God Bless him for his courageous stand. Keep safe.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 16, 2007 9:36 AM

so the moderate muslims are getting drowned out by the crazy hateful muslims? how could that be?
maybe there aren't so many moderate muslims after all. let's take a head count to get an accurate number.

True Islam forbids moderates to not speak out, it is their duty. maybe if more spoke up there would be change. maybe if there was more outlets for moderates....?

Posted by: sectionOne at February 16, 2007 9:41 AM

"Islam" means submission and is derived from a word meaning "peace."

So Miftah, the confused Moslem, is a bullcrap artist just like the clearheaded Moslems he opposes, the ones who understand Islam.

... (the world's Imams) should issue a fatwa for the death of such scoundrels and barbarians who have taken more than 4,267 lives of innocent people in the name of Islam and have carried out more than 24 terrorist attacks on civilian installations throughout the world.

24?! Maybe this confused Moslem has been watching 24, where the Free World is gonna be saved by millions of moderate Moslems [sic] brought to action by a Jihadi commander delivering an impassioned speech on national TV alongside the President of the United States.

You know, 24 ain't so fictional when you think about it.

They (OBL, Zawahiri, et al) are the reason for branding the peaceful religion of Islam as terrorism. The result, therefore, is in the form of Danish cartoons and remarks/reference by the Pope.

OBL did the right thing on 9/11. As commanded by Allah, he slaughtered thousands of JudeoChristians and terrorized hundreds of millions more.

By Allah, Osama bin Laden is to be congratulated and thanked for his work, and most Moslems do.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 16, 2007 10:14 AM

Jamal Miftah is, indeed, courageous to take a stand against the Islam that is being preached in his and other mosques. The only problem is that he really doesn't have a leg to stand up on in claiming that violence against non-believers is strictly forbidden in Islam.

Posted by: Razdan at February 16, 2007 10:17 AM

the only thing common between muslim and moderate is that both words start with m.

any condemning of the evil vileness of muslims such as bin laden, brings out the true tenets of muslims across America and the world.......condemnation and orders to murder those that would speak out against a fellow muslim regardless of how despicable that muslim may be.

God bless America, England, Canada, Australia, Darfur and our Fighting Forces and keep us Free.

The Texican.
God Family America & Freedom the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: The Texican at February 16, 2007 10:18 AM

and how does one go about making a "hate speech" law? better hurry!

Posted by: sectionOne at February 16, 2007 10:38 AM

This poor dude better put on his bulletproof jacket and read Shakescene's "Julius Caesar".

At least we know who the enemy is.

Posted by: dgene at February 16, 2007 10:46 AM

Why doesn't George Bush invite this apparently legitimate "moderate" Muslim -- apparently, disapproving of the mass murder by Al Qaeda is enough to make one a "moderate" -- to the White House, for a ceremony, a kind of recognition that this is "exactly the kind of Muslim we know exists and wish to honor" (it's mostly nonsense, because it ignores so much about Islam, but say it anyway). And invite the leaders of CAIR and other Muslim groups, asked to come "honor Jamal Miftah." And make sure the entire White HOuse press corps has been given Jamal Miftah's article, and has some background information, and is there to film Awad and Cooper and all the others coming out to honor this exemplar of "moderate" Islam.

And let's see who shows up, and what happens.

Posted by: Hugh at February 16, 2007 10:55 AM

That takes juebos. Bully for him.

I can empathize with the too loud during service issue. As a kid my parents had to swat me a time or two because I kept on kicking the kneeling cushion.

First priority as an adult was to free myself from that self abuse.

Posted by: amana39 at February 16, 2007 10:58 AM

Muslims would be much happier if they would just stay in the Middleast....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 16, 2007 11:04 AM

Many of the posters and readers on this site share a point of view that is not mainstream, and is certainly not popular with the political, academic, media and religious elites who run the United States. The very last thing we should be calling for are laws that restrict speech, define speech as a "hate crime", etc. Laws that limit freedom will eventually be used to limit yours! We should welcome debate because truth and reason are on OUR side. Let the jihadists talk all they like. We must enforce the laws we already have against murder, against assault, aginst illegal entry into this country. Let us feel free to deport any alien who breaks our laws. Let us feel free to revoke the citizenship of any naturalized citizen who calls for the overthrow of the Constitution.

Posted by: MP at February 16, 2007 11:19 AM

I hope he researches what the Qu'ran says and realizes what we all know. And I hope he gets out of Tulsa if and when he realizes the truth and wants out of this damn religion.

Posted by: wrathofasma at February 16, 2007 11:24 AM

blaming republicans, liberals, mainstreamers, media, politicians, religious elites hardly gets us anywhere, does it?
do you get your ass out there and make a video of hate speech in mosques? do you call your senator? do you publically confront these muslim bastards that are taking control?

blogs and forums are a safe place to hide, would be nice if we put some of these ideas into action, huh?

Posted by: sectionOne at February 16, 2007 11:28 AM

sectionOne - I'm trying to some of those very things and others.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at February 16, 2007 12:12 PM

Oh, there will be a hate-speech law....against us. There are people who the government gives protected status and it sure *ain't* us.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 16, 2007 12:29 PM

do you get your ass out there and make a video of hate speech in mosques? do you call your senator? do you publically confront these muslim bastards that are taking control?

blogs and forums are a safe place to hide, would be nice if we put some of these ideas into action, huh?

SectionOne you are absolutely correct except confronting Muslims is a waste of time, unless other Infidels are watching and will be educated by the fracas.
What is desparately needed is knowledge of the Koran spread to our own ignorant masses. I am trying to do my part but am frustrated by lack of a medium to transmit what I know.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 16, 2007 12:50 PM

The kind of hate law we are talking about and what the Gov. has in mind are two different things.
http://www.rense.com/general74/fedlaw.htm

Posted by: havekoranwilltravel at February 16, 2007 12:51 PM

A Muslim being chastised by Muslims for being "too loud"'......TOO FUnny...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 16, 2007 1:10 PM

sectionOne - Have not visited a mosque with a video camera. Have contaced politicians re. my views. Do on a daily basis speak with co-workers, students, etc pointing out what I believe to be the truth. Publically refuting the party line that the elites want us to accept is a form of direct action. "They" don't want it discussed.We must discuss it. WE could easily defeat the jihadists. What we need to do is summon the will to do so. Part of the process is propaganda. This is not aimed towards "muslim bastards", but toward oradinary people who must feel that it is correct to have and express anti-jihadist sentiments.

Posted by: MP at February 16, 2007 1:24 PM

Perfect solution if this was a Christian Church as the Justice Department and IRS would be all over it as this Mosque and imam have violated a citizen's rights and is stating a political position and making money off of it.
JD swoops in arrests the Imam and the IRS swoops in and sweeps up all the loot.

End result Jamal negotiates to be new Imam and owns the mosque and all the little Muslims hear a "peaceful" message of Islam which Jamal makes up.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at February 16, 2007 1:29 PM

Slightly OT, but nonetheless interesting . . . another rebuke of D'Souze at NR.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2RhZTg4ZWM4ZTI0MzkzOWE5MjJkZGMzZTE3ZDllZmM=

The phrase that really caught my attention is the description of Islam as an "all or nothing" endeavor. This is just another way of saying all-encompassing ideology, and various other descriptions for Islam that are useful in contrasting it with other religions. However, I do think the "all or nothing" terminology does an excellent job at illustrating/emphasizing why moderate Islam is largely silent or non-existent.

The sociological forces involved in an "all or nothing" culture are not to be underestimated.

Posted by: JSobieski at February 16, 2007 1:56 PM

Mr. Miftah has been labelled "un-islamic" by the Imam and others.

The mosque then demanded he repudiate what he wrote in the op-ed, thereby giving him an opportunity to repent and return to the fold. He refused, so the way is now clear to punish him further.

He correctly interprets this as a thinly veiled death threat, so how can he argue that Islam is peaceful? He clearly knows better.

I feel for him, but he is kidding himself.

Posted by: Jan Sobieski at February 16, 2007 2:20 PM

Re: The intimidation of moderate Muslims in the U.S.

This reminds me of two sayings of Hillel. One applies to Muslims in general because they don't heed the Golden Rule: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn".

The second applies to the brave Mr. Jamal Miftah: "In a situation where there is no righteous person, try to be a righteous person".

I have a hunch Hillel and Br. Miftah would get along just fine.

Posted by: Frank at February 16, 2007 2:45 PM

I think I will email this story to the State Department in response to yesterday's story about the idiotic view they are holding about lack of moslem integration in Europe: that its the due to the "nativist" feelings of and discrimination by the Europeans and not at all due to the beliefs and actions of the moslems (and ignores that other groups have successfully integrated into the larger society without much difficulty).

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at February 16, 2007 3:21 PM

why is a Death Threat taken so lightly when it comes from muslims?
in America a Death Threat is a crime, no?

Posted by: sectionOne at February 16, 2007 3:39 PM

Imagine that you are a Presbyterian, and 8 or 10 or 15% of the world-wide Presbyterians committed heinous acts in the name of their god, quoting chapter and verse (correctly) supporting their actions.

Would you:

a) say to yourself, "they are not following true Presybterianism"

b) say out loud, "they are not following true Presyterianism"

c) investigate their scriptural claims, and, finding them correct (meaning what they say is in there), say, "they are not following true Presbyterianism AS I UNDERSTAND IT"

d) leave Presbyterianism because you finally realize that it is evil

Further imagine, that you are now a non-Presbyterian, watching the news about of the horrific things "radical" Presbyterians are doing.

Is it too outrageous to view a Presbyterian who professes horror at what is being done in the name of his religion that does not leave Presbyterianism with a bit of suspicion?

Posted by: Ethelred at February 16, 2007 3:40 PM

From the Op-ed piece:
"Because of lack of knowledge of Islam, Muslim youth are misguided into believing by the so-called champions of the cause of Islam that the current spate of killings and barbarism, which has no equal in the recent civilized history, is jihad in the name of Islam."

So what is he trying to say? Is Jihad, as found in the Qur'an, really meant to be something else than what we all know it to be?

"They are incited, in the name of Islam, to commit heinous crimes not pardonable by any religion and strictly forbidden in Islam."

Is he trying to say that the murder of Infidels is strictly forbidden in Islam? I have not seen that reference presented anywhere in the Qur'an.

These people are all the same. They reject and deny all the bad tenets of Islam, yet remain Muslims. It is irrelevant if 'true' Islam is what he claims it to be. Lack of knowledge can only go so far. If it so easy for those in power to dominate the ignorant, then the threat of applied jihad greatly outweighs the pretty picture of what Islam is purported to be.

True moderate Muslims are a very rare breed. In the absence of a complete reformation of Islam, with accompanying abrogation of all its vile, intolerant tenets, moderate Muslims are effectively known as non-Muslims, or former Muslims, if you will.

The outright rejection of Islam, as it exists and is applied, even in the face of retribution from apostasy, proves valuable. Miftah's commentary does not.

His prime intention, whether he really beieves what he says, or whether he merely is saying what we infidels want to hear, or simply actions for a very direct personal gain, is unknown. What is known, is that his apparent misrepresentation to what is actually mandated in Islam, per the texts, is dangerous and regressive.

If enough Muslims keep beating the "Islam is peaceful drum", in spite of overwhelming, yet grossly under-reported evidence otherwise, people will continue to believe in that fairy tale, the tale that we here now know has a most unfortunate ending...for us.

Posted by: awake at February 16, 2007 3:40 PM

Disliking Been lousy, does not necessarily make Mifta a moderate. If he disliked Allah for all the BS, and murderous behavior he predestined, I might consider him a moderate...But he will never abandon Allah, nor will he forsake the Prophet, nor will he disparage the Quran...so where is the moderation?
As long as muslims are 'obligated' to participate in jihad, there can be no true moderates...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 16, 2007 3:58 PM

"These people are all the same. They reject and deny all the bad tenets of Islam, yet remain Muslims".-awake

There is truth in all you write. Yet, it is human nature to stick with a bad thing unless there is an easily accessible alternative. People don't leave anything, they go to something. To leave this belief-system means to let go of his family, all that he knows, to go to what? That's hard for most people. He is a brave man because for him there is no alternative yet. Most Muslims in his place are silent.

In principle you speak the truth. However, most people have to take the truth in small does, a little at a time, or it will kill them.

Posted by: Frank at February 16, 2007 4:12 PM

"The very last thing we should be calling for are laws that restrict speech, define speech as a "hate crime", etc. Laws that limit freedom will eventually be used to limit yours! We should welcome debate because truth and reason are on OUR side. Let the jihadists talk all they like. We must enforce the laws we already have against murder, against assault, aginst illegal entry into this country. Let us feel free to deport any alien who breaks our laws. Let us feel free to revoke the citizenship of any naturalized citizen who calls for the overthrow of the Constitution."

Good post, MP. This is the long and short of "hate speech". Our regular constitutional rights should be sufficient to protect us without special legislation.

As to Mr. Miftah, sorry to say it but the imam is absolutely right. Jamal is un-Islamic. After more than five solid years of deafening silence from the global Muslim community regarding terrorism's total unacceptability, there is only one clear message;

Islam supports, encourages and finances terrorism at every turn and will NOT renounce it regardless of the consequences.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Iraq stands as glaring proof that Muslims are entirely incapable of living in peace, even amongst their own kind.

Few immediate solutions present themselves. The lessons of Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq have made one thing certain; The era of nation-building is over once and for all. We no longer can afford to expend such precious blood and endless treasure attempting to correct what Islam hath willingly wrought. Starting with Iran, American policy must now be one of simply, "Breaking Things". It is what our military does best and serves up an immediate remedy to any question of more Muslim majority nations pursuing nuclear weaponry. All rebuilding is on the offender's dime. Not one penny is forthcoming to uplift those we crush. No more Marshall plans. Should our foes attempt to reconstruct their nefarious pursuits, two words spring to mind; "Rinse and repeat".

Another immediate and immensely unpopular solution is the summary execution of terrorism's most conspicuous proponents. Obviously, Osama bin Laden heads the Christmas list but he should be accompanied by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Muhammad Omar, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Abu Bakar Ba'asyir (Bashir), Moqtada Sadr, Abu Hamza al-Masri, Mullah Krekar (AKA: Abu Sayyid Qutb), Khaled Meshal, Mahmoud Abbas, Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Ismail Haniya, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, imam Ahmed Abu Laban, Sheikh Taj Al-Din Al-Hilali, imam Omar Bakri Mohammed, imam Abdel-Samie Mahmoud Ibrahim Moussa, Abdul Rahman Yasin (already on his death bed), imam Sheikh SyeSyed Mubarik Ali Gilani, Abdullah al-Faisal, imam Hamid Ali, imam Abubaker Deghayes and finally, those wonderful Saudi allies of ours who are most definitely not our friends, Prince Sultan Ibn Abd al-Aziz, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz and Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz.

Were coalition forces to eliminate these paltry two dozen terrorist figureheads, there would be a sudden downswing in recruitment and operations like few other measures of similar scope could deliver. These twenty-four individuals represent the prime movers in the world of global terrorism. They top a list of the most charismatic, persuasive, financially well-connected and religiously respected Muslim authorities that continue to propagate Islamic atrocities worldwide.

Their executions should be extremely public, at large gatherings or rallies, in order to make clear that these thugs are vulnerable wherever they may be.

If we had the courage to begin this campaign of exterminating radical Islamists, it might avert far more drastic measures being taken in the future. All delays merely guarantee slaughter on a much greater scale at some later date. Only when these sorts of murderers must first look over their shoulder before shouting "Death to America!", will we be making any progress. We have yet to attach any significant price tag to promoting terrorism. Until we make such treachery carry a noticeable cost, nothing will change.

Posted by: Zenster at February 16, 2007 4:25 PM

Awake-

The lack of alternatives in the Muslim world is reality for a very good reason. Once there is an alternative, people (even in Saudi Arabia) will go to it. The clerics know that and are frightened that they are coming into a new world where people will demand freedom of conscience in matters of "religious" belief. Meanwhile, even beaten wives will remain with a brutal "husband" until there is someone or some place to go to. It's human to be like that. We go to something better if we are given the chance to do that. As Abe Lincoln once said, "when you have a bad deal (with no alternative), you hug it the tighter".

Posted by: Frank at February 16, 2007 4:32 PM

"The lack of alternatives in the Muslim world is reality for a very good reason. Once there is an alternative, people (even in Saudi Arabia) will go to it."

Frank,

That remains to be seen. Recent polling shows the next generation as more prone to strict adherence to the tenets of the Qur'an than their elders, declared as more "radical" by those who know little to nothing of Islam itself.

Someone, namely Muslim males, are benefiting from Islam, that's for sure. The reality that no one else around them benefits does little to reduce their wholistic embrace of the ideology.

If this were a new anomaly, that currently applied Islam is markedly different than that which was practiced historically, I might agree with your point, but the fact is that it isn't, and hasn't been for about the last 1400 years or so.

If the core of the ideology, the Islamic texts, are not officially amended, then it is business as usual. Your point, though well-intended, is off the mark. I have heard this sentiment before. It is the old, "change must come from Muslims themselves and the West just has to wait for that to happen."

Well, my friend, their open-ended timetable of when achievement of that goal will occur, if ever, does not sit well with me and should not sit well with any non-Muslim.

People leave bad situations all the time, not only after a proven alternative has been provided. The reality is Islam is not meant to share power, but to dominate all. That is so blatantly apparent when one thinks to the specifics of Muhammad's existence. It certainly served him well.

Islam and its adherents only understand physical coersion into periods of dormancy. Nothing else seems to get through. I, like you, would like to see the necessary change in Islam, or at least the alternative for it's 1.4 billion followers to "go to", as you put it. I just don't think the West can afford to wait for that to happen, if it ever actually does.

Posted by: awake at February 16, 2007 5:24 PM

It is the old, "change must come from Muslims themselves and the West just has to wait for that to happen."---

That is not my point of view. My general point of view is actually more like yours and Lincoln's when Abe said we tend to hug the bad even tighter when we have nothing else, when we do not see the need to change. My point is that Islam's clergy dare not permit equality of religions, or freedom of conscience, alternatives, and the masses don't mind that-yet.

If change comes it will be as a result of some catastrophe. How this conflict will end is hard to tell. But most people in Saudi Arabia and Arab world will not be permitted any alternatives by the clergy, the masses will not desire any alternatives, until they are necessary for everyone's survival. Then they will go to that. (BTW, the catastrophe may come from within their own world. We may just be by-standers when the poop hits the fan.)

Posted by: Frank at February 16, 2007 8:26 PM

Is this a uncicorn without the corn? Horn?

Posted by: scrualla at February 16, 2007 8:26 PM

What is impressive about Miftah is that he knows there are no alternatives-not even for him. This guy literally has to stand alone and he has no alternative Koran, no place to go to. He knows what's there in the Koran. But he's not in denial. Reality is very dangerous in his world.

Posted by: Frank at February 16, 2007 8:43 PM

Yeah, and underneath it's all about FAME. If there's another terrorist attack, they'll all be dancing in the streets again.

Posted by: Jeff at February 16, 2007 9:10 PM

In this country, he has many places to turn to. He is free here, what he needs is to embrace that. His best first step would be to reject islam, and move on to a better world.

All the talk of moderation in islam, Bush and Blair can't learn the truth, etc, etc, is mis-direction. Islam is the heart of every issue that is being discussed, and until it is reformed to allow true peace with others, to not be in conflict with the laws of our country, it should be outlawed in the U.S.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at February 16, 2007 10:52 PM

The truth about islam is making the rounds:

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000143

Posted by: allat at February 17, 2007 12:13 AM

"JW members simply will not accept that all muslims are not evil, for them this is either taqqiya (even if his life is threatened) or a form of slow jihad which is just as dangerous as AQ"

Time to purchase a big clue, pureevil.

Whether or not moderate Muslims really do exist, woefully insufficient numbers of them are making any sort of substantive effort to counteract the intensely negative influence of Islam's jihadist factions.

There is additional concern that a huge majority of moderate Muslims, in actuality, serve most often as a tacitly approving resource pool for the jihadists around them. Examine where the vast majority of bomb vest killers and other jihadis originate. They come from moderate Muslim families. How often do you hear of an imam's son or daughter strapping on 10 kilos of Semtex?

Moderate Muslims have had six long years since the 9-11 atrocities to loudly proclaim their adamant opposition to terrorism and jihadist ideology. Their deafening silence speaks volumes.

In a feat of prestidigitation worthy of Houdini, Islam has thrust all responsibility for quelling jihadist terrorism upon the West. How is it that we are suddenly tasked with cleaning Islam's house? We have zero obligation to delicately sort through over one billion Muslins in an effort to winnow out the psychotically violent radicals that make their religion so dangerous to us.

Islam must begin its own purge of jihadis from within their ranks. To date, they have shown exactly zero inclination to do so. Due to this inaction, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Radical Reformation alone, and nothing less, can save Islam from its violent followers. The West should only be persuaded when dead jihadis are being stacked up like so much cordwood behind mosques in every major city.

The utter lack of enthusiasm Islam shows for this admittedly onerous task is what places it at greatest risk. In disposing of this threat, it becomes increasingly likely that the West will merely end up throwing out the Islamic baby along with its jihadist bathwater. Given Islam's total inaction with respect to this vital issue, the West is completely justified in doing so. Muslims will be more than fortunate if only conventional weapons are involved in the process.

Posted by: Zenster at February 17, 2007 6:50 AM

This is just more proof to me that there is NO SUCH THING as a moderate muslim

Posted by: sheiknbake4pork at February 17, 2007 8:12 AM

This is just more proof to me that there is NO SUCH THING as a moderate muslim

Posted by: sheiknbake4pork at February 17, 2007 8:13 AM

sorry -- did not mean to post twice...I guess my finger got a little frisky........

Posted by: sheiknbake4pork at February 17, 2007 8:13 AM

This is just more proof to me that there is NO SUCH THING as a moderate muslim

Posted by: sheiknbake4pork at February 17, 2007 08:13 AM

I'm with you. There never was and never will be.

Posted by: A.I. Steamroller at February 17, 2007 9:02 AM

One more time, pureevil.

Moderate Muslims, whether they exist or not, are essentially insignificant due to the extreme threat represented by jihadis. However moderate these individuals may be, their actions are not serving to ameliorate or reduce the threat of jihadism. One cannot immediately dismiss the dangers of Islamism solely because there happens to be a few Muslims who oppose it.

I'll ask that you read Fjordman's brilliant essay:

Why We Cannot Rely Upon Moderate Muslims

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-we-cannot-rely-on-moderate-muslims.html

Some excerpts:

What is a moderate Muslim? In 2003, the Associated Press touted as a “moderate” a cleric who told Saudi radio that terrorist attacks in his capital violated “the sanctity of Ramadan.” Leading government cleric Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan was a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body. He was also the author of the religious books used to teach 5 million Saudi students, both within the country and in Saudi schools abroad — including those in Washington, D.C. “Slavery is a part of Islam,” he said in one tape, adding: “Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.” A moderate Muslim by Saudi standards is thus a person who wants to reinstate slavery in the 21st century.

During his speech at the opening of the 10th Session of the Islamic Summit Conference on Oct 16, 2003, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia stated that: “We are all Muslims. We are all oppressed. We are all being humiliated.” “1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way.” “Today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”

The words of so-called moderate Muslims. Do not forget that Australian imam, Sheikh Taj Al-Din ("Catmeat") Al-Hilali, was widely regarded as a moderate as well until undeniable proof to the contrary was provided by the Sheikh himself. Further excerpts from Fjordman's article:

Centre Democrat Ben Haddou, a member of Copenhagen’s City Council, has stated: “It’s impossible to condemn sharia. And any secular Muslim who claims he can is lying. Sharia also encompasses lifestyle, inheritance law, fasting and bathing. Demanding that Muslims swear off sharia is a form of warfare against them.”

Read that statement again, and read it carefully. Muslims in the West consider it “a form of warfare against them” if they have to live by our secular laws, not their religious laws. Will they then also react in violent ways to this “warfare” if they don’t get their will? Moreover, since sharia laws ultimately require the subjugation of non-Muslims, doesn’t “freedom of religion” for Muslims essentially entail the freedom to make non-Muslims second-rate citizens in their own countries?

It is more than clear that moderate Muslims are inadequate to the task of rehabilitating Islam. Again, Islam can only be saved by Radical Reformation. The necessary Reformation must involve an immediate and rapid extermination of jihadist Muslims. No such thing has or even promises to occur anytime soon. In actuality, such a notion is rendered inconceivable by Islam's own doctrine and dictates. Additionally, the window of opportunity for this reformation is closing quickly in that very soon Islam will finally commit an atrocity of such astounding proportions that the only answer will be total war.

Where does that leave the West?

If moderate Muslims cannot rise to the task, Western cultures have little obligation to protect them from consequences that Islam creates for itself. Each day that such Reformation is postponed, Islam verges ever closer to its own annihilation. The West is not responsible for this pending catastrophe. Self preservation is not a form of aggression. Islam's obsession with global domination and anti-Semitic genocide only serve to guarantee that a Muslim holocaust will ensue. To date, there are absolutely zero indications that Islam has any intention of avoiding such a fate.

Posted by: Zenster at February 17, 2007 4:27 PM