Is moderation even possible and should it matter? Whether moderate or extreme, Islam aims to be triumphant. Perhaps we might fare better as dhimmis under moderates, but, I don't care for the idea and refuse to submit.

Moderation is usually good, but in this case it doesn't enough of a change to make Islam acceptable to the American way of life.

Posted by: epg at November 22, 2004 4:53 AM

Maybe OT, but from what I've read, especially by Walid Shoebat, I'm beginning to understand how muslims think in some ways.

They seem to have an immense amount of PRIDE in their religion. I've heard muslims say that they feel EMPOWERED by their religion. This empowerment comes from being told that they are "special" and superior to non-muslims.

The strict segregation of the sexes, and the consequent sexual frustration that they feel, make the appeal of 72 virgins, much more attractive to your average horny teenager, who is quite willing to literally DIE for an orgasm made in heaven.

There's also the investment of their own ego in this religion as well. Since one tends to defend one's ego against any assault, muslims will defend their religion from any assault from outside.

Moderate muslims are like moderate Nazi's; they are still a danger.

Plus their depressing, miserable lives, makes them think that death is a hell of a lot better than life.

So, pride, egotism, sexual frustration, empowerment, love of death.

That is a very heady cocktail.

I honestly don't know how Islam can be defeated except by means that in this forum we are not supposed to say.

Posted by: Voltaire at November 22, 2004 8:06 AM

Is there a firewall between the moderates and the militants?

Who can say that someone who is apparently moderate and seemingly westernized today won't change tomorrow into a jihadi?

This is what happened with Bin Laden and Anjem Choudrey, one of the key figures of Al-Muhajiroun.
Choudrey when he was at college prefered to be known as Andy, he drank cider and smoked pot.

Posted by: Elephant at November 22, 2004 8:32 AM

Yes, Elephant.

I remember that picture of a 15 year old Bin Laden leaning against that purple luxury car. He seemed to be having a good time then.

Islam is like a tiger. You can try to tame it, but it will always be a wild animal. Look what happened to Roy from Seigfreid and Roy.

Posted by: Voltaire at November 22, 2004 8:45 AM

Yes, Elephant.

I remember that picture of a 15 year old Bin Laden leaning against that purple luxury car. He seemed to be having a good time then.

Islam is like a tiger. You can try to tame it, but it will always be a wild animal. Look what happened to Roy from Seigfreid and Roy.

Posted by: Voltaire at November 22, 2004 8:46 AM

I am still confused about how one conceptualizes 'moderate Islam' or 'moderate Muslim'. The salient characteristics of these positions seem to be simple negations: 'Does not believe in violent Jihad', 'Does not believe Bin Laden is innocent of 9/11' or some such things. But one cannot characterize a coherent web of ideas with negations. One can say what one does not believe, but what does one believe?

Also, if one examines the views of 'moderates' like Schwartz (not a very polite moderate), Haidon and Mustafa, what criteria do they in fact employ in their 'not misguided' interpretations of Islamic scriptures? Are these criteria coherently and consistently expressed in the Qu'ran or do these folks abstract these 'criteria' from other sources (like Western conceptions of human rights) and selective 'pieces' of the text?

Spencer asks repeatedly 'where is moderate Islam?' and when 'non radical' Islam does try to step forward we tend to find that positive characterizations of these 'positions' are couched in terms that are not Islamic, but either the outright denial of scriptures or interpretations that employ a mixture of Western ideas and textual fishing expeditions.

Folks must admit the farse as painful as it is.

Posted by: JTF at November 22, 2004 1:19 PM

Once upon a time, long ago and far away, there was a school of thought whose members called themselves the "Mu'tazilites." They said that the Koran was created by human beings, not by God; it said that the Koran was primarily allegorical and metaphorical, and maintained that as such, it was open to interpretation; it held that humans were rational, reasoning beings, and that this characteristic was supremely important; it held that man was created by God, but thereafter, he determined his own fate through the free choice of thought and behavior.

The Mu'tazilites engaged in lively debate, pursued knowledge with enthusiasm, and lived in a time when literature, science, medicine and mathematics fluorished.

So enthusiastic were they about their school of thought that they eventually made it a crime to believe any other way. In a kind of backlash, members of another school of thought, the Ash'arites, made it a crime to believe that the scriptures weren't the literal word of God, or that the human mind was capable of knowing anything at all with certainty, or that humans could have any influence on their fate.

The Ash'arites maintained that everything worth knowing had been revealed in their scriptures, and put a stop to debate and scholarly pursuits.

A brilliant but misguided theologian named al-Ghazali inscribed this system in stone; any attempt to introduce change thereafter was totally suppressed.

The rest is history. Bummer.

It never pays to compel belief or forbid the pursuit of knowledge, no matter how attractive and "right" it seems to be. In the realm of ideas, the ones most consistent with reality, and thus beneficial to humans, will ultimately win out.

Eventually Islam will have to recognize this or die. That's why so many "moderates" are non-Muslims and people who have left Islam.

Posted by: cubed at November 22, 2004 7:53 PM

How does one disavow the tenets that are so deeply steeped in the souls of muslims? How do you change the intrenched thinking of such a religious fervor that faces mecca 5 times a day? How do you change the thinking of muslims who emerse themselves in the 24,000 hadiths that can only be attributed to the whims of those who seek power. Can we attribute all these hadiths to Mohammed? of course not! For that would be mathematically impossible. How many of them where gathered by A Bukhari more than 200 years after the death of Mohammed? How many where made up and sold as legitimate hadiths? And yet Muslims are told to live by those hadiths to be in the good graces of Allah. But of course the Quran remains unintelligible, or ambigious at best without the hadith. Thus the cornerstone of Islamic thinking is the hadith which once had nearly 64,000 hadiths attributed to it. What happen to 40,000 that have been removed? Can the militant hadiths be removed as well? Well who will win the hearts and souls of fundamental Islam -- the moderate who may have once been the start of jadidism-- .

Posted by: Mackie at November 22, 2004 8:05 PM

I'm still going to give a lot of Muslims who haven't broken with their religion the benefit of the doubt. Traditionally, there were a large number of rules surrounding the practice of jihad (sure, they were loopholes to justify long periods of peace with kaffirin they couldn't subdue), and it may be that as the Islamofasicists get put down in various places, those who would keep jihad under wraps will come to the fore again.

Still, I continue to pray for more and more Christians who know how to present the Gospel to Muslim people. I suspect that a lot of the people the article has links to might well end up like Walid Shoebat and Nonie Darwish--submissive to the will of God revealed in Jesus Christ.

Posted by: Kepha1 at November 23, 2004 3:34 AM

It remains ever so clear that much of the Quran and many hadiths where drawn from the bible by mohammed. History shows that he spent a great deal of time with Jews and Christians right up to,and into his forties at which time he begans to hear the voice of the Arch Angel Gabriel. So here we have the Christian Bible that was written all by Jews and then the text of many of its versus are transformed and changed to suit Mohammeds manipulative views in the Quran. And thus Islam chooses to treat the bible as being corrupted and that Mohammeds version is the correct one, even those its tenets rage with militancy,hate,intolerance, deception, and the suppression of women.

Posted by: Mackie at November 23, 2004 8:41 AM

Islamic Riddle

We all know that the Star in the Jewish religion is the Star of David.

And we know that the Cross in Christianity is there because Jesus was crucified on the cross.

But do you know where the Crescent or the Moon comes from in Islam?

a) The Turkish flag
b) Pre-Islamic Allah was a Moon God
c) The Arabs were deeply impressed with the shape of the Moon

If you chose b) then you are correct.

Prophet Mohammed worshiped a God named Allah before Islam was founded. Pre-Islamic Allah had three daughters - all mentioned in the Koran and were known as the Trinity Dessert Goddesses, Al-lat(u), Menat and Al-Uzza. [1 God + 3 Gods = 4 Gods.]

All of these Goddesses would have been important to Mohammed’s family or the Quraish. Allatu was Allah’s main daughter; a Mother Goddess, known simply as ‘The Goddess’. Allatu was so popular that she was borrowed by the Greeks and became Leto – Mother of Apollo. Al-Uzza was represented as the morning star - Venus.

But more significantly Menat had a cult which was between Mecca and Medina and was worshiped in the form of a ‘Black Stone’ or the Kaaba at Mecca; the very same black stone that every devote Muslim is required to encircle during his (her) pilgrimage or Hajj to Mecca at Ramadan.

This explains how it could be that Mohammed’s own father was named Allah or Abdullah - which translates into a servant of Allah – even before Islam was created. Mohammed was born into a family known as the Quraish {Webster's Third Dictionary}, who for more than 200 years were the caretakers of the ‘Black Stone’ or Kaaba at Mecca. Before Islam, Mohammed’s religion was known as Kaaba with Allah as God.

Worshiping Moon and Sun Gods and Goddesses were common in ancient times, from the Queen of Sheba in Ethiopia to the Ancient Greeks. Historical facts seem to show that Islam has its foundation in this Mythology, with any Biblical connection being added later – perhaps to give the religion legitimacy in the face of the other powerful regional ‘One God’ religions. (Most things Islamic were developed under the Syrians, who took over Islam after killing Mohammed’s cousin.)

Posted by: Pass It On at November 23, 2004 11:20 PM

Tomas Iriarte was a brilliant late-8th century Spanish poet who made animals speak to deliver messages of moral content such as in the “The two rabbits” fable, one that portrays a couple of these sweet rodents discussing whether the two dogs who already were in hot pursuit of one of them and were fast approaching when he came across a friend, were “galgos o podencos”, that is, greyhounds or a supposedly non-threatening canine variety. So enthusiastically were both defending their opinions that they forgot all about the impending menace. Needless to say, they both were finally caught by whatever kind of dogs the two from the tale were, for, having made his point, Iriarte doesn’t bother to clarify this aspect.

Similarly, I notice a disturbing disposition on the part of many of us Dhimmi Watch regulars to engage in endless discussions to make a distinction between moderate and radical islamists. Since we all agree on the dangers posed by the latter, let’s conclude that by trying to establish the possible differencs between one and the other, we are wasting our time and efforts and, even worse, doing little to advance the main cause here, which can be summarized by asking you all the following question: are we going to wait until there is an open Islamic-related civil conflict within our Western Societies to finally check the trustworthiness of the non-threatening variety? Just in case any of you have some sort of reservations, let me remind everyone that there is a clever military tactical advice prompting the decision-making officer to always contemplate in his battle plans the most possible foreseeable action of the enemy… and the most dangerous one too even if not probable. It will be at our own peril that we disregard this advice.

As I presume it happens in the English language, in Spanish we term “byzantine discussion” the one that leads nowhere, the epitome of which is a debate about the gender of angels. Male or female, galgos o podencos, all are silly questions that besides making good examples of futile endeavours, distract us from other important tasks, one of them being to expose first and get rid afterwards of the collaborators in our midst.

As for the Iriarte “fábula” itself, I shall be more than happy transcribing it here if so requested by any of you guys who can understand Spanish, at least in its written form.

Posted by: Cid Campeador at November 25, 2004 2:07 PM