-our-new-religion.html
The problem of radical Islam is the problem of Islam itself.
Many are afraid that if Islam is the problem there can be no solution. That terrifies them. So they do all they can to avoid engaging with the evidence that Islam is the problem.
If you put a young God-fearing Muslim in a room
with an Islamic radical and an Islamic moderate, both trying
to win over the young person’s soul, the radical would
win again and again. It is because the canon —
hadiths, sira and Koran — are massively stacked in
favor of the radical position. Yes, there are violent
passages in the Bible too, but it is an uphill battle to
build a violent theology based on them. With the Koran,
building a violent theology is like rolling balls down a
hill. It is a huge uphill struggle building a
“moderate” Islamic theology on the basis of the
Islamic canon alone.
Mark Durie
Y,
I noted I did not think the west would agree to starve them out, only that it would be a relatively inexpensive way to bring them to surrender. As far as muslims that have infiltrated the west, my solution to that issue is not fit for adult company beyond stating that unless they have resided in the west for 3 generations they will be dealt with harshly.
Article quote:
Each of these mosques is currently conducting various types of jihadist attacks such as:
propaganda jihad, immigration jihad, education jihad, media jihad, marriage jihad, lawsuit jihad, moderate Islam jihad, sharia jihad, bribery jihad, stealth jihad and all varieties of nefarious and clandestine means to sabotage and undermine our nation as required by the Koran.
All this has been enabled under the guise of “moderate Islam”, the most effective psychological warfare infiltration ruse in history.
More here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/why-mosques-should-be-shut-down/
Seal Team + Time Machine.
Put a bullet in that dudes eye at the start of it.
We have one. It is too bad we don’t have the other.
Another article on moderate islam.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/demoting-islams-religion-status/
And the 1,400+ year wait for the Muslim Martin Luther continues.
“… religion is a formalized attempt at reconnection with the divine, to address the essential human condition; the huge hole in all of our hearts, that our disconnection from the divine has left us with, we are all in a state of essential aloneness.”
Geoffrey Brittain, that could be in a dictionary. Very well written. And succinct!
parker,
I agree. The West’s greatest sin vis a vis Islam has been to pump money into their societies. Without it they would be nearly insignificant in modern society.
Giving trillions of dollars to people who hate you and want you converted, subjugated or dead probably isn’t a good idea.
I’d be curious to know how much traveling the author of this post has ever done in the Islamic world, and how many of its languages she speaks (and with what facility). She sure seems to have a lot of confidence making generalizations about Muslims, Islam, the Islamic world, etc., but what are they based on? From the looks of it, the “basis” seems to be: time spent in front of a computer somewhere in New England. But is that really enough?
Steve at 8:07 pm,
??? Please try again but first, go back on your meds.
Jerry,
With all due respect to Daniel Greenfield whom I admire, America’s War on Terror is an “endless inescapable slog” because the West refuses to identify Islam itself as the problem.
Rondo,
The difficulty in creating a “moderate” Islamic theology centers upon the necessity to reject Muhammad in order to do so but without Muhammad, there is no Islamic theology to ‘moderate’.
Rufus,
The West’s pumping money into Islamic societies is the unavoidable result of our civilization’s dependence upon oil.
Irfan Khawaja,
Ah. An “appeal to authority” as defense against the indisputable evidence. “When the debate is lost, the loser turns to slander” Socrates
Irfan: Yes, it is enough. More than enough. Neo and we do not need to descend to preposterous levels of absurdity (“how many of its languages she speaks”). Translations suffice. Islam is evil. It is disgusting. Its defenders are evil and disgusting. And stupid: Islam has a foot fetish. Clear enough? Go wash your feet.
Asking whether someone has the experience to make a set of generalizations isn’t an argument from authority. It’s not an argument at all. It’s a question. Questions aren’t arguments.
Anyway, experience is obviously relevant to generalizations, and if you lack the relevant experience, you aren’t in a position to generalize. So the question stands.
Here’s a hypothesis: Neo-Neocon has made a big deal here about her conversion from left liberalism to neo-conservatism. That drama is at the center of this blog. Supposedly, she went from a fideistic sort of commitment to left liberalism to a rational commitment to neo-conservatism via 9/11. A more obvious explanation for her predicament is that she traded one form of fideism for another by surrounding herself by a different group of fideists–probably less rational than the first. If it’s bad to be surrounded by think-alike left liberal therapists, how much better is it to be surrounded by think-alike right wing know nothings? Not much. But that’s a discovery Neo will have to make on her own.
I’ve asked a simple question, and so far what I’ve gotten in response is demented raving about foot fetishes and a false accusation of having committed a fallacy in a non-existent “debate.” I’m an ex-Muslim myself, and honestly, even Islam makes more sense than that.
Irfan, the former Muslim, or as some would say, apostate. Surely you have a conversion story. Surely, you, in your superior wisdom (just the smug, condescending tone of your comments confirms that you are superior to all the know-nothing commenters here), can enlighten us on why Islam is not your cup of tea. We await your confession breathlessly.
My guess is that you have found yourself too close to being a deity in your own mind to humble yourself before a lesser deity.
Geoffrey Brittain,
<i<"The West’s pumping money into Islamic societies is the unavoidable result of our civilization’s dependence upon oil."
Nope. We’ve got plenty of the stuff. And coal. And uranium and plutonium from 1st world, western suppliers. And sun and wind and water power.
Yes, we’re dependent on energy but there is no necessity whatsoever to obtain it from nations that hate our way of life.
“We await your confession breathlessly.”
Don’t hold your breath too long. I’ve already done that twice:
http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-Apostates-Speak-Out/dp/1591020689
http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Upbringing-Costs-Freedom-Philosophical/dp/0271036796/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411755504&sr=1-3&keywords=peter+caws
Funny how last time I was here, somebody’s Google search revealed that I was a gay fashion model, but no one here can manage to figure out that I’ve published two confessions of apostasy from Islam. That’s what happens when, instead of reading, you just look at the pictures.
The tone I’ve adopted is appropriate to the venue. There’s no use in pretending that I’m dealing with know-somethings when I’m not. If anyone here knew anything, they’d have seen the relevance of my question and I’d have an answer by now. But they don’t.
http://patterico.com/2012/05/25/convicted-bomber-brett-kimberlin-neal-rauhauser-ron-brynaert-and-their-campaign-of-political-terrorism/
Moderate Dems don’t want to end up like Pat there, nor victims of Islamic rapine and killing.
Moderate Muslims don’t want to end up corpses or heads attached to pikes either.
Part of the reason the moderates aren’t in charge is because they are moderate. They don’t have what it takes to carve out a block of territory using ruthless terror. The fanatics and radicals though, however, especially when power is transferred to them via democracy. But that means democracy is the poison and it is.
Irfan the Apostate is best ignored. That includes whatever he has published on Amazon. Dreck. Done.
So, the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim.
From Oriana Fallaci’s “The Rage and the Pride” (a must-read):
“To make you cry I will tell you the one of the twelve young homosexual men declared impure who at the end of the war in Bangladesh I saw executed in Dacca. They executed them on the field of the stadium of Dacca, bayonetted in the chest and stomach, in the presence of twenty thousand faithful who applauded in the bleachers in the name of God. They thundered “Allah akbar, Allah akbar”.
“I know, I know: in the Coliseum the ancient Romans, those ancient Romans of whom my culture is very proud, amused themselves seeing the Christians die as meals for lions. I know, I know: in all Christian European countries, those Christians, who in spite of my atheism I recognize the contribution they made to the history of thought, amused themselves seeing the heretics burn. However, a lot of time has gone by since then, we’ve become a little more civilized, and even the sons of Allah should have understood that certain things are not done.
“After the twelve impure young men, they killed a child who in order to save his brother who had been condemned to death, had thrown himself on the executioner. His head was squashed by military boots. If you don’t believe it, well, re-read my article or the articles of the French journalists and the Germans who, horrified like me, were witnesses. Better yet, look at the pictures that one of them took.
“However, this is not the point I want to underline. What I do want to dwell on is that at the conclusion of the slaughter, the twenty thousand faithful (many of them women) left the bleachers and went down into the field. Not in an unruly, moblike way, but very orderly, solemnly. Slowly they formed a line and, always in the name of Allah, they stomped on the cadavers. Continuously thundering Allah-akbar, Allah-akbar! They destroyed them like the Twin Towers. They reduced them to a slow, bleeding carpet of squashed bones.”
Also, “Allah” and the Christian “God” are not the same entity. (We muddy the waters, fatally, when we use those names as if they were interchangeable.)
Islam is a doctrine of subjugation. &% $* them and the camel/goat they road in on.
If anyone here knew anything, they’d have seen the relevance of my question and I’d have an answer by now.
Not everyone is answering everything people write here, every hour of the day.
What was the time you gave from your initial question to your last one, 3 hours?
You lack some patience there. Or maybe the blog’s commenters noticed your previous conversation with Neo and the word spread. You know, in a small group, reputation is… somewhat more important than what credentials or books have your name on them.
I noted I did not think the west would agree to starve them out, only that it would be a relatively inexpensive way to bring them to surrender.
parker ,
I agreed with that line of thinking, when I first responded to blert.
Which is why I think the Leftist alliance must be annihilated first, if Islamic Jihad is to be defeated. People aren’t in agreement on that though, since they aren’t even in agreement on what the GOP should do. Cause the GOP told them to suck it, if anything. But conflict and death usually resolves the chain of command issues and forces people to agree on a single strategy, sooner or later.
I’ve asked a simple question, and so far what I’ve gotten in response is demented raving about foot fetishes and a false accusation of having committed a fallacy in a non-existent “debate.”
You asked neo a question and now you’re picking a fight with people who aren’t neo. Don’t you think your method here is counter productive. If your intent was to talk to the boss… why are you starting a fight before she even tries to answer your question?
Islam’s slave raiding practices and their slave empire in Persia, India, Spain, Africa, are well documented. By both Christian and Islamic scholars. You don’t need to rely on Neo’s Arabic knowledge for that. And certainly we don’t confine ourselves to merely one person’s knowledge of Islam. Islam’s victims are many, after all. The harems of the sultans were blue eyed, taken as slave raids from European cities. Although they have “advanced” to a more civilized fashion, in Rotter, where the local hosts provide the concubines.
One of the things I saw on a youtube lecture, concerned just exactly what happened to the African civilization that Rome built. The roads may still be there, technically, but where are the olive trees?
When Islam conquered Rome’s territory in North Africa, using fanatical armies full of lootin and rapine motivated troops (sort of like ISIL), they brought in their goats. And the goats torn up the roots of the olive trees and basically just ate everything down to the roots. Without any roots, all that alluvial soil just slipped right into the Mediterranean.
Amazing environmental wonders, Islamic Jihad is. Look at what it can accomplish in time!
It took unequivocal, total annihilation of Japan – nothing less – to make them surrender. They had to be shown that they were inferior to us.
The same thing will be needed to defeat this latest disease.
Here’s my solution which can be escalated as needed.
Choose one of Islam’s lesser holy sites, announce to them that we will flatten it and that they have 1 week to vacate it, and then destroy it beyond recognition.
This will show them that 1) they can do nothing to stop us, even with us totally projecting our intentions well ahead of time, 2) their holy sites are not as holy as they thought, 3) we are serious and possess the will.
After each pile of rubble, demand that Islam denounce its own tenets of Islam uber alles and demand that Muslims themselves root out all who promote the literal interpretation of Islam.
And move up the list of holy sites as necessary.
This would certainly drive Muslims catatonic, but the alternative for the West is what?
I submit that this might get the job done with much less bloodshed than the alternatives.
Bookworm has an interesting post up. She points out that:
“From the moment Mohamed’s little tribe burst out of the Arabian desert, its focus was on conquest. This aggressive trait was a necessity, because the faith’s stifling strictures mean that its adherents are virtually prohibited from doing anything that creates wealth. The only way that they can bring wealth into their country is through conquest, slavery, and taxes on those who are neither Muslims nor slaves. For that reason, Islam’s swift, massive expansion did not occur organically or through proselytizing. It happened at the point of a sword.”
The key point being that the tenets of Islam actually prevent it from creating wealth. They are dangerous today only because they are sitting on massive oil reserves, which provide the wealth to make their fourth generation warfare. Their economic incompetence is and always will be their weak point.
Another good point she makes is that:
“I would also make sure everyone knows of Islam’s myriad and quite dreadful failures, while simultaneously cultivating and elevating those who seek to reform Islam. (And yes, I know it’s a tough road to hoe, given Muhammad’s strictures, but it needs to be done.) In other words, I would fight a war of hearts and minds at home, rather than in foreign fields, populated by simple farmers steeped in Islamism.”
I agree. We need to make it plain that fundamental Islam is incompatible with Western values and norms. (Tolerance for all faiths, equality for women, tolerance and acceptance of gays, separation of church/synagogue/mosque and state, and acceptance of English common law to mention a few.) Either the Muslims in the West reform their faith to conform to those values and norms or they are not welcome in the West. Why should we change those things that we have developed as a culture to suit them? They should be strongly encouraged to return to their Muslim majority countries and enjoy their sharia law if they can’t reform. For those who honestly want to reform Islam to conform to western values, such as Zhudi Jasser, we should give them encouragement. As opposed to accepting the two-faced minions of the Muslim Brotherhood or CAIR. I know there are many here who say reforming Islam is impossible. But could we not accept or encourage “cafeteria” Muslims as those who are acceptable in the West as opposed to fundamentalists? I know, the fundamentalist Muslims will say it isn’t possible, but there was a time in the past when a 30 Years War was fought because devout Catholics believed Protestants were not real Christians. We need to begin the process of moderating Islam here in the West while we can.
Read it all: http://www.bookwormroom.com/2014/09/25/youll-be-surprised-what-war-we-need-to-wage-next-and-where-we-need-to-wage-it/
M Williams….
A bombing campaign actually won’t work.
Even in the case of Japan the REAL mind breakthrough did NOT occur with the atomic bombs.
I recognize that this is a stunning revelation to moderns — but the average Japanese citizen had absolutely no knowledge of those bombings. That’s what wartime censorship ensures.
What REALLY blew Japanese psyches was General MacArthur’s Shogunate Period.
Japan had a L O N G history of Shoguns running that nation — with the Emperor locked up in his palace.
The result was that when MacArthur was able to induce the Emperor into visiting him at HIS own GHQ — the new American Shogunate was established. For that is EXACTLY how the average Japanese citizen viewed MacArthur.
His role also DESTROYED the Shintoist myth structure, which flatly ruled out such a military reverse.
And consequently, Shintoism died that day.
You’ll still see echoes of Shintoism – but no-one in Japan takes it seriously — at all. It’s just a nice cultural legacy — kind of like the royalty of Europe. (It’s largely run for the tourist trade.)
&&&
Likewise bombing Qom, Medina, Mecca, and all the rest will have no effect at all. Their destruction is NOT conflated with a profound violation of Islamic myth. Even as I type, the imams of KSA are blowing up old Muslim icons all around the Ka’aba!
Yes, that’s true! The ONLY thing left of iconic value at this date is the Ka’aba, itself. Pretty much everything else is pre-destroyed.
Which is pretty remarkable. This zone of destruction is not open to infidels. Photos and films are suppressed. We have to go by official pronouncements and tales from Muslim hajis.
&&&
The ONE thing that Muslims hold sacred is that infidels CAN NOT OCCUPY THE KA’ABA.
That’s a TOTALLY different thing than dropping an atomic bomb, — a crazed (loser) notion that keeps popping up in infidel minds. The imams would merely blame the faithful for infidelities and rebuild.
If you think that’s far fetched — it was EXACTLY what the Shintoist priests declared straight through every Japanese reverse in WWII.
You can take it to the bank.
&&&
If JEWS were to occupy the Ka’aba, Muslims would abandon their belief overnight — just like the Japanese did.
For Islamic scripture is adamant that such an event would be physically prevented by Allah, himself. Allah is fully expected by the fanatics to super-naturally intervene in this ‘final’ conflict crush all Jews and Christians in a total bloodbath.
This nasty expectation comes straight from every faction of Islamic scripture. They ALL believe it.
In a similar vein, Muslims would have a brain aneurysm if the Ka’aba were occupied even by Christians.
Still, if you want guaranteed success: the Ka’aba has to be occupied by Jews. Mo’ had a unique hatred of Jews — Judaism was the dominant religion in his neck of the woods. (It was a backwater.)
As you might have guessed, Moses, himself, wandered through the Hajiz for forty-years before entering the promised land — up north.
The Ten Commandments were brought down from an erupting volcano — which is now in northwest KSA! The Torah has more than a few references to volcanic activity — and the volcano — and its ash — pretty much explain all of the events leading up to the Exodus. (But not everything.)
So, you can see why Muslims are terrified of Zionism. Should the Jews ever return to ALL of land of their forefathers the Muslims would have to wander out into the desert.
Careful reading of the Koran will show that the Jews were the farmers/ vintners of the Hajiz. The proto-Muslims were in the caravan/ camel business… basically landless teamsters. Some Arabs still ply that trade, and are brutally poor without largesse from the oil ticks. (The Bedu are carried as charity cases in the modern era.)
To recap:
Aztecs
Inca
Shintoists
Pre-Muslims
ALL dropped their faiths — typically overnight — the moment of inflection was brief.
It did not take a holocaust of blood to do so. Lightning military defeats were, by far, the signal event.
So, to destroy Islam is NOT congruent with liquidating Muslims.
Mass conversion is the end game NOT retail conversion.
This is a concept that is apparently beyond the keen of modern Americans — indeed anyone in the West.
While it’s the ONLY WAY OUT, it’s the solution that is never muted.
Islam is NEVER going to be reformed — is NEVER going to be defeated in detail/ retail.
It’s got a GLASS JAW. It can’t survive Jewish occupation of the Ka’aba. Indeed, there is a whole list of Islamic ‘impossibles’ that can be carried out — on the cheap, too — that will SHATTER any Muslim’s belief system.
The critical key is that the shattering occurs all at once to the entire ummah. This mechanism destroys Islamic social reinforcement — and inverts it.
That my postings are so rare on the Internet is a tribute to limited thinking and Muslim corruptions of ALL of our institutions.
Mo’ has given us a whole series of events that MUST call Allah down from Heaven. When he can’t show up… the only conclusion has to be that every bit of Islam is a fraud… which it obviously is.
(It’s not even the slightest bit internally consistent.)
Ask the severed head in Moore, Oklahoma how those moderate Mussies are working out. (*Oklahoma, for Godsakes!!!)
NCS…
The number one institution for oil and gas drilling is in Oklahoma.
It has a vast, vast, vast, following in the Muslim Middle East. It’s their ‘Harvard’ if you didn’t know.
It’s so massive that the FBI has an over-sized bureau to deal with it — pretty much just the university. This reality is never publicized.
Blert, we agree that showing Muslims in no uncertain terms that their belief system isn’t what they believe it to be is crucial to killing if off.
I guess I’m not clear on just how you propose it be done. I proposed a ‘tighten the screws’ method, while you are proposing a signal event that we precipitate.
Can you explain how you would have Jews walk around the Ka’aba?
“Irfan the Apostate is best ignored. That includes whatever he has published on Amazon. Dreck. Done.”
Right, now that I’ve cleaned your clocks, you have to pretend I’m not here. It’s called “evasion.”
Irfan:
I noticed the little kerfluffle here and though I’d make a cameo appearance.
I believe people are responding negatively to your air of condescending arrogance more than anything else.
As for your question about my travels, languages, etc—of course (as I’m sure you already know) I don’t know Arabic or Farsi, nor have I traveled extensively in Muslim countries, nor do I have a degree in Mideast studies (took a course, but it was way too long ago to be relevant). In these respects I resemble about 99.99% of the journalists and pundits who write on these subjects. Nor do I hold myself out to be any sort of expert about these subjects. I am a generalist and thinker, and I read, think, and then write my opinions, which you or anyone else can take or leave as you see fit.
I observe, however, that supposed experts in the area who know the languages and have lived in those regions don’t necessarily get it any more right than I do when doing their analyses of the region and making predictions. Funny thing, that. Which doesn’t mean that their opinions aren’t to be valued or considered. But their opinions still must be reacted to with logic and common sense, and rejected if they don’t meet those tests. Same with my opinions—they either meet those tests, or they don’t, and should be countered with other facts and with logic, if someone disagrees with what I write. The argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) doesn’t bear much weight. An argument must be a good argument on its own.
M Williams Says:
September 27th, 2014 at 11:19 pm
Wahhabist imams that run the Ka’aba are so obsessed with keeping kafir away that they made French commandos ‘instant’ Muslims so that they could drive fanatics out of the Ka’aba!
“A team of three French commandos from the Groupe d’Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (GIGN) arrived in Mecca. Because of the prohibition against non-Muslims entering the holy city, they converted to Islam in a brief, formal ceremony. The commandos pumped gas into the underground chambers, but perhaps because the rooms were so bafflingly interconnected, the gas failed and the resistance continued. With casualties climbing, Saudi forces drilled holes into the courtyard and dropped grenades into the rooms below, indiscriminately killing many hostages but driving the remaining rebels into more open areas where they could be picked off by sharpshooters. More than two weeks after the assault began, the surviving rebels finally surrendered.[24] [25][26]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_Seizure
So, it’s a BIG thing, nothing small at all.
&&&
Obviously, I would not bet all on the one card. I would have experts staff-it-out and find every hot button item that MUST call Allah to Earth to defend the faithful.
Then I’d throw it to the Pentagon brass to resolve what’s viable.
There are more than enough American Jews to meet the need. A couple of Mogan Davids fluttering in the breeze would make quite a statement.
It may be deemed necessary to occupy other critical religious sites.
The point is to destroy Islam and to save the Muslims. Mass realization, mass conversion, is the ONLY GAME IN TOWN.
It’s also the only one that gets no serious hearing.
As 1400 years of woe have shown, retail reversals, even national expulsions, don’t work. The Muslims merely double down and double dare you.
That’s the power of the Islamic meme-set:
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2007/10/terrifying-brilliance-of-islamic.html
While our man gets off to a stumbling start — as he assumes that readers don’t know what a meme is — he has a terrific post that’s worth spreading around.
One take-away: Islam is absolutely brutal against Muslims. It’s no wonder they’re destined to poverty.
neo-neocon well said.
But I had one question for you.
If these comments made with this seamier of hearted and blames for a religion, people or ethnics why then you blocked/ deleted but here you kept full list of view that in line with your good argument?
As you said “anyone else can take or leave” thus by leaving other constructive views that argue your view and the other commentators comment here with all what it full of heated then you ending with discussion richer and then your must be a good argument on its own.
Hope your Filter not blocking me after this comment as spammer!
Steve:
I’m assuming English is not your first language. But unfortunately, your question (in your 8:00 PM comment) is phrased in such a way that I can’t understand it.
Neo:
It doesn’t take any particular authority to see that I haven’t engaged in any argument from authority. I posed a question. A question is not an argument.
To repeat something I’ve said prior to your cameo experience: to generalize about X, you need experience of X. The less experience you have of X, the harder it is to generalize about it (no matter who are you). You’ve offered a series of very large generalizations in this post about the Islamic world. It’s a perfectly reasonable question to ask: how much of that world have you experienced, and from what vantage point? A person who speaks no Arabic, no Farsi, no Turkish, no Urdu, etc., would not even be able to negotiate his or her way from an airport terminal to a taxi in Egypt, Iran, Turkey, or Pakistan–or from the taxi to the nearest hotel or tourist attraction. It’s unclear why such a person could be relied on to know anything about the “moderateness” of the religion of the taxi driver or the other million or so people in the immediate vicinity. And yet for some reason, your readers take you very, very seriously on this subject, and you yourself expect to be taken that way.
Imagine someone sitting in front of a computer somewhere in Pakistan–somehow who speaks no English and has never been to the US–pontificating about the religious fervor of the Christians and Jews of North America. It’s nearly a certainty that such a person’s opinions would be a preposterous, uninformed farrago of half-truths and stereotypes. Why is it any better–or any different–if someone else does the analogous thing in the reverse direction? And how is it an appeal to authority to pose this utterly obvious question?
I use the tone I do because your readers have thoroughly earned it. If you can’t grasp that, you haven’t been paying attention to your own blog, and I really don’t owe you any further explanation.
Irfan:
Well, the tone of your answer (last paragraph) continues in the same vein, as expected. You are now officially a troll.
The argument from authority is exactly what you are positing. I already answered the question you posed, and I pointed out that 99% of the pundits and journalists around the world who write on the subject glean their information from the same sources I do. The 1% of experts, who also write on the subject, constitute some of our sources. But strangely enough, those experts don’t have the answers either, and are often wrong.