Our only hope of defeating Islamic terrorism is Islam. That’s our whole counterterrorism strategy.
But Islamic terrorism is not a separate component of Islam that can be cut off from it. Not only is it not un-Islamic, but it expresses Islamic religious imperatives. Muslim religious leaders have occasionally issued fatwas against terrorism, but terrorism for Muslim clerics, like sex for Bill Clinton, is a matter of definition. The tactics of terrorism, including suicide bombing and the murder of civilians, have been approved by fatwas from many of the same Islamic religious leaders that our establishment deems moderate. And the objective of terrorism, the subjugation of non-Muslims, has been the most fundamental Islamic imperative for the expansionistic religion since the days of Mohammed.
Our strategy, in Europe and America, under Bush and under Obama, has been to artificially subdivide a Good Islam from a Bad Islam and to declare that Bad Islam is not really Islam. Bad Islam, as Obama claims, “hijacked” a peaceful religion. Secretary of State Kerry calls Bad Islam’s followers, “apostates”. ISIS speaks for no religion. It has no religion. Which means the Islamic State must be a bunch of atheists.
Our diplomats and politicians don’t verbally acknowledge the existence of a Bad Islam. Even its name is one of those names that must not be named. There is only Good Islam. Bad Islam doesn’t even exist.
This isn’t just domestic spin, which it is, but it’s also an attempt at constructing an Islamic narrative. Our leaders don’t care what we think. They just want us to keep quiet and not offend Muslims. They do care a great deal about what Muslims think. And so, in their own clumsy way, they try to talk like Muslims.
They are attempting to participate in an Islamic debate without the requisite theological credentials. They want to tell Muslims that they should be Good Muslims not Bad Muslims, but they’re too afraid to use those words, so instead they substitute Good Muslims and Not Muslims. All Muslims are Good Muslims and Bad Muslims are Not Muslims is their Takfiri version of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Our counterterrorism strategy has been constructed to convince Good Islam to have nothing to do with Bad Islam. And any of us who criticize Good Islam or argue that the artificial distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam, between Saudi Arabia and ISIS, between Iran and Hezbollah, between Pakistan and the Taliban, is false are accused of provoking Good Islam to transform into Bad Islam.
Nothing so thoroughly proves that the difference between Bad Islam and Good Islam is a lie as the compulsive way that they warn that Good Muslims are capable of turning into Bad Muslims at any moment. Offend a Good Muslim, criticize his religion, fail to integrate him, accommodate his every whim and censor what he dislikes and he’ll join ISIS and then he’ll become a Bad Muslim.
After every terror attack, the media painstakingly constructs a narrative to determine why former moderates like Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Tsarnaevs or the San Bernardino killers turned bad without resorting to religious explanations. Their efforts at rationalization quickly become ridiculous; Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, contracted airborne PTSD, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the head of Al Qaeda in Yemen, became an “extremist” because he was afraid the FBI had found out about his prostitutes and the Times Square bomber turned into a terrorist because his “American Dream” was ruined.
Nobody, they conclude, becomes an Islamic terrorist because of Islam. Instead there are a thousand unrelated issues, having nothing to do with Islam, which creates the Muslim terrorist. Even the term “Radical Islamic Jihadist”, an absurd circumlocution (is there a moderate Islamic Jihadist), has become a badge of courage on one side and a dangerous, irresponsible term that provokes violence on the other.
But what is the distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam? It isn’t fighting ISIS. Al Qaeda and the Taliban do that. It isn’t terrorism. Our Muslim allies, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar, are hip deep in the terror trade. It isn’t equality for non-Muslims. No Muslim country under Sharia law could have that. Equality for women? See above.
What are the metrics that distinguish Good Islam and Bad Islam? There aren’t any. We can’t discuss the existence of Bad Islam because it would reveal that Bad Islam and Good Islam are really the same thing.
Our Good Islam allies in Pakistan fight Bad Islam’s terror, when they aren’t hiding Osama bin Laden. Bad Islam in the Islamic State beheads people and takes slaves and Good Islam in Saudi Arabia does too. Qatar is our Good Islam ally helping us fight Bad Islam terrorists by arming and funding Good Islam terrorists who sometimes turn out to be Bad Islam terrorists so we can’t figure out if the Islamic terrorists the CIA is routing weapons to are Good Islam terrorists or Bad Islam terrorists.
The moderate Muslim Brotherhood wins democratic elections. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood then burns down churches. The moderate Palestinian Authority negotiates with Israel and then the extremist Palestinian Authority cheers the stabbing of a Jewish grandmother. The moderate Iranian government signs a nuclear deal and then the extremist Iranian government calls for “Death to America”.
Like the saintly Dr. Jekyll and the mean Mr. Hyde, Good Islam and Bad Islam are two halves of the same coin. When Dr. Jekyll wanted to act out his baser nature, he took a potion and turned into Mr. Hyde. But the nasty urges were always a part of him. When a moderate Muslim pulls a Keffiyah over his face and starts stabbing, bombing or beheading, he doesn’t become an extremist, he just expresses his dark side.
Good Islam borrowed all sorts of noble sentiments from Judaism and Christianity. But when non-Muslims didn’t accept Islam, then Mohammed stopped playing nice and preached murder. Bad Islam is not something ISIS invented on a website. It’s always been a part of Islam. We attempt to separate Good Islam and Bad Islam because we don’t like being beheaded. But Muslims don’t make that distinction.
Our counterterrorism strategy is based on empowering Good Islam, on building coalitions with Muslims to fight terrorism and enlisting their cooperation in the War on Terror. But we’re trying to convince Dr. Jekyll to help us fight Mr. Hyde. And Dr. Jekyll might even help us out, until he turns into Mr. Hyde.
Our moderate Afghan Muslim allies, when they’re aren’t raping young boys (one of their cultural peculiarities we are taught to ignore), sometimes unexpectedly open fire on our soldiers. The Muslim migrants who arrive here to “enrich” our societies sometimes start shooting and bombing. The head of Al Qaeda was hanging out near the West Point of Pakistan. The mastermind of 9/11 was saved by a member of the Qatari royal family. The call is coming from inside the house. Mr. Hyde is Dr. Jekyll.
When we “empower” and “build coalitions” with Good Islam, we’re also empowering and building coalitions with Bad Islam. Just ask all the Muslim terrorists running around with our weapons.
Our leaders want Good Islam to shield us from Bad Islam. If Good Islam is out front, then Muslims won’t see a clash of civilizations or a religious war, but a war between Good Islam and Bad Islam. But the Muslim understanding of Good Islam and Bad Islam is very different from our own.
Sunnis see their Jihadis as Good Islam and Shiites as Bad Islam. Shiites look at it the other way around. The Muslim Brotherhood, that our elites were so enamored with, saw secular governments as Bad Islam. To win them over, we helped them overthrow more secular governments because our leaders had adopted an understanding of Good Islam in which giving Christians civil rights was Bad Islam.
To win over Good Islam, we censor cartoons of Mohammed and criticism of the Koran, open our borders, Islamize our institutions and then wait to see if we’re on the good side of Good Islam. We adapt our societies and legal systems to Islamic norms and hope that it’s enough to let us join the Good Islam Coalition. If we go on at this rate, the experts will tell us that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for us to become Muslims. Only then will we become members in good standing of Good Islam.
There is no Good Islam and no Bad Islam, as Muslim leaders occasionally trouble to tell us. The distinction that our leaders make between Good Islam and Bad Islam is not theological, but pragmatic. They dub whatever is shooting at us right now Bad Islam and assume that everything else must be Good Islam. That is the fallacy which they used to arrive at their Tiny Minority of Extremists formula.
There is no Tiny Minority of Extremists. Behind the various tiny minorities of extremists are countries and billionaires, global organizations and Islamic banks. Outsourcing our counterterrorism strategy to the countries and ideologies behind the terrorists we’re fighting isn’t a plan, it’s a death wish.
Islamic terrorism is just what we call Islam when it’s killing us.
The Jihad isn’t coming from some phantom website. It’s coming from our Muslim allies. It’s coming from Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It’s coming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups. It’s coming from the moderate Muslim leaders that our leaders pose with at anti-extremism conferences. And it’s coming from the mosques and homes of the Muslims living in America. There is no Good Islam. There is no Bad Islam. There is just Islam.
But Islamic terrorism is not a separate component of Islam that can be cut off from it. Not only is it not un-Islamic, but it expresses Islamic religious imperatives. Muslim religious leaders have occasionally issued fatwas against terrorism, but terrorism for Muslim clerics, like sex for Bill Clinton, is a matter of definition. The tactics of terrorism, including suicide bombing and the murder of civilians, have been approved by fatwas from many of the same Islamic religious leaders that our establishment deems moderate. And the objective of terrorism, the subjugation of non-Muslims, has been the most fundamental Islamic imperative for the expansionistic religion since the days of Mohammed. Our strategy, in Europe and America, under Bush and under Obama, has been to artificially subdivide a Good Islam from a Bad Islam and to declare that Bad Islam is not really Islam. Bad Islam, as Obama claims, “hijacked” a peaceful religion. Secretary of State Kerry calls Bad Islam’s followers, “apostates”. ISIS speaks for no religion. It has no religion. Which means the Islamic State must be a bunch of atheists.
Our diplomats and politicians don’t verbally acknowledge the existence of a Bad Islam. Even its name is one of those names that must not be named. There is only Good Islam. Bad Islam doesn’t even exist.
This isn’t just domestic spin, which it is, but it’s also an attempt at constructing an Islamic narrative. Our leaders don’t care what we think. They just want us to keep quiet and not offend Muslims. They do care a great deal about what Muslims think. And so, in their own clumsy way, they try to talk like Muslims.
They are attempting to participate in an Islamic debate without the requisite theological credentials. They want to tell Muslims that they should be Good Muslims not Bad Muslims, but they’re too afraid to use those words, so instead they substitute Good Muslims and Not Muslims. All Muslims are Good Muslims and Bad Muslims are Not Muslims is their Takfiri version of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Our counterterrorism strategy has been constructed to convince Good Islam to have nothing to do with Bad Islam. And any of us who criticize Good Islam or argue that the artificial distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam, between Saudi Arabia and ISIS, between Iran and Hezbollah, between Pakistan and the Taliban, is false are accused of provoking Good Islam to transform into Bad Islam.
Nothing so thoroughly proves that the difference between Bad Islam and Good Islam is a lie as the compulsive way that they warn that Good Muslims are capable of turning into Bad Muslims at any moment. Offend a Good Muslim, criticize his religion, fail to integrate him, accommodate his every whim and censor what he dislikes and he’ll join ISIS and then he’ll become a Bad Muslim.
After every terror attack, the media painstakingly constructs a narrative to determine why former moderates like Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Tsarnaevs or the San Bernardino killers turned bad without resorting to religious explanations. Their efforts at rationalization quickly become ridiculous; Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, contracted airborne PTSD, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the head of Al Qaeda in Yemen, became an “extremist” because he was afraid the FBI had found out about his prostitutes and the Times Square bomber turned into a terrorist because his “American Dream” was ruined.
Nobody, they conclude, becomes an Islamic terrorist because of Islam. Instead there are a thousand unrelated issues, having nothing to do with Islam, which creates the Muslim terrorist. Even the term “Radical Islamic Jihadist”, an absurd circumlocution (is there a moderate Islamic Jihadist), has become a badge of courage on one side and a dangerous, irresponsible term that provokes violence on the other.
But what is the distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam? It isn’t fighting ISIS. Al Qaeda and the Taliban do that. It isn’t terrorism. Our Muslim allies, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar, are hip deep in the terror trade. It isn’t equality for non-Muslims. No Muslim country under Sharia law could have that. Equality for women? See above.
What are the metrics that distinguish Good Islam and Bad Islam? There aren’t any. We can’t discuss the existence of Bad Islam because it would reveal that Bad Islam and Good Islam are really the same thing.
Our Good Islam allies in Pakistan fight Bad Islam’s terror, when they aren’t hiding Osama bin Laden. Bad Islam in the Islamic State beheads people and takes slaves and Good Islam in Saudi Arabia does too. Qatar is our Good Islam ally helping us fight Bad Islam terrorists by arming and funding Good Islam terrorists who sometimes turn out to be Bad Islam terrorists so we can’t figure out if the Islamic terrorists the CIA is routing weapons to are Good Islam terrorists or Bad Islam terrorists.
The moderate Muslim Brotherhood wins democratic elections. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood then burns down churches. The moderate Palestinian Authority negotiates with Israel and then the extremist Palestinian Authority cheers the stabbing of a Jewish grandmother. The moderate Iranian government signs a nuclear deal and then the extremist Iranian government calls for “Death to America”.
Like the saintly Dr. Jekyll and the mean Mr. Hyde, Good Islam and Bad Islam are two halves of the same coin. When Dr. Jekyll wanted to act out his baser nature, he took a potion and turned into Mr. Hyde. But the nasty urges were always a part of him. When a moderate Muslim pulls a Keffiyah over his face and starts stabbing, bombing or beheading, he doesn’t become an extremist, he just expresses his dark side.
Good Islam borrowed all sorts of noble sentiments from Judaism and Christianity. But when non-Muslims didn’t accept Islam, then Mohammed stopped playing nice and preached murder. Bad Islam is not something ISIS invented on a website. It’s always been a part of Islam. We attempt to separate Good Islam and Bad Islam because we don’t like being beheaded. But Muslims don’t make that distinction.
Our counterterrorism strategy is based on empowering Good Islam, on building coalitions with Muslims to fight terrorism and enlisting their cooperation in the War on Terror. But we’re trying to convince Dr. Jekyll to help us fight Mr. Hyde. And Dr. Jekyll might even help us out, until he turns into Mr. Hyde.
Our moderate Afghan Muslim allies, when they’re aren’t raping young boys (one of their cultural peculiarities we are taught to ignore), sometimes unexpectedly open fire on our soldiers. The Muslim migrants who arrive here to “enrich” our societies sometimes start shooting and bombing. The head of Al Qaeda was hanging out near the West Point of Pakistan. The mastermind of 9/11 was saved by a member of the Qatari royal family. The call is coming from inside the house. Mr. Hyde is Dr. Jekyll.
When we “empower” and “build coalitions” with Good Islam, we’re also empowering and building coalitions with Bad Islam. Just ask all the Muslim terrorists running around with our weapons.
Our leaders want Good Islam to shield us from Bad Islam. If Good Islam is out front, then Muslims won’t see a clash of civilizations or a religious war, but a war between Good Islam and Bad Islam. But the Muslim understanding of Good Islam and Bad Islam is very different from our own.
Sunnis see their Jihadis as Good Islam and Shiites as Bad Islam. Shiites look at it the other way around. The Muslim Brotherhood, that our elites were so enamored with, saw secular governments as Bad Islam. To win them over, we helped them overthrow more secular governments because our leaders had adopted an understanding of Good Islam in which giving Christians civil rights was Bad Islam.
To win over Good Islam, we censor cartoons of Mohammed and criticism of the Koran, open our borders, Islamize our institutions and then wait to see if we’re on the good side of Good Islam. We adapt our societies and legal systems to Islamic norms and hope that it’s enough to let us join the Good Islam Coalition. If we go on at this rate, the experts will tell us that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for us to become Muslims. Only then will we become members in good standing of Good Islam.
There is no Good Islam and no Bad Islam, as Muslim leaders occasionally trouble to tell us. The distinction that our leaders make between Good Islam and Bad Islam is not theological, but pragmatic. They dub whatever is shooting at us right now Bad Islam and assume that everything else must be Good Islam. That is the fallacy which they used to arrive at their Tiny Minority of Extremists formula.
There is no Tiny Minority of Extremists. Behind the various tiny minorities of extremists are countries and billionaires, global organizations and Islamic banks. Outsourcing our counterterrorism strategy to the countries and ideologies behind the terrorists we’re fighting isn’t a plan, it’s a death wish.
Islamic terrorism is just what we call Islam when it’s killing us.
The Jihad isn’t coming from some phantom website. It’s coming from our Muslim allies. It’s coming from Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It’s coming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups. It’s coming from the moderate Muslim leaders that our leaders pose with at anti-extremism conferences. And it’s coming from the mosques and homes of the Muslims living in America. There is no Good Islam. There is no Bad Islam. There is just Islam.
Comments
Now that we have established this truth, what is our solution?
ReplyDeleteMuslims can be good citizens of Western nations only by ignoring or rejecting key tenets of their own Koran.
ReplyDelete"Muslims can be good citizens of Western nations..." NOT. If muslims could be good citizens anywhere then why are all muslim states, without exception, totalitarian hellholes that all implement, minimally, the cornerstones of Shari'a law: islamic blasphemy and heresy laws? If muslims can be good citizens then why is Dearbornistan, Michigan now enforcing islamic blasphemy and heresy laws under other auspices.
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion of our leadership's circuitous thinking, or attempts at thinking and rationalizing.
ReplyDeleteThere is something about this Good-Bad Muslim discussion that you did not point out. Good Muslims become "Bad Muslims" to the non-believers when we provoke, tempt, or reject them. A good Muslim is what a practicing Muslim is. The only Bad Muslim in that theology is an apostate or a heretic that espouses something not in the Quran or Hadith. Unfortunately, the Muslims have been killing each other over that minor detail for centuries.
I will diverge from this discussion briefly to support the notion that there really is a "Good Muslim" that would fit in with our Western multicultural and secular society. These would be the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. They really do believe in peace, "love for all, hatred for none," and reject all forms of terrorism.
Unfortunately, both the Shias and Sunnis label the Ahmadis as heretics, kafirs, and worse. It is essentially illegal to be an Ahmadi and declare oneself to be a Muslim in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. Please note, these are some of our great partners in the war on terror.
One other thing that needs to be pointed out is that prior to Bush declaring Islam to be THE religion of peace, no one even mentioned it, as if Islam did not exist. Despite the terror attacks and hijackings sponsored by Arafat, Abu Nidal, the "Blind Sheikh," and their acolytes, no one appears to have said anything about Islam being involved. Not LBJ, not Nixon, Not Carter (gee, who would have thunk it?), Not Reagan, Not Bush I, and certainly Not Clinton.
Back to my opinion expressed many times here and elsewhere. The oil money has bought and continues to buy a lot: willing blindness and deafness, and Baloney Sausage; More of the Same, Piled Higher and Deeper. This includes the mainstream media, politicians, and academia.
Would you like to have a major media person disappear from politics, print, radio, or TV? Just have that person step on one of two landmines: illegal alien "immigrants" or the "religion that shall not be named unless it is Good." Everyone that was worth listening to, reading, or watching that I was aware of ended up losing their job.
Read what is going on Israel right now, and envision San Bernardino or similar operations on a daily basis. However, remember that it is you and I that will be held responsible for these acts, since we somehow triggered the "Bad."
How to convince those who refuse to see
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell, Daniel. This column is a keeper. A is A, and Islam is Islam. Islam is an ideological bridge to nowhere but death, destruction, and submission. Islam is "submission."
ReplyDeleteProbably speaking to the converted, but your Mr. Stephen Coughlin has this matter down to a very fine T. Which is why he got booted out of his govt security post...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/01/the-implications-of-the-dismissal-of-stephen-coughlin-joint-staff-pentagon
Too bad the true left will not see the truth because for them facts don't matter. They will only twist and turn and keep up the facade. Regardless, this is another excellent piece from our Brother Daniel who is so gifted in shining the light in the darkness.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to counter Islamic terrorists is by using the Russian anti-terrorists bombing style. If the US and NATO would dish out to these terrorist a bit of the same Russian language that they understand, then they would all crawl back to where they came from.
ReplyDeleteNothing is going to happen in this area or any others until we all stop being afraid of being called names. Be proud of being called an Islamophobe, a homophobe, a greedy capitalist, or even a racist. These are nothing but empty insults intended to paralyze good people and prevent them from uniting into the huge force they represent. How much longer can we watch civilization being destroyed by a group of nuts armed with no more than words?
ReplyDeletebad Islams want to kill us
ReplyDeletegood Islams want bad Islams to kill us
but at the end of the day, they both want us dead
that makes them all the same
ReplyDelete"..But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness. In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside. The more emotional Pathans are powerless to resist. All rational considerations are forgotten. Seizing their weapons, they become Ghazis—as dangerous and as sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such. While the more generous spirits among the tribesmen become convulsed in an ecstasy of religious bloodthirstiness, poorer and more material souls derive additional impulses from the influence of others, the hopes of plunder and the joy of fighting. Thus whole nations are roused to arms. Thus the Turks repel their enemies, the Arabs of the Soudan break the British squares, and the rising on the Indian frontier spreads far and wide. In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace.”
― Winston S. Churchill, The Story of the Malakand Field Force
The left hates Jews, Christians, Western Civilization and all liberties. The Democrats in decades past created their own terrorist organization: The Ku Klux Klan.
ReplyDeleteToday the Democrats have their new private terrorist army: Muslims whom they import a) to increase their guaranteed voting bloc and b) to undermine the US in all aspects of life and that includes killing us.
Not even Trump will say this, but many in Europe see the same thing - in their case some of their countries are 10/20 years ahead of us and they are just about cooked. We still have a slim chance to stop this.
To : Just a commen 'tater
ReplyDeletequote "Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. They really do believe in peace, "love for all, hatred for none," and reject all forms of terrorism".
That is blatantly untrue.
They will tell the most sickest and depraved of lies, show a mocking demon type nature/character that is so typical of all other muslims.
I suspect your an ahmadi.
Contrary to what historically has always been called "The Jewish problem" which was only a problem from the point of the beholder projecting his jealousies and mental illnesses on the Jews, the Islamic problem is a real historically proven problem as for 1400 years already societies where Islam after their conquest have ruled have produced nothing, but a minute positive quantity considering the length of rule and number of Muslims to advance humanity. The solution of a religious schism from a more moderate group has in Islam only resulted in the split-off being MORE violent than the rest or the split-off getting murdered by the mainstream. Remains a solution we do not even want to discuss as it would put us in the shoes of national socialism. A possible alternative would be building lots of nuclear powerplants (which the left vehemently opposes) in the west to make us 100% independent on oil so the muslim tribes sink back into impoverished insignificance only being able to fight amongst each other like before their post colonial oil boom and no longer pose a threat for the western civilization assuming we no longer allow immigration and are willing to deport all muslims back to their sandpit. Non violent solutions so far have proven unsuccessful, western education did not help exposure to democracy did not help, raising the economic standard did not help, we should accept it as it is: Islam is beyond repair and needs to be shut out from western civilization.
ReplyDeleteThese observations cannot be made often enough. There is no accurate method by which moderate and radical Muslims can be distinguished from each other at any given point in time, not to mention the plasticity that allows adherents to move readily from one of these positions to the other. The picture is further complicated by the approved use of duplicity within Islam when dealing with unbelievers. Our leaders currently emphasize the need to minimize false positives (falsely identifying moderate Muslims as radicals) rather than dangers of false negatives (falsely identifying radical Muslims as moderates). The resulting harm to nonMuslims is dismissed as the cost of adhering to “our values” and being “who we are” as a people. Our country could not have won WWII with our current crop of passive, spineless leaders (some of whom are, in truth, probably quislings). FDR and Truman would be sent to The Hague as international war criminals in today’s politically correct climate. Much of the attraction of Donald Trump, even though not philosophically a “pure” conservative, is an aggressive stance which allows him to acknowledge that it is in our interest to assume, as a rebuttable presumption, that we are dealing with “bad” Islam. This would and should place the burden on all Muslims to show that they are of the “good” variety instead of requiring us to prove affirmatively which ones are a threat—often after it’s too late and they have already acted to harm our people.
ReplyDeletethe term moderate Muslim has very little meaning
ReplyDeletefor example, our government considers those Muslims who stage terror attacks in Egypt or Israel to be moderate, as long as they're not directly attacking us right now
Russia considers anti-American Muslim terrorists to be moderate allies, etc
This definition doesn't address terrorism or their views, but who is attacking us right now
"Good Islam borrowed all sorts of noble sentiments from Judaism and Christianity. But when non-Muslims didn’t accept Islam, then Mohammed stopped playing nice and preached murder." Mohammed painted himself into a corner by taking bits and pieces from Judaism and Christianity to create his Koran and persuade others that he was listening to an angel, not a demon (2 Corinthians 11:14). A brief comparison of Mohammed's Koranic borrowings with either the Torah or Bible quickly reveal his alterations and flawed theology. A thinking person armed with this insight might be resistant to conversion, thus Mohammad would need to kill in order to stop the spread of truth that undermined his lies. At its heart, Islam is not a religion, but an ideology and perhaps even a cult, the central tenet of which is also its link with the also-cultic ideology of socialism/communism/liberalism, that man is self-perfectible and able to absolve his sinfulness through his own sacrificial works and so is not in need of God's forgiveness, redemption and mercy. For the Muslim, Sharia is the "utopia" wherein the Muslim is "perfect" as long as he/she does not leave its confines. The liberal, invested in "good intentions" and "mindfulness" attempts to create a type of Sharia through social engineering, first suggesting, then forcing, rules, regulations and laws on others "for the common good." Islam punishes its apostates with death. Liberalism offers the friendlier face first, promoting "intentions," combined with fervent public practice of love, inclusion and acceptance, to turn others from the error of their ways to also be loving and accepting. Since there is no human perfection or perfect human system, one has to engage in increased and desperate levels of willful blindness/ignorance to avoid reality. This is the reason no manmade political or religion-substitute has ever survived and why violence is nearly always the last choice to avoid defeat. (Jeremiah 10:23)
ReplyDeleteBetter terminology than good or bad Islam, radical or otherwise; would be active or passive. The bad ones, the radicals, are just the ones who are acting on the doctrine. Unless condemned by the Islamic community, the 'good' Islamic is just the passive Islamic, the covert enablers who are not acting out.
ReplyDeleteAs the Islamist population is "ALLOWED" to increase their "CALIPHATIC" goals will slowly come to be realized and when they are our Western Way Of Life will be lost. It is commonly termed "STEALTH JIHAD" and is happening now in our oun UNITED STATES
ReplyDeleteIn Canda there is a publicly supported apartment complex that is run by Ahamddiyas. The stated and enforced policy of this taxpayer-funded apartment complex in Canada is muslims only.
ReplyDeleteI can never say it often enough: thank you Mr. Greenfield.
ReplyDeleteDP111..
ReplyDeleteThere is an advantages in delineating between Good Islam and Bad Islam. It allows the West to hide behind the subterfuge that they are attacking only Bad Islam, thus doing Good Muslims a favour.
This definition is not prescribed by any rigorous definitions, thus allowing the West to do whatever it wishes, to who ever it wishes.
It also allows Russia to do whatever it wishes on the grounds that they are attacking Bad Islam.
We see this clearly in Syria. Russia claims it is attacking Bad Islam, while the West protests not so. In the same region, the West is attacking Bad Islam, while Russia protests not so. Throw in Turkey, and we have everyone attacking who they consider to be Bad Muslims
In practice, this means that Islam, Good or Bad is not having a good day from anywhere.
There are three principle categories of bacteria in a common pond. Good, bad and neutral. In status quo, the numbers stay about equal and the pond remains healthy for all creatures that use it. If for any reason the circumstances change to allow the bad bacteria to outnumber the good, the neutral joins forces with the bad to overcome the good and the pond goes stagnant for lack of oxygen. And then everything dies.
ReplyDeleteThe natural mandate of evil is to destroy what is good.
You could shorten this column in a couple of sentences. Islam is Islam, it is not a religion, but a way of life an ideology. Therefore, not being a religion, it deserves no
ReplyDeleteprotection in America as do bonafide religions. Crap is still crap no matter how you find it. Islam is the same.
If you're not for us, you're against us and for Islam, if you're not muslim, you're an infidel and should be killed or you can "convert" (out of fear and self-preservation. To deal with islam/muslims they must be completely removed from the gene pool. All of them. Men, women and children. Why so cruel an act as to kill the women and children? The women are the main support of their men. They bring up their children to hate infidels as well as how to shoot weapons so that they may join the men as soon as they are
able or as soon as the men say they are ready to join. If we don't eliminate ALL muslims, we will have this problem repeated in the future. And we'll have this problem until all infidels are dead or have "converted". Does America have the intestinal fortitude and will to do whatever is necessary to retain our freedom and liberty? Currently, NO. I see American Patriots rising up, organizing and performing the great service to America by removing all islamics from American soil. We do not........I repeat....WE DO NOT want ANY part of sharia in America. We DO NOT want islam to spread their 7th century life in America. The only solution is to get rid of them.....lock, stock and barrel.
Daniel Greenfield wrote, "The term moderate Muslim has very little meaning...."
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, of course, that words with multiple possible meanings can cause confusion without further clarification. In the present instance, a number of adjectives other than “moderate” would have suited my purpose; that word was selected merely because it is a commonly used shorthand notation that, to the average nonspecialist, signifies the opposite of such words as radical, militant, extremist, fundamentalist, jihadist, etc. So for present purposes, let’s substitute words like peaceful, nonviolent, nonmilitant, or passive (as suggested by Johnny) for the word moderate. These words could still have different meanings in different contexts; and they also could be problematic if, as suggested in your original article, only those in harmony with the Medinan suras and bloody course of past and present Islamic conquest are deemed to be true, real, authentic Muslims--in which case the descriptor “peaceful Muslim” would be self-contradictory. If this is indeed your position, you have turned on its head the more common but clearly erroneous claim that militant Muslims are not authentically Islamic; as many have argued, they actually embody the basic teachings of Islam better than do the reformers. But contrary to what some have claimed, my own assumption is that, even though Islam is at its core not a peaceful religion, there are at least some peaceful Muslims who would welcome something similar to the Reformation and rebirth that Christianity experienced during the early centuries of the modern era. Some of these Muslims have become activists who publicly advocate the reform of Islam. Nevertheless, I do tend to agree that the most realistic approach for Westerners is to view Islam provisionally as ideologically monolithic and most Muslims as suspect until or unless they demonstrate otherwise.
Isn't it strange how the peaceful, reform minded muslims (spit) only try to sell their reformed islam to the kaffir al najjis? Because I don't notice them trying to sell it anywhere in the islamic world. Who's to say they aren't merely more sophisticated practitioners of Al Taqiyya? But more important than that is the fact it's nothing more than talk, an empty dialogue, one-hand clapping. The fact is, nowhere in the muslim world is any pretense of reform happening -- at least WRT the subjugation/enslavement of the kaffir al najjis or the rabid, vile Jew hatred that is found throughout all the holey books of islam (spit).
ReplyDeleteSo where do these facts leave Muslim followers in our government? i.e. John Brennen.
ReplyDeleteThere will be no reformation of Islam. Not in 10 years or 10,000 years. Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of Allah. No one gets to debate Allah.
ReplyDeleteTo even suggest reformation is Blasphemy, punishable by death.
Islam isn't worth reforming anyway. It's pure evil.
This is the only strategy that will eliminate the Islamic threat. The sooner we all face it, the better:
https://medium.com/@dantriplett/islamic-jihad-is-total-war-for-all-marbles-6c858098b76e#.dvtr61y8k
Aside from Israel, I've not had an opportunity to visit the ME..So my question is this; do they rape women at will, defecate in public pools, and leave piles of trash everywhere in their own countries? If so, why is it mainly the young men who are leaving such a paradise for them?
ReplyDeleteI like the analogy of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to Good Islam and Bad Islam. It simplifies the issue. Just as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are inseparable, so too are Good Islam and Bad Islam inseparable.
ReplyDeleteBut what do we do with Islam? I like the ending of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, they both disappear. I can only hope the same will happen with Islam, the sooner the better.
Probably the best article ever written on this subject.
ReplyDeleteAnd none other Daniel Greenfield.
Another brilliant piece of writing, Daniel! Every sentence is a stand alone bullet! You make the obvious clear enough for even intellectuals to understand. Keep it up! - Greg
ReplyDeletePost a Comment