What About Moderate Muslims?

Pages: 1 2

The panel discussion below recently took place at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend in West Palm Beach, Florida (Nov. 17-20, 2011). The transcript follows. To view the question and answer session, click here

Karen Lugo: I thought this panel was of critical importance because so many of us are out there trying to talk about Islam.  And there is always the question — what about moderate Muslims?  And there’s always the question — how do we identify Muslims who would be supportive of patriotic American Constitutional values?

So over the last six months, I’ve been fairly involved in this kind of a public discussion, where I’ve done over 50 radio interviews in the last three, four months.  I’ve been before five city councils, county board of supervisors, city planning commissions on mosque permits, and learning with a core group of people in my area how to have this conversation with public entities, elected officials.

We have also visited mosques on Open Mosque Day.  We went, and to show — rather than just kind of cursing the darkness, which — at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, we are very good about identifying what is the challenge to our Western traditions.  But in our case, we’ve decided to go into the mosques and ask the questions, record the answers, engage in a very local community fashion; so that we know who in our community is participating with us and supporting the Constitutional values and liberties that we support in America.

So in doing this, of course, it has been a matter of how we have this conversation.  And there are no better qualified people to do this than the four panelists that will be discussing it today.

You may have already been somewhat involved in tracking the debate — the discussion, conversation — that Andrew McCarthy and Robert Spencer have been having on National Review Online.  I’m going to introduce the panelists in series.  They will speak in series for about 10 minutes each.  And then we’ll have some time for questions.  Those of you that are just coming in, there are additional chairs on the way.  So they should be arriving soon.  I will check on those in just a minute.

But we wanted to leave as much time as possible.  We do only have an hour.  So we wanted to leave as much time as we could for question-and-answer.

So I will be cutting the biographies fairly short.  You’ll see most of these panelists again this weekend.  And we all are friends, I think, with most of the people that we see up here.

So, first of all, Andrew McCarthy.  With all of the work that I do, I either hear, “But Andrew McCarthy said,” or “Robert Spencer said,” as I’m working with all of the citizen activists in my area.  So both Andrew and Robert are very, very well known.

But we know and love Andy for the fact that in 1995, he successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheikh.  He is also author of “Willful Blindness,” which is the story of that prosecution, and very interesting for learning what our criminal courts can and cannot do, and the possible hazards of having these trials in criminal courts.  He’s also written “The Grand Jihad,” and he’s up on National Review Online.  And so, definitely make sure you are following him there.

Robert Spencer has written many books on Islam and helping us understand what is at the core and the heart of Islam.  Robert also famously — at least, in my opinion — is a consultant for many military as well as some civilian enterprises. And I was delighted to be reading — I’m a big fan of Brad Thor novels.  And the last one that I read, which was “The Last Patriot” — at the end of the book, Robert Spencer is credited as having advised Brad Thor.  So I was greatly excited to know that.

But in addition, I was just as the Federalist Society convention, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey gave a seminal speech on Islam, starting with the history and going right to where we are in this nation today.  Was very courageous, very declarative.  And in that speech, he quoted our own Robert Spencer.  So we are very proud and pleased to have Robert on this panel as well.

And then, a new face to some of us — Bosch Fawstin, who is a cartoonist and has been nominated for several awards, including one that’s the equivalent of an Emmy.  He is working on a graphic novel which will be called “The Infidel.”  And his lead character/superhero is called Pigman.


And as the Europeans have learned, there is a very, very interesting and, I think, proper role in a society like ours for wit and for ridicule in a smart fashion.  I’m one who’s very emphatic about reasonable speech.  But provoking the discussion, I think, in a smart and clever way can sometimes be a very productive thing.  So we’re very interested to hear from Bosch today.

And then finally, we will hear from the Baroness Caroline Cox, who was recommended for her peerage by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  She’s a cross-bench member of the House of Lords and was Deputy Speaker from 1986 to 2006.  She’s very involved now in African and Armenian human rights issues and supporting the Christian communities against the Muslim oppression.  And she also was involved in a lot of other human rights concerns.

She’s known as a Euro-skeptic.  Here in the US, we call people phobic when they’re against something.  But in Great Britain, she’s a skeptic, a Euro-skeptic.  And importantly, she has introduced over this last summer an initiative called One Law for All, which would bring the Sharia tribunals back under the British courts.

So, we’ll start with Andrew McCarthy.


Andrew McCarthy: Thank you, Karen.

Karen was good enough to mention the Blind Sheikh case.  And it’s worth going back to it because this is sort of how I not only come into this challenge, but to try to reflect the debt I owe to Robert Spencer.  I think that when I got involved in trying to confront this — really, civilizational threat is the right way to put it — I knew nothing more about Islam than somebody’s who’s got a reasonably good education in the United States, which is to say not much.

And I wanted to believe what we were saying as a Justice Department, which was essentially that there was a fringe group — very, very small; almost unnoticeable, except that they were involved in committing such heinous acts — but they were totally unrepresentative of Islam, and that if we could just shave off this fringe, everything would be fine.  Because Islam itself was peaceful and wonderful, and one of the great religious traditions of the world.  And I wanted to believe that.  And I think almost everybody in the government, when we first started to say those sorts of things, really did believe that.

What ended up happening was — in almost every trial, whether the lead defendant testifies or not, you have to get ready for him as if he were going to testify — and so it was with the Blind Sheikh.  And he didn’t end up testifying.  But I actually had to go to school on everything that we had that he had either written or said.  And he was a very prolific speaker and writer.

And the problem that emerged over time, as I got immersed in his work product, was that every place that he said that the scripture said X or Y, he was not lying.  He was not perverting Islam.  It turned out that every place that he purported to quote scripture he was correct.

And you know, I wasn’t going to try to get into a theological debate with a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence from Al-Azhar University.  But I did think, if we were right, that we ought to be able to nail him in one or two or three places.  And there was no place you could do that.

Then, it started to dawn on me slowly that — well, you know, there’s not a whole lot that he could do for a terrorist organization.  He can’t build a bomb, can’t conduct an attack.  There’s nothing really that you would think of that a terrorist organization does that this guy would be particularly useful for them on, except that he was a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence, graduated from Al-Azhar University.  And that singularly was the source of his ability to influence this movement and, actually, in fact, made him the most important person in the cell and in the cells that were being constructed.  Because without his green light, things would not go forward, which I think underscores how powerful the ideology is that we’re talking about.

And then there was the final thing that really pushed me over the edge, which was we had a very extensive defense case, because we had such a long trial.  The trial was nine months long.  I think the defense case took about two and a half months.  And during the course of the defense case, we had people who were actually moderate Muslim people who would come in to testify.  And they really were moderate people — they wouldn’t commit a terrorist act or even think about committing a terrorist act, no matter what.

But every now and then while they were on the stand, some question about Islam would come up — you know, what does jihad mean, what is Sharia, what is Zakat? And three or four times, these perfectly nice, moderate people would say — well, I wouldn’t be qualified to render an opinion on that.  You’d have to ask someone like him.  And they would always point to the homicidal maniac —


— in the corner of my courtroom.  And I thought it was — in real-life terms, it was a very powerful lesson — that you had these people who were ordinary, peaceful people who would not become terrorists under any circumstances.  And yet, with respect to principal parts of their belief system, they were willing to take their guidance from somebody who was a five-alarm terrorist.  So I thought — I came away thinking, from that experience, that man, we have this just totally backwards.

The good thing about a trial, particularly a trial of that nature, is that no matter what politically correct thing the government happens to be saying on the courthouse steps or down in Washington, in the four corners of the trial, you actually have to prove to people what happened, what the people did and why they did it.  So we didn’t have politically correct Islam in our courtroom; we actually had, you know, what I now call Islamist ideology.  And the question is — is it Islamist ideology, or is it Islam?

There’s the other side of this.  We could not have done that case without patriotic American Muslims who helped us at every step of the way, either by infiltrating the cells, by helping us whip the evidence into shape, by helping us present it, by giving us intelligence.  It was a very interesting dynamic.  There were many people who were in the Muslim community, rank-and-file Muslims, who wanted to help the government, knowing exactly what it was that we were doing.  Their condition to me usually was — I can only help you if no one will ever find out that I spoke to you.

And it became very obvious to us that there was a big divide between rank-and-file Muslim people in the community, who — at least among the older generations of them — tended to be pro-American and pro-Western, and the leadership of the mosques and the Islamic communities, who tended to be very heavily influenced by overseas elements, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood.  So you had this divide.

Here’s the problem.  The guys from overseas, whether it’s the Muslim Brotherhood or the other groups that give the guidance to both the mosques and the community centers — when they quote scripture, it’s not like they’re — when they tell you what they think, and they root it in Islam, it’s not like they’re dancing on the head of a pin.  When they say it’s in there, it’s in there.  And when they rely on it, they are not relying on something that’s an aberration.

And this goes to, as I said, the debt I owe to Robert.  I think singularly in the country, if there’s anybody who has given us a coherent, deep read on what this ideology really is — and the fact that it is not just coherent, but it is mainstream, and it is what basically is the mainstream ideology of Sunni Islam — it’s Robert Spencer.


And I continue to learn every day, reading what Robert writes.

The issue we have — and whether it’s debate-worthy or discussion-worthy, or what worthy — I’ll leave it to you to decide — is — what do we do about the non-Islamist Muslims?  And I’ve assumed a fact that’s not in evidence, which is that “Islamist” is even a valid term, but engage me for a moment.  I think it’s absolutely clear that the marriage of the political elements and what are the spiritual elements of Islam are one.  And in mainstream Islamic scripture, mainstream Islamic doctrine, there’s no question that there’s no division between the sacred authority and the political authority — they’re one.

The reality of the world, however, is that we have many, many Muslims, millions and millions of Muslims, who don’t want to live that way, who embrace the West, who don’t want to live in Sharia societies.  Some of them are trying to interpret their religion in a way that, as they say, contextualizes the troublesome elements of it, so that they can create an Islam that’s congenial to Western ideas about separating church and state, separating the religious elements from the political.

I confess, when I read what they write, I don’t find it particularly compelling.  For the most part, I think it’s a work in progress.  I think, you know, compared to what I like to call Islamist ideology, it’s not particularly coherent, it’s not well-rooted in scripture the way that Islamic — what I call Islamist ideology is.  But I think we have to give them the space to try to evolve their belief systems.

And the reason I use the term “Islamist,” the reason I think it’s a valuable term to use — a means of separating one camp from the other — is I just don’t think that if you’re taking people who we want to have on our side in this struggle — and the people who we have to hope at some point will be able to reform if not the entirety of their religion, at least the way that it exists in the West — that we have to have some space where they can do that.  And I think the distinction between Islam and Islamist allows us to identify the people who actually want to impose Sharia on the West versus the people who are Muslims — whether they’re just culturally Muslim or they have a different way of interpreting their religion — but who want to live here and live among us as Americans, as Westerners; and not be identified as Sharia Muslims.

Am I confident that that will happen, that those people will actually succeed, that they can actually reform their religion?  No, not particularly.  But I think we have to give them a chance.  I’m not completely convinced they can’t do it, either.  But I just don’t see what the sense is of taking your natural allies — the people that you want on your side, the people who have in their community actually contributed to our counterterrorism — and tell them that the problem is their religion, is their belief system; and that, you know — basically address them in a way that tells them that we think that their choice is basically to convert.  Because, you know, the problem that we face is Islam.

And I say that, I hope, with my eyes open.  I appreciate the fact that a lot of the people who use the term “Islamist” use it in a fraudulent way, to suggest that, you know, the Islamists are just — what I was talking about back in 1993, just a handful of terrorists; and everybody else is a moderate Muslim.  And I think if that’s going to be their interpretation of it, it is a useless term, and we should reject it.

But we do have people who are trying to reform this belief system.  And I think we have to give them what encouragement we have to give.  I’ll leave it at that.


Robert Spencer: Andy said we’d have to — what do we do about the non-Islamist Muslims?  And I’d like to amend the question just slightly, to say — what do we do about the non-Islamist Muslim?  And after we have expressed our support for Zuhdi Jasser, then where do we go?



I’m, of course, exaggerating.  There are indeed the people who worked with the prosecution in the case of the Blind Sheikh, and there are many others who work.  But they work under the cover of darkness, they work not wanting to be recognized, precisely because the situation is what it is within Islam.

The question about giving people the space to reform the religion cannot really be answered until we understand how religions reform in the first place.  And do we reform the religion of Islam by pretending that it is other than what it is?  Or do we reform the religion of Islam by confronting the elements of it that are outrageous to universally accepted notions of human rights, and call upon Muslims who do want to live according to universally recognized notions of human rights to fight against those ideas?  There aren’t really very many historical precedents for reformation in religion.  But of course, the main one is the Reformation.

So let me put it to you this way.  Imagine, in 1517, that instead of nailing the 95 theses to the door of the church in Gutenberg that Martin Luther had said — how dare you suggest that the Catholic Church teaches the primacy of the Pope and the doctrines of transubstantiation and the perpetual virginity of Mary.  You must be a venomous Catholic-hater, a Catholophobe.


And I stand for the true Catholicism, which has none of that in it — now, that would have been absurd.  Because obviously, the Church did teach all those things.  And those were the things, among others, that Martin Luther objected to.  And Martin Luther did not set out to reform the Church.  Whatever one may think of the necessity or the veracity of the charges, all that is beside the point.  But he did not set out to reform the Church by pretending it was otherwise than what it was.  He set out to reform the Church by confronting the doctrines he thought were false and calling upon people to discard them.  Now, that ended up creating a schism, of course, a number of schisms, such that there are Catholics and Protestants in the world today.  And maybe that’s what would happen in Islam.

But the problem is also compounded by the fact that Islam has a doctrine of religious deception.  It not only has doctrines of warfare and subjugation of unbelievers that are universal among the sects and schools of law in Islam, but it also has doctrines of deception.  And that makes it doubly difficult.

Because unfortunately, I think, with all the best intensions, Andy — by trying to separate out the supremacists and marshal elements of Islam from Islam — is enabling the deceivers.  Because the deceivers sound just like reformers.  Or almost just like reformers.  They come around — and actually, you can turn on the television any given moment and see them, and they’ll say — Islam doesn’t teach any of this, and we reject all this.  And we abhor terrorism. And really, the problem is Islamophobia and unjustified suspicion of the peaceful Muslim community.

And invariably, when you start to look into the people who are saying this, they’re connected to one or another Muslim Brotherhood group.  And the Muslim Brotherhood, of course — as you all, I’m certain, know — is dedicated, in its own words, to eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.  And what better way to do that but to render us complacent in the face of the reality of this threat, and make it such that we are afraid to speak about it in its full dimensions?  Because we think, on the one hand, that if we do that we will be charged with being bigoted, racist and hateful, and our professional prospects will be dim.  And you know, I certainly know that.  I’m 10 years an Islamophobe now, and I can’t get another job.


But also, that we will be discouraging the few actual genuine Muslim reformers will be hurting Zuhdi.

And so, for those two reasons, we cannot speak about this problem honestly.  And so, the situation we are in now is one that I think was summed up very tellingly by a young man in a video store who ended up foiling the Fort Dix jihad plot.

We all know, of course, that in Fort Hood, Major Nidal Hasan murdered 13 Americans in a jihad attack.  And we know, of course, that the United States government in its report on that attack never mentioned jihad or Islam, even though the guy was handing out Korans that morning, and he was shouting Allahu Akbar, and had given off many signs of what he was all about for years before that.  And that is, of course, part of the fact — the reason why the government does that is because we don’t want to alienate the moderate Muslim community, which of course also Nidal Hasan lived and moved among, and they never did anything about him.

But also, there was a lesser-known attempted attack at Fort Dix.  And at Fort Dix, it was a number of Albanian Muslims who were enjoying watching the gory al-Qaeda videos of beheadings and things like that.  But they had them on VHS.  And technology marched on.  And so they went to the video store to get them transferred to DVD.

And — this is a true story.  I know it’s unbelievable.  And the young man working in the video store — he’s doing the job, and he’s seeing these horrible images unfold before his eyes.  And he goes to his manager.  And he says — you know, there’s some very disturbing things on this tape, and I’m thinking maybe we should go to the police.  But would that just be racist?


This is actually what he said.  And to his credit, the manager encouraged him.  They went to the police, they foiled the plot.

But the point is that in both cases, you have the entire United States government, and you have individuals who have been breathing the air of our politically correct culture.  And they are afraid to confront this monstrous evil because they think that it will cause some even greater evil if they do.  And so they dissimulate, and they pretend that things are other than the way they are.  And what exactly does it get us?

I can’t tell you how many times — and I expect if you thought that you would be in the same situation — how many times have you read an article since 9/11 that said — it’s time for the moderate Muslims in the United States to stand up and show that they oppose this?  And then, the next year — it’s time for — and every year, it’s time.  Well, when are they going to get on it?  When are we going to learn the lesson of the fact that they have not done so, and examine the implications of that?

The reality is that Islam does teach these things, as Andy acknowledges.  Islam does teach warfare and subjugation.  If there are Muslims — and there certainly are — who do not want to kill or subjugate us, then I applaud them.  But they can only succeed if they confront the problem honestly.

And we can only truly encourage them if we confront the problem honestly.  Anything else leads to bad policy.  We’ve been pretending they weren’t Islamists in Pakistan for a decade now, giving them billions every year to fight al-Qaeda.  And what’d they do?  They gave the money to al-Qaeda.  But we had our Islam/Islamist distinction, and they were on the good side.  And so that was as far as it went.  Well, the implications are obvious.

Thank you.


Bosch Fawstin: Hello.  I’m honored to be here.  I was invited here with a short notice.  So if you don’t mind, I’m going to read some stuff that I prepared.

I come from a Muslim Albanian background, and born and raised in America.  We were non-devout.  But it was enough where it still had detrimental things in our lives growing up.

So, you know, one thing — the entire context here is the fact that we are at war.  We are at war.  This is not — we’re indulging things that are outside of that in order to try to create this Islam that doesn’t exist.  Because there are, you know, Muslims who are not terrorists; therefore, they’re practicing some other sort of Islam.  And they’re not.  You know, they’re practicing life in a free country, they’re practicing something other than Islam.

You know, as Jerome Brooks said — you know, even though I disagree with him in terminology, we agree on this — we need to identify the enemy and do whatever is necessary to eliminate the threat, with minimal loss of life and liberty on our side.

You know, Andrew McCarthy said — early this morning, he said we need to put American interests first.  I absolutely agree with that.  So we need to identify the right terms to use so we can defend our interests.  [I think] Islam — you know, not Islamism, militant Islam, radical Islam, totalitarian Islam, every other Islam that we hear about — Islam is the right term to name the ideology that we must criticize, reject, ultimately defeat, regardless of there are non-Muslim Muslims out there.  And the implication with all those terms is that Islam as such is fine.  It’s all the other, bad Islams that are the problem.

And you know, post-9/11, I read the Koran.  I read Robert’s books.  Everything I could get my hands on — jihad, Islam.  And I just — Islam is not fine, Islam as such.  Islam promotes anti-Semitism, misogyny.  And being raised again as a non-devout Muslim, there was still an admiration for Hitler in my household.  My cousins.  Because of the anti-Semitism.  And Hitler — there was a mutual admiration society between Nazism and Islam.  Hitler admired Islam as a “masculine religion.”

And you know, besides the explicit doctrines of jihad and Sharia, I know firsthand from being raised by non-devout Muslims — my mom, even — I come home one day, and she’s crying.  And I was worried about her.  I said — what happened, what happened?  My first niece was born.  And she was mourning the birth of a female, of a baby girl.  Because she had projected the idea that her life would be miserable.  It will have to be miserable, there’s no way out.  And in Islam, women, in a lot of ways, are necessary evils.  They can bring into the world male Muslim heirs.

Besides that — and while it’s true that only a small minority actually wage jihad — small minority of Muslims — it’s equally true that only a small minority criticize them.  How many Muslims celebrated 9/11?  Far too many.  We don’t even know.  In America, the Middle East, Europe.  You know.  And imagine in the past, if we referred to enemy ideologies such as radical Nazism.


Militant communism.  You know, that kind of thinking leads us to try to find moderate Nazis.  You know.


In lieu of waging a proper war in our defense.  Because that’s the most important thing here — our defense.  Not their defense, not the Muslim world’s future — our future.  And you know, besides using the correct term, “Islam,” at times, in order to distinguish between individual Muslims and Islam as such, I use the term “organized Islam.”  That doesn’t connote anything besides the fact that [you have] Islam is bad as such.  And if it’s organized, it’s even worse.

Pages: 1 2

  • mrbean

    The tension between moderate Muslims and the Islamics is unsustainable. What happens when the Islamics push for expanding the scope of sharia a bit more? If sharia can govern banking and trade, for example, why not other aspects of life? Why not also institute Islamic punishments, such as beheading apostates? Having accepted in principle the ideal of sharia, moderate Muslims have no grounds to reject further means to that end. They can offer no principled opposition to the slaughter of infidels who refuse to submit, or of apostates who claim the freedom to choose their own convictions. In the face of the incremental or rapid advance of the Jihadist goal, the moderate Muslims are in the long run impotent. If Islam is the ideal, why practice it in moderation? In any conflict it is always the more consistent and the most ruthless that will win

    • ASG

      As illistrated in McCarthy's story, that is exactly what happens. The leaders of the Muslim Communities don't allow much free thought, they are forced to refer to the Imam on religious topics because they are usually not beven allowed to study it. The men that become religious leaders are hand picked by the people already in power. They just now at certain times of the day they need to stop and recite the prayers they are taught. In Middle Eastern countries they even have PA systems throughout the city to remind them when to do so and make sure it is being done to the exact ways they want it done. Currently the "Moderates" are just uneducated.

  • Stephen_Brady

    Work with the "moderate Nazis"? That was a classic line, and one I intend to use, in the future. Thank you, Mr. Fawstin!

  • joy52

    If Islamists were going to reform, they would be working on it by now. They aren't. Just like if the Palis wanted peace, they would have had it by now. They don't.
    The call fought by MB groups is to deal with the threat as it exists.

    I advocate for islam to be labeled what it is–a death cult, not worthy of the legal designation of a religion. They can have their mosques–as community centers as allowed by local communities. Enough already. They are not on the same footing as "love thy neighbor".

  • ASG

    The problem with all this "Moderate Muslim" crap is simply put Taqqiya and Kitman. You'll never truely know what's in the heart of any of them (if any of them have one). It troubles me that brilliant people involved in this discussion can't see that. McCarthy is a brilliant guy, I've heard him lecture in person, and he is brilliant. But how can we trust any of them?

  • Boston

    A moderate Moslem is one who will not kill you this week. As for next week or next month, all bets are off.

  • tanstaafl

    The only difference between "moderate" Muslims and jihadis is a lack of armament and opportunity.

  • Jaladhi

    The mythical "moderate" Muslims are just that – mythical!! They do not exist in real world and are figment of imagination of PC crowd, Muslim apologists and Muslims themselves. After all existence of such creature does provide cover to all Muslims who are really radicals or just Muslims. So why wouldn't they hype about poor "moderate" Muslims who are maligned by so called radicals. The truth is they are all radicals and are wolves in sheep's clothing!!

  • ObamaYoMoma

    First of all, there is no such things as moderate Muslims, secular Muslims, non-practicing Muslims, Islamist Muslims, radical Muslims, and extremist Muslims, or moderate Islam, radical Islam, and extremist Islam, as all of those things are false PC multicultural myths created as reactions to Islam. There are only MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS or otherwise blasphemous apostates, and there is only MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX ISLAM.

    As a matter of fact, the sixth and most important pillar of Islam makes it an obligatory duty in Islam for EVERY MUSLIM ON EARTH to fight jihad in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme. No exceptions.

    Indeed, the sixth and most important pillar of Islam doesn't make it an obligatory duty only for RADICAL MUSLIMS to fight jihad in the cause of Allah, and the sixth and most important pillar of Islam doesn't make it an obligatory duty only for EXTREMIST MUSLIMS to fight jihad in the cause of Allah, and the sixth and most important pillar of Islam doesn't make it an obligatory duty only for ISLAMIST MUSLIMS to fight jihad in the cause of Allah, while at the same time giving an exemption and a free pass for MODERATE MUSLIMS to fight jihad in the cause of Allah. Instead, the sixth and most important pillar of Islam makes it an obligatory duty in Islam for ALL MUSLIMS ON EARTH to fight jihad in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme. No exceptions.

    Thus, ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS ON EARTH are jihadists. A few of them are violent jihadists, while the vast overwhelming majority of them are non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists, and the few that are not jihadists are not Muslims at all, but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed.

    Therefore, those so-called moderate Muslims that volunteered to help Andrew McCarthy during the blind Sheikh trial, as long as no one found out about it, are not really so-called moderate Muslims at all, but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed. Which is why they volunteered to help Andrew McCarthy as long as no one found out about it, because blasphemy and apostasy in Islam as opposed to true faith-based religions, by the way, are capital offenses.

    In addition, there is only one Islam – MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX ISLAM – because there can only be one Islam, as the text and tenets of Islam, which are believed to be divine because they emanate directly from Allah (God), are immutable and anyone seen as trying to change just one word of those texts and tenets would instantly be recognized as a blasphemer, which is a capital offense in Islam.

    Now this is not to say that there aren't different sects of MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX ISLAM, because there are obviously two major sects: Sunni and Shi'a, and also minor sects such as Sufis, Wahhabis, Salifists, Deobandis, Twelvers, Fivers, Seveners, etc., for instance, plus various schools of Islamic jurisprudence in both Sunni and Shi'a Islam.

    Furthermore, hoping that Islam can be reformed just in the nick of time to save the West is not only engaging in wishful thinking but it is also an exercise in futility. As Islam requires total, complete, and unconditional submission to the will of Allah, as the word Islam in Arabic means “submission” and the word Muslim in Arabic means “one who submits.”

    Thus, unlike in faith-based religions where adherents are perfectly free to question and even challenge the texts and tenets of their respective religions and to even leave their respective religions or convert to another religion altogether if they so desire, in Islam, on the other hand, because the freedom of conscience is forbidden, those same actions, blasphemy in the first instance and apostasy in the second, are both capital offenses.

    Indeed, what faith-based religions also make blasphemy and apostasy a capital offense? Of course, the correct answer is none of them do. Which proves irrefutably at the same time that Islam is not a faith-based religion at all.

    Instead, Islam is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology that masquerades as being a faith-based religion for the purpose of stealth to deceive the societies it intends to eventually subjugate into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia for stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme.

    As a matter of fact, Islam is far closer to Communism than it is to being a faith-based religion, as just like Communism Islam seeks world domination and the end result of Islam, exactly like Communism, is totalitarianism and lots and lots of misery.

    The biggest problem today that blinds Westerners to the realities of Islam stems from PC multiculturalism, which not only erroneously morally equates all cultures as being equal, but also erroneously conflates and morally equates jihad with terrorism, even though jihad and terrorism are mutually exclusive manifestations and two entirely very different and distinctive manifestations altogether.

    –continued below

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Indeed, terrorism, which as it name implies is always only violent and can be for any number of political causes, is a Western manifestation only. While jihad, on the other hand, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme, in stark contrast to terrorism can be both violent and non-violent and unlike terrorism is always only in the cause of Allah, is an Islamic manifestation only.

    Thus, with respect to Robert Spencer's statement that Muslims abhor terrorism, the reality is they really do abhor terrorism. Since terrorism is a Western manifestation only that can be for any number of political causes, it is therefore un-Islamic and considered to be blasphemy in Islam, and again in Islam blasphemy is a capital offense.

    Hence, when GWB declared a “War on Terror” in response to 9/11, in reality he declared war on what really is a Western manifestation only, which should give everyone a pretty good idea of how incredibly incompetent GWB actually was.

    Unfortunately, in response to 9/11 he also erroneously proclaimed “Islam to be a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists” as well, which is a false PC multicultural myth.

    Regrettably, that idiotic proclamation based on a false PC multicultural myth still undergirds our fantasy based “War on Terror” to this day. Indeed, it is still to this day our government's official position on Islam, and not only our government's official position, but in fact also the official position of both major political parties in this country, demonstrating at the same time that the Dhimmicrat Party and the Republican Party are really two sides of the same leftwing coin, thanks in large part to GHWB and GWB, which were both really stealth leftists, but I digress.

    In any event, conflating and morally equating jihad with terrorism, per the dictates of PC multiculturalism, is a very fatal mistake because terrorism as it name implies is always only violent. However, jihad in stark contrast to terrorism can be both violent and non-violent, and the non-violent varieties of jihad relative to the violent varieties of jihad takes place astronomically far more prevalently.

    Yet, because terrorism as its name implies is always only violent, when jihad gets conflated and morally equated with terrorism, this mistake of conflating and morally equating jihad with terrorism enables the many non-violent varieties of stealth and deceptive jihad consequently to takes place completely unopposed, undetected, and unacknowledged.

    Furthermore, the vast overwhelming majority of jihadists in the world today are non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists that are diametrically opposed to the violent jihadists because they believe that violent jihad, as opposed to non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, is extremely counterproductive since it attracts unwanted scrutiny and focus on Islam. Indeed, on occasion non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists living in the West as a fifth column will rat out impending violent jihad attacks to prevent this counterproductive and unwanted scrutiny and focus on Islam.

    Thus, even though non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad is the primary mechanism by which Islam pursues jihad against the West today, it nevertheless takes place completely unopposed, undetected, and unacknowledged thanks again to PC multiculturalism that pervades our society.

    As a matter of fact, the reason AQ has been waging a violent jihad against the House of Saud for many years now is primarily because the House of Saud is the biggest proponent of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad in the world, while AQ, on the other hand, is the biggest advocate of violent jihad in the world. Although both Islamic factions share the same exact goal to make Islam supreme, they nonetheless violently disagree on the strategy and tactics to be employed to reach that goal.

    Therefore, I agree with Bosch Fawstin when he says that the West must define the correct terms to use to counter Islam. Indeed, it is one of the most important things the West absolutely must do to counter Islam besides denouncing and discrediting PC multiculturalism as the severely bankrupt and very destructive ideology it actually is, and the first step must be to stop conflating and morally equating jihad with terrorism, as again jihad and terrorism are mutually exclusive and two entirely very different and distinctive manifestations altogether. In fact, it is absolutely imperative that people in the fight are made to understand the differences between jihad and terrorism, as jihad is an Islamic manifestation only, while terrorism, on the other hand, is a Western manifestation only.

    Indeed, probably the most prevalent form of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad taking place today in the world completely unopposed, undetected, and unacknowledged is mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest. As Muslims never ever migrate to the West or anywhere else for that matter to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate via the eventual imposition of Sharia for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme.

    –continued below

  • ObamaYoMoma

    As a matter of fact, in country after country and anywhere and everywhere mass Muslim immigration is taking place in the world today, just like clockwork the vast overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants flat out refuse to assimilate and integrate and instead form segregated Muslim enclaves that in time morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia as fifth columns and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside. In fact, the government of France has counted 758 Muslim no-go zones in France alone.

    Yet, discussing or reporting this manifestation is always avoided like the plague by the so-called MSM, which also includes Fox News, by the way, and also by both major political parties today in this country, unequivocally demonstrating once again at the same time that both major political parties in this country are really two sides of the same leftwing coin, and never mind the fact that the left is in bed with Islam.

    An example of violent jihad, which relative to non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad is actually a quite rare occurrence, would be the 9/11 jihad attacks, and a couple of examples of terrorism as opposed to both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad would be the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Anders Breivik terrorist attack in Norway. All of them are distinctive and must be thoroughly understood if we hope to counter Islam.

    Now what to do to counter Islam? First and foremost, drop the fantasy based and totally misguided “War on Terror” ASAP, and transition to a new saner strategy of containing the growth, spread, and expansion of Islam instead. Drop the Islam is a Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists nonsense because it is a false PC multicultural myth.

    Next, outlaw Islam and ban and reverse mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage ASAP, because see above, Muslims never ever migrate to the West or anywhere else for that matter to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate via the eventual imposition of Sharia for the purpose of demographic conquest to make Islam supreme. Furthermore, the way you outlaw Islam is by proving that it isn't a faith-based religion but something else entirely different altogether: a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology instead.

    Not to mention that the massive expansion in the size, scope, and power of the federal government that GWB accomplished like a Dhimmicrat on steroids as a direct result of the 9/11 jihad attacks that not only usurped our heretofore constitutionally protected rights and freedoms, but in fact is actually bankrupting the country today, could be very substantially rolled back, as zero violent Jihadists and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists living in America would equal zero possibility of rare violent jihad attacks and at the same time virtually eliminate altogether non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad in one fell swoop.

    Not to mention that the massive expansion in the size, scope, and power of the federal government other than creating a false sense of security so that GWB could increase mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, didn't make the homeland one iota safer from rare violent jihad attacks, as the Fort Hood Massacre, the Christmas Day Bomber, the Times Square Bomber, and the Arkansas Jihad Attack all more than prove. In fact, because mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage was actually increased post 9/11, the homeland today is actually more vulnerable to rare violent jihad attack than even before the 9/11 jihad attacks.

    As a matter of fact, had GWB not proclaimed Islam to be Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, and had outlawed Islam and banned and reversed mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage instead, not only would all those innocent Americans that were killed in cold-blood in America in violent jihad attacks still be alive and well today, but the country wouldn’t be teetering on the brink of bankruptcy like it is as well.

    Hence, we are contemplating massively cutting the budget, massively raising taxes, and at the same time implementing draconian cuts to our military today in order to continue accommodating mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage. Indeed, how many Republicans and Dhimmicrats are proposing today to outlaw Islam and ban and reverse mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage as a solution to our current financial woes? The answer unfortunately is absolutely zero, proving unequivocally once again at the same time that both major political parties in this country are two sides of he same leftwing political coin, and never mind the fact that the left is in bed with with Islam.

    –continued below

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Indeed, all Christians and non-Muslim unbelievers living in Islamic countries today as second-class dhimmi citizens are violently oppressed and systematically persecuted when not outright slaughtered altogether. Yet, we never read or hear about it in the so-called MSM, which includes Fox News, why? It's because like both major political parties in this country, they are controlled by the left, and never mind the fact that the left is in bed with Islam.

    Next, to counter Islam we must stop the Iranian ruling Mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons at all cost, because if we don't, the Saudi funded nuclear weapons arsenal sitting in Pakistan will be proliferated throughout the Sunni Islamic world, and the Islamic world with its imperative to make Islam supreme will become armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. In addition, an Islamic world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons will inevitably become far more belligerent and aggressive.

    Hence, if you think the price of oil is sky high today, just wait until after the Islamic world becomes armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and becomes far more belligerent and aggressive to see how much higher oil prices will inevitably skyrocket.

    Furthermore, either through non-violent or violent means, we must confiscate and destroy the Saudi funded nuclear weapons arsenal in Pakistan and destroy the nuclear weapons program as well, as Muslims must never ever be allowed to possess nuclear weapons under any circumstances.

    Next, we don't have any other choice but to seize the Mideast oilfields and to confiscate the immense unearned oil wealth of the Saudis and the Gulf State Emirs. Otherwise they will use those assets against us perpetually to wage jihad against all non-Muslim unbelievers per the dictates of Islam forever.

    Lastly, we must isolate the Islamic world and let it devolve into crushing abject poverty until such time that Islam as a totalitarian ideology becomes totally discredited and destroyed.

    • Joe

      You have given a very accurate assessment of the situation AND what to do about it.
      It is so stupid to be "pussy-footing" with Islam any longer.
      It is nonsense to think that there can ever be a "reformation" as occurred under Luther.
      Luther was able to point out to the church of the time that they had got AWAY from their
      Holy Guide Book – the Bible and they had to come BACK to the Bible if they were to
      follow the teaching of their founder Jesus Christ. Thus Luther had a very powerful
      argument for the purification of Christianity and thence the eventual establishment of Democracy and a non-violent civilization as prescribed by Jesus Christ.
      BUT in the case of Muslims, when their leaders call them back to the so-called "holy"
      books of Islam ,they are being called to Violence against the rest of the world. For
      example – "Kill the infidel (us) wherever you may find him!!" is one of many such demands in the Koran and other books demanding obedience on pain of death if
      ignored or disobeyed.
      It is true that the average Muslim does not want to rock his personal boat by getting into a jihad BUT if the Imam demands that he rise and kill the infidels, he dare not disobey because the Koran sees such disobedience as apostasy and apostasy
      is to be punished by beheading. So he is trapped in the system and can't escape
      with his life.
      It worries me to see that the majority of boat-people coming to Australia are young men who could be fighting the jihadists back in their homeland instead of leaving
      it to our Australian young men to fight and be killed – theoretically to eliminate the
      terror from which these so-called refugees CLAIM to be escaping. It is obvious they
      come here to swell the ranks of the future jihadists who aim to overthrow our Democracy. What a racket and how stupid we are to allow it.
      I agree with OYM.'s response viz. send them back to the ME , fence them in and let them fight amongst their bloodthirsty factions which is what they will do over here
      if they eliminate our Democracy and take control. Their book calls them to murder in this life and sex in the next life. eg. 72 virgins apiece in paradise.
      There is a desperate need for us all to read the Koran to see what a disgusting
      politico-religious system Islam is. But don't read the versions they expurgate for
      giving to non-believers. That's part of "taqqya" (lying for the faith).

      BUT in the case of Islam,

  • Joe

    You are surely not suggesting that I am not being PC are you ? Wow !!

  • Joe

    Would you please tell me why my contribution has not been accepted ?

  • Mary

    Mohammad interprets the Qur'an in his sayings and actions (as recorded in the haddith and Sira). "moderate" Muslims who come to the West and try to interpret Islam in a more REASONABLE way are under Mohammad's doctrine of taysir and are not yet required to enforce Sharia law (until there are enough Muslims/Muslims in power to enforce it). As soon as Islam is strong enough, those "moderate" Muslims (who must also passively support jihad financially or passively even if not violently) are merely passive until they have to make a choice, under penalty of death for apostasy if they do not support Islam.

  • Stephen_Brady

    It has taken me a long time to come to the same conclusion as you, i.e., that there is no such thing a "moderate Islam". The second-to-last paragraph in your post was especially telling, from the standpoint of a philosopher, especially the line were you said, "it is eroding our identity at the very moment in history when Muslims desperately need our example in order to grasp the inherent morality and utility of human freedom", as you spoke about the inherent risks associated with multiculturalism.

    Excellent post!

  • ASG

    Any hope of “Moderate Muslims" existing in large numbers flew out the window during the Arab Spring. When large numbers of Muslims stand up, over throw a dictator, and then start a Jihadist cultural cleansing, and start firing missiles at Israel, I give up on looking for the needle in the haystack also referred to as "Moderate Muslims". I'm sorry, but I fear the "Moderates" in those societies are equivalent to the KKK here in the US. Sure, there are plenty that are far worse and more extreme, but their nucleus of moderation is scary enough for me.

  • Steeloak

    I agree that there is no such thing as "Moderate" Islam.
    The best analogy I can use is the Reformation. When Luther posted his 95 Theses on the cathedral door he was criticising the doctrines that were at the heart of Catholicism.
    Although he remained a Catholic, those who agreed with his complaints broke from the Catholic Church and became Protestants.
    I would suggest that this is exactly what must happen in Islam. Those who embrace the whole of Islam are equivalent to the good Catholics of Luthers' time. Those like Zuhdi Jasser must write their own version of Islam and become the "Protestants" of Islam. They cannot become moderate Muslims – that is impossible. They must become something new, which has yet to be described.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Unlike some here, I DO subscribe to the opinion that there are "moderate" Muslims, literally millions of them….they are moderate NOT because of any theological strain within Islam, but simply because they choose to ignore the facets of their religion that are immoderate.

    Actually, those aren't so-called moderate Muslims at all but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed. As Islam, which in Arabic means “submission,” as its name implies requires total, complete, and unconditional submission to the will of Allah, and the word Muslim, which means in Arabic “one who submits,” includes only those people that have submitted. Hence, any one choosing to ignore certain facets of Islam can't be Muslims, since they are not submitting totally, completely, and unconditionally to the will of Allah. Thus, they are blasphemous apostates instead that per the dictates of Islam must be executed.

    In other words, I don't have reason to believe there is any theological basis for reforming Islam.

    Actually, for many reasons it is impossible for Islam to ever be reformed, but one of the main ones is Islam is not a faith-based religion, as it is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology instead that masquerades as being a faith-based religion for the purpose of stealth to dupe the societies it intends to subjugate into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism for the purpose of demographic conquest to make Islam supreme. Therefore, those pinning their hopes on Islam reforming itself just in the nick of time to save the West, don't have the first clue about Islam and are engaging in an insane exercise of futility.

    The realistic hope is not that Islam will undergo a Reformation, but that Muslims will reform their societies with influences and inspiration that emanate OUTSIDE of the purview and dictates of Islam.

    That so-called realistic hope of Muslims reforming their societies is also an exercise in insane futility, as anything that emanates outside the purview, scope, and dictates of Islam is perceived by Muslims as being blasphemous, which in Islam is a capital offense.

    And this is only likely if there remains on planet Earth a viable, alternative model for them to emulate,…which is another reason Western multiculturalism is such a tragedy; it is eroding our identity at the very moment in history when Muslims desperately need our example in order to grasp the inherent morality and utility of human freedom.

    That's a pipe dream, blasphemy, and also impossible, in any event.. The only solution is to drive the Islamic world into crushing abject poverty via isolation until such time that Islam as a totalitarian ideology becomes totally 100 percent discredited and ultimately destroyed. The only other solution is to utterly crush it via brute military force, which would also involve killing every Muslim in the world. That would be a very bloody and brutal affair indeed and not very likely to occur, although I hear people fairly often advocating it.

    Validation of Islam only succeeds in constricting the operating space for potential Muslim reformers. When will the libs grasp as much?

    Anyone seen as attempting to reform Islam is instantly regarded as a blasphemous apostate, and per the dictates of Islam, blasphemous apostates must be executed.

    Hence, Muslims that self-proclaim themselves to be a “moderate Muslim” and “Muslim reformist” like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser loves to do, are in reality non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadist playing a game of lets dupe the gullible useful idiot kafir infidels, and indeed Dr. Zuhdi Jasser has been one of the best at playing that game. Nevertheless, he is a shyster and a fraud, and if it were up to me, I'd deport him back to Syria ASAP.