Views From Kennewick

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

A Bridge to "Moderate" Islam Is In Fact a Road to Hell


Monday, 06 August 2007

'Islam is a religion of peace and the great majority of Muslims are not party to any plans and actions of the radicals'- so claim academic pundits, leftist journalists, and hired Islamic apologists. The incantation of these "authorities" is the lullaby that puts the people into a sleep of complacency.

Complacency and appeasement on the part of the free world and those well-meaning, non-practicing Muslims, can only serve Islam. There is no chance for co-existence with Islam. All one needs to know is to see what is happening in Islamic countries. That is exactly what is in store for the presently free people of the world if Islam is not held in check.

The average free person, who is busy with all manner of demands on his time and resources, would hardly want to worry about the very real threat which mainstream Islam poses to his life and to his future. It is so much easier to accept the claims of authorities who assure us not to worry; 'it's just a tiny minority of extremists', and 'soon the great majority of "moderates" will triumph over the crazy zealots'. So we lull ourselves back to the comfort of our pretenses, serene in knowing that the "experts" have it all under control.

Wait! Aren't these the same experts who told us Hitler could not possibly be crazy enough to attack Russia or Britain? Aren't these the same "experts" who tried to cover up Mao Tse Tung's reign of terror in China, or Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia? Isn't this the same "expertise" that assured us in the 1970's that inflation was good, and could never be accompanied by recession?

Aren't these the same folks who tell us the Saudis are our best friends in the Middle East, that the Titanic was unsinkable, that we should not succumb to our racist impulses by reporting suspicious Muslim men who are learning to fly jumbo jets, and that goods imported from China are perfectly safe? Or that if we just "open up dialogue with our enemies", we can create peace?? Hmmm...It seems like we have much to worry about when the "authorities" begin to disseminate their collective wisdom. And don't bank on the politicians either. They are the master practitioners of the art of the politically correct.

Yet, some of these professional advocates of Islam go farther by accusing those who sound the alarm as racist, bigots, hatemongers and much more. That attitude sure worked well for England, Holland and France!

But the elites who scold us and seduce us into our slumbering acquiescence never allow their dismal record of intellectual failure to prevent them from claiming ever more enlightenment. Their present project is to 'build a bridge to moderate Islam'.

Let us, for the record, be clear on this subject one more time: Islamism, Islamofascism, Radical Islam, Political Islam, and Militant Islam are different terms for essentially the same thing, a virulent, hateful, and violent system of beliefs and practices. Yet, one and all are progeny and mutation of Islam itself.

Islam in all of its forms and sects is simply an evil ideology that is practiced by all Muslims. Islamism is a pincer, with the world in its jaws between the end-of-the-world Shiism and the jihadist Sunnis. To the simple mind of western "intellectuals", within every ideology there must always be "good liberals" and "bad conservatives", and so they search in vain for the "moderate", "reasonable", "pragmatic" wing of any threatening ideology.

But in their enormous ignorance of the realities of Islam, they fail to realize that in Islam, the wings are not "left" and "right", or "liberal" vs. "conservative"; they are two jaws in the same supremacist device that aims to crush the life of all non-believers. I will explain why attempting to build a bridge to "moderate" Islam is in fact a road to hell, since "moderate Islam" is oxymoronic.

The so-called "Moderate Muslims" or "Secular Muslims" would like to have their cake and eat it too. They wish to remain Muslims in name only, yet not bother to read the mandates of the Quran or understand the context in which Muhammad foisted his poisonous prophecy upon the world. Instead of conclusively demonstrating Islam's violent nature from its very inception and moving in another direction with what they can prove is the worthwhile portions of Islam, they have decided to marry an inherently noxious religion with an inherently godless philosophy, secularism. "Secular Islam Summit" was hilarious; a run-down and meaningless show of desperate attempt to salvage a bankrupt and deadly ideology.

These happy-go-lucky people-of-Islam are indeed delusional, for Muhammad's record is not even the subject of debate. His utterances and deeds are a part of history that is simply not debatable. Islam is what Muhammad said it was in the diatribes of vitriol and hatred that is the Quran; and Islam is what Muhammad did during his violent life. If you accept Islam as your religion, you become a part of the guiding principles of hatred, revenge, and rejection of prior enlightened prophecies. But the "bridge-builders refuse to acknowledge the fact that one cannot be a Muslim and not abide by the dictates of the Quran.

Keep in mind that the fact being a Muslim is a clear admission of wrongdoing, the extent of which depends on the degree of a person's Muslim-ness. If he is only a Muslim who does not practice Islam, then he is, at the very least, guilty of hypocrisy. If he is somewhat of a Muslim by tithing, from time to time, following the ranting of the local mullah or imam, and swallowing whole the pronouncements of the high divines, then he is guilty of significantly contributing to the evildoings of Islam.

It is time for the non-practicing Muslims to abandon their childish desire to cling to evil, yet pretend they can "reform" it, like the abused wife insisting that she can cure her alcoholic, violent spouse by remaining in a codependent relationship. It's time the self-described "moderates" either accept the truth of their ugly religious ethics and reject them by joining the forces of liberty and worldwide family of free people, or join the forces of darkness. But to join the peace-loving free world, you must immediately stop making excuses for the religion of hate!

Here is my 10-point process to understand why Islam cannot be "moderated", for the benefit of those misguided people who are the advocates of "Secular Islam." I will prove that Secular Islam is just a hoax.

1_The first question that must be answered is whether or not any doctrine can be called "evil." If nothing is good or evil, then all of life is inherently nihilistic, and all thinkers and believers in life (all of us) are necessarily nihilists. We must establish a way to measure "evil."

Take for example, Naziism. How are we to know that the Nazi party was evil, and that present-day believers in Nazi principles are doing evil? We certainly cannot use traditional Islamic mea culpas, to rid Nazis of their well deserved guilt! We can't look at present day Nazis who are demonstrably not trying to take over the world. We can't ask the average Nazis on the street to declare themselves authorities on their entire cult.

We can't just look at the actions of some of them, for in doing so, we could simply assert that the good Nazi party was hijacked by "radicals". It is certainly true that the vast majority of German supporters of the Nazi party in 1936 were normal, peaceful people who were simply held hostage by the zealots. If you took a random "Nazi", you'd be vastly more likely to condemn him for his taste for Sauerkraut rather than see him participate in an actual murder.

So we have the same excuses at work that exist in the debate over Islam, but today we condemn Naziism as evil. If it is illegitimate to simply look for a nice Nazi, and try to build a bridge to the Nazi power structure through him, then how can we think we can do it with Islam? We think so because we have presupposed that Naziism is bad, and because of the forces of propaganda, we believe that Islam is not. But this begs the question: How then do we know what evil is, so we can condemn it?

The answer is that the only way to determine if a thing is evil or neutral or good is to establish a working definition of what constitutes evil and its opposite, good, and then test the doctrine against the definition.

While it is true that many people will disagree on the precise definition, it does not matter. Let each person establish the definition for him or herself, and at least be logical and fair in evaluating the evidence of the creed. In other words, deal with the consequences of the process, no matter how hard the findings are to accept. The Bible says, "You shall know them by their fruits".

2_Once a definition is in place, the only way to evaluate a belief system under any accepted definition is to read the foundational books, the manuscripts that define the creed...the scripture that was carefully written to explain the norms and intent of those who established it. You cannot ask a Nazi whether he thinks he is evil. He will tell you he is good, and that you are evil for resisting him, because he is defending his "people" against those who resist his beliefs. This is exactly what Muhammad said about the Jews and Christians who resisted him.

"Thus (will it be said): 'Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire.'" Quran 8.014

"And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah (also) plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters." Quran 8.030

"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease (in defeat), then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do." Quran 8.039

You cannot allow a random Nazi member to provide personal anecdotal opinion and declare it to be authoritative. Only the written treatises of the founders may be taken as true expression of the belief system. You cannot take a third-party account of Nazi goodness to be superior to the Nazi party principles and the philosophy espoused in Mein Kampf. That would be ignoring Hitler's beliefs in exchange for that of an outside observer commenting on Hitler's beliefs. The same is true for Islamic apologists. We can't just trot out any "scholar" and declare him to be authoritative over the words and deeds of the most important figures in Islamic history.

This is the precise error that Stephen Schwartz makes in advising people to read the Aqida al-Tahawiyya (interpretations of the creed), or other apocryphal interpretations that only a fool would escalate above the Quran and Hadith. Yet normal people can't help notice the similarity in name of "Aqida al" as referenced by Schwartz is his fatuous quest for moderation in an inherently oppressive philosophy, and the more memorable name "Al Qaida" as manifested in reality. Why does the third-party whitewash text name so closely resemble Terror Inc's brand name? Because they are the same thing!

Once we have found the foundational texts which declare the basis and purpose of the creed, in order to validate the creed as it is written we must test if the leaders of the creed are in fact true to their words; one must look at historical actions of those who rose in rank through the belief system. Look at their words, actions, and reactions as their lives played out to see if they were consistent in representing their own creed. This is how you test whether or not a doctrine is evil.

3_ Having defined evil, and having isolated the relevant foundational texts, we can move ahead. If we find a group of people who adhere strictly to their codes of conduct as established in their scripture, we cannot place these people on the sidelines of their religion as aberrations or "extremists". Such attempts to marginalize the fundamentalist believers in a religious movement are the product of highly confused and illogical thinking.

A person cannot be "extreme" with respect to her religion if she is in alignment with all of its commandments and admonishments. Being highly devout is "fundamentalism," but it is not extreme or radical. The reason we wish to believe that a Buddhist who never steps on an ant is "extreme" is because we realize that the behavior is unusual and difficult to accomplish, inasmuch as almost nobody can live up to its ideals.

But to view an action that is rare and strange to you, and then declare that, because it occupies a far-off position with respect to your personal beliefs and capability to align, it is therefore "extreme" with respect to its own religious dictates, is highly illogical and quite frankly stupid. And this is the precise "logic" that is used by those who wipe the Islamic slate clean, declaring all inhumane practices and advocation in Islam to be the handiwork of "extremists." Such muddled thinking does nothing to advance our understanding of the creed, the evil it does, and its dangers to mankind.

If we use this process and we objectively find that Islam satisfies the definition of evil, we cannot then be subject to the insults of the ignorant who themselves refuse to conduct a like investigation. We cannot be accused of being "Nazis" ourselves simply because our rational discovery and analysis process uncovered true evil. It would be the height of absurdity to declare that an anti-Nazi is just as bad as a Nazi for vehemently opposing Nazi thinking! The same must be true for Islam.

4_ I won't get into every nuance of the reasons; any average person can define evil and read the Quran and come away with the sole conclusion that it is evil. Only those of us who have bothered to read the Quran and parts of the Hadith and Sunna and who have bothered to read history and take note of present-day Islamic violence and oppression in light of their dark beliefs can say that we have good reason to declare Islam an evil cult. But suffice it to say that Islam, as configured by Muhammad and as interpreted over the centuries, essentially boils down to the following principles:

a. Jews and Christians are, per se, the epitome of evil to Islamic thinking. Pagans are also evil, but somewhat less insulting to Allah, since the Jews and Christians received prophecy and "rejected" it.

One of many such verses of hate: "Those who reject (Truth) (Islam), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures." Quran 098.006

b. Therefore Jews and Christians are offensive to Allah. The worse between them is the Jew. The world will not be restored to Allah's preferences until all Jews are defeated and entirely eradicated.

One of many such verses of hate: "Say: 'shall I point out to you something much worse than this (referring to the previous verses), as judged by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath (Jews), those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!'" Quran 5.060

c. Muslims believe that those who resist conversion to Islam and the establishment of the prominence of Islamic global domination are Islam's enemies who can never be trusted or treated as equals.

One of many such verses of hate: "O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path." Quran 60.001

d. Allah calls on Muslims (believers) to use their corporeal power to murder Jews, Christians, and people of other religions and to destroy their nations, cities and institutions, until they sue for peace and either become Muslims or pay for the privilege of being ruled by a world Islamic order.

One of many such verses of hate: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

One of many such verses of hate: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

e. Forget all you know about spiritually uplifting ideals of brotherly love and peace (the word "love" is nearly absent in the Quran). Peace and earthly enlightenment only comes after slaughter and victory in a war in which Islam is victorious. If, in any battle or time period, Islam is not victorious, Muslims must lie in wait until the right time and then ambush their enemies and establish Islamic rule. Until that time, policies of terrorism and deceit are both sanctioned and advised.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Excerpt Q-33:25-27
Set 66, Count 131-133 [33.25]...Allah sufficed the believers in fighting... [33.26]...some [Jews] you killed and you took captive another part. [33.27]...He made you heirs to their [Jewish] land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden...

(So much for the theory that Muslims don't have a religious mandate to claim Jewish lands...that the "Palestinian" problem is all the fault of the on and so forth)

f. Islam calls for robotic acceptance of minute and grand prescriptions covering every aspect of a Muslim's life. Therefore, Islam is not personally or spiritually relevant. It is political, which is why it may never separate itself from government. Adherence is not a matter of voluntary devotion, but of the Law, and violators are severely punished, including capital punishment as in Sharia.

The principle of "an eye for an eye" (retribution/revenge) is supreme in all social interaction. Praying five times daily, wearing headscarves, ablution, abstaining from alcohol, etc... all this is done not out of personal belief that it is proper, but because Allah says so, and nobody may violate Allah's written commandments.

g. Men are the strong and superior. Women are the weak and inferior. Women must be kept ignorant and within a low social class so they do not abuse the Islamic order by seeking equality.

"Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme." Quran 4.34

Islam strictly forbids women to participate in many activities in which men are involved. In Islam, women are not in the calculus-women are incidental and merely exist for the pleasure of men.

The words "naghess al aghl" literally means defected witted person. It describes the intellectual capability of women in general. And the word "zaeefeh", is referred directly to female gender in contrast to men, meaning "the weaker one", in a condescending fashion.

"By another sign He (Allah) gave you wives from among yourselves, that you (men) might live in joy with them, and planted love and kindness in your hearts. Surely there are signs in this for thinking men." Quran 32.21

h. Muslims are entitled, in fact required, to wage war on all non-Islamic thoughts and deeds. Any who mock or disrespect the prophet Muhammad are to be murdered by honor-bound Muslim enforcers.

4:162b Muhammad said, "My livelihood is under the shade of my spear, and he who disobeys my orders will be humiliated by paying Jizya." ["Jizya" is the poll tax paid by subjugated peoples in return for the protection of the Islamic government.]
4:196 Mohammad said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshiped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshiped by Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

4:220 Muhammad said, "... I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) .."

The 69th verse of Sûrah Anfãl declares:
"Eat ye the spoils of war. They are lawful and pure."

"The apostle (Muhammad) said, 'Kill any Jew that falls into your power.' Hereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'" 61

In another terrorist action, Muhammad asked his men to murder an old Jewish man, Abu Afak. "'Who will deal with this rascal for me?' The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated." When the assassin prayed with the prophet at al-Medina, Muhammad said to him: "'Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?' The assassin said: 'Yes. Is there something more for me to do?' He [Muhammad] said: 'No two goats will butt together about her.'"62..." (from Islam is not Salaam, by CS Karlson, 2004)

i. All contemporary written scripture is corrupted, and only the Quran is the truth. Muhammad is the highest authority, as Allah's primary and final prophet. Even the Quran contains contradictions and infusions of verses by Satan (note: Muhammad actually codified this concept in the Quran, the subject of Rushdie's book, the "Satanic Verses"). But in order to eradicate Satanic infusion, whenever a passage conflicts with another, only the latter one may be understood as correct...because Allah will always trump Satan. The Quran (surviving, unabrogated prophesy) and its ethical commandments are eternal, perfect, and immutable.

j. This is why any references to "peaceful" earlier scriptures have been completely abrogated by evil scripture that is congruent with only older, violent scripture. What we have left is a book that is unbelievably sickening in its hateful attitudes and inhumane practices. This is why you cannot believe an ignorant Muslim who quotes abrogated scripture, such as "there should be no compulsion in religion"...that phrase was abrogated hundreds of times, and it is enraging to have to point out such obvious contradictions.

5_ Conclusion: These unalterable and undilutable sentiments represent that which is wrong, sinful, erroneous, ill-advised, and just plain evil.

6_ Moreover, anyone who acts consistently in the advocation and advancement of these ethics is adhering to Islam as it was intended. They are fundamentalists, like the Christian who consistently turns the other cheek, or the Buddhist who is careful never to step on a bug, but they are not extremists.

An extremist Christian would for example claim that Christ did not intend for people to forgive each other and express the final commandment for brotherly love, but rather to beat each other until they accepted Christ as God, and to reject anyone who did not believe as they do. Perhaps some, even many, Christians think that the latter is correct, but according to scripture, they are wrong. This is easily identifiable in the New Testament and is a consistent theme in Christ's prophecy. If such heretical "Christians" persist in evangelizing incorrect interpretations, they are extremists vis-a-vis Christianity as codified in the Bible.

Likewise, if any Muslim tries to declare that Muhammad (who personally led dozens of offensive military excursions, took slaves for himself, demanded 20% war booty, raped a 9-year-old concubine, ordered the assassinations of his detractors-all recorded in official ISLAMIC texts!) never intended his scripture to represent Islam, but rather Muslims should be peaceful and loving when such advice is not given in his scripture (in fact it is revealed in the scriptures Muhammad tried to eradicate), they are not mainstream...they are the true extremists. You cannot lie about your religion and consider yourself "moderate."

We have hundreds of commandments by Muhammad that declare such things as:

"Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (in conquest): for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds." Quran 47.035

"Fighting (in wars to advance Islam) is prescribed for you, and ye (may) dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Quran 2.216

"Fight those who: believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Quran 9.029

Passages like these and worse are all over the Quran and Muhammad proved their meaning by the perfect records of how he conducted himself in life, as recorded in the Hadith.

7_ So what we have is this: we have a group of personally non-violent, well-meaning, friendly perhaps, but quite ignorant, and non-intellectual people such as the advocates of the "Secular Islam Summit" who seek to censor all the evil that is expressed within Islamic scripture as commandment, and yet seek to somehow allow the resulting "moderated" cult to retain its brand name, "Islam."

These people use confused logic, denial and censorship to create what they call "connections" and "bridges" between normal human behavior and those who refuse to abandon that which is manifestly evil. They assist ignorant Muslims in surreptitiously redacting most of their own scripture and all of Islam's raison d'etre, yet they refuse to call for the abandonment of the religion itself, and certainly refuse to admit that the reason reform is sought is because the religion they minister is full of antisocial, animus and hatred....ergo, evil.

These people are secularists who desire Islam to be restrained, so they can assert that their policies of dilution are good for all religions. In doing so, they seek to throw the baby out with the bath water, for not all religions are in fact evil.

8_ But once this liberal process of ambiguating religion is understood, we can also understand why their task is futile. "Moderating" by ignoring the truth cannot work unless the Quran itself, and much of the life and traditions of Muhammad recorded long ago, are universally destroyed to the last manuscript and digital file...and good luck with that.

Since this is impossible, one day even under the most successful liberal scenario where Muslims have forgotten their religion, some 16-year-old Muslim boy will bother to read the original works of the Satanic and evil Muhammad, and refusing out of sin of pride to abandon the cult, the whole sick, violent history of the Islamic juggernaut will rise again from the ashes of the books burned by self-described moderates.

Here, many uneducated people refer to the history of Christianity and its reformation, and perhaps to a general view of the dialectic of movements in general, which they believe go from pure to corrupt, then to reformist, then to post-modern. But applying this supposed deterministic process to Islam is absurd. Christianity was most certainly corrupted by the 13th century. By the 15th century, the church had become even more corrupted: acts such as the sale of indulgences, the sins of the papal rivalries, and its repression against heretics were legion.

When Martin Luther nailed his list of 95 grievances to the door of the Wittenberg Church, he was scripturally correct. In fact, the Catholic Church had gone so far as to make it illegal to print the Bible in any language other than the dead Latin (used as a code language by the church, since only Catholic-trained men were taught the language). But church chicanery was anti-Christian according to the actual Bible. So from the perspective of scripture, the reformists were correct, and the Popes were divergent, and that is what led to the Reformation.

Contrast this with what the so-called reformists are trying to do with Islam...they are not looking into the Quran for answers...they are banning the book altogether lest people find out the evil that drips from its pages. The Quran is the last place Islamic moderators look for help in "reforming" Islam, because it would make al Qaida look like a poodle pet-owners convention. In fact, doesn't it take great chutzpa to call a movement that seeks to eradicate the letter and intent of actual scripture "reformist"? Perhaps "retardation" or "revisionism" would be better terms.

9_ You can restrain Islam, but you cannot lie about its true character by branding those who abide as "extremists," and complimenting those who abandon all but its name as "Moderates."

10_The ludicrousness of their chosen position is exactly why "moderate" Muslims refuse to engage in a battle of truth using Muslim scripture to back up their preposterous denials. They can't read their book out loud because they are canonically wrong and they know it. And this is precisely why the vast majority of Muslims prefer to name their children "Muhammad" or "Osama" rather than march in the streets to protest the evils that this religion does on a daily basis.

This is also why liberal appeasers in 1938, who refused to call Hitler "evil," got the world into so much trouble by creating a similar confused intellectual forum about the Nazis. They tried to build bridges to the "moderate" Nazis; they lectured clear thinkers about the dangers of inciting German hatred by pointing out the truth. They accused conservatives of being "just as fascist" as the Nazis; they sent ambassadors and made treaties and trusted that the moderates would come out and "reform" their zealous leadership. And they were wrong.

We in the United States need to embark on a comprehensive legal, educational, and social campaign to eradicate the deadly plague of Islam. We need to immediately stop appeasing the Muslims and call Islam for what it really is. By effective action, we may even save those peaceful and self-styled moderate or secular Muslims from their own deluded affliction.

There is nothing that I would love more than witnessing all Muslims become ex-Muslims and full-fledged members of a diverse, tolerant and democratic society. I hope that Muslims themselves leave this Bedouin slaveholder cult. Yet, the hope is extremely slim. Islam has a stranglehold on its slaves and will neither let them go, nor do the Muslims seem to have the insight or the will to leave it in large numbers. But hope, as slim as it is, keeps me sounding the alarm before the fire of Islam engulfs us all. ---------Amil Imani


  • "Gradually--painfully gradually--people are beginning to see that islam is the enemy. Period."
    The above quote is one of the milder examples of how many Westerners view Islam these days. This quote is a part of the comment to the article titled "Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims." posted on the Gates of Vienna blog. The article talks about radical Muslims in the West claiming to be moderates. It also brings up very interesting points. "[T]he government and media are avid to find moderate Muslims -- and as their desperation has increased, their standards have lowered.", "The situation is complicated by many factors, including, taqiyya and kitman", and "How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims when deception of non-Muslims is so widespread, and lying to infidels is an accepted and established way of hiding Islamic goals? The answer, with all its difficult implications, is: We can't."

    But that's where the Gates of Vienna is wrong. The main problem is that the term 'Moderate Muslim' is poorly defined. There is a clear distinction between a 'Moderate Muslim' and an 'Islamist' and the distinction is in the ultimate goal. An Islamist believes in Islamic Supremacy. Islamist terrorists and their supporters want to achieve it by waging Jihad. Non-violent Islamists want to achieve it by peaceful and democratic means. The means are different, but the goals are the same: Islamic World Domination. Moderate Muslims do not believe in Islamic Supremacy. For someone not very familiar with the subject, the distinction may be subtle. But in reality, it is the most important, because everything that Democracies hold dear is based on this distinction. This is the Koran vs. the Constitution, Islamic State vs. Secular State, and ultimately, Dhimmitude (Subjugation to Islam) vs. Freedom. I cannot stress enough how important this distinction is!

    Now, comes an uneasy task of weeding out false moderates. Hopefully, with a clear definition of a 'Moderate Muslim' that task could be a lot easier. Coming back to the title of this post. Muslim community as a whole is not the enemy. Part of it is. A large part. But not all of it. The next time you ask yourself a question "How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims?" don't trust their assurances; look at their record. No matter how well false-moderate Muslims such as CAIR or MPAC polished their facades, they have a record. Whether it is their support of terrorism or advocating Islamic supremacy, any Islamist group or figure who's been around long enough, at one time or another has shown its/his/her true face. Just because some government official or some talking head declares someone to be a moderate Muslim, it doesn't make it so. There are several counter-terrorism and Islam experts who keep track of Islamists. Most of these experts happen to be non-Muslim, but there is also a list of moderate Muslims who could be used as trusted sources for these inquiries. The list of those prominent Muslims is posted at the upper right corner of our blog. So now, my non-Muslim friends, when you have the tools to identify REAL moderate Muslims, you can no longer use your ignorance as an excuse to declare that Islam is the enemy.


    By Blogger Muslims Against Sharia, at 9:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home