The Myth of Islamic Extremism

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


KoranThe question of Islamic extremism has more relevance to Muslims than to non-Muslims. It’s mainly Muslims who are obsessed with Islamic extremism. And with good reason. As they so often point out; they tend to be its leading victims.

It’s not that Islamic extremism doesn’t exist. Islam, like every ideology, has its gradations. It’s that for Muslims, there is a great deal at stake in the battle over Islamic extremism. That battle will determine whether they can listen to music, play chess or watch soccer games. Whether men can shave their beards, women can drive cars, little girls can go to school and little boys can grow up learning anything except Koranic verses.

Non-Muslims however remain unequal no matter which brand of Islamic theocracy is in charge. And either way they remain fair game in their own countries.

Every leading form of Islam agrees that an Islamic society is perfect, that its laws perfect man and that imposing those laws on society is a religious duty. They may differ on whether those laws allow Muslims to vote or fly kites; but that is small consolation to the non-Muslims who lose their civil rights either way.

Islamic societies are built around an Islamic law that makes non-Muslims second class citizens. Whether Islamic law is the basis of all legislation, as tends to be written in the constitutions of most “moderate” Muslim countries, or whether it actually is the legislation, makes a great deal of difference to Muslims who fear losing the ability to sing or play chess at the snap of a fatwa; but has less impact on non-Muslims who are still doomed to an unequal status.

What Western secular liberals insist on describing as extremism is really a reform movement seeking to purge innovations from the modern Islamic admixture absorbed from the cultures and peoples whom they conquered.

Reform means major changes for the descendants of the Islamic conquerors who have learned to like the living standards of Islamic empires and don’t care for going back to the ways of their many times great-grandfathers. It doesn’t change things nearly as much for the non-Muslim minorities who were conquered by those Islamic empires. Life for them would become worse if the Salafists were to take over. But the difference lies in degrees of subjugation.

There is no Islamic option for equal rights.

The dilution of Islam through secularism made life more livable for the Muslim conquerors who wanted to enjoy life in their new dominions in Egypt, the Persian Empire, Byzantium or India. They were less concerned with the comfort of the conquered; the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians and others groaning under their rule.

None of the gradations of Islam are friendly to the idea of non-Muslims ruling themselves. They may differ over tactics, but even the non-violent immigration and missionary tactics of supposed moderate Islamic majoritarians would still end in a theocracy in which Western Christians and Jews would become slaves in their own countries.

This may perhaps be more merciful than a prolonged campaign of slaughter, but it is still oppression by any other name. (Not to mention conquest and invasion). And there is no such thing as moderate oppression.

The Arab Spring posed the question to middle class Muslims whether a non-violent political conquest by the Muslim Brotherhood was better than an armed conquest by its Islamic Group splinter movement. The answer that came in the Tahrir Square protests was a resounding, “No!”

A political conquest may be less messy for the conquerors and the conquered, but it still takes away the rights and freedoms of the conquered. If even the urban Muslims of Egypt didn’t want Islamization on that scale, even on peaceful terms, why would any non-Muslim accept an Islamization that would remove far more of his civil rights?

A moderate theocracy is still a theocracy. Moderate inequality is still inequality.

Western liberals associate moderation with secularism. Islam is indeed as moderate as it is secular. Like proofs of alcohol, Islam becomes more toxic and flammable the higher the percentage of “Islamic law” it contains. The purer the Islam, the more violent, oppressive, reactionary and brutal it becomes.

But the point that so many liberals miss is that even its diluted forms are still violent, oppressive and reactionary.

Distinguishing moderate and extreme Muslims is as useful as making distinctions between moderate and extreme Communists. These distinctions did and do exist, but they are less relevant in the context of an overall ideology whose goals are war, dominance and subjugation.

A moderate Communist was still a pretty terrible person. Likewise, a moderate president of Iran is still a political force in a theocracy that discriminates against non-Muslims, engages in regional religious wars and denies many civil rights to half the population.

Western liberals obscure this basic fact in their obsession with finding moderates to talk to. Moderate Muslims are still extreme by the standards of the West. They still support violence; the only difference is that they are more willing to try non-violent methods of conquest first.

In the long run, how much difference is there between the moderate slave owner who tricks his slaves into putting on their own chains and the extremist slave owner who makes them do it at gunpoint?

The end result is still the same. And that is the problem.

Post 9/11 concerns about extremism were focused on tactics with those who threatened the most immediate violence branded as extremists while everyone else was accepted as allies. Islamic terrorism triage turned Saudi Arabia into an ally because its double game of working with us and the terrorists meant that it was somehow more moderate than the actual terrorists. The Muslim Brotherhood is likewise considered an ally because it is less overtly violent, at the moment and in our general vicinity, than its Al Qaeda branch.

Focusing only on the most immediate threats is a sensible tactic for law enforcement in an emergency, but is a disastrous strategy for political leaders who cannot afford to become so caught up in trying to stop the next attack that they can only see single terrorists instead of mass movements that utilize a variety of strategies and tactics for the same end.

Islamic terrorism is not reducible to Islamic extremism. It is reducible to Islamic law. Islamic terrorism is just one means of imposing it on us. Immigration is another. Political pressure is a third.

During the Cold War, we understood that Communism was a multifaceted threat. The Red Army and domestic Communist organizations were just two means of accomplishing the same ends. Likewise the Megamosque and the plane hijackers are two means of reaching the same goals.

It will not matter much if the civilization we know is lost and if the freedoms we are familiar with are taken away by the moderates who play the long political game or the extremists who play the short and violent game. It will make a difference to the great-grandchildren of our conquerors who will be able to play chess or fly kites; but our great-grandchildren will still be as fundamentally unequal as the Copts of Egypt or the Jews of Yemen.

An Islam that allows chess playing, but mandates the inequality of non-Muslims should be viewed as just as extreme as any other kind.

*

Don’t miss Jamie Glazov’s video interview with Daniel Greenfield about Obama’s Destructive Agenda, his Muslim Brotherhood Romance, the Anthony Weiner-Huma Abedin saga, and much, much more:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • herb benty

    Yes, yes all true for the unschooled in the deception, horror that is Islam. But how about getting tough with Islam, stopping Islam in it’s tracks? Who will bell the cat?

    • Drakken

      Getting tough with islam is going to be a self fulfilling prophecy because sooner or later it is going to be a matter of national and personal survival. Deo Volente.

      • herb benty

        Yes I pray for Israel and us too. I also pray Obama and his gang don’t ruin the military.

  • N. Wasse

    There is no such thing called Islamic democracy and the reason is democracy presupposes secularism which means that if there is no secularism there is no democracy.
    There is no secularism in Islam even in moderate Islam therefore you can have Islam or you can have secularism and therefore democracy but you cannot have both

    • MukeNecca

      “Democracy presupposes secularism”.?

      Perhaps you back the claim up by explaining what do you understand by secularism.

      • N. Wasse

        Here check this http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secularism

        There is no secularism in Islam therefore there is no democracy in Islam

        • MukeNecca

          “…the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society.”

          There is no secularism in Islam therefore there is no democracy in Islam

          Are you proposing a law? I hope not.

          Look, you did supply a definition but, without getting into how precise or exhaustive it is, in what way does it prove your claim?

          Is secularism the necessary or sufficient condition
          for democracy? Please show the causal mechanism involved her.

          • N. Wasse

            You need to check what is really democracy http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

            And read item 5.

            And here is how Muslims view the question of Islam v. secularism and democracy this is a liberal Muslim web site and use googletranslate http://www.ahewar.org/debat/show.art.asp?aid=233876

            And here is a very good overview of secularism democracy and Islam use googletranslate http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9

            And read “secularism in the Islamic state”

            And here is a facebook page about the many reasons why there is no democracy in Islam and it really comes down to one real reason that you can have Islam or secularism and therefore democracy but not both

            https://www.facebook.com/notes/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B1/%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B6%D8%A7-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%A9/189585111089092?ref=nf

            Use googletranslate

          • MukeNecca

            I think if one advances a claim one should be prepared to defend it personally and directly when the correctness of the claim is questioned, rather than evade the work and hide behind a list of internet links.

            Consider what a discussion would be reduced to if both sides instead of direct argumentation would resort to
            sending each other a list of google links supporting their respective position.

            Besides, neither of the links you sent me was in a slightest way pertinent to the question I asked, which still is: why do you believe that secularism is necessary precondition for democracy to strike root in society?

            (Need I point out that the extreme “secularist” societies – Nazi and communist – resulted in most extreme suppression of democracy?)

          • MukeNecca

            I think if one advances a claim one should be prepared to defend it personally and directly when the correctness of the claim is questioned, rather than evade the work and hide behind a list of internet links. Consider what a discussion would be reduced to if both sides instead of direct argumentation would resort to
            sending each other a list of google links supporting their respective position.
            Besides, neither of the links you sent me was in a slightest way pertinent to the question I asked, which still is: why do you believe that secularism is necessary precondition for democracy to strike root in society?

            Please don’t bother to respond by referring me to links and articles. The subject is simple enough for you to be able to support your claim by yourself.

          • MukeNecca

            I wrote above: “…none of the links you sent me was in the slightest pertinent to the question I asked…”

            In fact I ma not sure a 100% as I didn’t read the Arabic language links. I thought that you advising me to use “google translate” was indication of a joke. Well, I am not sure now. So, was it a joke?

          • N. Wasse

            Did you read the translations by google? And no it is not a joke and I do not think you did because if you did you would have realized that there is indeed a debate going on about Islam and democracy and the link to secularism

            The Arabic and Islamic world has been debating the subject of Islam v. democracy and secularism for almost 150 years and sorry but I have to give you two more books IN ENGLISH and this is not a joke and here are two classics the first is Fred Halliday’s Islam and the myth of confrontation

            http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Myth-Confrontation-Religion-Politics/dp/1860648681/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384430043&sr=1-1&keywords=fred+halliday+islam

            And the second is Albert Hourani The Liberal age

            http://www.amazon.com/Arabic-Thought-Liberal-Age-1798-1939/dp/0521274230/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384430348&sr=1-1&keywords=albert+hourani+the+liberal+age

            I do not know who you are or how much you know about Islam and politics and I thought that I was helping you

            But you are a big boy and you do not need help now do you get it

          • N. Wasse

            No it was not a joke and why do you think it is a joke! Would you care to share with us why is it a joke or are you paranoid about something?
            I do not know you and I do not care to know you and i do not know how much you know about the great debate in the Arab world about Islam v. secularism and democracy and I thought that I was helping you in providing you information about the subject and you can draw your won conclusions
            I do not spend my time chit chatting with infidels like me but I’m just wondering are you Muslim? A yes or no will do

          • MukeNecca

            No, it wasn’t a joke. Of course not. Idiots like you are very serious people.
            But my asking if that was a joke was a joke. A simple one, but still way, way above your empty inflated head.

          • N. Wasse

            So did you read item 5 and can you explain to the readers what it says and it is in English so you do not have an excuse but I will help you

            And helping the perplexed

            Read with care
            1. There is no equality of men and women in Islam and this from the Qur’an and the Sharia
            2. There is no equality of Muslims and non Muslims in Islam based on Q9:5 or ayat al-sayf and Q9:29 or ayat al-jizya where pagans can be killed unless they convert to islam and as for ahl al-kitab or the people of the book (Jews and Christians and may by Hindus and Buddhists and Zoroastrians) they are to treated as Dhimmi or second class citizens that have to pay the jizya tax
            3. There is no equality even among Muslim men after all the Caliph and the ulama stay on top or all and this is from the Islamic sharia
            4. And a Shia man is a second class citizen in a Sunni country and and a Sunni man is a second class citizen in a Shia country

            So the Arab intellectuals are saying how can we have a democracy where people are not equal? the second point they make that the only way for equality is to disregard Islamic law and have a secular society where everyone is equal

            Now would you also like what do they mean by the word equality?

            Now it is your turn! Go!

          • N. Wasse

            Here is another article from al-Ahram in Egypt about the relationship as viewed by Egyptians of democracy secularism and Islam http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/4379/17/Secularism–is-key–to-democracy.aspx

            Enjoy

        • defcon 4

          I’d agree — only because there is no islamic state on fhe face of this earth today that doesn’t enforce blasphemy and heresy laws — the cornerstones of Sharia law. Blasphemy and heresy laws whose very existence invalidates the concept of free speech.

          • N. Wasse

            The real reason of why there is no democracy in Islam is because people are not supposed to be equal ie: women and men are not equal and Muslims and non Muslims are not equal and if you do not have secularism you would not have a democracy

          • MukeNecca

            In other words:
            there is no democracy in Islam because Islam is not democratic.

            No kidding…

          • defcon 4

            Islam is fascism, so why would anyone be surprised.

          • N. Wasse

            Now you tell us how can you have a democracy if people are not equal? now the question becomes how can you have equality? Hint: this is not rocket science

            It is your turn! Go!

          • MukeNecca

            I am a bit impatient with you. Not so much because you are unable to logically demonstrate the truth of your
            contention that “… democracy presupposes secularism which means that if there is no secularism there is no democracy…”, but because you think you can fool others to think that you actually do so by hurling my way heaps of google links, long quotations and list of books available on Amazon.

            Well, I thank you very much, but excuse me for not having availed myself of these “gadgets”.

            You see, I reasoned that if you, despite having read all of them, are quite unable to demonstrate, through simple logical analysis, the causal relation between the condition (secularity) and effect (democracy) then either your material is inapplicable, or you are a shoddy,
            undisciplined thinker, who likes to hear himself talking, but gets annoyed when somebody suggests he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

            Really, the best you could do until now to support you contention can be condensed to a comical, but
            perfectly tautological, announcement that there can not be democracy in Islam because Islam is not democratic.

            Logical systematic thinking is not your strong side. Accept it, and lower your volume. Or ignore it, and you won’t be taken seriously.

          • N. Wasse

            Here we go again
            1. Muslims claim that Islam is deen wa dawla right? Oh the Arabic transliteration? you can google it too and it is not a joke
            2. Then there is no separation of mosque and state in Islam right?
            3. Now Muslims have one of two choices Islam and no equality of human beings or secularism and equality of human beings and this is the debate that has being going on in the Arabic/Islamic world for the past 150 years
            4. If they go for secularism then they can have a real democracy because in order to have real democracy then you have to have equity among people

            Oh I see you are unhappy that we kuffar are exposing Islam for what it is! Undemocratic

          • MukeNecca

            More of the same – ad nauseam from that little, clumsy but noisy drummer of tautology, who still can’t, or rather will not grasp that for a rule, for example: “…a force
            exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces”, or “the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease”, or “… democracy presupposes secularism”, in order to be taken seriously must apply to,respectively: to all isolated systems, all fluids and all societies. The authors of the first two laws proved their claim rather brilliantly, but the author of the third pretends he proves a rule by repeating it increasingly shriller and only in the context of Islam. Except that, while in other than Islam cultural context, the claim is patently false, in the context of Islam it, being a tautology, is absolutely uninteresting, indeed worthless.

            And then in order to divert the attention from his repeatedly revealed ineptness he utters a pathetic inanity, obviously in desperate attempt to allege I am a mohammedan, or non-kuffar: “Oh I see you are unhappy that we kuffar are exposing Islam for what it is! Undemocratic”

            Very much like a mohammedan, or wannabe dhimmi, who screams “Islamophobia” when cornered and his arguments exposed as garbage.

          • Hass

            Yes Wasse, you are right.

          • N. Wasse

            You took the words out of my mouth and I’m getting impatient with you
            1. Secularism means that there must be separation of state and mosque. There is no separation of state and mosque in Islam. Secularism also means that people must be equal. but human beings in Islam are not equal
            2. Therefore there really is no secularism in Islam
            Right?
            2. So what is left? it is to link democracy and secularism and is it true that you can only have a democracy if you have secularism first?
            Now you tell me how can you have democracy (where human beings are supposed to be equal and where the laws are man made laws and where the mosque and the state are separate) unless you have secularism in place in other words unless you have secularism there will be no democracy!

            This is the argument that you will read about in writings by intellectuals in the Arab/Islamic world
            And it makes perfect sense to me

            It does not make sense to you and to the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood elite that is fine with me then just prove it to be wrong and good luck

            All you have done so far is that you have been running in circles

            So let me say it one more time there is no democracy without secularism and there is no secularism in Islam therefore there is no democracy in Islam

            If you do not like what I’m saying then it is too bad

          • N. Wasse

            Helping the perplexed and here is googletranslate in action in regard to the first reference so read and enjoy and this is only a portion of the article

            “Tying relationship between democracy and secularism
            Abdelilah إصباح
            To say that democracy and secularism go hand in hand, I mean impossible to talk about one of the two concepts separate from the other. The concept of democracy can not be complete only be determined by reference to the concept of secularism, secular and identify remains truncated if it is not connected to the concept of democracy. Each of the two concepts constitute the necessary framework to achieve and the other the embodiment in reality and practice. If democracy means in the definition, common rule of the people itself, it does not make sense for this speech, but in the context of a secular is the separation of religion and state, so that the judgment based on religious grounds, can not only be authoritarian, because the reference document to holistic Atalaqah , do not recognize only its own right and the fact divorced, and all authority is based on the absolute will only be absolute.
            democracy, then, Kawalah in the exercise of power, requiring removal of religious authority in all its concepts, because democracy is based on the vision of the world radically different from the vision of religion, this vision is the rationality Establishment of confidence in the capacity of rights, and the right to dissent, etc…”

            This is what Arab liberals are saying

            I do not think that you read the article

            So one more time they are saying that the way to real democracy is not via Islamic law but via secularism

      • Daniel Greenfield

        I think he means democratic values, rather than elections. Though you can’t really have real elections under Islamic law either.

        • defcon 4

          When muslimes democratically vote for enforcement of any aspect of Sharia law it kinda defeats the purpose of having a democracy at all — unless you’re an islam0fascist.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            From the POV of Muslim activists, democracy is a means not an end.

          • Texas Patriot

            Exactly. Wherever Muslims have a demographic majority, they are free to impose Islamic law on non-Muslims, all in the name of democracy.

        • N. Wasse

          A spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood once said that elections and democracy are no more than the slippers that Muslims wear when they go to the bathroom and I do not have to remind you of what bathrooms look like in that part of the world

    • Daniel Greenfield

      “Moderate” Islam is secularized, so that it’s an admixture of Islam + other things.

      It’s a mistake when liberals assume that a secularized practice or person is a representative of a more moderate form of Islam.

      The secular spaces in “moderate” Muslim countries aren’t innate to its religion. They’re external intrusions and that is why they so easily vanish under pressure.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        This is my understanding of “moderate” Muslim countries. Daniel. Had there not been a military coup in Egypt, we know what direction the Muslim Brotherhood would have led Egypt. The Copts knew it, almost immediately.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          This is what liberals don’t get when they act like there is a Muslim version of the Unitarians.

          There are countries that don’t fully enforce Muslim law, but there is no liberal Islam.

        • defcon 4

          The new Sisi government hasn’t repealed islamic blasphemy laws in Egypt.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Of course not. They exist under all governments. That’s the “moderate” scam.

            It’s still Islamic law.

      • N. Wasse

        Let us take the case of Egypt which I would regard as one of the few Arab states where you have the most liberals and the real test can you have a Copt or even a Shia as the president of Egypt? The answer would be, even by most liberal Muslims, a No

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Egypt isn’t/wasn’t that liberal compared to some North African countries. But yes, barring a large armed non-Muslim population, e.g. Lebanon, it wouldn’t happen. And it wouldn’t happen democratically, but as part of a tribal power sharing agreement.

          • N. Wasse

            In terms of absolute numbers Egypt had and still has the most liberal Muslims in the Arab world and the point is even liberal Muslims would not want to have a Copt or a Shia as president

          • defcon 4

            I wouldn’t be surprised if the Egyptian constitution outlawed the najjis kaffir having any positions of power in their islamic government.

          • N. Wasse

            Yes and not just non Muslims but also women and non Sunni Muslims and Egypt has about 2-3 million Shia and about 10 million Sufis so unless you are a sunni male you are a second class citizen in Egypt

          • defcon 4

            I wonder if the najjis kaffir population of Lebanon isn’t declining annually — maybe not as precipitously as the rest of the Mid-East and N. Africa.

  • DogmaelJones1

    I’ve been saying this same thing for years: Given the core tenets of Islam, why would anyone think there was a brand of it that non-Muslims could live with in the structure of a “multicultural” society? Weimar Germany was “multicultural” or “multi-political,” with Communists and Nazis battling for prominence in the Reichstag and in the streets, with the great uncommitted mass of Germans watching from the grandstands. We all know who won that battle, and everyone was obliged to become a Nazi. Where were the “moderate” Nazis? Did such a creature exist? No. As Daniel asks above, was there such a thing as a “moderate” Communist? No. A Communist was a Communist and they got sent to the camps just as quickly as was a Jew, atheist, Christian and others. As for Islam, you can’t eat your death-worshipping, totalitarian ideology and thrive by it, too. This is a lesson I think Westerners must learn the hard way over and over again until there is nothing but corpses and ashes in their landscape and long lines of chained dhimmi slaves being herded to the salt mines by their Islamic overseers.

  • Hass

    And Western morons give them green lights for there barracks (Mosques) anywhere they choose.

    • Drakken

      They build them, we can easily burn them down and destroy them.

      • defcon 4

        And seize their assets, after all money (and the blood of the unbelievers) is the grease that keeps islam0nazism going.

      • Hass

        One can only imagine the MSM uproar. They already get hysterical over a little graffiti.

  • Texas Patriot

    Excellent piece, Daniel. I’ve heard many Westerners say that what Islam needs is reformation. When Martin Luther nailed his “95 Theses” on the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg on October 31,1514, essentially what he intended to do was point out the ninety-five ways in which he thought the Catholic church had deviated from the teachings of and life example of Jesus Christ. What resulted was the Protestant Reformation which was for the ostensible purpose of returning Christianity to a closer and more rigorous adherence to the teachings and life example of Jesus Christ. Not that it succeeded, of course, but that’s what they were trying to do. I wonder if many Westerners have any idea what it would mean if a majority of Muslims embarked on a reformation designed to return Islam to a closer and more rigorous adherence to the teachings and life example of Muhammad.

    • Gee

      Remember that Martin Luther’s “Reformation” only improved the lives of Christians. He was just as anti-Semitic as the Catholic Church and advocated the same level of oppression.

      • Texas Patriot

        I’m not defending Martin Luther. I’m trying to illustrate the idea of how authentic reformations in Christianity and Islam would work out in profoundly different ways. In fact, I don’t think Luther’s reformation was very successful at all. The idea was fine. The way it worked out was obviously something far less than fine. Jesus taught his followers to forgive and pray for their enemies. How many Christians do that?

        • Drakken

          There will be no reformation of islam, because it is evil at its core.

          • defcon 4

            The whole concept of “reforming islam” is as ludicrous as reforming nazism — even though we clearly shouldn’t indict all nazis for the actions of a few extremists

        • Hass

          Sorry mate, but there is no way Islam will ever reform.

          Not a single word let alone versus.

          • Texas Patriot

            Perhaps that’s what Rudyard Kipling was talking about in The Ballad of East and West:

            “Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Kipling new better than most Westerners…especially today’s indoctrinated globalists.

          • defcon 4

            I wish you would run for political office Hass, you would get my vote hands down.

          • Hass

            Thanks mate, but I don’t think you can vote in Aus:)

          • defcon 4

            I hope the people of AUS are smart enough to listen to you.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “The way it worked out was obviously something far less than perfect. Jesus taught his followers to forgive and pray for their enemies. How many Christians do that?”

          Overall it worked out just fine. It was just a bloody mess for a number of reasons. I’m not sure how much to actually blame Luther for that mess itself.

          “Jesus taught his followers to forgive and pray for their enemies. How many Christians do that?”

          Probably never that many. That’s not Luther’s fault.

          • Texas Patriot

            It’s not a matter of fault. Martin Luther was human, and he tried to move Christians to a more authentic version of Christianity. He failed, as almost every Christian theologian and reformer in history has failed. By the same token, the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have tried to move Egyptians to a more authentic Islam. From their point of view, they are probably failing as well, and that must be as frustrating for them as it was when Luther realized that his reforms were failing too.

            The truth is that most people don’t want authentic Christianity any more than they want authentic Islam. But that does not make Christianity and Islam equal or equivalent in any way. On the contrary. Authentic Christianity is diametrically opposed to and at the opposite end of the spectrum from authentic Islam in almost every respect, and that is something I did not even begin to appreciate until fairly recently. In fact, most people probably still think that all Islam needs is a good reformation, and it would be “good to go” for assimilation in Western civilization. Almost nothing could be further from the truth.

            As Daniel Greenfield has alluded to above, the more Islam is reformed and moves toward the original and authentic version as practiced by Muhammad and his early followers, the more violent and aggressive it becomes. Exactly the opposite is true of Christianity. The degree to which the truth about Christianity and Islam has been mangled in popular culture and popular understanding is almost beyond belief.

            On the other hand, I think both Muslims and Christians are waking up regarding the vast ideological and cultural divide that separate us, and I regard that as a positive.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “He failed, as almost every Christian theologian and reformer in history has failed.”

            I don’t see how you can characterize it as failure. He stood up for the truth of sola scriptura. That was his key mission and that was a success. He was a humanitarian failure as a person, if that’s how you want to look at it. But his mission accomplishment planted the seeds for individualism and modernity.

          • Texas Patriot

            OFM: “But his mission accomplishment planted the seeds for individualism and modernity.”

            You’re absolutely correct, and much of the scientific revolution and indeed the modernist turn of thought of Isaac Newton and Shakespeare would not have been possible without the Protestant Reformation. But just as an imperfect or incomplete computer program leads to unforeseeable and unintended consequences, so too did the imperfect and incomplete theology of Martin Luther lead to rather tragic consequences, which we are still seeing to this day.

            Unfortunately, it is probably true that no man has fully understood or been able to assimilate or follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth in a complete or perfect way. Although Albert Einstein was never a Christian, he had these words to say about Jesus: “No one could fail to be enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.” Those of us who follow Christ know that we walk in mystery, and the mystery of the grace of Jesus Christ continues to unfold before us every day of our lives.

            Failing to follow Jesus’s teachings regarding the necessity of forgiving and praying for our enemies is not a commandment that I think we can afford to forget. As Jesus said, “Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The truth is that most people don’t want authentic Christianity any more than they want authentic Islam. But that does not make Christianity and Islam equal or equivalent in any way. On the contrary. Authentic Christianity is diametrically opposed to and at the opposite end of the spectrum from authentic Islam in almost every respect, and that is something I did not even begin to appreciate until fairly recently. In fact, most Westerners probably still think that all Islam needs is a good reformation, and it would be “good to go” for assimilation into Western civilization. Almost nothing could be further from the truth.”

            It’s mind boggling how wrong the elites in any society can be. It takes a while to accept it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As Daniel Greenfield has alluded to above, the more Islam is reformed and moves toward the original and authentic version as practiced by Muhammad and his early followers, the more violent and aggressive it becomes.”

            Our modern Western civilization is based largely on fundamental values from the Bible. But most people don’t understand that. To them, “reformation” in the context of Christianity has connotations of being “modernized.” They envision some general idea of Darwinian progress or “evolution.” The Christian “reformation” was about pruning back the justifications for tradition over scripture. It was regressive and progressive at the same time. Because context matters. Content matters. Facts matter. There are no universal paradigms for “social evolution.” People with overly simplistic paradigms keep trying to find some “key” that does not exist in reality.

            If something is to be “reformed” it sure matters what we start with. Isn’t that logical? Humans are not fungible and ideas aren’t either.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The original Muslim invasions definitely provided a stimulus for the West, and I have no doubt that the current ones will as well. Think about it. It’s hugely invigorating to realize that someone wants to kill you, convert you, or subjugate you.”

            That’s an unpleasant truth. That’s why God allows chastisement that we should not understand as anger the way that humans get angry.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        If anything, Luther was more anti-Semitic than the Catholic Church. But that doesn’t address TP’s premise that Luther’s primary purpose was to reform … not Christianity … but the Catholic Church.

        I don’t know about the Catholic Church, today. I’m not a Catholic. But Luther’s reformation led to many theological movements, resulting in millions of Christians who love and support Israel. Luther might have quailed at this, but it has happened.

        • Gee

          Not going to argue that point in anyway about the unintended changes that happened later.

          My point was in fact the reformation was addressed internally and that part of it was very similar to Islam in the way it dealt with non-members

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “My point was in fact the reformation was addressed internally and that part of it was very similar to Islam in the way it dealt with non-members”

            That was a legacy of Catholicism. And if he appeared more extreme in some quotes, it was probably his attempt to return some balance to what he seemed to inspire.

            He was definitely no prophet. He was a flawed man delivering a crucial message that still resonates today, at least to those that understand what happened: He stood up to the imperial church and won based on intellectual arguments.

        • Drakken

          You can thank ole Luther for this leftist social justice garbage being pumped from the pulpit. The Catholic Church isn’t much better in the this regard and is silent in the face of Islamic aggression.

      • Tanks-a-lot

        Could it be that Jews were in fact really really annoying besides anything else?

        • Chavi Beck

          They were very annoying to Luther. Here he tried being nice to them and all, and they wouldn’t even convert! Blasphemous ingrates. Boil them all in oil.

          • Tanks-a-lot

            Jews have no place in europe
            no exceptions for Jews once muslims are pushed out.

            Why should there be any exceptions for Jews?

            Jews are NOT special

          • defcon 4

            Sick-in-the-head.

          • Drakken

            So your all for the flood of the 3rd world into our 1st world nations then? Pssst , those damn Jews your going on about are part of us westerners you bloody dolt.

        • defcon 4

          Annoying isn’t a crime — fortunately for you.

          • Tanks-a-lot

            It’s enough to piss off most regular folks.

          • Chavi Beck

            Some of us have the ability to tolerate being annoyed or even pissed off without breaking down people’s front doors with a pike. In my century they call it ‘being civilized.’ The Age of Enlightenment and all that. You’ll get there one day.

          • Gee

            Don’t bet on it. No racist has managed yet

        • Gee

          Yes we are a proud and stiff necked people that refuse to convert to the religion du jure.

          If that is annoying to likes of you – good. We are very happy with our choices – and frankly don’t give a damn if you like it

          • Tanks-a-lot

            good, don’t be in non-Jew countries in the first place and there will be no problems

          • Gee

            Exactly which are non-Jew countries? Should Israel expel all the goyim? You accept ethnic cleansing I see.

            How about you being told to get out for once? Seems fitting that fascist moronic racists like you get treated that way.

      • defcon 4

        It almost make you wonder if Luther knew who Yeshua and all his apostles were (or claimed to be), much less what they stood for (because I don’t think antisemitism was what Yeshua was preaching in Jerusalem).

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Luther was certainly tormented by the tensions between his beliefs due to past indoctrination and what he claimed to be pure Biblical truth. He had moments of clarity that were used to start a crucial movement. But at other times he seems like he had trouble casting off the past.

          It’s easier to demonize him if you remove him from the context of when and where he lived. I’m not defending him, but he was a tormented man. It’s hard to say what he actually believed in the end when he wasn’t directly defending the Bible. But his courageous defense of sola scriptura is what created the legacy we enjoy today. OTOH, it’s not like someone else could not have done it. He simply defended the Bible’s contents.

          • defcon 4

            Sola scriptura sounds a lot like the doctrine the Karaites follow.

      • Tanks-a-lot

        Jews are not special and should have no special privileges outside of Israel at any time or any place.

        • Chavi Beck

          Funny, I never thought of freedom of conscience as a special privilege. In my century most people consider it an essential human right. But I’m glad to see you are such an ardent Zionist. We can use the support of open-minded and intelligent persons like yourself.

        • Gee

          So freedom of religion is a special privilege? Wow – okay we must stamp out all Christians since that too is some sort of special privilege

          • defcon 4

            Why bother? The islam0nazis are doing an excellent job all on their own — and it’s not like anyone is intervening on the behalf of Christians being murdered, raped and forcibly converted to islam anywhere.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Remember that Martin Luther’s “Reformation” only improved the lives of Christians. He was just as anti-Semitic as the Catholic Church and advocated the same level of oppression.”

        That was the beginning of individualism in the West. It freed the Christians who went on to adopt the authentic principals of the Bible with less and less political corruption and taint. It took time because Catholicism was obviously dominant in politics and culture.

        Personally he might have been a kook and maybe even bipolar as we would call it today, but the movement itself was crucial. It’s one of the most important watershed moments in world history.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      They are. That’s part of the problem.

      Wahhabism is an Islamic reformation. Some of the nastier stuff we’re seeing is the product of that.

      Islam is any form is basically conquest-oriented when dealing with non-Muslims.

      A reformed Islam is even more so and often equally so toward other Muslims dismissing them as also infidels.

      • Texas Patriot

        DG: “Islam is any form is basically conquest-oriented when dealing with non-Muslims. A reformed Islam is even more so and often equally so toward other Muslims dismissing them as also infidels.”

        All that is beginning to become clear. From the standpoint of comparative religion, it’s an interesting approach to the idea of pleasing God. The question is, are we going to tolerate that kind of religion in Western nations.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          God doesn’t really have much to do with it.

          Islam is basically religious nationalism. There’s religion in there, but in the public sphere, it’s mostly nationalism.

          Expand, conquer, dominate.

          Allah is a kind of invisible Hitler who constantly whips up his followers to greater frenzies or killing and conquest.

          • Texas Patriot

            Muslims don’t see it that way.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Sure they do. They don’t wage jihad to please their fictional moon god. They do it out of sheer hatred and resentment of everybody else. Mohammad based a phony religion on plunder and subjugation so that he could get as many followers as possible to attack more and more communities. They aren’t trying to share the “glory” of allah, they’re trying to rule the world.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            More to the point, the expression of Islam’s truth is only given meaning by war.

          • Texas Patriot

            The only rational response to the religious ideology of Islamic jihad is relentless defensive conquest. There is no other way to deal with a militant religion totally committed to conquest and submission of the entire world. Either the attacks in the name of Islam will eventually cease, or the existence of Islam itself will eventually cease as a viable religious movement. After more than forty years of unchecked advances, the prairie fire of Islam is now raging around the world. It’s time to put it out.

          • Drakken

            Anyway you look at it, anyway you cut it, anyway you slice it, this all ends one way, and one way only, either islam destroys us, or we destroy islam, it is that bloody simple, and those days are coming whether you like it of not. So have all these philosophical discussions in a nice academic setting is all rather civilized, what is coming will be anything but civilized.

          • defcon 4

            It’ll be a bloody end no matter how it plays out. There won’t be enough gulags/re-education camps to incarcerate all those inimical to islam0fascism — at which point they become extermination camps.

          • Rick

            Thank
            you for this article Daniel, It seems
            to me that the impetus to all the Islamic terror is centered in CONTROL by the Mullahs, Clerics, and
            those who tend to profit from it, by bilking the mass of unfortunates who
            blindly support it. This would seem to extend to even the smallest of Islamic
            communities.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s a power movement in unstable societies, so yes

          • BUnyip

            Daniel Greenfield, islam is a “religious ideology”, nothing more or less. It has as much to do about “nationality as being identified as a ‘christian’, ‘taoist’ ‘zoroastrian’ makes you a citizen of the creed’s founding country.

      • defcon 4

        Timurlane, the genocidal muslime hero who killed or enslaved hundreds of thousands of Hindus and other assorted kuffar in the Indian sub-continent, waged war on other muslims for being lukewarm in their adherence to islamic ideology.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          It’s an ongoing process. The only real way to gain power in a theocracy is to kill infidels or denounce others as infidels and kill them.

          Rinse and repeat.

          • Jon MC

            Exactly.
            “Islamic extremism” is like an infinite set of Russian dolls. “Inside” every extremist group is another one, more extreme, just waiting to surface when the promised Islamic paradise inevitably does not materialise.
            Your article also points to something else that I’ve concluded: Islamic “extremists” aren’t ‘extremists’ at all – they are orthodox Muslims.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      I’ve heard many Westerners say that what Islam needs is reformation.

      In essence, Islam has already undergone its reformation of sorts. Initially Islam in Mecca was a religion of peace similar to faith based religions of today, but subsequent to the Hijra, which is a defining event in the history of Islam where Muhammad and his tiny band of early Muslim followers were ethnically cleansed from Mecca and forced to migrate to Medina, Muhammad became obsessed with getting revenge, and as a result turned to jihad and politics and in the process reformed Islam from initially being a religion of peace into what it is today, which is a very totalitarian cult that fully intends to subjugate into Islamic totalitarianism all religions and all infidels through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. Thus, Islam has already undergone its reformation.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    In the top picture, aim just between the koran and the ak47.

    • defcon 4

      This reminds me of a joke.

      Q: When is the best time to be winking at a muslim man?

      A: from a good site picture.

  • defcon 4

    This article isn’t very PC at all. I’m sure islam0fascists and their apologists all over the US will be screaming wacism and stamping their widdle feet in wage. Thank you Mr. Greenfield.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      They weren’t charter members of my fan club before.

  • S.L. Rachford’s Ire

    Great article on current Islam understanding of their world. Not for anyone else, or else!

  • bjedwards

    amen

  • Waiting

    Very clearly said. If only more people understood that this is the way it is. No wishful thinking can change the facts.

  • N. Wasse

    Do your self a favor stick to Islam v. democracy and secularism and that is it

    The Arabs are saying that you cannot have a democracy unless people are really equal and you cannot have equality in Islam and the only way to democracy is when there is real equality (man and women Muslims and non Muslims) and that there shall be no elite and this can be only achieved through secularism

    Now it is your chance to reply! Go!

    • MukeNecca

      Do your self a favor stick to Islam v. democracy and secularism
      Just saw that one.

      Do yourself a favour and see that your claim regarding the democracy and secularism was of general nature. You are trying to wiggle out from the mess by pretending you had only Islam in mind. Pathetic.

      • N. Wasse

        Let me guess you did not get it right? What general nature? Muslims tell us that Islam is deen wa dawla
        which means that there cannot be any secularism in Islam right? therefore there is no equality of human beings which means that there is no democracy in Islam so what is general here?
        So are you beyond help or are you a troll?

  • george mack

    Living in an overwhelmingly Muslim country, I offer this recent report on the situation here which you can analyse for yourselves. http://rossrightangle.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/court-outrage-citizen-resisters-get-harsher-sentences-than-islamonazi-thugs/

    • defcon 4

      Indonesia is currently involved in ethnic cleansing of the najjis kaffr in W. Papua New Guinea — which is nothing new for islam0nazis Indonesia, which committed a genocide of the najjis kaffir in E. Timor in the 1970′s.
      Islam0nazi, islam0fascist it’s all the same, it’s all islam.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    I don’t think I would ever characterize an Islam and Muslims that fully intend to subjugate all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism via non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world as being so-called moderates. That characterization also means that violent jihad and its proponents are the only so-called extremists. The bottom line — no matter how you try to portray it — is all Muslims, regardless if they are violent or non-violent, are the eternal enemies of all religions and all infidels. Thus, since all Muslims are our eternal enemies, in a sane world mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage should be outlawed, banned, and reversed ASAP.

  • defcon 4

    It’s very unfair to suggest all of the najjis kaffir will be enslaved to used in salt mines — muhammad enslaved little boys and women as well, for purposes besides working in mines. Why muhammad in his enlightened state even took pity on a poor Jewish woman who had recently lost her entire family in Khybar and made her his personal bedroom assistant.

    • Hass

      Hehehe… Actually, that story of Pedo Mo taking pity on a Jewish woman was a total fabrication. It cannot be found in any of their books. It was made up to make Pedo Mo look compassionate.

      • defcon 4

        I was referring to the Jewish woman he took as a sex slave after beheading her husband and making her a widow.

  • USARetired

    This nation must wake up and follow the path Japan and Australia have taken against Muslims!

  • Andrew

    Excellent article Daniel, the far left are indeed shameless ostriches if they seriously believe that our modern Huxleyian societies will ultimately “triumph” in a battle against medievalism this vicious and alien.

  • Just a Muslim

    To Daniel Greenfield. After carefully reading your article, and examining your analysis at which you have based your conclusions on. Also, after reading some of the comments of the esteemed people here who wish to wipe us Muslims of the face of the world. I’m astounded of how IGNORANT you all are about Islam, or its fundamental teachings!!! Have any of you even tried to research the Koran and Mohammed’s (Preys and Peace be upon him) teachings?!?! I doubt… I doubt you even spoke to an actual intellectual Muslim to truly understand the teachings of Islam. A lot of you seem to ignore the fact that for decades many Muslims around the globe have constantly and strongly condemed the acts of those you call Islamic Extremists as [NON-Islamic]. There are almost 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, the majority of them do not want to burn, pillage, subjugate, or oppress others as you so Falsely and Shamefully accuse us to be. A lot of you also seem to have forgotten their history, and that many wars and insurrections and conquests and crimes occurred under the name of the Cross and Eessa (Jesus) (Peace be upon him)… Islam abolished “Racism” over 1400 hundred years ago by one sentence. from that day, Muslims prey shoulder to shoulder, Arabs, Africans, Asians, Caucasians, everyone! You think we are discriminant to other religions?! We glorify Eessa (Jesus) and Moossa (Moses) (Peace be upon them) more than the Christians and the Jews themselves… I CHALLENGE ALL OF YOU!! To bring any kind of proof from the [Koran] to your False and Shameful Accusations… One Last Comment to be fair… Muslims everywhere ARE NOT above criticism, nor are they without SIN. Its Not Islam to be Blamed, its the PEOPLE who have deviated from those Teachings who are to be Blamed. People make mistakes, not Allah…