Posted on 01/29/2005 12:39:55 PM PST by rmlew
When people speak of moderate Islam as the solution to radical Islam, they mean that there is a modernizing core within the Muslim community capable of transforming it into a civilized member of the world community. They foresee that the dar al-Islam, the Realm of Islam, will cease to be at war with the dar al-Harb, the Realm of War, and particularly with that part of the Realm of War known as the West. I describe these ideas as the "ecumenist" school of Western-Islamic relations, because to believe in the existence of moderate Islam is to believe that the two civilizations can erase their mutual divisions and get along as friends—-even mingle together, as some urge, in a single, shared civilization.
Based on my analysis of the writings of Daniel Pipes, one of the chief advocates of the moderate Islam idea, I argued in the first part of this article that moderate Islam does not and cannot exist. Yet its proponents still feel a deep need to go on believing in it, since the only alternative they can envision is unending civilizational warfare. It would be a war waged not only between the Western and Islamic parts of the globe, but—because of the huge Muslim immigrant populations already sojourning in Europe and North America—within the West itself. The prospect seems so horrible that the ecumenists cling to the faith in a moderate Islam no matter how unsupported it may be by the evidence.
Notwithstanding these fears, there is a rational alternative to the belief in a moderate Islam. I call it the "civilizationist" school, because, in contrast with the ecumenist school, it not only posits irreconcilable differences between the two civilizations, but grapples head-on with their practical implications. Thinkers of the civilizationist school note essential facts about Islam that make any friendship or cooperation with it suicidal in the long run. These include the Koranic command on Muslims to engage in jihad against non-Muslim societies until the whole world is Islamized; the imposition of the totalitarian Sharia law wherever Islam becomes politically dominant; and the permanent subjection of non-Muslims to the miserable oppressed status of dhimmis.
Pipes is absolutely correct. I have felt this way for some time. Moreover, much of what we call "Radical Islam" might not be related to Islam at all. Might want to check out the following article for more...
http://www.worldthreats.com/russia_former_ussr/Terrorists%20In%20Muslim%20Diguise.htm
Might want to read the following for in depth coverage on the same theme as my last post--TTS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1220747/posts
Is there any evidence that Islam allows real equality and freedom for non-Muslims in any Islamic society since the time of Muhammed?
No. There is an illusion that Christians and Jewish citizens were well treated in the high age of Islam, but that isn't true. In the first place, they weren't citizens. In the second place they were only tolerated, and that toleration could be withdrawn at any time.
Is there any case in history where Muslims have relinquished control over a country once they had conquered it?
No, with the sole exception of Spain. And the Spanish had to fight for their freedom, a long and terrible struggle that took them about 900 years.
Is it possible for a Muslim to change his mind and become a Jew or a Christian?
No. If a Muslim rejects Allah, his family and friends will immediately kill him, because the offense of leaving Islam is punishable by death. That is true in any country under Muslim control, and it is even true in other countries, where parents have killed children and the like rather than let them abandon their faith.
Have any of these patterns of behavior changed or moderated over the past 1400 years?
No. Unless you mistake moderation with strategic patterns of behavior which dictate that if Muslims can't conquer their enemies now, then they wait until later when they can.
I don't see how any of these behavioral patterns, which have played out over vast historical periods without noticeable exceptions, can be reconciled with the idea that moderate Muslims will play the multicultural tolerance game. The chief difference between regular Muslims and Wahabbi Muslims is that Wahabbi Muslims are in more of a hurry.
So, is it necessary to kill a billion Muslims to solve the problem? I don't think so. But it does seem necessary to draw a sharp line, keep them on one side of it, and us on the other.
It DOES NOT exist. That simple. That's why all this tampering by libs with "moderate" Islam is just lieading us deeper into the rot.
Nobody thought about "killing a billion Muslims", until they started invading the West. Just keep them out of western nations, and there will be no problem.
Moderate Islamists appear to be those who have learned to say the politically correct thing while masking their true intentions.
More on Russia's long-range strategy in the Middle East.
http://www.anti-communistanalyst.com/Russiasgame.htm
the moderates are practiced in the fine art of 'taqiyah', whereas the radicals are more 'nuanced' in the art of jihad, aka, killing the infidels.
they are the two branches of the same religion.
one is better at lying,until they have the ability to kill us,
the other just wants to kill us now.
While I can certainly see that most Muslims are not terrorists and have no inclinations toward it, the fact it that Islam is based on the Koran and subsequence interpretations of it. The Koran is explicit enough in its advocacy of murder that there will always be a significant segment of the Islamic population that will either become or will support terrorists. It's very difficult to 'interpret' your way out of it.
"However, we now understand that whatever Pipes's reasons may be, his absolute distinction between "radical" and "moderate" Islam is not true. While Islamism is certainly more toxic and murderous than traditional Islam, both have messianic elements, both appeal to the Koran as their ultimate source of authority, and neither can shed its jihadism in any principled and permanent way. Savage killings and beheadings of innocent non-Muslims did not begin in Iraq in 2004, but go back to Muhammad's days in Medina, when he carried out the treacherous and homicidal acts against his enemies (including mere critics) that became a paradigm of Muslim conduct toward unbelievers for all ages to come. Islamism—the modern, fascist-inspired version of the faith—may be new, but Islamic militancy is 1,400 years old."
"Islamism—the modern, fascist-inspired version of the faith—may be new, but Islamic militancy is 1,400 years old."
I would say "the modern, Communist-inspired version of the faith" that violates the very Qu'ran it claims to be defending (forbidden to commit suicide, forbidden to kill innocent civilians/non-combatants, supposed to treat "people of the book" with respect, etc). Many so-called "radical Islamists" are but terrorists in Muslim disguise IMHO. They are attempting to get Jews, Christian and Muslims to fight each other in the interests of much larger strategic purposes that trace directly back to the "former" Soviet Union and Red China.
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.