headerphoto


Radical islam and moderate muslims

In my last article on the topic of moderates, I've established that the term 'moderate' is defined by its relativity to what is considered 'extreme', which by itself is a notion quite open to interpretation, and that both of them are used in today's political climate to label people, much like 'bigot', 'racist' and all the other terms used to silence opposition.

The second part of these series will delve deeper into the mentality of islam and muslims, in an attempt to explain why islam itself is a belief system that creates extreme mindsets, and rewards extreme actions. To think otherwise of it is an incorrect assumption at best, and a dangerous wishful thinking at worst.
To a first-world person unaquainted with the islamic world and its scripture, it is natural to assume that muslims are people just like him, who wear different clothes. Decades of relativism have instilled the false notion that 'all religions are the same'; that there are no deep, unbridgeable gaps between different cultures, beliefs, and values. That is why many Hindu girls naively marry muslims, thinking they are 'moderate', only to wake up in a nightmare.
But the quran is nothing like the Bible and the Torah, save for the early verses that were stolen directly from them. It is not a collection of stories about different people from different times, mixed with moral fables and ancient mythology. The Torah commands men to believe in God alone, not his messengers, or the book; nor does it claim to be holy and unchangeable - these are all Rabbinical teachings from later centuries, that came as result of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
In harsh contrast to that, the quran reads more like a series of direct commands, in which one man - mohammed, gives explicit orders to his followers on how to expand and enforce islam. Commands such as "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Quran 9:29) are not vague metaphores open to interpratation. Moreover, most of the verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of allah.
Not only is more than 60% of the quran about the kafir (unbeliever), but conflicting verses are solved by the rule of abbrogation, which means that if something in a later part of the quran contradicts a passage appearing earlier in it, the later part takes precedence. Historically, as mohammed became more militarily successful and power hungry, so did the quran become more violent and hateful, since he saw no more need to seek co-existance with the defeated kuffar.
To someone who isn't particularly religious, it may seem funny to take these commands seriously, but to a muslim these are the words of allah, and he has no right to doubt them - because to doubt allah is to become an apostate, to whom hell awaits, and who lives in fear of being murdered by devout muslims. Therefore, verses like "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" (Quran 5:33) should worry us all.
These words were not written just so mohammed can vent his anger and frustration - there is a purpose, and a strong, primordial element behind them.
The purpose was given in the most plain sense by Caliph Abu Bakr, mohammed's successor, when at the Battle of Qadisiyya, in the year 636, he sent a message saying:
"Convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life."
The goal of islam to create a warring supernation, whose members are either prepared to die in battle, or give birth to those who do.
For a true muslim, jihad is inseparable from islam, because islam was spread through warfare. That is its only merit, and the only 'proof' of its supremacy. Personal enlightenment, such as in Buddhism, is not a factor at all in islam, but killing non-muslims is, because a nation of wise meditation-practitioners is not a good base for a death-seeking army that hungers for conquest. I repeat, the only proof muslims have of their warlord being a 'prophet', and that the quran is a holy book, is islam's ability to conquer and infest vast parts of this globe.
The muslim supernation (ummah), therefore, must constantly fight enemies - real or imaginary, from within or without, because islam is actually about only one thing, and that thing is - domination.
Understanding this one notion is key to understanding both islam, and its followers.

The mentality of a bully is based upon the notion that "I am better because I can dominate someone else", and Islamic societies are based upon domination: the leaders dominate the people; men dominate women (and camels, and sheep... and goats); muslims as a whole dominate minority groups (just ask these Egyptian Copts).
Notions like honesty and truth are foreign to them, because they do not assist in dominating others, which is why the local merchant in a Moroccan or Turkish bazaar will take as much money from a tourist as he can get away with, unless being forced to lower the price through barter; why they have no problem criticizing the 'decadent west' and plot its destruction, through the same tools it has shared with them, like the internet, television, radio, and comercial airliners. Barter, diplomacy, propaganda, bribery, humiliation, murder and warfare - everything serves only to dominate others, muslim or kuffar.
This is not merely the tradition of desert nomads, but a deliberate design: young men are not allowed to have sex, or drink alcohol, while mosques fill their minds with hateful beliefs, in order to turn them to frustrated human beings, willing to vent on anyone they are allowed to.

The last basic islamic belief I would like to bring here is that of allah being the direct cause of everything, which leads to a lack of personal responsibility: if something goes bad, it is allah's will, and if something goes well, even more so; victory in war is a sign of allah's favor, and defeat is the opposite; a bullet or an arrow do not hit their target because you have aimed well, but because allah wanted your target to be hit; and if you happen to hit someone over the head and kill him, it is not your fault, because it was allah who made your hand move and land the blow.
Some more examples are given to us by Bill O'reilly, author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind:
"For instance, former British Islamist Ed Husain relates that “Hizb ut-Tahrir [an organization dedicated to the restoration of the caliphate] believed that all natural events were acts of God (though in some actions man could exercise free will), hence insurance polices were haram . . . Hizb members could not insure their cars.” Likewise, the use of seatbelts is considered presumptuous. If one’s allotted time has arrived, the seatbelt is superfluous. If it has not, it is unnecessary."

So, what do we get when we combine all these factors - the holy duty of jihad, the culture of dominance, and the belief that allah is the direct cause of everything - together?

First of all, they create a closed circle that cannot be reformed from inside. Any reforms to Islam only made it more extreme (Wahhabism is only 200 and some years old), and whenever a 'moderate' islamic sect is willing to negotiate with non-muslims, even when these negotiations are extremely demanding and one-sided, it is being seen by other muslims as weak.
In accordance with the belief that allah controls everything, leaders who cannot dominate the enemy by warfare, are necessarily not favored by him - that is why yasser arafat and abu-abbas say one thing in English to westerners in peace conferences, but convey an entirely different message to their Arab supporters; why a clever snake like Anuar Sadat, who managed to deprive Israel of Sinai and its oil fields, was still assassinated shortly thereafer; and why Al Zarqawi was betrayed soon after losing the support of local chieftains in Iraq
In fact, the very search for a 'moderate' islamic group to negotiate with, in order to sign papers with, pushes it to radicalize, in order not to lose support from the people it rules over, and at the same time creates even more extreme factions, who see themselves as 'true muslims'.
That is why when the PLO negotiated with Israel, even though its goal remained the destruction of the Jewish state, the Arab settlers still drifted towards the more extreme Hamas, which even now enjoys so much support that the US and Israeli governments won't dare allow its men into Judea and Samaria, knowing full well they will take control from Fatah, whose only real difference is, as put by Daniel Greenfield, "that the extremist wants to cut our head off without talking to us, while the moderate wants to tell us exactly why he wants to cut our head off, and how many heads we can give him to satisfy his bloodlust".
Which is their only choice, really. Because domination is so important for the self-esteem of muslims, both as individuals and as a group, any treaty or compromise are seen as a humiliation by the kuffar - which is why the population of Egypt and Jordan are more hostile to Israel than ever.
Where is moderation in a society that has no middle grounds? Where the only options are to dominate, or be dominated?

And as for the possibilities of islam turning more extreme, Daniel nails it again: "While the term 'Islamic Extremism' is commonly bandied about, the fact of the matter is that Islam possess an endless reservoir of 'extremism', simply because it's always possible for a cleric to dig up more stringencies, and denounce those who don't keep them as heretics. Somalia and Afghanistan, where Islamists beheaded Muslims for watching soccer games, teaching girls to cut hair, men for not having beards or for playing music-- demonstrate just how boundless the reserve of extremism is. With historical bans on everything from playing chess to owning a dog to playing a musical instrument-- there is always a new extreme to push toward."

But I hear you say - "they're not all like that! What about moderate muslims, like my neighbor who prays to mecca five times a day but didn't yet cut my throat?"
This last group of people is who I'll devote the rest of this article to.
As put in Citizen Warrior:
"The majority of Muslims ignore the Qur'an's instructions to subjugate infidels. People are people, and in many places in the world, Muslims did not choose to be Muslims. Somewhere along the line, they lived in a place that was converted to Islam by whatever means, and now they are Muslims, but may have never read the Qur'an in their own language, don't really know what's in it, and don't follow most of the things prescribed in it.
They are casual Muslims. They're just living their lives, going about their business, raising their families, and are not interested in taking over the world."


These casual muslims would gladly deny everything you've just read, say you misinterpreted the quran, that islamic nations are havens of tolerance and puppies, and laugh at your face for ever thinking otherwise. It is their only defense, because, like I mentioned earlier, culturally muslims are not keen on telling a truth that doesn't suit them, or at taking responsibility.
And what does the quran say about such nominal (or casual) muslims?
"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Quran (9:73)
The 'hypocrites' mentioned above, who get lumped together with unbelievers, are those muslims who do not follow the quran correcly, and as you've seen, to follow it correctly one must take part in the global jihad, one way or another.

In their defense, some nominal muslims are truly making their claims out of ignorance, unknowingly helping the devout muslims mislead us, but just because they're uncomfortable with facing the truth, doesn't mean any of us should indulge them. In fact, it is better to confront them about it sooner, rather than later, because at any point in life, these people may become radicalized, either by their own study of islam, through a charismatic imam, or (in the case of women) by marrying a more devout muslim man.
Here is one such story, which proves that the sons 'liberal muslims' are not immune to going that route.
While they may be nice enough people, not taking any stance against devout islam at this time, is simply not enough. Calling us names without denouncing other muslims is as good as agreeing with the countless crimes these brutes commit on a daily basis, and then there's always the tendency of such amiable 'moderates' to go with the flow, when there are dominant muslims around. The two unfortunate, unarmed Israeli soldiers that accidentally drove to Ramallah 10 years ago (video) might have been tortured and murdered by a few brave jihadis, but it was the whole crowd that cheered in an orgy of bloodlust, before lynching their bodies.
Even if the nominals aren't personally interested in bloodshed, 'radical' elements happily murder 'hypocrites' who don't measure up to their standards of islam, and under threat of murder, humans tend to become very obedient. Not all Germans were hardcore Nazis, but many decided to play it safe. Likewise, don't expect the nominals to take a risky stand.

Others are less innocent, and practice taqiyya - that is, telling you an outright lie, because it serves the higher purpose of islam (conquering and dominating all other cultures).
Frankly, there's no sure way to tell one from the other, because muslims have no rules-of-conduct when it comes to debate. You cannot guilt them into telling the truth, because they have no concept of personal guilt, and you cannot trust their display of emotions, because muslims, and arabs in particular, love putting on a show: their leaders are in love with grandiose displays of wealth (like golden hummers, or the tower of Dubai - which, by the way, is the result of muslims insisting on having the tallest building in the world to 'prove' their superiority [despite being unable to design, or engineer such a construct]); their films feature absurdly exaggarated acting; their imams carry fiery speeches that send whole crowds into fits of rage; their common women cry and scream on camera when describing imaginary war-crimes; and their men gather like locust for ceremonial public funeral of fallen shahids.
The situation becomes much worse when cameras are involved. In this video, notice the circus revolving the kid, and how he's being forced into the 'evacuation' van, despite not suffering any noticeable injury.

Therefore, the only muslims you can actually trust are ex muslims, who constantly live in fear of reprisal from the 'peaceful communities' they once resided within.

So, hopefully you can see by now that Islam was not hijacked by terrorrists - they are merely the armed wing of islam, which is complemented by its cultural, political, and financial onslaught on all non-muslim nations, as mandated by the quran and the hadith. We may say that some of their methods are moderate, but they all serve to achieve one extreme goal.

I would like to conclude with the immortal words of a great American patriot, Alexander Hamilton, who said:
"Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option;
that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others. ...
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Oh, and a happy thanksgiving!   



For more on the subject of moderate islam and muslims, check Exposing the Myth of Moderate Islam, Praying for a Moderate Terrorist, and How the Western Pursuit of Muslim Moderates Actually Promotes Extremism.

3 Comments - Share Yours!:

PatriotUSA said...

Very, very well done article
HL. Perhaps your best and you
have totally blown the 'moderates
of islam' out of the water.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Islam, like many forms of Judaism and Christianity, believes in the creation of a new spiritual order. Unlike them however, in Islam such an order begins with a program of conquest in the present day, rather than waiting for a first or second coming to come and transform the world. And that puts it in a state of permanent conflict with everyone else.

PatriotUSA said...

Daniel, well put and yes so very
true. Seems to be when islam is
not in conflict with all the rest
they are war with themselves.

There is no peace within islam
and with islam, there will never
be peace.