Posted on 08/07/2007 11:40:06 AM PDT by Posting
A Bridge to 'Moderate' Islam Is In Fact a Road to Hell
Amil Imani - 8/8/2007
Islam is a religion of peace and the great majority of Muslims are not party to any plans and actions of the radicals’- so claim academic pundits, leftist journalists, and hired Islamic apologists. The incantation of these “authorities” is the lullaby that puts the people into a sleep of complacency.
Complacency and appeasement on the part of the free world and those well-meaning, non-practicing Muslims, can only serve Islam. There is no chance for co-existence with Islam. All one needs to know is to see what is happening in Islamic countries. That is exactly what is in store for the presently free people of the world if Islam is not held in check.
The average free person, who is busy with all manner of demands on his time and resources, would hardly want to worry about the very real threat which mainstream Islam poses to his life and to his future. It is so much easier to accept the claims of authorities who assure us not to worry; ‘it’s just a tiny minority of extremists’, and ‘soon the great majority of “moderates” will triumph over the crazy zealots’. So we lull ourselves back to the comfort of our pretenses, serene in knowing that the “experts” have it all under control.
Wait! Aren’t these the same experts who told us Hitler could not possibly be crazy enough to attack Russia or Britain? Aren’t these the same “experts” who tried to cover up Mao Tse Tung’s reign of terror in China, or Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia? Isn’t this the same “expertise” that assured us in the 1970’s that inflation was good, and could never be accompanied by recession?
Aren’t these the same folks who tell us the Saudis are our best friends in the Middle East, that the Titanic was unsinkable, that we should not succumb to our racist impulses by reporting suspicious Muslim men who are learning to fly jumbo jets, and that goods imported from China are perfectly safe? Or that if we just “open up dialogue with our enemies”, we can create peace?? Hmmm...It seems like we have much to worry about when the “authorities” begin to disseminate their collective wisdom. And don't bank on the politicians either. They are the master practitioners of the art of the politically correct.
Yet, some of these professional advocates of Islam go farther by accusing those who sound the alarm as racist, bigots, hatemongers and much more. That attitude sure worked well for England, Holland and France!
But the elites who scold us and seduce us into our slumbering acquiescence never allow their dismal record of intellectual failure to prevent them from claiming ever more enlightenment. Their present project is to ‘build a bridge to moderate Islam’.
Let us, for the record, be clear on this subject one more time: Islamism, Islamofascism, Radical Islam, Political Islam, and Militant Islam are different terms for essentially the same thing, a virulent, hateful, and violent system of beliefs and practices. Yet, one and all are progeny and mutation of Islam itself.
Islam in all of its forms and sects is simply an evil ideology that is practiced by all Muslims. Islamism is a pincer, with the world in its jaws between the end-of-the-world Shiism and the jihadist Sunnis. To the simple mind of western “intellectuals”, within every ideology there must always be “good liberals” and “bad conservatives”, and so they search in vain for the “moderate”, “reasonable”, “pragmatic” wing of any threatening ideology.
But in their enormous ignorance of the realities of Islam, they fail to realize that in Islam, the wings are not “left” and “right”, or “liberal” vs. “conservative”; they are two jaws in the same supremacist device that aims to crush the life of all non-believers. I will explain why attempting to build a bridge to “moderate” Islam is in fact a road to hell, since “moderate Islam” is oxymoronic.
The so-called “Moderate Muslims” or “Secular Muslims” would like to have their cake and eat it too. They wish to remain Muslims in name only, yet not bother to read the mandates of the Quran or understand the context in which Muhammad foisted his poisonous prophecy upon the world.
Instead of conclusively demonstrating Islam's violent nature from its very inception and moving in another direction with what they can prove is the worthwhile portions of Islam, they have decided to marry an inherently noxious religion with an inherently godless philosophy, secularism. “Secular Islam Summit” was hilarious; a run-down and meaningless show of desperate attempt to salvage a bankrupt and deadly ideology.
Also, these happy-go-lucky people-of-Islam are indeed delusional, for Muhammad’s record is not even the subject of debate. His utterances and deeds are a part of history that is simply not debatable. Islam is what Muhammad said it was in the diatribes of vitriol and hatred that is the Quran; and Islam is what Muhammad did during his violent life. If you accept Islam as your religion, you become a part of the guiding principles of hatred, revenge, and rejection of prior enlightened prophecies. But the “bridge-builders refuse to acknowledge the fact that one cannot be a Muslim and not abide by the dictates of the Quran.
Keep in mind that the fact being a Muslim is a clear admission of wrongdoing, the extent of which depends on the degree of a person’s Muslim-ness. If he is only a Muslim who does not practice Islam, then he is, at the very least, guilty of hypocrisy. If he is somewhat of a Muslim by tithing, from time to time, following the ranting of the local mullah or imam, and swallowing whole the pronouncements of the high divines, then he is guilty of significantly contributing to the evildoings of Islam.
It is time for the non-practicing Muslims to abandon their childish desire to cling to evil, yet pretend they can “reform” it, like the abused wife insisting that she can cure her alcoholic, violent spouse by remaining in a codependent relationship. It’s time the self-described “moderates” either accept the truth of their ugly religious ethics and reject them by joining the forces of liberty and worldwide family of free people, or join the forces of darkness. But to join the peace-loving free world, you must immediately stop making excuses for the religion of hate!
Here is my 10-point process to understand why Islam cannot be “moderated,” for the benefit of those misguided people who are the advocates of “Secular Islam.” I will prove that “Secular Islam” is just a hoax.
1_The first question that must be answered is whether or not any doctrine can be called “evil”. If nothing is good or evil, then all of life is inherently nihilistic, and all thinkers and believers in life (all of us) are necessarily nihilists. We must establish a way to measure “evil”.
Take for example, Naziism. How are we to know that the Nazi party was evil, and that present-day believers in Nazi principles are doing evil? We certainly cannot use traditional Islamic mea culpas, to rid Nazis of their well deserved guilt! We can’t look at present day Nazis who are demonstrably not trying to take over the world. We can’t ask the average Nazis on the street to declare themselves authorities on their entire cult.
We can’t just look at the actions of some of them, for in doing so, we could simply assert that the good Nazi party was hijacked by “radicals”. It is certainly true that the vast majority of German supporters of the Nazi party in 1936 were normal, peaceful people who were simply held hostage by the zealots. If you took a random “Nazi”, you’d be vastly more likely to condemn him for his taste for Sauerkraut rather than see him participate in an actual murder.
So we have the same excuses at work that exist in the debate over Islam, but today we condemn Naziism as evil. If it is illegitimate to simply look for a nice Nazi, and try to build a bridge to the Nazi power structure through him, then how can we think we can do it with Islam? We think so because we have presupposed that Naziism is bad, and because of the forces of propaganda, we believe that Islam is not. But this begs the question: How then do we know what evil is, so we can condemn it?
The answer is that the only way to determine if a thing is evil or neutral or good is to establish a working definition of what constitutes evil and its opposite, good, and then test the doctrine against the definition.
While it is true that many people will disagree on the precise definition, it does not matter. Let each person establish the definition for him or herself, and at least be logical and fair in evaluating the evidence of the creed. In other words, deal with the consequences of the process, no matter how hard the findings are to accept. The Bible says, “You shall know them by their fruits.”
2_Once a definition is in place, the only way to evaluate a belief system under any accepted definition is to read the foundational books, the manuscripts that define the creed...the scripture that was carefully written to explain the norms and intent of those who established it. You cannot ask a Nazi whether he thinks he is evil. He will tell you he is good, and that you are evil for resisting him, because he is defending his “people” against those who resist his beliefs. This is exactly what Muhammad said about the Jews and Christians who resisted him.
“Thus (will it be said): ‘Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire.’" Quran 8.014
“And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but Allah (also) plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters.” Quran 8.030
“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease (in defeat), then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.” Quran 8.039
You cannot allow a random Nazi member to provide personal anecdotal opinion and declare it to be authoritative. Only the written treatises of the founders may be taken as true expression of the belief system. You cannot take a third-party account of Nazi goodness to be superior to the Nazi party principles and the philosophy espoused in Mein Kampf. That would be ignoring Hitler’s beliefs in exchange for that of an outside observer commenting on Hitler’s beliefs. The same is true for Islamic apologists. We can’t just trot out any “scholar” and declare him to be authoritative over the words and deeds of the most important figures in Islamic history.
This is the precise error that Stephen Schwartz makes in advising people to read the Aqida al-Tahawiyya (interpretations of the creed), or other apocryphal interpretations that only a fool would escalate above the Quran and Hadith. Yet normal people can’t help notice the similarity in name of “Aqida al” as referenced by Schwartz is his fatuous quest for moderation in an inherently oppressive philosophy, and the more memorable name “Al Qaida” as manifested in reality. Why does the third-party whitewash text name so closely resemble Terror Inc’s brand name? Because they are the same thing!
Once we have found the foundational texts which declare the basis and purpose of the creed, in order to validate the creed as it is written we must test if the leaders of the creed are in fact true to their words; one must look at historical actions of those who rose in rank through the belief system. Look at their words, actions, and reactions as their lives played out to see if they were consistent in representing their own creed. This is how you test whether or not a doctrine is evil.
3_Having defined evil, and having isolated the relevant foundational texts, we can move ahead. If we find a group of people who adhere strictly to their codes of conduct as established in their scripture, we cannot place these people on the sidelines of their religion as aberrations or “extremists”. Such attempts to marginalize the fundamentalist believers in a religious movement are the product of highly confused and illogical thinking.
A person cannot be “extreme” with respect to her religion if she is in alignment with all of its commandments and admonishments. Being highly devout is “fundamentalism,” but it is not extreme or radical. The reason we wish to believe that a Buddhist who never steps on an ant is “extreme” is because we realize that the behavior is unusual and difficult to accomplish, inasmuch as almost nobody can live up to its ideals.
But to view an action that is rare and strange to you, and then declare that, because it occupies a far-off position with respect to your personal beliefs and capability to align, it is therefore “extreme” with respect to its own religious dictates, is highly illogical and quite frankly stupid. And this is the precise “logic” that is used by those who wipe the Islamic slate clean, declaring all inhumane practices and advocation in Islam to be the handiwork of “extremists.” Such muddled thinking does nothing to advance our understanding of the creed, the evil it does, and its dangers to mankind.
If we use this process and we objectively find that Islam satisfies the definition of evil, we cannot then be subject to the insults of the ignorant who themselves refuse to conduct a like investigation. We cannot be accused of being “Nazis” ourselves simply because our rational discovery and analysis process uncovered true evil. It would be the height of absurdity to declare that an anti-Nazi is just as bad as a Nazi for vehemently opposing Nazi thinking! The same must be true for Islam.
4_ I won’t get into every nuance of the reasons; any average person can define evil and read the Quran and come away with the sole conclusion that it is evil. Only those of us who have bothered to read the Quran and parts of the Hadith and Sunna and who have bothered to read history and take note of present-day Islamic violence and oppression in light of their dark beliefs can say that we have good reason to declare Islam an evil cult. But suffice it to say that Islam, as configured by Muhammad and as interpreted over the centuries, essentially boils down to the following principles:
a. Jews and Christians are, per se, the epitome of evil to Islamic thinking. Pagans are also evil, but somewhat less insulting to Allah, since the Jews and Christians received prophecy and “rejected” it.
bump
Moderating Islam allows them to consolidate their gains. As long as they are not radicalized, it is a one-way ratchet that leads to our destruction.
The Muslims are doing the West a great favor by being radicalized. It causes us to take notice and oppose them. Perhaps by opposing them, we can stop them.
It is far from a sure thing, but it is the only shot we got. Those who wish that Islam would just calm down and coexist are wishing for our own destruction.
When she [Ann] said ‘Islam is a car burning cult’, I think she tried the best to be mild and to offend them too much...
Yes, but you and I should NOT hijack the thread, unless someone has pics. Then maybe the thread should be hijacked....LOL
One thing is never mentioned....”What if we don’t want to co-exist with Islam”? Do we not have the right to do this? I sure as hell do and this is my country, not theirs.
Where it will eventually lead in the US...
Saudi Arabia - Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death. Bibles are illegal. Churches are illegal. Easter celebrations are illegal. It is punishable by death for a non-mulsim to enter the “holy” muslim cities of Medina and Mecca.
Yemen - Bans proselytizing by non-Muslims and forbids conversions. The Government does not allow the building of new non-Muslim places of worship.
Kuwait - Registration and licensing of religious groups. Members of religions not sanctioned in the Koran may not build places of worship. Prohibits organized religious education for religions other than Islam.
Egypt - Islam is the official state religion and primary source of legislation. Accordingly, religious practices that conflict with Islamic law are prohibited. Muslims may face legal problems if they convert to another faith. Requires non-Muslims to obtain what is now a presidential decree to build a place of worship.
Algeria - The law prohibits public assembly for purposes of practicing a faith other than Islam. Non-Islamic proselytizing is illegal, and the Government restricts the importation of non-Islamic literature for distribution. The country has passed the “Regulation of Religious Practice” law, which stipulates a punishment of two to five years’ imprisonment and heavy fines for anyone convicted of urging a Muslim to change his religion.
Syria - The constitution requires the president to be a Muslim and specifies that Islamic jurisprudence is a principal source of legislation. Sharing your Christian faith is discouraged as “posing a threat to the relations among religious groups” and carries a penalty of up to life in prison. A Christian is not allowed to proselytize – ever. Churches who want to hold an extra service must get a government permit. Sermons are routinely monitored, as is church fundraising.
Jordan - Has the death penalty for any Muslim selling land to a Jew.
Sudan - Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death.
Pakistan - Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death. Bans proselytizing by non-Muslims. Christians regularly put in prison for charges of blasphemy. Islam is the state religion, and in a court of law the testimony of a Christian carries less weight than that of a Muslim. Section 295(c) of the Penal Code calls for a death sentence for anyone who defiles the name of the Prophet Muhammad and requires the testimony of four Muslims for a conviction. This fosters an environment in which Muslims can feel free to use intimidation and violence against religious minorities for personal gain. Also, if any criminal Muslim rape with any Christian female and then take plea that she has accepted Islam and marry with him. Such person is not culpable under Pakistani criminal law
Qatar - Islamic instruction is compulsory in public schools. The government regulates the publication, importation, and distribution of non-Islamic religious literature. The government continues to prohibit proselytizing of Muslims by non-Muslims.
Malaysia - Under Malaysian law, any convert to Christianity must apply to a shariah (Muslim law) court to legally renounce Islam. Many Christians prefer to remain silent converts rather than take their battle to the shariah courts, where apostasy or conversion out of Islam is punishable by whipping, fines, imprisonment and—in the most extreme application—death. In a country where Muslims account for more than half of the population, conversion from Islam is punished with a 5-year prison sentence and a $3,000 fine. A Malaysian Muslim who marries a non-Muslim and who converts the non-Muslim to Islam is rewarded with an apartment, a car, a one-time payment of $2,700, and a monthly stipend of $270.
The Maldives - In the island paradise visited by tens of thousands of tourists each year, Christianity is simply not tolerated. While local Christians – said to number around 300 out of a total population of 300,000 – do get together to worship, they do so at the risk of imprisonment or worse if discovered by the Muslim authorities. Bibles are banned, and tourists can be arrested for trying to bring them into the country.
England - Bradford, Yorkshire, UK. Pop. 300,000 - 20% Islamic. Local police required to tell community elders the location of girls who run away to escape arranged marriages. Bars and liquor stores in the Lumb Lane / Manningham Lane area of the city ‘requested’ to close on Fridays.
Schools, colleges, and health clinics have to have separate areas for women, with a copy of the Koran available. Public critcism of Islam or it’s adherents, such as letters to the local paper, emails to friends, speeches etc, can and has led to criminal charges ‘Using words intentionally and wilfully to cause fear, hate, or distress. Christmas decorations not to be put up, as this may make the Moslems feel ‘culturally overshadowed’. Shops ‘requested’ not to display easter eggs for the same reason. The term ‘requested’ means not legally enforceable but local police warn that they cannot intervene if your premises get ‘damaged’ somehow. Local councillors and MPs have encouraged all this for the past 15 years. Bradford Northwest MP Ann Cryer regularly appears with long sleeves and her head covered. She once stated that women in Islam are properly liberated and that Islam is an example to us all.
BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting...written by a muslim.
Just read Tony Blankley’s book...both of these authors seem to be aware of the danger...now it’s time to wake up the west.
Terminal stupidity.
About April of this year, a friend of mine and her husband visited their Christian cousin & family who reside in Morocco. The cousin & spouse operate an orphanage. My friend observed the orphan children played outside like normal, healthy children. To note the difference, the cousin then took my friend to observe islamic children that looked to be as young as three in a darkened, windowless room sitting in chairs rocking back and forth chanting verses from the Koran for hours if not all the day.
15 - Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 - Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 - Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 - A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 - Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 - Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I have seen the "Fruits" of islam; war, violence, terrorism, beheadings and the like.
Christians need to wake up!
“Moderate muslims”
Are simply unarmed.
Excellent post - thanks
Allah is not Yahweh.
Islam takes no prisoners.
Jesus Saves.
bookmark
oops....the politicians on the demonrat side of the isle are going to be angry now!
Imani is not a Muslim.
“Islamism is a pincer, with the world in its jaws between the end-of-the-world Shiism and the jihadist Sunnis.”
I don’t think I’ve ever seen it put in such a clear manner. It is also worth noting that they are not mutually exclusive.
bump
“Imani is not a Muslim.”
From the context of the article, that’s something I should have known, isn’t it? Thought it was another Hirsi...
This needs to be uttered in the Halls of Congress, preached on the Streets of every Major city in the Free World (what’s left of it) and taught in every school.
Until this disease called Islam is wiped out.
Amil is Iranian. And therein lies the origin of his hatred of Islam. While I understand many Iranians’ bias against all Islam, I don’t think it’s helpful or productive as obviously there are muslims like Dr Jasser and Shaykh Kabbani who truly are anti-extremists.
“Dr Jasser and Shaykh Kabbani who truly are anti-extremists.”
True.
bump
MEGA-BUMP
I have stated several times on FreeRepublic the following sentiment:
“The only way we can beat back Islam in this country is to declare it a cult, remove it’s status as a religion, and legally ban it.”
We have studied Islam at the church I attend. This writer NAILS exactly what we studied and concluded. There are no “moderate and devout” Muslims. If you are a devout Muslim, you are militant.
WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!!!!
Amen to that! And even those who are not really paying attention should be able to see the handwriting on the wall when beheading after beheading occurs to even innocent humanitarians. Or when the jihadists demonstrate carrying "Death to the West" signs. How can there be ANY question of what is at stake?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.