What About Moderate Muslims?

Pages: 1 2

Individual Muslims — they are what they are.  They don’t want to take part in it. But they — you know, I have family who don’t want to talk about jihad; never, ever talk about it.  They want to remain — they identify themselves as Muslim.  But they eat pork, they have dogs — which are considered filthy in Islam.  They’re — I call them post-Islamic Muslims, you know.  They’re not Muslim in any serious way.  But they sure as hell don’t want to say anything against jihad, which is troubling.  Because they give a good face to an evil ideology.

And that’s a real problem.  Because people keep saying — well, I know a good Muslim.  He’s, you know, a nice guy.  But he doesn’t personify the religion.  You know, and if he does — if he’s pro-Israel, he sure as hell doesn’t, you know, personify the religion.  And you know, my thinking is, in general, your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, morally superior to Islam itself.  It’s the consistent practitioners who are the problem.

Then you got individuals like Irshad Manji, who wants Islam to return to its fun — clever, fun-loving roots.

(Laughter)

She’s another non-Muslim Muslim.  And Zuhdi Jasser — while he may be a good individual amongst us, according to Islam, he’s bad.  Because he’s like — he might as well be an apostate.  You know, you can’t be against Sharia, against jihad, and be for Islam.  In a literal sense, you really can’t.  So his Islam, in a lot of ways, I call Zuhdi Jasser-ism.

(Laughter)

You know, it’s a subjective, individualist view of Islam.  And it gets in the way of us seeing the actual threat for what it is and what it promotes.

And then, you know, the political agenda furthering the myth of “moderate Islam” is good only insofar as it furthers our interests.  We cannot sacrifice the truth or refrain from fighting the war we need to fight in the proper way.  I see no widespread moderate movement, and I don’t want to help create one at our expense.

Thank you.

(Applause)

Baroness Caroline Cox: Well, good afternoon.

And I stand before you this afternoon as someone who has no illusions whatever about the threats of contemporary Islamism, political Islam and strategic Islam to our liberal democracies.  And I’m deeply concerned about the way in which political Islam is using the freedoms of democracy to destroy democracy itself and the freedoms it enshrines.

My own engagement with Islam began actually further afield, when I confronted military Islam firsthand, face to face, in the warzones of Southern Indonesia, in the Malukas and Sulawesi.  And Laskar Jihad was there.  And many hundreds were being killed and thousands displaced [in] Ambon.  And 5,000 Laskar Jihad warriors [were in] Ambon alone and saw the killings.

I’ve been in Sudan and Southern Sudan many times, over 30 times, in the war against the South, when Khartoum was perpetrating its jihad against the peoples of the South.  And I went 30 times to areas designated as no-go areas to international aid organizations.  Because they didn’t want to aid victims or anyone to tell the world what it was doing.  So I went to those places 30 times.  They do not love me.  They give me a prison sentence for illegal entry.  So thank you for being inclusive and having a convict with you this afternoon.

Northern Nigeria — we’re currently working in Northern Nigeria.  Many killings already this year in Northern Nigeria.

And as far as the UK is concerned, at the moment we are confronting very real strategies by political Islam, as I said, to use the freedoms of democracy to destroy that democracy.  And I discern nine kinds of strategies being used by political Islam around the world today, including in Britain.  And I’ll be saying a little bit about this tonight and much more tomorrow afternoon.

But those strategies include the political strategies; legal — we already have Sharia law in United Kingdom — financial — Sharia finance is extremely dangerous — demographic strategies, and cultural — massive investment in our cultural institutions to try and attain a culture of hegemony; and abroad, military jihad, and the humanitarian — use of humanitarian aid.

So I’m not an optimist at all.  Not naïve.  When I look at the nature of Islam itself as a traditional religion, I would share your analyses earlier on.  Yes, of course there are the verses of the sword, but there are — I mean, there are versus of peace.  They sound so irenic, and we could all love to think that they were the real motivating force of international Islam.

The verses of the sword are there.  And what is very worrying is the principle of abrogation — that because the verses of the sword are inconsistent with the verses of peace, and Allah cannot be inconsistent, the traditional Islamic scholars developed the principle of abrogation, whereby the later revelations of the Prophet abrogated the earlier revelations.  And unfortunately for all of us, the later revelations were the verses of the sword.  So Islam is not inherently a religion of peace.

Similarly, amongst the teachings of Islam, the world is only divided into two — the dar al-harb or the dar al-Islam.  The world of Islam — we’re already living under Islam — or the world of war.  There’s no alternative.  So if you’re not living in an Islamic nation, you’re living in a world of war.  And of course, you have an obligation to do what you can to try to achieve that for Islam.  And that, as we already heard, is perfect legit to use deception [or to kill], as any of us might in a war situation.  So I’m not an optimist at all, as will be coming up very clearly in my later presentations.

But what may we perhaps do in this context?  First of all, I would say to all of us — we must know our Islam.  Do our homework.  (Inaudible) in Britain, there are often very well-meaning interfaith dialogues.  And the Christians come.  The Christians spend the whole time apologizing for all the dreadful things we did in the Crusades, and everything else.  I mean, I say the Crusades were nothing to apologize about — they were the response to 400 years of Islamic aggression.  But we’ve got a great guilt complex about the Crusades, so we spend our time apologizing, and our Muslim friends agree, so it’s all very peaceful.  And that’s many of our interfaith dialogues.

But also, I think we must — and I’ll be saying more about this later — begin to draw very clear lines in the sand, to say enough is enough, to protect our democratic freedoms and our precious heritage — our freedom, for which many have died.  And among the ways of doing that — in Britain at the moment, I am introducing a private members bill in the House of Lords to try to address the question of Sharia law.  We already have over 60 Sharia courts in UK.  And of course, they have fundamental discrimination against women, so they violate all our purported commitments to gender equality in United Kingdom.  And women are really suffering in Britain — Muslim women are really suffering.

So that is my black and bleak scenario.  But I do search for some signs, possibly, of hope.  And this is where I may diverge from one or two of the other speakers.

Going back to Indonesia — when I was down in Indonesia at the height of the Laskar Jihad’s assaults on the communities there, the traditional Muslim leaders did not want that jihad.  Indonesia, the world’s largest Islamic nation, does have an honorable tradition of religious tolerance.  It’s written into their [pandrocina], their constitution.

And Christians and Hindus and others have been allowed to live peaceably in those areas where they have chosen to live for a very long time.  And there were foreign elements that came in from Middle East and Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Laskar Jihad.  But after awhile, the traditional Muslim leaders wanted to normalize relations with the predominantly Christian communities.  And they were brave people.  Because Laskar Jihad didn’t want peace.

And I remember talking to Mr. [Elvi], one of the Muslim leaders from Ambon.  And he said to me — you know, if I go to the next interfaith meeting and I get killed, my daughter said to me — daddy, I will be very proud of you.  There was a brave Muslim, who was trying to go against violent Islamist jihad.  That’s an individual — and individuals, from a slightly larger, national level — who was enabled to hope to establish an organization with an endless title.  It’s called the International Islamic Christian Organisation for Reconciliation and Reconstruction.  [To most, it] abbreviates to IICORR.

But at the launch, the former and our late president of Indonesia, Abdurrahman Wahid, was present.  He was our president, and he was promoting this.  And in his speech, he said something which again is perhaps something which we can put as a ray of hope on the horizon.  And I’m now paraphrasing, using a terminology he would not use, because it’s a Christian terminology.  But basically, he was saying Islam is at a crossroads; Islam has to have its reformation.  And basically, Islam has to learn how to do away with that principle of abrogation, whereby the verses of the sword override the verses of peace.

And that was a very successful initiative.  The British government did fund an interfaith delegation to come to the UK to work out principles of reconciliation and reconstruction away from the conflict zone.  When they went back, they were able to contain renewed incipient conflict very quickly because of the good relations established.  And there has been peace in Ambon since then.  I met an Indonesian politician just a few months ago who said that was a successful initiative.

Now, I have no illusions — Laskar Jihad have gone on elsewhere.  And so we are tiny, tiny, possible beginnings of rays of hope.  I don’t put it much more strongly than that, but that was a successful initiative.

Secondly, I was preaching — or speaking, rather, at an interfaith conference in Paris for the Abrahamic Faiths two or three years ago.  And before me, all the speakers were just so cheerful.  It was like pink candy frost, all the lovely and good, and nothing to be too skeptical about.  Interfaith dialogues and initiatives that were going on everywhere.  There wasn’t a hint of the kind of problems that bring us here together today.

Well, I just felt only the truth could make us free.  So I stood up and gave a rather tougher talk about what I’ve been talking about — the principle of abrogation, about the nature of Sharia, about the nature of military jihad, about the sort of things that are challenging us, about Islamism and traditional Islamic theology.  And I came off shaking at the knees.  Because I had been saying the unspeakable things.

There was a Jordanian priest there who, just as I got off the platform, said — thank you for saying all the things I couldn’t say.  But there were 12 ladies with hijabs from Iraq, Muslim ladies from Iraq.  I went up there, and I said — ladies, I do hope I haven’t offended you in what I’ve been saying today about Islam.  They said — no.  Thank goodness you were here, we praise God you were here.  You’re the only one who spoke with any sense.  We were so fed up with all the stuff that went before, we were about to go home.  You were the only one who said what needed to be said.  And you’re the only one who had the courage to mention Sharia, and we hate Sharia.

Well, I got to know those Muslim ladies from Iraq very well.  We had little group meetings.  I became their very own baroness.  And we were able to share at a very deep level.  And there again were women, Muslim women, who were suffering very much under traditional Islam.

Thirdly, very briefly — in the UK, as I mentioned, I’m bringing in a bill to try to address the issue of Sharia law, Sharia courts in the UK, and particularly with regard to gender discrimination and women suffering in our country.  And there are some brave Muslims who are supporting me in that bill.

There’s an organization called British Muslims for Secular Democracy.  There’s a very brave young woman, Tehmina Kazi, who’s spoken out in public on this issue.  And she’s had death threats.  But she’s prepared to support this bill.

Also, if any of you are coming to the Olympic games, you might be relieved to know that as you come into London and into the Olympic arena, you will not be greeted by a mega-mosque which would’ve seated 70,000 people.

(Applause)

They reduced, very graciously, that concept of a 70,000-strong mosque to 12,000.  Well, our largest cathedral takes three.  So even that would’ve been a very strange [somewhere] to welcome everybody.  But that initiative has been forestalled, but with the help of many Muslims.  So I stand before you as someone who is deeply puzzled, and deeply humbled.

As I finish, I remember a phone call I received very recently from an Indonesian politician who’d read the book we had written on Islam — it’ll be available later on.  And it’s hard-hitting, it’s the kind of thing I’ve been talking about this afternoon.  But he said — since I read your book on Islam — he is a Muslim — it reopened for me the gates of [jihad].  I realized how as a Muslim I’d been brought up in a theological and mental prison.  But now I’ve read your book; I see things differently.

Unless we are available to Muslims — a [message] you said earlier — we give some space for some of those who are courageous enough, and maybe risking death to do so — then I think we are perhaps losing a very important opportunity.  Because I have no illusions they’ll be subject to intimidation.  We have all the threats outlined at the beginning.  They are the minority.  But I think we must be open to those who might want to bring about — to use a Christian term, inappropriately — but an Islamic reformation.  It won’t be in my lifetime.  But if it’s possible, we must support it.  If it isn’t, well, we will go on holding the line against those who would destroy our freedoms.

(Applause)

Karen Lugo: Just a very brief footnote — as I was involved in a protest — I emceed a protest against two radical imams in February of this last year.  And CAIR, Council on American-Islamic Relations, put out a hit video, a distorted video, of the protest to make it all look like hate speech.  They did capture some video of some hecklers that were over by the entrance to this fundraiser.

And later, as this production was going around the Internet, one of our women, who was from Iran, said she had gone up to the louder hecklers with megaphones because she recognized the accent.  And she said — where are you from?  And the women said — we’re from Iran.  And she said — well, then, are you Muslim?  And they said — yes, but we just hate Sharia.  So the head piece actually wound up being of some of those activists who were — and some of the things they were saying were the most virulently anti-Islam, but they were Muslims.

Also, in my work with the communities, and the citizens who become very involved in my area, we’ve spoken with a lot of secular Muslims who have come up to us.  And we’ve had this conversation — you know, why don’t more Muslims stand up?  And they’ve said, you know, look at what happened in Europe, with the fact that Europe has caved the way it has.  And we don’t see more signs of courage in the United States yet than we do.  You know, we’re waiting to see if you’re going to hold the line against the radical elements of Islam.  So, you know, that is what the conversation has been.

So at this point, we would love to have some questions until they tell us that the room is no longer ours.

Yes, sir?

Unidentified Audience Member: So want to go back and look at the history of fascism in Europe in the ’30s, which I kind of relate to this.  I’ve been watching this going on now for several years.  And it took till Hitler and Mussolini were sure enough, and actually tried to take over the world against (inaudible).  And [there was] a real struggle as to whether or not we were going to be able to defeat the fascists.  And fortunately, we were.

I’m wondering if this is going to drag itself along until such time that there is a conflagration (inaudible) –

Robert Spencer: If only we had worked with the moderate Nazis, we could’ve forestalled all that.

(Laughter)

Unidentified Audience Member: — that’s what they were doing, that [was genuine].

Andrew McCarthy: But the Nazis were radical Germans.  I mean, it depends on what level you’re going to evaluate it.

Bosch Fawstin: Well, this is the question, then.  See, obviously there’s a spectrum of belief, knowledge and fervor among Muslims.  Nobody on this panel actually thinks that every Muslim is on with the program of warfare and subjugation, least of all me.  And I’ve made this abundantly clear in everything that I’ve written.  The fact is that there are probably a majority — there is a majority of Muslims who just want to live their lives and have a job, and raise their family.  And they couldn’t care less what the imam is saying in the mosque.

But the doctrines of Islam are the source of this hatred.  People have been wondering why they hate us for 10 years.  And they hate us because they’re taught to hate us, not because of our foreign policy, not because of Israel, not because of Iraq or Afghanistan; but because Islam teaches that Muslims should hate and wage war against and subjugate non-Muslims.  And these things are demonstrably in the Koran.  Does that mean that every Muslim is doing it?  Certainly not.  But do we pretend that it doesn’t really teach these things in order to encourage the ones who aren’t with the program?  I don’t see the utility of that.

Andrew McCarthy: Well, let me — if I may, though — what Robert has painted, I think, is a very black-and-white view.  And I have no quarrel with the idea that this comes rooted from Islamic scripture.  But the two alternatives — or, I guess I shouldn’t say there are two alternatives.  It’s not like we have a choice of — either you acknowledge that the Koran teaches this and that the scriptures teach this, or you deny it.  I mean, that’s just not reality.  There are other ways to address it.  If there aren’t, we’re really at the abyss, right?

But if you ask people — and I’m not contending that this is a majority view in the slightest — but they have come up with different interpretations, they have come up with ways, as they say, to try to contextualize the bad stuff, to try to limit it to its time and space, so that they can put more emphasis on the verses of the scripture that we see as having been abrogated by the verses of the sword.  And as far as, you know, taqiyya is concerned, this whole thing about taqiyya — and I don’t deny taqiyya exists; it obviously does.

But you know, I remember, when I was a mafia prosecutor, they have a rule, too, you know — they call it omertà.  And we used to get these mobsters in who wanted to cooperate with the government, and we’d get to interview them a little bit, you know.  And they’d tell me about, you know, the secret code they had of omertà.  And I remember sitting there and saying — all right, let me get this straight.  You’re part of a secret criminal organization, and you have this rule that you don’t tell anybody anything.  Wow, where do you guys come up with this stuff?

I kind of see taqiyya the same way.  I mean, if you’re dealing with Islamists, if lying serves their purposes, obviously they’re going to lie.  But the fact that there is a doctrine of lying doesn’t mean that everybody who has the opportunity to lie will do so.  I mean, some of the people who say that they are trying to interpret their doctrine a different way actually authentically mean that they’re trying to interpret their doctrine a different way.  They’re not trying to pull one over on you.

Baroness Caroline Cox: Sorry, can I just –

Karen Lugo: I want to allow Baroness Cox a second.

Baroness Caroline Cox: Okay.  Maybe I could just try and answer your question, sir.  I come from the land of Chamberlain.  And we stood alone for awhile fighting Nazi Germany.  And I would say to you, nothing I’ve said today suggests we should not adopt the strongest possible line.  I don’t want to be a Chamberlain.  That’s why I’m introducing a bill in the House of Lords to try and address this issue of the growth of political Islam in the United Kingdom.  Suggest to you I’d like to see –

(Applause)

– I’d like to see some parliamentary or government initiatives in the United States.  We can have wonderful conferences.  We can talk, we can learn.  That’s not going to change the situation.  We’ve got to do things politically and strategically.  And that’s why I’ve introduced the bill.  But also, there must be (inaudible) more space if there are the other Muslims who want to support the defense of democracy, they’ve got a chance to do so, too.

Unidentified Audience Member: What I’m saying is I don’t think anything is going to happen until (inaudible).

Bosch Fawstin: Yeah, that’s probably true.

Unidentified Audience Member: (Inaudible — microphone inaccessible)

Karen Lugo: Okay, Amy?

Unidentified Audience Member: My concern is the motivation for the giving of space.  So on one hand, you want to get, I guess, help from the Muslim community to achieve various ends.  And one question is — how much help are you actually getting from them?  Or [is the] concern to give them the opportunity to stand up for the right thing — which is nice, but it isn’t like you’re preventing them from standing up for the right thing.  Sometimes giving them space in that regard could be a sacrifice for us.  So I am concerned about that.

The other issue — (inaudible) –

Karen Lugo: I think –

Unidentified Audience Member: — are we going to be sacrificing by doing this, or are we furthering our interests by giving them space?

Karen Lugo: And it’s a very good question.  And I think — just one second here — it’s a matter of developing some confidence and trust in us to do better than the Europeans have done in defending our culture and our freedom of speech, and all the rights, self-government, the things we hold so dear.  I mean, do we have a deep enough belief in those things to defend them, and to also then recognize that there are Muslims who would aid us in that?  Andy?

Andrew McCarthy: Since I’m the one who said give them space, let me try to be a little bit more concrete about what I meant.  I meant give them rhetorical space, and understand that they have their own struggle that they’re trying to go through.  I wasn’t suggesting that we take any other national security — I’m Attila the Hun on national security.  I absolutely think that we have to have our eyes open about not only the people who want to destroy this country by violent jihadism, but the broader civilizational threat to the United States and to the West, which is profound.

My point is that we do have allies in that community.  We don’t have as many as we would like to have — not by a long shot.  But we have to have a way to separate who those allies are from the rest of the broader threat.

Now, Robert and I have talked about, you know, Islamists and whether that’s an appropriate label or not.  But I think — and Robert can address this, but even Robert will use the term “supremacist Muslim,” or, you know, some other adjective.  I think we all grope with this need that we all know that we have, to one degree or another, to say yes, there are people out there who are in that community, who are either our allies or our potential allies, and we’re not trying to drive them into the arms of the other side.  But we have to come up with a way to acknowledge that.

Robert Spencer: The problem about giving them space is — all I’m saying here is that we can’t give them space by lying to them or lying to ourselves.  That’s not any legitimate kind of space.  And the whole Islamist idea — that a radical Islamist is the one who carries out terrorist attacks, and ordinary Muslims wouldn’t do that — the problem is there isn’t any distinction within the Muslim community.  It isn’t as if there’s the radical Islamist mosque on one block and the moderate mosque on the next block, and there’s some sort of institutional distinction, like between Baptists and Methodists.  They’re all mixed up together.  How do you become an Islamist?  You perform an act of terrorism.

When Andy and I had the exchange in National Review, right that day, there was a Bosnian who went to Sarajevo and shot up the US embassy.  And all the stories about him said he was a radical Islamist who shot at the US embassy.  Well, that was Friday.  On Thursday, he was just an ordinary Muslim.

Andrew McCarthy: [Well] –

Robert Spencer: And he became a radical Islamist when he shot up the embassy.  There wasn’t any indication otherwise, in his life, in his movements, in his associations, that would’ve given you the impression that he would ever had committed a terrorist act.  And this just shows the uselessness of this distinction that is imposed from without and is not within the Muslim community.

I’d also like to add, in terms of giving them space, that while the perspective that I espouse may be the dominant view in this room — and for that I thank you all — it is a very, very small minority view that is routinely demonized, vilified and dismissed in the mainstream culture, as I’m sure you’re all well aware.

And the point that I’m making is that this is — we’ve been giving them space for 10 years.  We’ve been pretending that Islam is a religion of peace.  We’ve been encouraging — we’ve been assuming, on an official international policy level and in national policy, that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims — 99.99 percent — are on our side and completely loyal to Western civilizational principles of freedom.

And what has it gotten us?  Where do we see large numbers of Muslims, large organizations of Muslims — even any sect, anything — that is fighting against this within Islam?  There’s little groups here, little groups there.  There’s Zuhdi, of course.  And what else?

Andrew McCarthy: I do agree that if we’re going to start saying “radical Islamist,” then the term “Islamist” is useless.  And I’m not recommending that.  I thought “Islamist” was our liberation from having to say that Islam is the problem period, and move on.

You know, I think Islamists are people who want to impose Sharia on the West.  They are people who want to live the mainstream interpretation of Islam that Robert talks about.  They include violent jihadists who want to do it by means of terrorism.  But if we’re going to start to parse, you know, radical Islamists from moderate Islamists, then I agree.  I throw up my hands, and we’re talking nonsense.  But I don’t think we’re at that point yet.

Karen Lugo: Do we have one last question?  Okay.

Unidentified Audience Member: Seems so far that attempts at reforming Islam have not gotten any traction.  I attended, for example, (inaudible) summit four years ago in St. Petersburg, Florida.  Participants were either outright apostate, like (inaudible), or like (inaudible) considered apostates by most Muslims.

Question to the panel is — do you see in the future any hope that there will be a real reformation of Islam (inaudible) doctrine of abrogation, supremacy of the Hadith, and so forth?  Or is the choice in perpetuity going to be either perpetual warfare between Islam and the infidels?  Or eradicating Islam at the end of a war, as was done to national socialists at the end of World War II?

Bosch Fawstin: Well, Islam is not going to be eradicated.  It’s much bigger than national socialism ever was.  And I just wanted to say that — Andy just said a minute ago that if we say Islam is the problem, then that will discourage reformers.  But Islam is the problem.  The problem is within Islam.  But does that mean that there can be no reform ever, or that Muslims cannot confront this and change it?  No, it certainly doesn’t mean that.  Anything is possible in history, and nobody could’ve predicted the Christian Reformation a few hundred years before it happened.

It’s historically theoretically possible.  But we shouldn’t kid ourselves about the size of the groups that might affect it in our age.  They are minuscule.  And they are not traditional and have no basis within Islamic theology or law to stand on.  They have their own private and invented Islam.

Karen Lugo: Before we –

Unidentified Speaker: Just one thing — sorry.

Karen Lugo: Sure.

Unidentified Speaker: This whole conversation and everything is — you know, outside of a post-jihad world, it’s all academic, in a sense.  Because again, we are at war.  And until we take out the countries that sponsor terrorism — I mean, the countries who sponsor terrorism, the rest of the Muslim world will be in [shock and awe].  They will moderate themselves by nature.  They will have to.  They would have no choice.  They’ll see the results, like Japan did, like Germany did.  And that’s — in a post-jihad world, that’s when we can get serious about average Muslims going out there and reforming something that was never what it was.  They can pretend and deny, whatever, you know, the history of Mohammad, and what he was and what he did, to join the civilized world, finally, after a thousand years.

Karen Lugo: Before we thank our panelists one more time — Frank Gaffney is going to be holding a seminar in this very room as soon as we conclude, talking about the record of Grover Norquist and his activities.  So any who want to stay for that, please do.  And please thank our panelists one more time.

(Applause)

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

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).
      In

      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.