News of Delaware County (thanks to Anthony) has published a long dhimmi puff piece, "A look inside Delaware County's largest mosque," about the local Al Madinah Mosque (which they call the "the Masjid Al Madinah Mosque," or the "Al Madinah Mosque Mosque"). In it, there is a most interesting statement:
On a Friday afternoon at the Masjid Al Madinah Mosque, dozens of Muslims from across the world stand shoulder to shoulder with Americans of the same faith.They face East, toward their holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.
While nearby the converted house shoppers busily cruise the stores at 69th Street outside, a bearded man sings prayers in Arabic as worshippers watch on video monitors on three different levels.
Women and girls occupy the top floor; men and boys the first and basement. The guest speaker has already finished the "Khutba," a sermon mixed in Arabic, English and sometimes other languages. Now, it's time for praise....
"We started in a basement, but we never used to have Friday worship," said Mohommad Mujeed. "From the basement, we started to look for a place. We heard this place was being sold at auction. We spent over $100,000 on this building [fixing it up]."...
Mujeed said many Americans are unfamiliar with Islam and are exposed to it mainly through reporting on the violence of religious extremists. He insists, however, that their actions don't represent the main stream teachings of the faith.
"Islam is a peaceful religion," says Mujeed, "Muslims should love other people like they love themselves.
"Terrorists have a different agenda. A normal Muslim under normal circumstances would never dream of doing these things."
"Under normal circumstances"? So are there circumstances in which a "normal Muslim" would dream of doing these things? If so, what are they? Is Mujeed referring to the common teaching that when unbelievers are waging war against Islam, all Muslims have the obligation to fight back? But that is what the jihadists of today say is happening right now. Does Mujeed believe that to be the case, or does he think we are still in "normal circumstances"? If so, why? If not, why not?
What's a 'normal' Muslim?
Igor looks quickly at the "Brain table," grabs a jar from under the glass dome nearest to him, and leaves.
On the glass dome, whose contents Igor has just taken, is printed:
DO NOT USE THIS BRAIN!
"ABNORMAL"
Shy Guy-
I assume you are translating that "ABNORMAL" from the Arabic?
"Normal circumstances" for a Muslim could mean several things.
"Terrorists have a different agenda. A normal Muslim under normal circumstances would never dream of doing these things."
-- quoting a Mohammed Mujeed, of the Masjid Al Madinah mosque, in Delaware County, Pennsylvania
What does this reference to "normal circumstances" by the same kind of arrangements, the same kind of societal and political understandings, the same kind of Muslim dominance over non-Muslims, which are to be observed everywhere in the lands of dar al-Islam, where Musliims unquestionably dominate, as by right, by the right conferred on them as Believers, as members of the ummah or Community of Believers, and as of course, they should also enjoy such a right everywhere. For Islam is to dominate, and not to be dominated. And it impossible, simply impossible, for a Muslim to consider that Islam could ever be simply one religion among many, with the same rights (but no greater rights) for it or for its adherents. That would not make sense, because it would violate the will of Allah. How could it be?
The "abnormal circumstances" that would trigger terrorism are, of course, any kind of situation where the Muslims are not in control, where they will not have their demands met, and where, for perfectly rational reasons, we do not intend to change our own socieities in order to have them conform, in the slightest, to what Muslims should think they should be.
It is an absurdity, but our failure to meet Muslim demands, as well as our attempts to monitor Muslims for the sake of our own physical security, are treated by Muslims as unacceptable. We have no right not to accede to their demands. The mere setting up of what Muslims may regard as "obstacles" to the spread of Islam, which could include anything (not allowing the wearing of the hijab in government offices, or schools, or the military), not giving the Qur'an a status at least equal to that of the Bible (i.e., denying completely, effacing completely, our own history, that famous Judeo-Christian -- a variant on Christian that one may with good grace accept as a recognition of the role of the Old Testament in Western culture, and especially in the formation and development of American political and intellectual life -- history which some Muslims would like to rewrite, now claiming that it is "the three abrahamic faiths" (this is the Reza-Aslan line that while preposterous beyond belief, apparently is not preposterous enough for those who interview him to start laughing or at least to do more than simply accept this nonsensee), so that we can duly expect some sort of "Islamo-Judeo-Christian" heritage line to be, eventually, the latest fashion -- a fashion that should be destroyed before anyone gets to sashay down the runway with it.
It is "abnormal" for Muslims in the West because here they do not dominate. It is abnormal for Muslims in the world at large to find a growing awareness of what Islam is all about, however imperfectly understood, and hesitatingly expressed, by Infidels, and to discover that Infidels in Holland (thanks to Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, and others), and in France (thanks to Yvan Rioufol, Anne-Marie Delcambre, Alain Finkielkraut, Jean-Paul Charney, Alexandre del Valle, and others), Italy (thanks overwhelmingly to Oriana Fallaci, but also in different ways to Magdi Allam, to Ernesto Galli della Loggia, and to a good many others who are starting to appear), and in the United States (where the whole grim truth, and nothing but the truth, is to be found only at Jihadwatch, but that is only because we are insufficiently machiavellian to wish to place any bets on "moderate Muslims" here), preferring our own machiavellianism of the complete truth in discussing Islam, what is natural to it, and what if anything, may be described as its distempers.
but if living not as overlords, for now, in Infidel societies, and if being checked or counterattacked here and there by aroused and enraged Infidels and yet being expected, living as citizens or non-citizens within Infidel lands, to support this policy rather than to work actively against it (as so many Muslims do), is for Muslims "abnormal," what about the "abnormal circumstances" that we, the long-suffering and unwary and inhibited Infidels, are now living in?
It is not "normal circumstances" to have within your midst, to have allowed within your midst and continuing to allow within your midst, a discrete, coherent group of people whose loyaalty is solely to fellow members of that group, as a matter of deeply held belief, and whose belief-system teaches them, in every way, at every level, that they must dislike, or hate, or even murder (see Qur'an 9.29) the Infidels, that they must "not take them as friends," must follow the example of Muhammad, uswa hasana (see Qur'an 33), from his words and deeds in the Hadith, and the details of his life in the Sira, which together make up the Sunna that, for many Muslims, is at least as important as the Qur'an. The Qur'an without the Sunna is difficult to comprehend; the Sunna contains, for many Muslims, the essentials, and more, of the Qur'an.
It is "abormal" for any country, or any civilization, to have within its midst those who regard that country or civilization as enemy territory, eventually to be conquered. It is "abnormal" not to bother to study the belief-system of that group, to analyze it thoroughly and to study the history of conquest and subjugation over vast swaths of territory that were once held by non-Muslims, and a considerable part of which was once part of what we once called, and now find it embarrassing to do so --- and not without reason -- "Western Christendom."
It is "abnormal" to refuse to talk about this, to make endless efforts to explain, or explain away, the behavior of masses of Muslims, when they cheered the 9/11 attacks all over the Muslim world, when they present Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque "outreach" and "dialogues" all over the place and continue to find pools of the unwary and the ignorant and the exceedingly stupid to lap up what they have to offer. It is "abnormal" for the universities and colleges of the Western world to have permitted Arab money to set up "Centers for Muslim-Christian Understanding" or "Centers of Contempoorary Arab Studies" or "Islamic Studies" or the "King Abdul Aziz Chair in Islamic Law/Islam/Islamic History studies. It is "abnormal" for many MIddle Eastern deparments all over the West, even without those Saudi-funded chairs, those Kuwait-funded Centers, those U.A.E.-funded conferences, to have handed over the teaching of Islam to apologists for Islam, in most cases Muslims themselves (where the bright assumption that is made -- that Muslims are just as capable of being "objective" as all other people -- well, I have news for you. They aren't. They simply can't bring themselves to be, and where outright deception is not intended, a wilful ignorance of the history of Islam, or the most important aspects of it (what could be more important than the history of Muslim conquest, and the subsequent subjugation of those known as dhimmis?), or filial piety, or embarrassment, kick in. The defensiveness is ten miles thick -- it can't be penetrated.
It is "abnormal" in the history of the world for those who wish a society, a people, a civiilzation ill, who wish to transform it in their own image, to be allowed to come within, by the millions, to settle, to be given every right and encouraged to take advantage of every right (the very rights that are the product of that civilization which those coming in wish to destroy, or at least are unwilling to help preserve against their malefacting co-religionists).
Let us try, as best we can, to recreate those "normal circumstances" in the Western world for ourselves -- andshould Mr. Mujeed find himself back in a society where Islam rules the roost, he would be, I am sure, well content.
This is what one calls a win-win situation.
Women and girls occupy the top floor; men and boys the first and basement.
Why? Why do women occupy the top floor?
Because the men want to make sure that a woman, dog or monkey will not pass in front of them during their prayers. (Good company women are in, no?)
What we have to stop doing as a society is taking freedom of speech to its extreme. With each passing year it gets a little worse. In America we are "free", but that does not mean we are free to do whatever we want. There are certain moral rules that apply to each individual and if these rules are broken there is a punishment. When my freedom physically hurts someone it is plainly not allowed.
So what about freedom of Speech? Is it OK to incite hatred and violence on certain groups? Is it OK to demean and belittle groups that dont share your views? It seems it is. As much as I disagree with Muslims I would never say we should kill them or round them up and make them slaves, but it is Ok for a muslim to teach his people that killing me is allowed by allah. To Islam domination of our country is the law they live by...by any mean necessary....KKK...Neo Nazis...where do you draw the line in "Freedom of Speech". Are we intelligent enough as people to understand the difference between critisism and hate or disagreement and incitement? Why does the left and the ACLU stand up and protect the most vile society has to offer but turn their backs when the most moral men need them?
These are not rhetorical questions...I really dont know the answers....
Hugh - Eloquently and correctly put. "Normal circumstances" for Muslims include "being the overlord" and in charge.
How many "clueless" Americans will be affected by this "puff piece?" If I have my way, there will be fewer today!