Spencer, McCarthy, Fawstin at Restoration Weekend 2011: What about moderate Muslims?

Ah,the moderate Muslim.It is obvious 99% of non-Muslims think:

"A moderate Muslim is one who is against killing innocent civilians"

By that definition,almost 9O% of the 1.2 billion Muslims are "moderates"b>

ABOUT THE "MODERATES"

The vast majority of the "moderates",in the WEST,a mere 3O million, and the 1 BILLION in the Muslim world or in India ,like those of "The Muslim Debate Initiative" of the UK,are for:

1.Legal sanctions against US if WE say negative things against a dead historical figure like Muhammad,like saying he was a pedophile,a rapist.

2.Even the "moderate Westernized Muslims,in general" say "Islamophobia" is a crime to be legally punished

I am sure MOST of those MUSLIMS who help Western governments AGAISNT Hezbullah,Hamas,etc are ALSO:

For legally punishing the non-Muslims who say,hey,it is FREDDOM of SpEECH who say things like "Mohammed was a rapist and pedophile

DOUBLE STANDARDS

BUT at the same time they would be AGAINST throwing MUSLIMS in jail or being fined for saying,using FREEDOM of SpEECH,that paul of Tarsus was a LIAR,manipulator,charlatan,etc

I have noticed the vast majority of non-Muslims who believe in those "moderate"Muslims NEVER realize this:

1.The KIND of INTOLERANCE is the SAME

Throwing you in jail for "Islamophobia","hate speech" or killing you in the name of Islam

2.It is the DEGREE of INTOLERANCE that is the DIFFERENT

From Killing as being OK to being against that but being for fining you 5OO dollars,or jail time.

EXAMpLE

You can be a RACIST,yet be AGAINST KILLING non-whites,be AGAINST the KKK, yet at the SAME TIME be for racially-based discriminatory laws.

A few stories you may want to consider adding to the Jihad watch archives:

"Libyan Islamist commander endorses new government"

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/11/28/idINIndia-60766720111128?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=401

"Islamic party wins Moroccan election"

http://www.euronews.net/2011/11/28/islamist-party-wins-moroccan-election/

"Libyan Islamic scholars want Shari'ah law"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/islamic-leaders-demand-that-new-libyan-constitution-be-based-on-shariah-law/2011/11/28/gIQAVlsl4N_print.html

I'll be listening to this discussion closely. Andrew is spinning his talking points, God forgive him. Islam is clear, all of the Ulema' including the earliest recorded Islamic scholar on the Qur'an, al-Tabareee' said "jihad must be carried out against Jews and Christians until they pay Jizya and live under the rule of the (Islamic) authority."

Here are the EXTREMIST versesin the Koran,at least the most obvious,and WHY the ARGUMENT:"Islam is very DIVERSE,you are GENERALIZING"

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/03/14/about-the-argument-of-diversity-in-islam-and-the-extremist-passages-in-the-koran-2/

ALSO

Analysis of the UK TV shows:"Do we misunderstand Islam?"

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/03/06/analysis-of-the-tv-program-do-we-misunderstand-islam/

ALSO

Is Islamophobia really a Crime,like the "Moderate Muslims" affirm?"

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/09/05/is-islamophobia-really-a-crimeto-be-legally-punishedas-muslims-affirm-all-the-time/

It was Great being on the panel. Here's an excellent blog post inspired in part by this debate. "Islam By Any Other Name..." http://bit.ly/s5ySvd

Let me just give a heart felt thanks to the speakers on this panel,Andrew McCarthy,Robert Spencer,Bosch Fawstin,and Baroness Caroline Cox. All of you gave excellent presentations of your knowledge,and candid reflections and observations on trying to deal with and understand the growing threat that is Islam to the Western way of life.

Thank You

Mackie

Reforming Islam doesn't change the history of its founder. Mohammed was, is, and will always be the ideal of Islam. As Islam is inherently evil, the only thing that an attempt at reformation would become is a futile attempt at taming an incorrigible beast.

Islam cannot be reformed.

Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.

"Moderate" Muslims?

i.e. "wishy-washy" Muslims!

http://schnellmann.org/sharia-for-australia.html
Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon only follows
the evil teachings of Allah

... Conlon is NOT a Muslim "extemist" leader
who "hijacked" the peaceful™ religion Islam

Islamic Stoning to death (Rajam)
Bukhari Vol. 4, Book 56, #829 "...The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death"

5:38 "(thiefs) cut off his or her hands"

I commend Andrew McCarthy for his honest attempts to come to terms with the enigmatic phenomenon of the "Moderate Muslim", a genie of alliteration, that seems to spend a bottled up existence in the minds of many Westerners, only to pop up whenever the doctrine is under scrutiny.

He lays claim to a kind of revelation, that opened his eyes and cured him from some self-deceiving wishful thinking. His eyes are wide open now. But did he really come around that dramatically, or is he in fact believing pretty much the same things as he did before?

Back then, he focussed - like so many did and still do (thnx WoT) - on this "tiny group of extremists," who had of course, "nothing to do with Islam."
Now he entertains thoughts about "millions of moderate Muslims," who have everything to do with - his vision of - some kind of idiosyncratic, highly personal, DIY reform Islam (I'd rather say denialist Islam, the complementary side of annihilist Islam) that is in need of space, to be granted magnanimously by us Westerners. Different sides, same coin, at least pretty much so.

Me thinks the possible consequences of acknowledging that there's no reliable way to discriminate between Muslims who will or won't put their violent doctrine to practise, might have set him on a honourable and ceaseless quest for the holy gruel of inclusiveness: the Moderate Muslim.

Make that the inactive, denialist Muslim, for some better understanding. Kind of like "are you being served?": one orders a Muslim that comes as a perfect reflection of one's own repressed notions about the persistently violent nature of Islam, and as an embodyment of these secret thoughts ..*poof*.. up pops our denialist Muslim. Just what the doctor ordered.

But again, I value his honest attempt at soul searching vis a vis the MM. Liked Robert's reply.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

McCarthy says at about 11:30:

"I think we have to give them the space to try to evolve their belief systems".
____________________

Ok, but irrespective of whether we try, what would be the apotheosis of that vaunted "evolution" of the Islamic belief system? What would it evolve to? Common sense and rationality both would suggest that the evolution would lead inexorably to a sort-of "extinction" of the previous belief system.

The trouble with "giving them the space", is that it is futile, in the sense that the only possible avoidance of extinction is to abandon the system altogether. It can't be evolved. Can't have it both ways.

Not to spam the thread, but right after I wrote the above, Spencer came up on the video at about 11:50 and immediately mentioned the "giving them space" thing. That was strange.
___________

Still, however, I think Spencer and McCarthy are missing the inner "illogic" of their wishful thinking.

Spencer brings up the Lutherian motives and results surrounding the "reformation", yet attempts to equate it, tangentially, with some ersatz "reformation" of Islam.

Reformation and Evolution are two different animals.

Reformation, by definition, retains a part of the past - changed, re-thought - modified.
______________________________

On the other hand, Evolution doesn't give a rat's ass about the past, except as to how one may eliminate elements that do not efficiently strive toward survival; a belief system or how to kill a Wooly Mammoth to feed your kids longer.
_______________________________________________________

If Islam can be "evolved" by "moderate Muslims" - again - what would be the height of the evolution?

Sorry, but I don’t accept that this widely-assumed-to-exist sub-category of supposedly non-problematic Muslims exists at all, regardless of what labels we use. Even the most genuinely nominal, congenial, peaceful, cooperative Muslims out there are still, in some small way, contributing to the problem that we face simply by identifying themselves as Muslim at all. Their chosen self-identity alone contributes to the momentum of the Sharia agenda on a broader level.

Think about it this way: If you knew that the ideology that you were identifying yourself with taught all these horrible and destructive things, and you genuinely felt that they were horrible and destructive, and you could see that there were many people all over the world that shared your ideological label carrying out these horrible and destructive instructions every hour of every day, causing misery everywhere, why on Earth would you continue to identify yourself with the ideology at all? Would we not have considered a “nominal” Nazi, or a “nominal” State Shintoist during World War 2 to be problematic no matter how genuinely casual they might have been about it?

We need to stop kidding ourselves. It’s perfectly legitimate to hold people responsible for the ideologies with which they associate themselves, no matter how casually they do it. Casual, cooperative Muslims don’t need “space,” they need to be held to account.

Though it provides a good illustration of an important point (genuine reform trumps denialism), I don't know about the example of Luther. He was after all a rabid anti-semite and a Jew hating ideologue. Later "reformers" who followed another ideologue, Jehan Calvin, had strong ties with the Ottomans. Most notably among them, the non-Dutch speaking prince of Orange, William I, and later his son, Maurits.

Also the notion that no one could have predicted the "Reformation" a few hundred years before, is somewhat undermined by the historical evidence of other "reformations" of medieval Christianity in the several hundred years before Luther.

Cheers,
Sag

To Andy McCarthy:

A much more accurate distinction between what is popularly known as the "radical" and the "moderate" Muslims is either "orthodox" vs. "unorthodox" Muslims. Or "devout" vs. "nominal" Muslims, or "good Muslim" vs. "heretical Muslim."

These distinctions can be equated to a "devout" Christian who fequently prays, regularly reads the Bible and takes all of it as the word of God to be followed according to the doctrine he beleives, attends church weekly, and follows the teachings of Christ as best he can. This, versus the "nominal" Christian who picks and chooses which snippets of the Bible make him feel good, does not attend church except maybe on Christmas eve, and who basically believes emulating Christ is way too much trouble and incompatible with this culture.

The terminology you put forward, Islamist vs. Islam misses the boat and gives false comfort in use of the term "Islam." Islam is the ideology which, if believed and followed, creates Islamists. They are one and the same.

That was awesome. All the speakers were excellent. I really got a lot out of this. Thank you.

The last speaker referred to her desire for an "Islamic Reformation." Yikes. Does she even know what a reformation is? It means reforming back to the original; getting back as close to the roots of the ideology or religion as possible. In the case of Islam, reformation would mean getting back to Muhammad's teaching and practice and that of his immediate followers.

So, that woman advocates, ignorantly I suppose, for the form of Islam that Muhammad espoused, which is exactly that which is being practiced and promoted by both violent and stealth Islamic Jihadi's today, along with the less devout, nominal, heretical Muslim who would do MUCH better to simply disavow Islam and become atheists, Buddhists, Christians, or Jews.

I'm growing weary of some of these speakers who use sloppy terminolgy in attempting to explain Islam. Many do no great service to our understanding. It is freightening to think that my understanding of the threat is better than some of these "experts" I am seeking guidance from.

Wow. Who got to McCarthy? He seems to be making every conceivable attempt to dissemble a clear understanding of Islamic ideology. In the second video he took emotional exception to a very clear and cogent statement by Spencer defining the Islamic threat. At every step, McCarthy seems to want to water down and obsfucate a clear understanding of Islam. He says its not "black and white." To him it is mush. We have much more to gain by clearly defining the threat than by trying to nuance an infinite number of distinctions between Muslims for their degree of "radicalness", or more accurately, the extent of their belief and devoutness toward orthodox, historical Islam.

About wishy-washy muslims, that is, those who are not devout, can be described by a term I coined, "mushlims". The ring around Paris is largely composed of mushlims who are just as dangerous IMO.

What seems important to me are 2 issues; - Islam's relation to Democracy and can Islam win over Democracy? In my mind Muslims like Anjem Choudhary are the real Muslims. And he plainly, candidly preaches against Democracy.

But now there are elections in Egypt and a short while ago in Tunisia and Morocco. There seem to be a lot of confused Muslims, who somehow can and want to combine at least some Democratic principles with Islamic principles. Muslims cannot be trusted, but I do think that as long as dedicated Democratic Citizens vehemently defend and expand ever more Democratic principles, then those principles will protect us from Islamic dictatorship in Democratic countries. And almost all dictatorial Islamic nations will continue to fail economically and other ways.

And I am beginning to think that it will be very hard for Islam to really substantially win, ever. I am still wary, careful, but Islamic demographic advantages are not what they used to be anymore. And I now keep asking myself what influence the idea that it is now virtually impossible for Islam to win among ordinary so-called Moderate Muslims would have.

And I hope that especially the worldwide movement of "counterjihadism", which Muslims and their allies call "Islamophobia" will continue to make it clear to Muslims that their ambition for world domination has been noticed and will indefinitely be blocked.

Islamic reformists do exist. They're called apostates. The question remaining is, why aren't there more of them and the reason for their negligible numbers.

We can all contribute to the obvious answers, however there are some answers that are not so obvious. I strongly suspect that there are great numbers of muslims who do not, in fact, believe in Islamic doctrine. And wish not to apostisize themselves for a number of reasons.

Other than the fear of reprisals....

A great number of Muslims are not religiously convicted and will choose not to disappoint Family members.

Some fear a lesser standing in the Muslim community for expressing their non belief in some of Islam's doctrines.

Some are just consensus followers that need a belief system, regardless of what it teaches.

Some deny the true meaning of Islamic doctrine for self serving reasons.

There are as many would be apostates as there are individual reasons. The grip of 1400 years of Islam is not easy for any of it's followers to deny.

Can there be a an Islamic reformation ? I say yes. However, like Martin Luther, in the reformation, a denouncement of Islam's tenets must be declared by a body of revered Islamic religious teachers.

outofcontext could not agree with you more - the myth of the moderate muzlum is as ridiculous as can be - there are no moderate muzlums there are only active or inactive muzlums - a moderate muzlum is only one who has not blown up anybody - YET!

At about 41:00 into the first reel, it is stated that the Yorba Linda hecklers were Muslims.

Do you know where I can find more details on this?

Thanks again.

I believe the ARK OF THE COVENANT is hidden inside the Kaaba in Mecca. Please see my latest posts and watch out for more details...

http://ohmyvolcano.blogspot.com/

Please pass this info on as my blog could get pulled if I'm right.

Protection of free speech for non-Muslims and Muslims alike is a necessary condition to provide space for any reformation. The OIC's efforts to suppress criticism and mockery of Islam -- including both Apostasy and Blasphemy laws -- defines them as Islamist. It likewise potentially defines Hillary Clinton as Islamist.

A Muslim that has the courage to openly invite publication of the Mohamed cartoons, or to draw one of their own, might be moderate. They would today face the wrath of folks like CAIR, who will issue very superficial threats (and thereby impart approval of the same) that some adherent of Islam somewhere (like superman) might seize the opportunity to slay the artist to vindicate Islam. CAIR does not invite publication. They encourage government enforced suppression and thus define their organization as Islamist.

Let adherence to free speech be one marker for moderate versus non-moderate. This is a perfect overlap with the very anti-tyranny purpose for which the First Amendment was drafted, and approved. It is also no accident that this one brief amendment includes protection of the right to seek redress of grievances with government and simultaneously sets a boundary for the role that "religion" should play in the debate between the governed and the government. It demands that government itself be moderate, but remains forever dependent upon voluntary restraint by those in power at any given time. We should demand no less for any Muslim within Islam relative to any apparent authority (or sanctioned vigilante) within Islam. The top dogs must demonstrate voluntary restraint -- and thereby courage.

A Pew poll question need only ask whether it is okay to mock Mohammed or God or any religious/political figure the same way Americans can mock the American President? We do it gratuitously, for no other reason than the entertainment pleasure it brings. It is one of the joys of life, and reinforces our belief in individual liberty.

Would that be a reformation?

Great stuff. I thank God these things are being said, but I can't help feeling the audience itself is a tiny sub-culture (as Robert pointed out) and we're just preaching to the choir.

I'm looking forward to the day (perhaps naively) when the views expressed above are taken for common knowledge...while the apologia infecting academe and the newsrooms is rightly and resoundingly rejected by the culture at-large.

There is nothing in the Egyptian records that indicate
the existance of an empire from the Nile to the
Euphrates in the period mentioned for David and Solomen,
even though Egypt had records of Mesapotamia in Iraq
and the Hittites in eastern Turkey.

"The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's
New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts"

The authors are Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, a contributing editor to Archaeology Magazine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

"Although the book of Samuel, and initial parts of the books of Kings, portray Saul, David and Solomon ruling in succession over a powerful and cosmopolitan united kingdom of Israel and Judah, Finkelstein and Silberman regard modern archaeological evidence as showing that this is a pious fiction. Archaeology instead shows that in the time of Solomon, the northern kingdom of Israel had an insignificant existence, too poor to be able to pay
for a vast army, and with too little bureaucracy to be able to administer a kingdom, certainly not an empire"

http://www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/intro.html

The United Kingdom of David and Solomon

David and Solomon are portrayed in the Bible as two
of the greatest kings of the ancient world. However,
no trace of their empire has ever been found in
Palestine. It is a period curiously missing from the
archaeological record of the region. Quoting from the book,
Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, "The Bible is the
only written source concerning the United Monarchy, and it
is therefore the basis of any historical presentation of the period."(1) There is such a complete void of external sources that the archaeologist, author and leading authority on the era, Donald Redford, writes in frustration that "such topics as the foreign policy of David and Solomon, Solomon's trade in horses or his marriage to Pharaoh's daughter must remain themes for midrash and fictional treatment."(2)

http://domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/integrat.html
David & Solomon
According to Donald Redford in his landmark book, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, "Solomon has
assumed the guise of the 'Sesostris of Israel.(1)'" (The
story of the "semi-legendary" King Sesostris originated
about the sixth century B.C. as a composite of
the two great historical Pharaohs of Egypt, Thutmose III and Ramses II.) The research of Ahmed Osman points to Amenhotep III as being the main source of our "Sesostris of Israel."

http://www.ahmedosman.com/links.html

Ahmed Osman wrote: "As for the origin of
the word ‘messiah’ it is certainly Egyptian.
Egyptians used to anoint their king at his
coronation with the fat of the crocodile.
This custom is still living in Upper Egypt
for aphrodisiac reasons. As the word for
crocodile in Egyptian is ‘meseh’, the kings
received a title after his anointing written
with two crocodile signs. As Egyptian
language used a long vowel ‘ee’ to indicate
the duel, this title is read ‘meseeh’.
So the word Messiah was
originally a title for all anointed
Egyptian kings."

British Egyptologist E.A. Wallis Budge
talks about how ancient Egyptians
anointed themselves in "The Dwellers on
the Nile " pg 73 but did not know what kind
of fat used.

British Egyptologists Budge also wrote in 1931:
"The student of Bible history also has acquired
a mass of invaluable information through the
decipherment of these Egyptian inscriptions.
For even though they contain no confirmatory
evidence for the Exodus, they show that the
narrative of the book of Exodus was composed
by one who had access to writings based on Egyptian
documents, and that his story of the Exodus
of the Hebrews from Egypt was a somewhat
garbled version of a widespread tradition
founded on historical facts. Some passages in the
history of Moses have their equivalents in the Story
of Sanehe; the dual between Sanehe and the Syrian
giant recalls the duel between David and Goliath;"
pg 18, Egyptian Tales and Legends.

And the story of the two brothers where Budge writes:
"When this story became generally known in Europe,
many members of the public believed that it was the
original form of the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife"
pg 19, Egyptian tales and legends .

Budge also wrote in 1925: ..the Books of Moral Percepts
written by scribes and others show that at least some
of the Egyptians did believe in the existence of a great
and Supreme Being." The Dwellers on the Nile, pg 208

Moses is
an ancient Egyptian name meaning son or child.
The Hymn of Akhenaten is identical
to a Psalm verse. Conception of Monotheism
was found in Ancient Egypt even before
Akhenaten (Moses) and Abraham.
Horus son of Osiris was thrown into the Nile
in a basket when he was a baby and was picked
by the "Ntrs," resembling the throwing of Moses into
the Nile when he was a baby by his mother and picked
by Pharoah's daughter. Osiris was killed,
mutilated and then risen alife, resembling the
ressurection of Jesus. The seven year famine
was circulated in ancient Egyptian literature
because it actually happened in the
old kingdom long before the time of
Joseph. There is a statue of Horus in
a horse killing the dragon long before
st. George. Even the root of the Trinity
could be found in Tutankhamen's tomb
where he is portrayed as Osiris (the father),
Horus (the son) and as Ka (his spirit); one
in three and three in one.

If one takes a look at the Golden Throne
of Tutankhamen, it shows his wife is anointing
him just like Mary Magdelene anointed Jesus
in the Gospels; and Mary is an ancient Egyptian
name meaning beautiful. Also look at Isis
and baby Horus and you'll see the forerunner
of mother Mary and baby Jesus.

Also check "Moses and Monotheism" by Sigmund
Freud; and "Moses Mystery: the Egyptian origin
of the Jewish people" by Gary Greenburg.

"Ankh em Maat" means "living in truth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat

This Hymn was written around 3,500
years ago in Middle Egypt:

"How manifold it is, what You have made!
They are hidden from the face (of man).
O sole God, like whom there is no other!
You did create the world according to
Your desire, While Your were alone: All men,
cattle, and wild beasts, Whatever is on earth,
going upon (its) feet, And what is on high,
flying with its wings. The countries of Syria
and Ethiopia, the land of Egypt, You sette
every man in his place, You supplied their
necessities: Everyone has his food, and his
time of life is reckoned. Their tongues are
separate in speech, And their natures as well;
Their skins are distinguished, As thou
distinguished the foreign peoples."

John A. Wilson, trans., “The Great Hymn to the
Aton,” inscription, west wall of the tomb of Aye,
Tell el-Amarna

I must agree with you.

Recently I've been thinking about all the muslims who without actually realizing what they're doing, contribute to the stealth jihad. Clearly their lack of knowledge or outright stupidity doesn't absolve them of blame. But as they go about their business of making unreasonable demands for their religion and forcing non-muslims to participate in islamic law via creeping sharia, as they breed families and more potential voters , as they create the need for more barracks (mosques) and as they make inroads into our governments, and organizations and present themselves as decent "American" citizens, are they not simply setting the stage for the "call" when it comes? And by call I mean the command from their leaders to rise up and attempt to take over. Isn't conquest and conversion the ultimate goal of their religion?

Islam comes first with muslims so when that call comes and it most surely will some day, we already know whose side these "likeable", "all American" colonists will take, don't we?

Islam seems to always have the perfect set-up in place for any situation. It's absolutely diabolical in it's simplicity and false innocence. Most of it's followers, the so-called "moderate muslims" do it's dirty work without even being aware of it . And the invasion by "innocent moderates" continues unabated as islam builds it's voting block and army through immigration right under our noses. And without a political elite willing to address the enemy in our midst, I think we are doomed to either being conquered or forced into civil war. So, what's it going to be?

That last post of mine was in reply to "Out of Context(TM)". I have no idea why it didn't show up that way.

"Islam is the problem…"

This is not really a problem, once you understand the redundancy and superfluousness of Islam. I'll say it plain:

If the Arab Islamic world is of the Abrahamic tradition, and if that tradition originated with the Genesis of Adam's original sin, then the redemption of that sin by Jesus Christ's death on the cross ended the age of Abraham, as prophecy was fulfilled. So for Mohammed to appear six centuries later to 'correct' the prophecies is specious, absurd. Islam cannot exist within Abrahamic tradition.

Moderate? I don't trust anyone who believes shahada and has their nose stuck in the Quran...

The reason...To borrow a quote,
'Allah you magnificent bastard, I read your book'...

Anushirvan

It's true that islam does have a dim view of what it (i.e. the qur'an & sunnah) call 'hypocritic Muslims'. However, that's completely different from the point Out of Context was making, which is to look @ it from the Infidel POV, and act purely in the Infidel world's best interests.

While it's true that Muslims may have their own divisions, starting from Sunni vs Shia & permeating down to intolerance of various marginal sects, such as Alawite, Ahmadiya, Bahais, et al, it's important to note that when it comes to claiming an enhanced clout on the basis of head-count, they include all the 'hypocrites' you mention, including Ahmadiyas (e.g. while Pakistan lists Ahmadiyas as non-Muslims, they and the greater Muslim population in general describe Nobel laureate Abdul Sattar, who was a member of that community, as a Muslim laureate, despite the controversy they created over his burial site). In other words, while they may be willing to slit the throats of several of their fellow Muslims on the basis of the extent of their devotion, it doesn't stop them from counting them as Muslims in order to actually claim that magical billion+ number.

Given all this, Out of Context was perfectly accurate, especially when one notes the context (pun intended) of the points he made. Let's take the US. When CAIR claims to speak for an inflated number of Muslims, does one seriously think that they exclude from their numbers Ahmadiyas, Bahais, Alawites, Druze or anyone else? They even include Nation of islam members in their count, despite mainstream muslim imams contending that the NOI is not an Islamic group. The taqfir separations, where all groups other than ones own are branded as unislamic, does not apply when one is claiming clout on the basis of head count.

So Out of Context is correct - regardless of whether MINOs are serious about their islam or not, the fact remains that by remaining muslims, they continue to provide CAIR and others inflated numbers that the latter uses to assert its influence. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all 90% of those 'hypocrites' were to publicly either declare themselves atheists, or embrace other religions, like Judaism, Christianity, et al. Then, instead of claiming 8 million Muslims (itself an inflated number, since there are ~3 million Muslims in the US), CAIR could only claim less than 1 million that it could represent. That would go a huge way in eroding their support base, & thereby their influence.

In reality, I don't believe that a majority of Muslims are moderate anywhere, in any country. In West African countries, islam is the only religion, and everything is more or less homogenized, so you don't hear of any violence there, other than Boko Haram. In the Turkic countries, islam may be suppressed, but there is no religious pluralism in those countries either. From Morocco to Indonesia, jihadis have been asserting their influence - something that would not have been possible if anywhere even close to 90% had been 'moderate'. What I do think is that while a majority of muslims may be ignorant about islam, once they learn about what islam is and how it grew from being an asterisk in Medina to one of the world's largest empires stretching from Spain to the East Indies, far from being appalled @ it, they'd be filled w/ pride @ these conquests of islam and strive to make it even more powerful.

So as one ex-poster in JW used to proclaim, Muslims are the enemy!

On a separate note, I had no idea that Bausch was ever a Muslim.

It seems to me that you are suggesting I've claimed somewhere that I do believe moderate Muslims exist. In fact, contrary to what you might think, I believe the opposite.
When I talk about Muslim Hypocrites I take the Quranic definition as a starting point. However, this doesn't mean that I think "Muslim Hypocrites" are the same as "Moderate Muslims". The latter term is a designation that has its origins in naive PC MC presumptiveness, that has absolutely no link to rationally or objectively verifiable fact in any way. In my opinion, it is a null and void concept. (I have regularly referred to moderate Muslims in the way PC idiots define the term, for instance by placing the word moderate between quotation marks, however, imagine me always having to add "in the way PC idiots define the term" between brackets if I make mention of it, the whole semantics issue starts getting tedious and unproductive.)

I therefore don't believe that these so-called moderates do exist. Muslim Hypocrisy however is another matter altogether in my mind, because it is specifically Quran-defined, if you like.

Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that I am a Muslim that likes to have a sneaky smoke and an alcoholic drink during Ramadan, and that I could avoid being detected by my fellow Muslims. In such a case, any imam would deem me a Hypocrite if he would know about it. Imagine also, that this Muslim would have no qualms about beating up his wife in private at regular intervals for refusing sex with him. Let's say that this Muslim would also know perfectly well that the neighbourhood's imam has said it is perfectly justified according to the Quran. Let's say that this Muslim also runs a business outlet of some sort, and caters to both infidel and Muslim customers. Let's imagine this Muslim being outwardly polite to all his infidel customers (for some other Muslims enough of a reason to call him a hypocrite), while in the back of his mind he covets a seething disdain for infidels and a deep frustration with having to tolerate infidel customers in order to sustain a living. Imagine this Muslim being too lazy to pray 5 times a day on the one hand, but is still demanding of his wife to dress modestly according to Quranic tenets when she leaves the house.

What I am saying is that there are countless ways in which a Muslim can be considered a Quranic Hypocrite, both inwardly and outwardly, which in many cases will earn such a person the Western PC misnomer of 'moderate'. Wrong, because

1) There are no moderate aspects to totalitarian ideology

2) Islam is totalitarian

3) Any Muslim can decide to integrate non-Islamic ways of living and eclectically choose to adhere to those Islamic core tenets that suit his personal needs.

4) The risk of being exposed as a hypocrite has to be avoided. If push comes to shove, a Muslim might even justify hypocrisy as a form of deliberate taqiyya to his co-religionists to squirm his way out of it.

5) this behaviour doesn't make them moderate, according to the PC definition. PC idiots believe they can infer from such behaviour that they full well know what goes on in a Muslim's mind. Which is totally ridiculous. All the leftover Islamic rulings a Hypocrite still adheres to, can't be other than inherently incompatible with our values.

6) in my mind that doesn't make them Westernized or able to fully abide by our norms, standards and values.

Thanks for posting this discussion and for the comments which were very helpful, particularly Anushirvan's comments on the "moderate" Muslim mind and lifestyle. Also thanks to gravenimage for clarifying the off topic comments by Amro on Egyptian theology, etc.

Both Mr. Spencer and Baroness Cox argued convincingly about the need to act proactively to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, to draw the line on tolerance; whilst at the same time acknowledging the sincerity of reformers, the secularity of "MINO's" and our own reluctance to offend or alienate them.

So many articles I read these days from "moderate" Muslims, mostly by ardent young defenders, are based in their own emotional attachment and religious/spiritual aspirations. They are blinded to the reality of the political and unsavory aspects of Islam, unfortunately, and therefore we must open their eyes to the facts whether that process is pleasant or not. As Robert pointed out, it is only by facing the facts about Islam that any kind of reform is true and real.

Thanks for posting this discussion and for the comments which were very helpful, particularly Anushirvan's comments on the "moderate" Muslim mind and lifestyle. Also thanks to gravenimage for clarifying the off topic comments by Amro on Egyptian theology, etc.

Both Mr. Spencer and Baroness Cox argued convincingly about the need to act proactively to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, to draw the line on tolerance; whilst at the same time acknowledging the sincerity of reformers, the secularity of "MINO's" and our own reluctance to offend or alienate them.

So many articles I read these days from "moderate" Muslims, mostly by ardent young defenders, are based in their own emotional attachment and religious/spiritual aspirations. They are blinded to the reality of the political and unsavory aspects of Islam, unfortunately, and therefore we must open their eyes to the facts whether that process is pleasant or not. As Robert pointed out, it is only by facing the facts about Islam that any kind of reform is true and real.