"We should also encourage the moderate leaders in the Muslim world -- and they're the majority -- to distance themselves from this extremism..." -- from Jose Manuel Barroso's comment
Four Questions and No Answer:
1. Define "moderate leaders."
2. Tell us how you know they are in "the majority."
3. Tell us why the attacks on the Pope can be described, without more, as "extremism."
4. Tell us why you think that "the moderate leaders in the Muslim world -- and they're the majority" -- have not once been capable of denouncing those who riot and agitate and utter death threats, not only now against the Pope, but in other incidents, such as those worldwide Muslim protests, presumably from those Muslims not in "the majority," over Danes daring to exercise in Denmark their right of free speech.
The very phrase "moderate Muslim" shows us what we all realize about Islam, even if we choose not to express it to others or even to recognize it ourselves. For a "moderate Muslim" is someone who is not too much of a believer, who may be largely unobservant, who may choose to ignore a large part of what the Qur'an, Hadith, and the example of Muhammad in the Sira all teach. In other words, a "moderate Muslim" is one who takes his Islam but only "in moderation." Ideally, from the viewpoint of Infidels, is that "moderate Muslim" who takes such a low dose of the belief-system that he becomes what one may call the "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim.
What does this tell us? It tells us that if the "moderate Muslim" is the good kind, the kind we wish to encourage, the kind we can work with, the kind we can trust to do battle against "immoderate" Muslims, then those who loudly claim to the contrary are in fact recognizing that there is something terribly wrong with Islam itself. We can only have hope, if we have any hope at all, in those who do not take the teachings of Islam too seriously, too much to heart. It is those who fully accept the teachings of Islam, and are not merely going through the motions out of filial piety or some vague sense of tradition, who are the greatest danger.
But the notion of "moderate" Muslims is too easily invoked and relied upon. In the archives at Jihad Watch (see the articles page) one can find my article "Ten Things to Think About When Thinking About Moderate Muslims." And among the points made in that piece is that those who fail to describe what Islam teaches, in their own attempts to deflect understanding and knowledge of Islam through the exercise of Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque, are not "moderates" in any helpful sense, for they are simply continuing to mislead unwary Infidels. And what is worse, they are more effective at it, smoother at it, than the wild-eyed attendees of the Finsbury Mosque. Omar Bakri Mohammed, when he was the talk of London, was not nearly the threat that the smooth Tariq Ramadan continues to be to Infidel understanding of Islam.
A true "moderate" must be defined as a Muslim who does not mislead in any way about Islam. He may be uncomfortable about telling the full truth, but he should not lie about what Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira teach, and about how those teachings are accepted by a great many, the overwhelming majority, of Muslims. He must not deny the reality of the example of Muhammad, and what that example of uswa hasana, the Model for All Time, means for Muslims -- and more importantly, for non-Muslims. He must not pretend that the many Jihad verses in the Qur'an do not exist, or that they can be interpreted away, or that the doctrine of abrogation is not accepted. He must not confuse Infidels by quoting Hadith that may be pleasing, but are also deemed inauthentic, and he must not ignore those Hadith deemed authentic. He must not selectively quote, with careful ellipses, certain verses in the Qur'an, or mislead as to the meaning of verses which, on first reading, might seem unexceptional.
Those true moderates are only those who admit that there is something naturally menacing about Islam. In order for Muslims to be accepted, or even tolerated, in the Lands of the Infidels, they should have to admit that there is something wrong both in the teachings of Islam, and in the treatment, in time and space, of non-Muslims by Muslims who conquered their lands, and proceeded to islamize, and in many cases as well to arabize, those lands -- and to force those who did not convert to endure the permanent status of degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity that all dhimmis, from Spain to East Asia, found was their common and immutable lot.
How many Muslims will qualify as "moderates" according to the minimal criteria offered above?
Very few.
Maybe one-- and she would be whiplashed for being haram
How to deal with the fact that many (most?) moderate Muslims as defined by Hugh's criteria above are rightfully scared and often unwilling to "come out of the closet"?
A silent minority is certainly problematic.
Believe it or not
Police in the UK are going to inform a panel of Muslims if they are intending to conduct an anti-terror raid.
http://uppompeii.blogspot.com/
British police were once considered the best in the world. Now they can give the Keystone cops a run for their money. The Keystone cops atleast chased criminals, on film anyway; not so the police in the UK, who have been given guidance that chasing criminals is against the Health and Safety Act, as well as, violates the human rights of criminals.
kamala,
If they are too afraid to voice the truth, then, in western countries, as adults with the right to make their own decisions, they should leave Islam.
The children have only a few years before they, too, will be adults.
Given that they know the truth, there is no logical reason for them to live a lie.
Not trying to defend an indefensible position, but there are many people in this world who profess a religion but do not take seriously its teachings or rituals. Christians and Buddhists included.
From this point of view, it is not surprising that many non-Muslims are totally receptive to the myth of “moderate Islam”, and unwilling to call out the “moderates”, as the people at Jihad Watch have done, to acknowledge the shortcomings of Islam and to actively address them.
There’s that old adage about people eventually believing the lies they tell, which I think perfectly applies to this “moderate Islam” euphemism. It will be a long battle ahead.
There are no moderate Muslims. They either support terrorism or condone it which is support. If the don't open their mouths, they support terrorism.
It's just that simple.
The moderate muslim is a myth. There are two types, practicing, pious muslims and backsliders. The pious muslims I have absolutely no problem with. I will never be let down by their actions, I expect them to be cruel, violent and unbending. They themselves do not have to carry out a violent act to actively support one. The second group is by far the most dangerous. True, they do not actively support their more violent cousins in faith but they also refuse to help anyone outside the faith control them. Just because they are backsliders now doesn’t mean we are safe. They will always be one verse away from transforming themselves into the same violent, unbending, snarling, dangerous animal that is islam.
Passive support to terrorism is still support.
The problem with wasting resources on empowering the mythical muslim moderate is we need those same resources to deal with the non moderated majority muslim. When and if the ever elusive moderate is found and shows himself to have the power to gather even a small flock of followers then we should consider watching long enough to see if we are once again being scammed. If this magical and mythological group of moderate muslims does form. It will truly be miraculous as the non moderated muslims should have noticed this group forming and should have taken action against it long before we non muslims would have noticed it. The birth and death of the elusive moderate muslim would have been totally missed by westerners but would remain, like bigfoot a legend we choose to believe although its existence can never be proven. We believe in the moderate muslim on faith alone because we choose faith over our own common sense.
Why don't people pay attention to Mahathir Mohamad:
http://www.thesundaily.com/article.cfm?id=15480
"ASTANA: There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim and US President George W. Bush is mistaken in casting his war on terror in terms of a "struggle for civilisation", former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad says.
..........................
"There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim," he said. "We are fundamentalists in Malaysia. We follow the true teachings of the religion and the true teachings do not teach us to bomb and kill people without reason."
So I suppose those searching for moderate Muslims should actually be looking non-fandamentalists i.e. those who don't take the Koran, hadith etc., seriously?
I would just like to capitalize a little on Ronin's statement:
"We believe in the moderate muslim on faith alone because we choose faith over our own common sense."
If there are any "Moderate Muslims" in existentance, now is their time to speak up. If they don't, they are enemies of the western world as we know it. This will not go away and their belief in their faith will not let it go. I truly believe that many think their faith will pull them through. It won't.
"A true "moderate" must be defined as a Muslim who does not mislead in any way about Islam."
Hugh,
The problem with this definition is that those who engage in violent Jihad often do not mislead in any way about Islam. They state quite clearly they are attempting to bring the world under Islamic Law by fighting the unbelievers, as instructed in the Qur'an Hadith and Sira. Therefore they could qualify as moderate, by the definition above.
In my mind, a moderate is a muslim who:
1. Rejects the doctrine of Jihad, which is the struggle to bring the world under Islamic Law
2. Rejects Dhimmitude
3. Rejects the Sharia, and believes that politics of the State and religion should be separate (secularism)
This would still leave us with a tiny minority of moderates. If we were then to add your suggestion:
4. Does not mislead in any way about Islam
Then we are left with even less!
How depressing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/pip/4gr3n/
Muslims and the Met
Tuesday 19 September 2006 20:00-20:40 (Radio 4 FM)
Repeated: Sunday 24 September 2006 17:00-17:40 (Radio 4 FM)
Following the recent high profile anti-terror operations in the UK - some of which have led to suspects being charged while others have ended in people being released - Simon Cox investigates the relationship between Muslims and the Met. How do the police strike a balance between community sensitivities and early intervention to prevent atrocities?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/mulimsandthemet
How they are recruiting more Muslims as CSOs on £25k/yr (British soldier £13k pa) to make "The Community" happier in London.............soon they'll have their own flag and passports.......
"In order for Muslims to be accepted... they should have to admit that there is something wrong both in the teachings of Islam, and in the treatment... of non-Muslims by Muslims"
I.e., the average Muslim should be able to evolve to roughly the same level of cultural self-criticism to which the average Westerner has evolved.
Jihadist terrorist = Red Bull
Fervent Muslim = Double Espresso
Moderate Muslim = A Cup of Coffee
Taqiyya Muslim = Suisse Mocha with Cream and Sugar
"Muslim-for-Identification-Purposes-Only" = Decaf
Apostate = A cup of herbal tea, or better yet, a mug of beer or a Scotch on the rocks.
Kamala said,
A good point, worth dwelling on.
Let the non-Muslim states take the energy they exert on pandering to Muslim sensitivities (like telling them before doing counterterrorism raids--is there any other group to which such a favor is accorded?!) and invest even half of it on punishing those who maintain the climate of fear in Islam, such as those who execute the death penalty for apostates. You know, like Sir Napier did with other "cultural customs", with the immortal reply to the effect that a custom of his culture was to hang widow murderers.
It requires, of course, a slight quantity of Western self-esteem, self-knowledge of why our civilization is so great despite imperfections: its being an agora of discussing ideas without fear. There will be no beginning of any victory for us unless we throw the PC (Politically Correct or Post Colonial) self-flagellation mentality out first.
Cynic quoted the former Prime Minister of Malaysia:
"We follow the true teachings of the religion and the true teachings do not teach us to bomb and kill people without reason."
Notice that loophole -- "without reason". The clear implication here is that the true teachings of Islam do teach Muslims to bomb and kill people -- with reason. And that reason includes, besides self-defense, offensive actions to fight against those who refuse to be dominated by Islam, and against those Infidels who, by merely existing successfully, are "spreading mischief and corruption".
The birth and death of the elusive moderate muslim would have been totally missed by westerners but would remain, like bigfoot a legend we choose to believe although its existence can never be proven.
Posted by: Ronin at September 24, 2006 11:33 AM
LOL ;-)
"moderate" moslem = a moslem no longer alive
or
the only "moderate" Moslem is a . . . (you know the rest)
-------------------------------------------------
Good explanation of "moderate moslem here:
The truth about Moslem moderates
By Howard Galganov September 20, 2006
http://web.israelinsider.com/views/9479.htm
-------------------------------------------------
next item:
"The birth and death of the elusive moderate muslim would have been totally missed by westerners but would remain, like bigfoot a legend we choose to believe although its existence can never be proven."
Posted by: Ronin at September 24, 2006 11:33 AM
LOL ;-)
Posted by km
my comment (unicorns62000 speaking now):
But like the Bigfoot legend, there are those who will come up with films, vidoes, cell-phone-snapshots of what they swear was the sighting of the elusive "moderate" moslem.
Also, he can be likened to the Yetti (Abominable Snowman) and the Loch Ness monster (Nessie).
A hairy piece of skullcap of the former and grainy films of the latter exists. That is it.
Nessie has been more or less (more than less) unmasked as a fraud or mistaken identity. The Abominable leaves footprints in the snow, now and then, mush as the "moderate" moslem excites the seekers by a supposed spoor now and then.
He is a mirage--he appears--then is gone . . .
Still, there are the stubborn ones, who insist that he does exist and they will swear that they saw him (like UFOs).
My advice: forget it and get on with it. Stop trying to excuse Islam. It is not good. No part of it. It can never be redeemed.
You expurgate the Koran and you're left with 1000+1 nights--entertaining but that's all.
You throw out the Koran--it's all gone.
. . . and good riddance it would be.
"You expurgate the Koran and you're left with 1000+1 nights..."
-- from a posting above
There are certain similarities, especially in the Hadith and Sira.
I remember hearing Ibn Warraq´s definition of a "Moderate"
The "moderate" is one who has run out of ammunition...
No, that wasn't Ibn Warraq. Not his style.
Let's face it, at this point in history the only moderate Muslims are to be found in one place-the grave.
Imagine a West where the vast majority believed in the existence of Bigfoot, and only a relatively small minority on the Internet (and a few places out in the sunshine here and there) had the temerity to dispute this belief in Bigfoot.
http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Editoriali/2006/09_Settembre/25/papa.shtml
for the ones reading italian, a comment by Magdi Allam on the muslim "leaders".
The article is larger, but he wonders too how the muslim leaders are selected and how they represent the muslim people.