The Mythical Moderate Muslim
Yashiko Sagamori
Reprinted from: Truth in the Middle East


Primitive tribes offer sacrifices hoping to mollify whatever nonexistent beings they believe in.
The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman belongs to a very sophisticated tribe that, according to the recently retired Malaysian Prime Minister, rules the world by proxy.

One would think Mr. Krugman should be above such crude superstitions.

Nevertheless, in his column on October 21, he suggests that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld should fire General Boykin in order to mollify moderate Muslims.

General Boykin, the leading anti-terror expert at the Pentagon and a devout Christian, had openly and publicly, on several occasions, expressed his personal opinion of Islam, which happens to be rather low.

Considering where the terror is coming from, this is far less surprising than Mr. Krugman's eagerness to sacrifice both General Boykin and the First Amendment to mollify moderate Muslims.

I'd like to ask Mr. Krugman what gives him a reason to believe that the beings he is trying to mollify actually exist.

The official, politically correct point of view says that Islam is just another monotheistic religion, not that different from Judaism or Christianity.

If that is true, then moderate Muslims must exist, just like moderate members of other faiths.

However, moderate members of other faiths do not require sacrificial mollification -- that's basically how we tell moderates from extremists.

Therefore, either moderate Muslims are mythical creatures, or we need substantially different criteria to identify them.

That dilemma alone should make us suspicious as to whether Islam is "just another religion".

Obviously, it is important that we determine how a moderate Muslim can be distinguished from a Muslim extremist.

Why not ask Muslims themselves?

Irshad Manji, a young Canadian author, has published a book titled The Trouble With Islam.

Since we don't hear too many Muslim voices criticizing their religion, her book deserves our attention.

This is what the author herself says on her promotional Website:


"I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their Evangelicals. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God's sake, even Buddhists have fundamentalists. But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam the literalism is mainstream."
Apparently, the terms literalism and fundamentalism in the quotation above are used interchangeably, as synonyms of religious extremism. Unfortunately, the author fails to mention the most important difference between "literalists" in Islam and other religions. Evangelical Christians may believe that heaven is reserved for them alone.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews may display intimate understanding of the murkiest places in the Talmud.

I have no idea what extreme fundamentalist Buddhists do that sets them apart from their moderate coreligionists.

What I do know however is that no religion except Islam pursues the idea of physical extermination of those who believe differently.

The concept of holy war is unique to Islam.

Jihad is the absolute monopoly of Muslims.

There is no parallel to it in any other religion in the world. (Yes, I have heard about Crusades, but Christianity does not mandate them, and do you know when the last Crusade ended?)

So, here we have it in plain English, as simple as A, B, C:


According to the Koran, holy war against the infidels is a sacred duty of every Muslim.
According to Ms. Manji, mainstream Muslims interpret Koran literally.
The conclusion is inevitable:
Mainstream Muslims perceive war against the infidels -- meaning you and me -- as their sacred duty.
Once you understand that, you don't need books to explain to you what exactly the trouble with Islam is.

The trouble with Islam derives from the fact that mainstream Islam openly calls for murder of all infidels.

That's why Islam is not "just another religion". That's what, in my view, allows to classify all its followers as extremist.

What then, besides our stubborn, groundless faith in the general goodness of our fellow human beings, leads us to believe that moderate Muslims are not just a figment of our imagination?

How do they manifest themselves in the real world?

It would be utterly useless to look for them in Gaza, Judea, or Samaria.

Unlike bin Laden, terrorists occupying Israeli lands do not live in caves.

They live in small towns, villages and crowded refugee camps where everyone knows everything about everyone else.

They couldn't survive for a day without popular support.

When someone gives them a reason to doubt the sincerity of his support, they label him a collaborator and murder him on the spot.

Indeed, the PA-sponsored educational system guarantees that innocent children are indoctrinated in the most murderous variety of Islamic extremism -- thereby losing their innocence -- at the earliest possible age.

Therefore, in Israel, a moderate Muslim is a dead Muslim, which is bad news for those who want us to believe that there is a peaceful solution to the continuing Arab war against Israel.

Let's look elsewhere.

Afghanistan, liberated by the United States from the medieval tyranny of the Taliban is about to publish the draft of its first constitution.

Their new constitution is going to be firmly based on Islamic principles.

The country itself is soon to be renamed the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

We wouldn't call a Jew or a Christian who wanted his religion to become the basis of his country's constitution a moderate, would we?

Here, in the United States, we value the separation of church from state so much that we launch court battles to remove the Ten Commandments and every reference to God from everything that is even remotely related to the government.

If Islam is "just another religion", shouldn't the same criteria apply to Muslim countries?

And if the same criteria do apply, we have to conclude that President Karzai installed in Afghanistan by the American military and unable to survive now or in the foreseeable future without the American military presence, is not a moderate Muslim, but an outright religious extremist.

His "Very correct" remark to Mahadir's call for the extermination of Jews shows that he is a political extremist as well.

Therefore, the only practical question regarding Afghanistan is why did the United States have to waste lives of its soldiers and tens of billions of dollars in order to replace one bunch of Muslim extremists with another?

It might have been worthwhile had it improved our security at home, but, as we know, that didn't happen.

Therefore, we have to conclude that the United States has once again won a battle but lost the war.

Next, the same will inevitably happen in Iraq.

Desperate search for moderate Muslims goes all around the world.

It is especially urgent in Europe whose face is being irreversibly altered by mass immigration from Islamic countries.

Recently, the British government appealed to the growing British Muslim community to isolate extremists in their midst.

It's not hard to predict the response.

Actually, there will be no response, because everyone in any Muslim community is an extremist.

Such is the nature of Islam, and the only thing that I find hard to comprehend is the self-imposed blindness of the British government.

Apparently, such is the price of liberalism and political correctness. Bye-bye, Europe. We are next.

I don't think World War II could be won if the Allies, instead of eradicating Nazism, attempted to replace Nazi extremists with moderate Nazis.

Actually, nobody was looking for moderate Nazis during World War II.

But those were simpler, purer times.

Today, the mythical moderate Muslim remains the focal point of the US foreign policy in the Middle East.

The blind faith in his existence has already led the United States to many monumental failures, and many more are to be expected in the future.

Meanwhile, the moderate Muslim, along with the Big Foot, the unicorn, the Loch Ness monster, remains more elusive than a cure for cancer: there is at least a theoretical possibility that a cure for cancer can be found one day, unless of course Islam takes over and drags us all down into its own endless Dark Ages.

Original URL: http://www.tzemach.org/fyi/commentary/moderate_muslim.htm

The "Moderate Muslims" no doubt exist, but their *leaders* are a different story. The leaders seem much more concerned with criticizing non-Muslims with lumping all Muslims in with the terrorists, than actually condeming the terrorists in a lively manner.

I'm sure a few of that billion muslims are moderate, I'm just pessimistic about the influence of those seven people...

In my opinion, one major flaw in the Afghan and Iraq Wars was that the religious element was taboo and there was no concerted effort to convert the Muslims to Christianity which is the most benign of religions that will defend itself if need be. Meanwhile, the Jihad continues as long as there are Muslims.

hmmm a kahanist website claiming no muslim is a moderate.......... what a shocker ! :rolleyes:

In my opinion, one major flaw in the Afghan and Iraq Wars was that the religious element was taboo and there was no concerted effort to convert the Muslims to Christianity which is the most benign of religions that will defend itself if need be. Meanwhile, the Jihad continues as long as there are Muslims.
In Afghanistan its more an ethnic element, the Uzbeks and to a certain degree the Tajiks( the NA alliance tribes and despite what Islamic propagandist would say the main force in the anti Soviet rebellion) have continued to be basically pro American( as long as we don't interfere with Heroin cultivation which is fine with me because I don't give a shit about fighting the war on drugs) and relatively moderate as far as Muslims go. The Uzbeks were Tamerlane's people and close relatives of the Mongols... they mainly kill other muslims.

I would not advocating fucking with their internal affairs at all because our alliance with their warlords is whats keeping the Jihadis out of most of the country. They are savages but I don't care as long as its not directed at us and they are killing the real hardcore muslim savages.

Its the Pashtuns who are a problem, they should be converted at gunpoint and every Islamic cleric scholar etc should be "put to the sword" and every mosque in their lands should be burned to the ground and the site defiled with pigfat.

In Iraq I would impose the same policy on the Pashtuns above on the whole population.

Oh and no conversion to catholicism either... thats my 2nd least favorite religion other then Islam.

Fundamentalist Christianity, likely to develop amongst uneducated and poor populations, is hardly better than fundamentalist Islam. Let's convert them to agnosticism.

Fundamentalist Christianity, likely to develop amongst uneducated and poor populations, is hardly better than fundamentalist Islam.

Do born again christians suicide bomb skyscrapers, or perhaps strip clubs, or even abortion clinics?

Race matters more than religion. Even if the Saudis, Iraqis, etc, were forcefully converted to christianity they would still beat their wives, kill gay people and look for excuses to wage a "holy war" against the West (though at least one of the excuses is fair). They can't help it, they are semites.

Despite that, I believe Westerners should kill Arabs only when attacked or seriously threatened by them (not the case of Iraq).

- "Even if the Saudis, Iraqis, etc, were forcefully converted to christianity they would still beat their wives, ...

Do you know any social history? In Western Europe, wife-beating was still respectable behavior even among upper classes in the 16th century. Pre-Peter the Great Russians had wife-beating so instilled to their culture that one Russian woman actually complained to his German husband that since he never beated her, apparently he did not care about her.


- "...kill gay people "

Ancient Germanic tribes used to drown fags to swamps. Read Tacitus.


- "They can't help it, they are semites."

Were Semitic Phoenicians or Babylonians obsessed with waging "holy wars" against their neighbors, instead of doing commerce? Or pre-Islamic Arabs?


Petr

Do you know any social history? In Western Europe, wife-beating was still respectable behavior even among upper classes in the 16th century. Pre-Peter the Great Russians had wife-beating so instilled to their culture that one Russian woman actually complained to his German husband that since he never beated her, apparently he did not care about her.
I've read about ancient Germanic and Celtic tribes' high level of respect for women. Do you deny that?

As for Russians, thats no surprise, they have always been barbarians. :222

Ancient Germanic tribes used to drown fags to swamps. Read Tacitus.
That's surprising, no wait, it isn't. Gay people can be very irritating. :p

Ok, so tolerance for gays is a new phenomenon.

Were Semitic Phoenicians or Babylonians obsessed with waging "holy wars" against their neighbors, instead of doing commerce? Or pre-Islamic Arabs?
They were certainly obsessed about wars (like most great people at that time). The "holy" part only came with Islam.

I read somewhere that homosexuality was common among some ancient celtic groups. I can't remember where I saw this, or if it is true, perhaps someone else could corroborate or deny this. Before Christianity, there was a lot of tolerated homosexuality in what would become the West and a good deal of other parts of the world. Homosexuality exists, despite Islam, in Turkey, North Africa, and Afghanistan.

Wife beating is mentioned often in post-Petrine Russian literature, the westernization of Russia did not seem to do much to stop the practice among the lower classes. A friend tells me that some Russians she has encountered feel that it is something of a national sport and cultural heritage.

I'm certainly not well-versed on the issue of history of homosexual acceptability in the West but it's common knowledge that ancient Greek and Roman men used to have too much "admiration" for their male friends and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the ancient Celtic and Germanic tribes used to have some considerable level of tolerance for their sexual deviants too.

Edit: dumb question removed. :p

It is not correct that there is indeed a great deal of 'ethnic element' driving the political landscape of Afghanistan. That country is comprised of Pakhtoons, who are not a common race but instead share a thousand year old tradition of Pakhtoonwali, which is posterior to Islam. It has been strongly influenced by Islam and its original Arab theocracy. Ulemma is an important part of the Pakhtoon Tradition thus.

Pakhtoons are comprised of Tibbetan-Mongols, Turkic-Mongols, Arabs, Caucasians and some Elamite-Dravidian stocks. What one can find really contrasting is that Pakhtoons simply do not have any recollections of the great old days of Afghanistan as a Heathen/Buddhist Kingdom. They simply do not have in their history any implication of an association with the Empires of Scythians, Tocharians, Bactrian-Greeks etc.

Such has been the Influence of Islam. They trace their lineages instead to the Biblical patriarchs and have long been considered remnants of the lost and wandering jewish tribes, which is in altogether inconsistency with their Genetic composition. If any significant middle eastern element was brought there, it was during the reign of the Khwarezm Empire, when Arabs rode in big numbers into the Pamirs and the Afghan region.

Tajiks are no different from Pashtoons except that they were isolated in the mountains of Pamirs for centuries. While the Pashtoons have been a multi-ethnic but a strident Islamic 'group' because of the Pakhtoonwali.

Educated Pashtoons are quite against Islamisation and resisted Zia's campaigns which didn't quite worked. They were decimated. Many Pakhtoons are friendly towards Tajiks, not because of their common Islamic creed, but the shared Afghan heritage of old.

But the original essay raises one important concern even as there might be many arguments against it.

Can Muslims see beyond the strife caused by religion and fight alongside people who do not profess their prophet's faith, for truth and justice and not some "paramount creed"?

Iraq and its Islamists are fanatical bigots in the line of Mishal Aflaq's Baa'thist ideology, worse kind of racists who value as great only middle eastern landscape & its customs, people and civilisations.

Islamic resistance there is a sequel to the Baa'thist struggle against the rest of the world for the Middle Eastern/Afro-Asiatic Pride.

I see Euro-American Christianity as benign and noble only when compared to the "conflict-ridden" promised lands of middle east.:D

Dogmatic and Racist Religions, of the Ancient Jews, Arabs or their Modern Avatars are all Evil.
In Afghanistan its more an ethnic element, the Uzbeks and to a certain degree the Tajiks( the NA alliance tribes and despite what Islamic propagandist would say the main force in the anti Soviet rebellion) have continued to be basically pro American( as long as we don't interfere with Heroin cultivation which is fine with me because I don't give a shit about fighting the war on drugs) and relatively moderate as far as Muslims go. The Uzbeks were Tamerlane's people and close relatives of the Mongols... they mainly kill other muslims.

I would not advocating fucking with their internal affairs at all because our alliance with their warlords is whats keeping the Jihadis out of most of the country. They are savages but I don't care as long as its not directed at us and they are killing the real hardcore muslim savages.

Its the Pashtuns who are a problem, they should be converted at gunpoint and every Islamic cleric scholar etc should be "put to the sword" and every mosque in their lands should be burned to the ground and the site defiled with pigfat.

In Iraq I would impose the same policy on the Pashtuns above on the whole population.

Oh and no conversion to catholicism either... thats my 2nd least favorite religion other then Islam.

@bismarck
Look at how they managed to defeat China conclusively, how it bowed in and accepted Christianity, the religion which the West professes. It is quite popular in Korea, Japan and even Vietnam.

American has conquered these countries by tantalising their inhabitants and gradually too.

Decadence has been the best bet for the American or Euro-American campaign.

Now what China has is the outward facade of the West, its religious practices but not the inner core or spirit and manly vigour. The manly vigour is present in Afghans though. And it depends just how much of blood they have to shed in the cause of their ideal, inspired by the alien religion of the Arab-Islam.

- "Such has been the Influence of Islam. They trace their lineages instead to the Biblical patriarchs and have long been considered remnants of the lost and wandering jewish tribes, which is in altogether inconsistency with their Genetic composition."


What are you talking about? Muslims doing this? Got any evidence?


Petr

Yousefzei(Joseph's progeny), Barakzei(Barak's Progeny), Afridi(Ephraim's)and a lot of others.

Its not specific to Muslims, its prevalent among Afghans & Pashtoons and not among all Afghans/Pashtoons either. Many Bangash consider themselves akin to the Pamiris.