Islam - A Militant And Proselytizing Faith

"Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable." George Bernard Shaw

 

This is an article published in the Toronto Star,  (ht Adora), which I thought may spark an interesting debate.

It is a plea written by eleven Canadian Muslim academics and activists: Jehad Aliweiwi, former executive director of the Canadian Arab Federation, Taj Hashmi, sessional professor, Simon Fraser University, Amir Hassanpour, associate professor, University of Toronto, Tarek Fatah, host, The Muslim Chronicle, CTS-TV, Tareq Y. Ismael, professor, University of Calgary, Jacqueline S. Ismael, professor, University of Calgary. El-Farouk Khaki, secretary general, Muslim Canadian Congress. Shahrzad Mojab, associate professor, University of Toronto. Haideh Moghissi, professor, York University, Munir Pervaiz, secretary, Pakistan-Canadian Writers Forum, Saeed Rahnema, professor, York University:

A curtain of fear has descended on the intelligentsia of the West, including Canada. The fear of being misunderstood as Islamophobic has sealed their lips, dried their pens and locked their keyboards.

With hundreds dead around the world in the aftermath of the now infamous Danish cartoons, Canada's writers, politicians and media have imposed a frightening censorship on themselves, refusing to speak their minds, thus ensuring that the only voices being heard are that of the Muslim extremists and the racist right.

Emboldened by the free rein they have received, Canada's Muslim extremists and their supporters flexed their muscles at Queen's Park last week, with speakers promising to drown the Danish people "in their own blood".

A protestor carried the sign "Kurt Westgaard - countdown to justice has begun ... it's just a matter of time."

Elsewhere, in Pakistan, a Muslim woman was pictured carrying a sign, "God Bless Hitler," and a Muslim cleric placed a $1 million reward for the murder of a Danish cartoonist. Embassies were burned, churches ruined and hundreds died in different Muslim countries.

Undoubtedly, Muslims were angered by the insulting cartoons. But the overblown reaction was partly due to their pent-up frustrations, and partly the result of orchestrated mischief by certain Islamist leaders.

Islamic societies, run by variances of autocratic regimes, are in turmoil. Ravaged by rampant corruption, a widening gap between rich and poor, and suppression of dissent, the people in these societies have lost hope in their own futures.

The U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the unending occupation of the Palestinian territories and the quagmire of the Kashmiri dispute, have led many Muslims and non-religious peoples of Islamic origin, to view the West as the source of their countries' problems.

The growing popularity of the extremists in Muslim societies, the electoral success of the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, Shia radicals in Iraq, and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, rather than signifying the growing religiosity of the peoples of the Middle East, reflect political despair in the region.

In the West, people of Muslim origin, be they religious or secular, are facing growing racism, Islamophobia and discrimination reflected in immigration policies and anti-terrorist legislation.

The cartoon crisis was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The Muslim extremists seized the opportunity and added fuel to fire. The calculated role played by the two Danish Muslim extremists, backed by Islamic fundamentalist regimes, is a case in point. They not only aggravated an already inflammatory situation, but added their own infuriating images, never published in the West, as they took their case to clerics in the Middle East.

Both, Imam Abu Laban and Ahmad Akkari have escaped the attention and scrutiny their acts deserved. These two men, who now sit in the comfort of their homes in Denmark, should be held accountable for their criminal actions.

For too long the media have created an image that portrays communities from the Muslim world as a monolith entity, best represented by extremists.

The media have created a false dichotomy that pits these Muslim extremists against the West. The fact is that in all Muslim countries, progressive citizens are trying to break loose from the tyranny of the autocrats and clerics and wish to develop a civil society where citizenship is based not on inherited race or religion, but the equality of all, irrespective of faith, race, sexuality or gender.

In Tehran today, the city's bus drivers are on strike. Thousands have been arrested; entire families have disappeared. Yet, this has not made a blip in the western media.

If the same bus drivers were burning books or embassies, this would certainly be on the evening news. This is an appalling example that only outrageous, violent expressions of faith by Muslim extremists are taken as the aspirations of people from Islamic societies.

It is time for Canadians to stand up for the hard-won democratic values that the Muslim extremists oppose.

By rejecting the agenda of the extremists, Canada's intelligentsia would be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Muslims and secular individuals from the region who reject both Islamophobia and Islamism. Islamism is not the new revolutionary movement against global forces of oppression, as a section of the left in this country erroneously perceives.

Today, the religious right and autocracies in the so-called Islamic world are united in their call for passing legislation to make any discussion on religion a criminal offence.

This, at a time when many writers in Jordan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan are rotting in jails, facing charges of apostasy and blasphemy.

We call on Canadian politicians and intellectuals to stand up for freedom of expression.

Our democratic values, including free speech, should not be compromised under the garb of fighting hate.

To fight Islamophobia and racism, we do not need to sacrifice free speech and debate.

What is a “moderate Muslim”?

There isn't one. Brilliantly put by a Muslim blogger called Jamal, on another thread:

"...those that refute Islam and seek to distort its laws in order to change it so that they can commit sin. These people are not moderates, they are those that may be weak in faith and hypocritcal towards Islam."

If they don't wish to commit Jihad on the infidels, follow the law of Shari'a, and issue Fatwas against everyone who disagrees with them, they are considered bad Muslims aren't they? So the Qur'an tells them.

There is a warped idea of equality in existence when the entire Muslim world calls us pigs, monkeys and hates us as inferior infidels, banning us from every single participation in any dignified life in any of their countries.

Why do you demand equality when you give none in return? Why is it your divine right to receive and yet you give nothing in return.

And most of all why are we not boycotting Islam until it recognizes the infidels' right to exist side-by-side with Muslims as equals.

We don't mind standing side-by-side with you in the fight against the tyranny of orthodox Islam. In fact, we recognize that, as Sir Winston Churchill put it succinctly over a century ago, "individual Muslims may show splendid qualities". However, as long as you deny what Churchill equally well knew, you are not addressing the fundamental problem:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualizm deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

UPDATE MARCH 3rd: Spiegel publishes today Muslim intellectuals' Akyol and Baran proposed Muslim Manifesto.

Comments

[jgreen44]

Stefan,

It sounds as though you have been reading Victor Davis Hanson, who makes the same point. I can only agree. Contrary to what our liberal Democrat friends would have us believe, after 9/11 we could not continue supporting the status quo in the Middle East. And we could not retreat into isolationism. The Bush Doctrine is the best alternative we have at this point. As hard and frustrating as it is, slow and steady wins the the race. And if it doesn't: Plan B is going to be very ugly.

[Stefan]

Washington,

You are correct about the fact that we have learned things in this war. I put too fine a point on my statement. What I meant is that the urban combat tactics that we are learning and refining are also designed to protect innocent civilians and property. We fight in Iraq as if we were fighting in the midst of people we care about (because we are). If we slip into an all out clash against Islam (which some think is unavoidable) then we will be fighting entire populations as well and our careful tactics will not be so valuable. We will be using both hands at that point. Even if Islam is at the root of the problem we cannot just say; “Either they become Christians (or something) or we will eventually have to kill them all in self-defense.” We can pull our troops, disengage from the world, and seal our borders (silly of course). We can appease radical Islamists and hope they will play nice some day (no comment needed on that). We could invade and occupy all Islamic countries, forcibly “re-educate” Muslims, and try to convert them to Christianity in an attempt to eliminate the dangers of Islam (this is silly as hell and Christianity can only be accepted by free-will). We can just annihilate the whole Middle East and be done with it (which is brutally insane). OR we can follow the Bush doctrine of engagement which uses American power as a catalyst to attempt to bring about a new style of Islamic society. It is a big job but it is the only path (that I have seen presented by any side) that makes ANY sense. What are the other options?

[RL]

JGreen,

you forgot to mention all of those clitoral "circumcisions" in the islamic African nations, and even in some regions ofthe Arab world(Eygpt). why are the so called, "woman's rights groups" in the USA so conspicously silent on all of these barbaric, cruel, and evil islamic-issues concerning girls and women in the islamic world ? are they afraid of something ?

their total-silence is sickening !

frontpagemag.com (Please enter, "islam's Hatred of the Clitoris", into the frotnpagemag.com search-engine, if you don't have a weak- stomach, and a really soft-heart. Not for the feint of heart)

[jgreen44]

Jamal,

When the heart of the Islamic beast, Saudi Arabia, grants equal rights to women and non-muslims I will believe that "Islam recommends unity and respect to others." Until that day, your words are simply false.

[jamal]

Thanks for the link. Howeverm it should be noted that Islam recommends unity and respect to others living in Muslim countries and, for Muslims to respect others in non-muslims countries. It is not "A Militant And Proselytizing Faith", but as with many systems, has affiliated members that do so.

[slowtrain]

gringoman, I apologize that my train sometimes run slow. That's why I named it slowtrain. :) But, somehow it manages to get there at the right time. I promise to make it go a little faster.

Regards.

[eteraz to liquid & others]

i finally made that posting on the prophet and poets on my blog. enjoy.

[gringoman]

Slowtrain,

Oops! 'A Perilous Premise.' You'll pardon my perilous recall?

[gringoman]

Slowtrain,

Your perceptiveness is further demonstrated by your post, "A Perilous Journey." Oddly, this seems to be the most recent on your blog, dated November 05, 2005. I can't believe your train is that slow. There's got to be another explanation.

[RL]

prophetofdoom.net

islam's terrorist dogma in mohammed's own words.

Not reccomended for bedtime reading, and not suitable for
children under 16 yrs. of age.

familywatchdog.us

the next best thing to a highly obedience-trained APBT.
Please know and watch your neighborhood. Thank you and God
bless you.

The primary reason why this is the coolest blog produced by
a woman, is that it is created by a class-act who has good-
taste, in my humble opinion. ATB (Alexandra the Beautiful)
in case you were wondering, i like chewy and chocolatey
brownies that are flakey on the outside; since Norooz is
coming-up, maybe if i shared my mailing adress . . . : )

"i suppose that i should have stayed home and baked some
cookies." hillary rodham

YES ! you should have.

[slowtrain]

gringoman, you are absolutely correct. It matters not, and that’s even assuming there is such a thing as "moderate" Muslim, which there is not. As I said earlier there is only “good” Muslim and “bad” Muslim, which in itself is twisted, because the “good” Muslims is the one that would explode himself with dynamite to kill someone he believes is an enemy of Islam, but a “bad” Muslim would not go that far.

Nevertheless, you raised a good point, which is not limited to Muslims, but even to free people in Western societies. As James Baldwin said, “the only useful definition of the word ‘majority’ does not refer to numbers, and it does not refer to power. It refers to influence.” This explains the recent unexpected election outcome in Palestine.

[gringoman]

If you'll pardon gringoman quoting gringoman:

"What does it matter if 99% of muslims are "moderate" if they can be rabble-roused, manipulated and intimidated by the 1% who are hideous fanatics and murderous miscreants?"

[Liquid]

"Mohammedans’ religion might be sustained by scimitars, but Christians’ religion
must be maintained by love."

"When Mahomet would charm the world into the belief that he was the prophet of
God, the heaven he pictured was not at all the heaven of holiness and spirituality.
His was a heaven of unbridled sensualism, where all the passions were to be enjoyed
without let or hindrance for endless years. Such the heaven that sinful men would
like; therefore, such the heaven that Mahomet painted for them, and promised to
them."

MORE Charles Spurgeon's quotes by clicking here

[slowtrain]

North by Northwest, that is precisely the point. Consider the fact that no Muslim leader in the West or elsewhere has unequivocally condemned terrorism motivated by Islamic imperatives. Consistently, they have rationalized it, essentially justified it, one way or another. If it’s not blamed on Israel or the Palestinian cause, it would be for insulting Islam or Prophet Mohammed. The fact is that it could be for anything that is contrary to their point of view or the “teachings of Islam”. What do think the sword that is often in Islamic symbols, sometimes alongside the Quran, stands for? It is also interesting that there is no word for compromise in the Arabic language or culture.

[North by Northwest]

slowtrain - "A "bad" Muslim is one who does not actively engage in jihad". Exactly!

And all the talk about 'peaceful' Jihad, i.e. boycotts, non-violent demonstrations as well as any other form of non-violent activism as prescribed by the more moderate Islamic websites are just biding time; NONE explicitly rule out violence, and ALL I read at one point or another expressly reserve the right to resort to violence. It has been an eyeopener for me to realize that Hamas in their party program are actually saying what every "good" Muslim already knows: think long-term; this isn't about a one generation; this is about world domination. One step at the time.

[slowtrain]

Alexander, there is no such thing as a "moderate Muslim". In Islam, the phrase is an oxymoron. It would be like “diversity in unity” (the opposite of unity in diversity)—the notion that people can be divided and united at the same time. All the glib rants we hear from Western leaders claiming that Islam is a religion of peace or that there is moderate Islam, is nothing but lies to appease Muslims and blindly hope that they don’t blow themselves up in buses, trains or buildings full of innocent people on their streets. Well, that appeasement is not enough, because they are, and will continue blowing themselves up in buses, trains and buildings on European streets, to kill the “infidels”, as long as the warped ideology that drives them stands.

When Islam and the conducts of Muslims in Western societies and elsewhere, particularly, the so-called “good” Muslims, are examined in light of Western values and against the backdrop of the cardinal laws of logic—the law of non contradiction and the law of rational inference, there can be no doubt that Islam cannot coexist with Western values. The implications of these fundamental laws of logic are inescapable in any argument or dialogue. The law of non contradiction states that no two contradictory statements can be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. Hence the notion of moderate Islam, which is a contradiction of the Islamic empowerment, is invalid. Moreover, regardless of what Muslims and our timid leaders tell us, we can reliably base our judgment or discernment for where we are headed, on what is actually happening around us — what we see Muslims do, how they act and react on issues, such as freedom of speech, when they don’t like the speech that is expressed. Going by the law of rational inference, which states that inferences can be made from what is known to what is unknown, we have a pretty good idea as to the direction Islam would push the Western society and as to the validity of the claims of peace and tolerance made on behalf of Islam.

There are only "good" Muslim and "bad" Muslim. As you have already learned, the "good" Muslim is one who would engage in jihad for anything he does not agree with, purely on the premise of the Islamic empowerment, i.e. the idea that all must submit to Islamic authority. A "bad" Muslim is one who does not actively engage in jihad

[RL]

The major problem with the Arab world is that they have not been Christianized (with the sole exception of Lebanon, and pockets of Egypt and Syria, which are both "led" by brutal dictators who have a firm grip on absolute-power/corruption). The wisest thing that the French did in Lebanon is to constitutionally forbid non-Christians from being able to be elected into the office of the presidency. The two most westernized Muslim nations are Jordan and Turkey, and they are also the two most liberal and secularized nations in the Middle-East and Eurasia (the fact that Jordan also has the second best intelligence-service in the Middle-East certainly doesn't hurt either).

The only hope for the Arab/Muslim world is the Gospel message of Christ (eeinternational.ord/dykfs) and Biblical Christianity. The longer they choose to keep their doors shut to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Word of God; then the longer they will continue to be majority-world countries who are an unenlightened force for darkness and evil in the world. There was another very significant Englishman who was alive during Churchill's era, and he once stated the following:

"If you had gone to Buddha and asked him, 'are you the son of Brahma?' he would have said, 'my son, you are still in the veil of illusion.' If you had gone to Socrates and asked, 'are you Zeus?' he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, "are you Allah?' he would have first rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius are you heaven, I think he would have probably replied, 'Remarks that are not in accordance to nature are in bad taste.' The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. He (Jesus) was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met him. He produced mainly three effects: hatred, terror, or adoration." C.S. Lewis ("A Mind Awake: An Anthology of C.S. Lewis")

"Jesus Among Other gods" by Ravi Zacharias (a very-good and interesting read on comparative religions from a Hindu convert to Christianity); "Biblical Christianity provides a unified answer for the whole of life." Francis Schaeffer, simpletruth.org

[Washington]

Dear Stefan:

Let me first address a serious flaw in your above pronouncement; we are learning about the enemy. It is the story of military history in that in ANY battle one learns valuable information. I suggest a perusal of any tactics book not addressed to the lay reader or a career in the military to help you understand.

As to militant Islam you have formed opinions that are solid in your mind with respect to how we must deal with it in future. I shall add the following:

The War in which we are now engaged is important for it has established that we will engage any who seek to undermine our Western democracy. Further, we created an arena wherein we are able to form opinions about the efficacy of the enemy's ability to fight. No doubt we are in for the long haul and there will be a million theories on how best to deal with our common enemy. It is good to let people throw theories around even as we steadily undermine Islamic militancy by all means available.

Make no mistake-it will be difficult-but we shall prevail. Exactly how is being decided for no plan survives first contact with the enemy-but prevail we shall so long as we also fight those who would appease. This group of people would sell out to Hitler, Stalin, and now anyone wearing Arab dress. They are a desperate lot and deserve universal loathing.

[Darrell]

All Things Beautiful--Miss a day, and you have to play catch-up for a week! Alexandra, you are a force of Nature! Great ideas, spirited debate, always a pleasure to visit your home!

Joe. You forgot to mention that Churchill(Winston, not Ward) was white. And that he never did anything while he was alive to stop the threat of Wal-Mart from circling the globe--a great concern of yours. We'll visit your blog when we are looking for the "truth." If we can find any, once we make the trip.

[slowtrain]

Response to Stefan's comments:

Indeed, it is not an easy question Stefan, but it is a necessary one and there can be no way around it. As long as no free people can live in isolation, the question becomes even more imperative. Alexander the great said, “upon the conduct of each depends the faith of all”. A direct and present affirmation of this reality is what the West is experiencing today—a threat from within, by Muslims whom the West, in its disposition to freedom and progress allowed into its society.

The Western society remains free only to the extent that the Muslim, basking in his newfound freedom in Western society, is free, and that, is only to the extent that his mind and mental attitude is free from the ideology that failed him and necessitated his departure from his homeland.

The paradox however, is that Muslims in Western societies are not free from the ideology that failed the societies from which they came, and that ironically, they seek to impose the same on the Western societies where they now dwell. Hence, the dangerous situation the West has now found itself, one that has led to the ongoing debate and the attendant consternation and conflagrations.

Why would people seek to establish the same cultures that had failed them and on which account they left their motherland in the first place? It is not for any practical intent or purpose, but for the same warped and unreasoned precepts that drive people to strap-on explosives and blow themselves up, just to kill innocent people that they have been lead to believe are enemies of Islam and for the promise of a phantom paradise.

The general feeling in the West, clearly a naiveté, is that Muslims who come to the West, seek a better life and an escape from the stifling humdrum of stagnant societies groaning under the stranglehold of an inhibitive ideology, an ideology that is antithetic to progress, because it denies people the exercise of the essential elements of humanity—analogical reasoning and free play of the intellect, when it comes to that ideology itself.

Psychiatry defines insanity as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Because the basic tenet of Islam is imitation (or taqlid in Arabic) of everything Mohammed did or is perceived to have done, it is a closed idea, there is no room for progress, hence the stagnation of Islamic societies, which in turn breeds envy, hatred and the desire to destroy the West, even if it entails destroying themselves to do so. As Bob Dylan said, “When you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose.” As I have written elsewhere, Islam prohibits free play of the intellect (or ijtihad in Arabic) and analogical reasoning (or qiyyas in Arabic). This how Muslims act in ways that defy logic.

It is not enough to welcome Muslims into Western societies and expect them to be transformed involuntarily by these societies, through the process of “cultural osmosis” (effortless and unconscious assimilation). The only way to secure freedom in the West, with regards to threat posed by Islam in the West, is to demand that Muslims who seek to become part of the Western societies be verifiably willing to be assimilated into those societies, by completely embracing the core Western ideals of freedom of expression, tolerance, analogical reasoning and free play of the intellect. Then, working with these assimilated Muslims in its societies, the West must then actively seek to bring about such freedom in Muslim lands. Only by so doing can the stagnant societies and the ideology that inhibit and marginalize them be nudged on to the path of progress. Only then can the West secure its own freedom. If there is any lesson learned from the events of 9/11 in America, the Madrid train bombing, and the 7/7 train bombing in London, it is that the West can no longer ignore the lack of freedom and the Madrasas in distant Islamic societies, where young Muslims, even those born and raised in Western societies, are formed to hate and destroy the West, and more so why that is.

[Stefan]

Washington,

I agree with you that this is not a problem caused by the West and those that profess that are fools. The problem I see is this. If some people (those that support the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan) are “hoping against hope” that there can be some form of democracy in an Islamic country then why aren’t those that see this as an unavoidable head-on clash join with the anti-war left and advocate an immediate withdrawal? Sure they have different motives than those on the left but the conclusion is the same. We are bogged down in a war that is hopeless and un-winnable. If Islam and all its followers are a total and complete loss then it is the very essence of foolishness to waste lives and money to try to “help” them isn’t it? We are learning nothing of “their methods-in warfare”. The methods of the terrorists in Iraq are entirely dependant on our attempt to bring stability and order while remaining in a position of “moral high-ground” by respecting human rights. If we actually become involved in an all-out war, their tactics would be useless and they would be decimated. We would be playing all our cards and they would be slaughtered. Roadside bombs and random suicide bombers are worthless tactics in any real military sense. They are only effective in trying to break our will at home, break the morale of the troops, and demoralize those Iraqis that wish to live in freedom by spreading chaos. The Islamists in Iraq are not killing us (relatively speaking) they are killing Muslims. But yet those Muslims that are being targeted are doing a rather remarkable job of trying to remain calm and muddle their way into some sort of new society are they not? Things are dire but we must not start hyperventilating. There are so many things that can happen. The Soviet Union collapsed; most people never imagined in their wildest dreams that that could ever happen like it did. Again, for me as a Christian, my beliefs will not allow me to ever give up hope on huge segments of the human race...EVER. This view does not mean needless “cheek-turning”. It is to be hard-nosed, determined, principled, realistic, pragmatic, very often fierce and powerful, but always hopeful that somehow we humans (with the grace of God) will once again stumble our way out of what looks like total disaster...until we manage to fall in the next big hole. Our weakness is not abroad, it is at home, in the US and in Europe (and even Canada). We can only lose by crumbling from the inside. We must relentlessly stand up for what is just, in a manner which reflects that justice, and try to extend the right of freedom to those who seek it. Even if it hurts like hell to do it. It is our steadfastness that defeated the Soviets. We would not relent and finally its internal contradictions caused it to collapse on itself. Truth will always conquer lies. Islam is full of unsustainable contradictions and only by engaging it will those cracks ever become fault lines. Iraq is critical and we must not relent.

[Liquid]

Whats that saying, "you can lead a horse/camel to water but you can't make him drink?"

IMHO, I am all for freedom and I am all for people having choices, but when that freedom is used in a political way against others, with the agenda to dominate all into bowing to allah under it's ideology and continues to seduce it's followers into being taught by via their koran that they will be rewarded for doing so into the afterlife, then I would disagree with it as real freedom goes out the window then. I would also disagree with the freedom of choice used by democracy (or any other political tool for that matter) when it becomes a ticket to enforce that the Israel nation doesn't have the right to exist.

As long as people want to make all this out to be a prejudice against 'people' instead of the ideology then it will continue to be misunderstood. Real freedom will come with truth and the truth will have to be addressing the actual ideology itself and stop sidestepping the issue of refusing to scrutinize it claiming it is "some taboo belief" or "trying to label a person as racist" when they question or disagree with the ideology. That is probably the number one tactic we must overcome when anything sets itself above all criticism because when an ideology forces this "being above question" mentality through intimidation of unearned respect it forces you to become a follower in your own passive thinking process. You may think you are respecting it by not allowing it any scrutiny, but it goes beyond something called respect. It's done nothing more but intimidate your lips into silence because in the end if you are willing to give up your freedom of speech or freedom of expression for it...then it will eventually seduce you into a place of no escape. So IMHO, I do not think one has to respect this "ideology" as a way to free anyone. Truth is what sets people free and I wish that for all....including the muslims of this world.

[Alexandra]

What is a “moderate Muslim”?

There isn't one. Brilliantly put by a Muslim blogger called Jamal, on another thread:

"...those that refute Islam and seek to distort its laws in order to change it so that they can commit sin. These people are not moderates, they are those that may be weak in faith and hypocritcal towards Islam."

If they don't wish to commit Jihad on the infidels, follow the law of Shari'a, and issue Fatwas against every Tom Dick and Harry who disagrees with them, they are bad Muslims aren't they? So the Qur'an tells them.

Why are the Muslims constantly proclaiming some warped idea of equality when the entire Muslim world calls us pigs, monkeys and hates our guts as infidels, banning us from every single participation in any dignified life in any of their countries. Why do they demand equality when they give none in return? Why is it their divine right to receive and yet give nothing but hatred in return. Why, because we are taught to turn the other cheek?

Personally I think we should boycott Islam until it recognizes the infidels' right to exist side-by-side with Muslims as equals. Until then there is nothing to talk about.

[Washington]

Stefan:

I think that may are fighting, hoping against hope, that Islam will suddenly discover that they can live with their neighbors. However, if one uses history as a guide to the future, we are not going to see any ISlamic state sustain a democratic government for any appreciable time period without itself resorting to non-democratic methods of dealing with fundamentalist militants.

The large group of morons that I should like see deposited in the middle of the ocean are those that contend that radical Islamic ideas are somehow new, or a product of the West. One need only look, again, at history, and not revisionist history, to see that like it or not this war is religious, if not by our fair minded chaps-certainly by their leaders who push Jihad like poisonous Kool-Aid.

Our war in Iraq is not futile for we are learning their methods-in warfare it is always a positive development when one can study the enemy-especially one that is failry nebulous in composition.

[North by Northwest]

JG44 - I too would love to see reciprocal treatment vis-a-vis Islam in the West. I know it spits in the face of everything we stand and fought for; but it seems the only way to deal with this outrageous situation.

Joseph - I think you are missing the point entirely. Islam needs to reform. It's violent doctrine replaced with religious thought and sentiment, akin to any other that stood the test of time. The issue of the 'moderate' Muslim is that s/he currently chooses NOT to adhere to Islamic doctrine for what ever reason. That common-sense attitude needs to be systemic. Islam needs its Martin Luther, just as much, as the Catholic Church needed a kick in the teeth in the 15th century. Not in his most optimistic dreams would Martin Luther have imagined how far the Catholic Church has evolved during the past 500 years--incidentally, he wouldn't want anything to do with the Protestant Church as it is today and wouldn't rest until what has evolved from his reformation was restored to orthodox doctrine and 'original' glory.

The fundamental and unique difference with Islam is, that salvation is obtained through outward struggle and prescribed oppression of fellow men, as supposed to inner strive towards humble submission through ones own free will to the revered deity. All other world religions rely on their core teachings of love and peace as their primary inducement to proselytize. All the very best of daily ritual and practices are nothing but auxiliary components relegated to mere window dressing if Islam does not rid itself from such ungodly foundation.

[Stefan]

Here is an excerpt from “The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success” by Rodney Stark (which everyone should go and read) that is important for understanding the primary source of the difference in world view between Islam and the West:

“…traditional Jews and Muslims incline toward strict constructionism and approach scripture as law to be understood and applied, not as the basis for inquiry about questions of ultimate meaning. For this reason scholars often refer to Judaism and Islam as “orthoprax” religions, concerned with correct (ortho) practice (praxis) and therefore placing their “fundamental emphasis on law and regulation of community life.” In contrast, scholars describe Christianity as an “orthodox” religion because it stresses correct (ortho) opinion (doxa), placing “greater emphasis on belief and its intellectual structuring of creeds, catechisms, and theologies.” …the primary thrust of the three faiths has differed in this respect and with very significant consequences. Legal interpretation rests on precedent and therefore is anchored in the past, while efforts to better understand the nature of God assume the possibility of progress. And it is the assumption of progress that may be the most critical difference between Christianity and all other religions. With the exception of Judaism, the other great faiths have conceived of history as either an endlessly repeated cycle or inevitable decline – Muhammad is reported to have said, “The best generation is my generation, then the one that follows it, and then the ones that follow that.”

This is key to understanding the problem Islam has had in innovating itself to accommodate the democratic freedoms that we cherish (and that many Muslims desire) here in the West. “Progress” is a Christian innovation and is alien to Islam. It is an idea that has been “imported” to the Middle-East and has resonated with many of its citizens but since there is no tradition of “theology” in Islam the religion has been crippled in trying to accommodate it.

That being said, I find it hard to understand the disconnect in the statements of those who fully support the efforts of the Bush administration and the sacrifice of our troops to bring freedom and self-governance to Afghanistan and Iraq (which I do) but then turn around and claim that Islam is “hopeless” and the only way to deal with it is to succumb to it or defeat it. If Muslims are by nature unable to ever think pluralistically and democratically then many war critics are correct that we are engaged in an unprecedented waste of time, treasure, and blood. Both positions cannot be correct. We either give up on the Islamic world, declare the whole thing a total loss, and prepare for the inevitable all-out war of the future or we continue to believe that democracy will be able to take hold anywhere; because as President Bush said: "I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world." We must ask ourselves: are we fighting for only our freedom or for the freedom of Muslims as well? It is not an easy question.

[jgreen44]

This is the quote that troubles me:

"Canada's intelligentsia would be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Muslims and secular individuals from the region who reject both Islamophobia and Islamism."

Islamophobia does not need to be rejected. It needs to spread. Islam is a dangerous and corrosive ideology. And until the heart of the beast, Saudi Arabia, grants equal rights to women and non-muslims I shall remain unswayed in my belief.

Muslim immigration should cease until Islam recognizes the infidels right to exist side-by-side with muslims as equals. And, in order to pressure Islam to reform, we should treat Islamic nations as pariah states. Give them the same treatment we gave apartheid South Africa.

The US and other enlightened nations should also consider enacting a reciprocity law which states that the practice of Islam will be sanctioned within the USA, UK, France, etc. only to the extent that the practice of infidel religions (including atheism, etc.) are sanctioned within Saudi Arabia.

Forcefully confronting Islam with it's own hypocrisy may end this threat to the West. The hypocrisy, of course, is that Muslims demand that Westerners tolerate everything about their religion in the West while Muslims are completely intolerant of other faiths in their lands.

[Nasty_Ninety]

I think there is a terrible misconception by a lot of non-muslims concerning what muslims want in terms of Government. The Governments in Islamic nations are indeed corrupt, but most muslims attribute the failures of their governments to the West and that those regimes just aren’t “practicing Islam good enough”. That is the sad reality in muslim nations. One definition of “insanity”, I have heard over the years, is “trying to solve the same problem, the same way, expecting different results”. That is what we are looking at in trying to set up “democracies” in the middle east. They will be like other so-called “democracies” like North Korea whose official name is the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. So much for democracies.

[RL]

Joseph, please check-out today's accurate and interesting breakpoint commentary at, breakpoint.org. Thank you.

Shalom & Blessings in Christ, RL (an ex-muslim)

You can learn why i left the man-made religion of the koran at, desiringGod.org

[Liquid]

Laurel, IMHO, it's the generation coming up that are so vulnerable. I see it aleady. Here in America, while most children are being told by their own president that "Islam is peace" and is re-inforced within the civil liberties laws in our public school systems because if anyone disagrees with this statement, they are subject to not being politically correct or labeled as an islamophobic person. Running parrallel to this, however; is the strong wahabbi influence onto the campuses of our universities which waits for the vulnerable student in hope to corrupt them. While this is taking place,on the other hand, many of the muslim youth of tomorrow here in America are taught something really different within their own islamic schools and mosques. The hate literature has been found. You can read about it HERE

I feel that much of the American youth in the public school system has been "fooled" into tolerating an ideology that has a political radical force funded by the Saudis that overtime continues to "bully" it's own on it's way to complete it's ultimate agenda. People are discussing this bullying towards freedom of speech more today because of the freedom of the press and the cartoon issue, but the struggle has already been active and damaging the freedom of speech in the classrooms and is effecting the minds of our youth in ways people might not realise. Many young people today won't even discuss Islam on any level in fear of offending someone. In America, the children have always felt safe and loving to all those that came here to be part of our nation. To see the fear in children's eyes as they take all this cartoon vicous hate in and trying to comprehend it is overwhelming for many of them. So it's already had a great impact on how they are processing it. The friction that is going to continue to spark a serious damaging flame is taking place amongst our youth on both sides of this issue already. One is intimidating and has enjoyed the stopped exchange via poliical correctness while the other is duped into passively thinking everything is "peace" and that we all have nothing to worry about!

To duct tape the mouth's of our children in the name of political correctness is to give our future away to an ideology that is hell bent on dominating us. Today's fight for freedom of press and speech is the ongoing fight which many people fought for us in the past and it is a reminder and wake up call that it is still THE fight for the most precious tool for our children's survival. If we lose it now...they will pay for it tomorrow! Would parents be so easily passive about giving up a rare and precious inheritence for their children from their grandparents? It's time to hold freedom of speech in our hands and rethink how important and how rare it has really become because if things keep going in the direction they are, someone is going to leave us holding nothing! Whose fault will it truly be?

[Joseph Marshall]

I'm not exactly sure what you want the topic of the "debate" to be about, Baroness, but I'll take a stab at participating.

If the purpose of quoting Churchill was to reiterate that many of the values of Muslim culture and the Muslim world are not to your taste, there is really nothing to debate. This is self-evident, and I, at least, would hold no brief to persuade you to change your taste. After all, many of those values are not to my taste, either.

As far as your assertion that these fine Muslim intellectuals are not "understanding the real problem" is concered, however, what you are saying to them is precisely this:

The real problem is that you are Muslim, the real problem is the content of your actual religious beliefs.

Now suppose, as a Buddhist, I said to you, the real problem in dealing with you is that you are a devout Christian, if you would cease to be a Christian, then I could deal with you.

Wouldn't you find this to be a little bit hostile on my part? And not really condusive to a genuine "debate" between us? Well, actually, so would I. And this is not just because I'm a Buddhist, though Buddhism asserts that irrational prejudice against any religion is a wholly bad thing, and bad for you, too.

It is also because I not only "stand up for hard-won democratic values", I actually can articulate some clear idea, beyond sloganeering, of what they really are.

One of those democratic values is that you must persuade your fellow citizens to agree with you, you cannot compel it, and that government--with the consent of the governed--has the right only to restrain criminal actions, and not to criminalize political or religious beliefs.

As far as the debate goes, our pragmatic need is to persuade the persuadable among the Muslims in our midst, that we do, in fact, support such a democratic value, and that they should, too. Within the very small compass of my world, I do everything I can to do this.

Your telling them, however, that the problem is that they are Muslim, is not giving me very much help.

It is also not giving these fine Muslim intellectuals very much help in persuading the persuadable in their own religious community, either.

Moreover, here you actually have some intellectually responsible and politically moderate Muslims to listen to. This is real and direct evidence, in fact, that political moderation and intellectual responsibility actually do exist among Muslims.

Do you address the evidence? Do you listen to them? Do you even acknowledge their support of democratic values. Not really.

What you do is say to them that the support they are giving to democratic values is inherently incompatible with their religious beliefs. Thus, it follows inevitably, if their support is genuine, they are intellectually incoherent fools.

Who you do listen to is a fine man, long dead, who--whatever else noble he may have been--had a political agenda of sustaining the control of the government of three-quarters of the world, mostly the Muslim part, by the countries of Europe.

Need I remind you that this same control was hardly democratic when it existed, and the political support of it was certainly not in the interest of "democratic values"?

To drag in Churchill, merely to reiterate your view that all Muslims are bad, might spark a democratic debate about moderate Muslims, but it is hardly a legitimate way of debating with them, or persuading them of anything.

The fact that you will really not even approach the idea of listening to them and debating with them is the "real problem". At least it is the real problem in places where we actually have some democratic values to defend.

What the devil do you expect to persuade them of in your "debate"? That their religious beliefs are wrong and that they really deserve the status of second-class citizens constantly monitored by the police, just like they are in Saudi, in Iran, in Syria, and in Jordan?

Under these circumstances, it would really be very interesting for you to actually articulate, in some specific detail, what you think "democratic values" are.

It would also be interesting for you to make the case, with reasons and evidence, that Christian belief inherently supports those democratic values. Far more interesting, in fact, than constantly reiterating, with nifty new pictures, that Muslim beliefs do not.

It would finally be interesting if you actually addressed why you think Christian belief is more correct than Muslim belief. Or even than Buddhist belief.

I don't remember having seen you do any of these things since I started looking in. If you did these you might be in a position to actually start a genuine and useful "debate" with the people who disagree with you rather than merely about them.

[Laurel]

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

This is absolutely amazing that he saw this coming so long ago. I agree whole-heartedly. Unfortunately, I think a confrontation will ensue here in the US soon. I pray for our country.

[Liquid]

I just don't think people realise what all is taking place in Canada! Canada is home to the world's largest Tamil diaspora — 200,000 people — many of whom support the LTTE's goal of an independent Tamil nation, if not always their methods. Read HERE to see how intimidation is working in the great white north!