Saturday, August 26, 2006

What We’re About

Propitiating the godsThis moderate-versus-radical-Islam argument is getting out of hand.

I’m going to ignore Cato’s sage advice and attempt one last time to propitiate our antagonistic commenters. At Anonymous’ request, I’m including his entire comment at the foot of this post, so that everyone can read his arguments for themselves.

But I’m not going to address most of his points directly. Our differences are largely ones of attitude and emphasis, and those are not likely to change. I doubt the efficacy of the hard-charging head-on confrontational approach towards our enemy, but we both agree on the ends. Would that this were sufficient.

I am, however, going to take another part of Cato’s advice:

Anonymous (pbuh) said something about what he “thought this blog was about” — I think that’s the problem. You need to be clear what it is you are about. If people don’t like it, tough. Let them get their own blog or comment elsewhere. Telling you what you must say or believe, after the second or third repetition, becomes rather pointless.

I’m going to be clear what we’re about. We’ve discussed it before, but it’s evident that some of our newer readers have not gone back to the archives and read all the posts on similar topics. So I’ll summarize here:

1. I think that Islam in most, if not all, of its present forms is a pernicious and dangerous doctrine. I see it as a political ideology and not a religion.
2. I believe that its violent manifestations must be contained by any means necessary, and that, depending on exigent circumstances, these means may include such measures as:
 a. Deportation of Muslim non-citizens from our country;
 b. So-called “racial profiling” of anyone, citizen or otherwise, without apology;
 c. An end to the silly PC regulations that bind our security organs and keep them from doing their duty effectively;
 d. Monitoring by any means necessary the activities of Muslims in their mosques and otherwise, consistent with our laws and the Constitution; and
 e. A vigorous crackdown on seditious Saudi-funded material and proselytizing in this country.
3. I believe it incumbent upon ordinary citizens to observe, be vigilant, and report on the activities of the Great Jihad, even if it is labeled “hate speech” by some.
4. I emphasize that freedom of speech and the First Amendment may not apply to religious proselytizing when it includes an incitement to violence and sedition against our lawfully constituted government.
5. But I also emphasize that in all instances, including the circumstances listed above, the rule of law and the Constitution must apply to the actions of our government. This means that, much as I’d like to see it, the members of Jamaat ul-Fuqra can’t be simply yanked out of their compounds and thrown in the slammer. We need to watch them like hawks, and make sure that they’re nabbed when they break the law, as they have done so frequently in the past.

The supplication of the hereticsThis is a definition of our position. I’m trying to do an end run around any further argument about whether our approach coddles moderate Muslims. This is where we stand; if this constitutes an “apology for Islam”, then… Well, you’re entitled to your opinion.

But please don’t waste any additional comment space upbraiding me for my failure to be sufficiently anti-jihad. I don’t think you do us, yourself, or our readers any good by further argument.

I’m trying to find common ground here with people who share the same goals. I have no interest in fomenting doctrinal disputes over the purity of anyone’s position or motives.


Anonymous’ comment:

The latter are so certain that their opinions represent The Truth that they are willing to pound them in repeatedly, as if the mere repetition would be enough to convince us apostates.

Please. As I pointed out to you earlier, the reason I have repeatedly asked you the same question is because you have repeatedly failed to answer it, so your characterization is unfair.

First of all, the point of differentiating between “radical” and “moderate” Islam is that the difference exists. The former want to kill all infidels who won’t convert; the latter may not like us, but are willing to live in an uneasy peace with non-Muslims.

You assert that there exist a “radical” and a “moderate” Islam, yet from your explanation, it seems that you are not actually talking about Islam, but in fact about Muslims.

I would have agreed with you if you had written that there are radical Muslims, who want to kill all infidels who won’t convert, and that there are moderate Muslims, who may not like us, but are willing to live in an uneasy peace with non-Muslims. Yet this issue is not about Muslims, but about Islam.

What’s important to keep in mind is that the existence of moderate Muslims does not prove the existence of moderate Islam.

If the wizardry of modern technology could develop a precision-guided weapon that would wipe out all radical Muslims, the remainder would be relatively harmless, and peace would become possible.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that you’re right that the remainder would be relatively harmless. Why would they be harmless? Not because they would be Muslims who follow a moderate version of Islam (which does not, and cannot, exist), but because they are moderate in their practice of Islam. That is, they follow Islam to a considerably lesser extent than the true, righteous Muslims we commonly refer to as terrorists.

It may well be that the moderate remnant would eventually generate radicals in its midst, the way bad meat generates maggots.

Yes, and the reason for that would be that the “radicals” would resume (or commence) practice of true Islam, whereas the “moderates” would remain lax apostates.

But we don’t know this for certain, and to advocate the extermination of millions of people based on the opinion that their peaceful behavior might someday endanger us is, to put it mildly, irresponsible.

I have never argued that we should exterminate millions of Muslims, nor is it a logical consequence of my position, or, for that matter, a consequence of the non-existence of moderate Islam. Which is why I am puzzled why you repeatedly bring it up. As I’ve already said in an earlier post, I think the best policy is to contain Islam in dar al-Islam.

My gut feeling is that even if Islam has its radical organs surgically removed, it will continue to generate the memes that seek to destroy us, and that we will have to deal with it eventually.

What are those radical organs, exactly?

It’s unfortunate that Gates of Vienna, in your view, lacks the requisite virtual testosterone to go whole hog and join the “Nuke the Ragheads” bandwagon.

Right, so if this blog stopped utilizing Islam apologist jargon, the consequence would be that it would join the “Nuke the Ragheads” bandwagon? Ridiculous.

I suspect that Islam itself, acting under the guidance of the Koran, may well keep generating homicidal maniacs who attempt to destroy civilization. When it becomes clear that this is the case (…)

You mean 1400 years of history hasn’t convinced you of this already?

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Baron Bodissey for including my comment in this blog post.

I want to stress a few points for the readers who have been following this discussion. First, my comment responds to Bodissey's earlier post "Moderate vs. Radical". Second, my disagreement with Bodissey has been about him making an incorrect and imagined distinction between "radical" Islam and "moderate" Islam. (It is in that context I used the term "Islam apologism", which Bodissey quotes out of context above.)

Anyhow, I'll leave it to the readers to make up their own mind. Unfortunately, Baron Bodissey didn't really answer any of my questions and points this time around, either, although he did, eh, write a lot of other things...

Anonymous said...

While Anom is over the line in most cases (...)

And what cases would that be?

KG said...

"But what is lacking across the community is a workable way ahead on confronting the issue and how we are going to win this "long war".
Absolutely. We know what the problem is. Time to start looking for some solutions, regardless of whether they offend some sensibilities out there in pc land.

Frank said...

Its true that the GoV is not anon's blog and so he has no right to insist that Dymph and Baron take any particular position, but I'm not sure, after carefully reading what he said, that he was arguing that they must take a certain course of action. All I saw was a request for clarification.

And I most certainly didn't see anything in his comments that were in any way "over the top", as Sluggo suggests. I can only assume that Sluggo said it in a fit of syncophancy.

Finally, I think Baron is engaging in a bit of strawmanism here; the dichotomy between "nuke the ragheads" and "moderation" is a false one and the former is certainly not a position advocated by anon.

I wish anon hadn't chosen to post as anon. I'm afraid I'm becoming more radical and while I have enormous respect for Dymph and Baron, I find myself more in tune with the worldview anon presents, for a couple of reasons.

First, it is simply not enough to fight a war of containment anymore. It would be akin to responding to the attack on Pearl Harbour and Germany's declaration of war by installing more AA on the beaches of the US Pacific seaboard and sending destroyer escorts with Europe-bound freighters; with rules of engagement which preclude shooting until shot at.

Second, so-called "moderate Muslims are a far greater threat than the ham-handed tactics of Jihadists. The good-cop/bad-cop routine they are pulling is readymade for utilizing the chinks in our political armour. Western democracy assumes a degree of goodwill on the part of its practitioners and Islam, be it radical or moderate, is out to do away with democracy and its attendant values. By definition it must in order to succeed, just as communism or fascism must.

I have been combing Islamic literature...and I mean readily availble "moderate" literature, and the central themes that emerge are twofold: to socially insulate the ummah from the west, and to work to bring the west to Islam. It is true that Christianity seeks the same thing, and if Christianity were still of the medieval variety that encompassed both the spiritual and temporal, then I would fight it as an evil too, because it would stand against the freedoms we know. But it isn't and it doesn't; it has, over centuries of compromise, learned to live seperate from the state.

But Islam, by its very nature cannot. How can there be any room for interpretation in the verbatim word of God?

When that alleged word exalts not only violence but the abolition of western values, I for one will not stand quietly by.

Nor does that mean that I think we need to nuke Muslims, although I'm starting to come around to that idea in the case of Iran. I do think we need to stand ready with the razor wire though...with the killing capability of today's biological or nuclear weaponry coupled with the profoundly amoral theology of Islam, we can perhaps withstand one major attack with millions of casualties in the name of freedom of speech, but not two. Not two.

I'll have to do a post on this for my blog I guess...there is too much to say here lol

Beach Girl said...

Sluggo and KG:
"What is lacking across the community...." Exactly, so let's get to it. Baron delinates some steps. My frustration is how do we reach the political elites and power brokers so that we can have, as KG said "legions and legions of Euros marching to defend the West."????

We are being given the 1-2 punch with our vast numbers of illegal immigrants (in US) and the issues involving Islam's march.

I'm late to the discussions but how do we put these thoughts, sentiments into a plan that can avoid the loss we all seem to anticipate?

Thanks to the Baron, especially for letting the discussion essentially run full-circle. It's like being in those "watching grass grow" corporate meetings until eveyone is exhausted and then bingo, the real issue drops right into everyone's lap.

KG said...

Beach, all I can think of at the moment is to somehow make candidates for political office (and their party machinery) more responsive to the will of the voters.
Seems to me, we need to publicise a number of "non-negotiable" and very public conditions that a candidate or party must meet, otherwise--NO VOTE!
Of course there will be a lot of bickering and arguing about just what those conditions ought to be, but wouldn't it be wonderful to see a tv interviewer ask a candidate "do you subscribe to the Gates Of Vienna principles? Yes or no?"
It'd be a good shorthand way of weeding out the fellow-travellers and weak spined, no?

Baron Bodissey said...

I'm getting tired of all the arguments, and I'm opting out. I agree with 90% of what most of you say. Our differences are mainly over terminology and emphasis.

My goal is to have temperate discussions and promote prudent actions. Many of the proposals aired here are either imprudent or impractical, or both.

Very little that really needs to be done is politically possible at this point. Our focus should be on taking back the culture, especially the media's smelly little corner of it, so that we can once again engage in truly public communication.

That's my aim. I'm giving up all the bickering. Flame me all you want; I'll just sit here and grin like Forrest Gump.

felix said...

Baron, Thanks for the discussion. I don't think we all have to become scholars of Islam to say that the Islamic influence on our culture ain't good. At this point we need to keep out Islamists who promote jihad and want the establish Sharia law in the US. For those already here who adhere to this ideology (Radical Islam), we need to establish a legal means whereby they are deported.

felix said...

To create a legal class in the USA, or anywhere, called Radical Islamists or Islamic Fascists for purposes of deporting them would be a major development. Surveillance of such of such individuals is only partly effective. When I speak to people about the idea of deporting Islamic Fascist (who are correctly identified) most say sure we want them out. But it can't be done, because....

That is the main reason for my idea of a Declaration of War with Radical Islam (see my webblog). It is not so much to have the USA move into other countries that are controlled by Radical Islamists. The Declaration will provide the enabling legislation to deal with our internal Islamic Fascists.

Papa Ray said...

"I don't think we all have to become scholars of Islam to say that the Islamic influence on our culture ain't good."

I disagree to the extent that we must arm ourselves with facts and examples, so that when in conversation with those that really do think Islam is a religion of peace or that it is all the west's fault, we can come back with a convincing argument.

Now, I know that most left leaning, liberal, socialists are not open to being convinced of anything. They do not have freedom of thought nor logic centers in their brains anymore.

But there are many that just don't know or are operating under false assumptions.

I run into them almost everyday and sometimes an oppertunity presents it self to where I can educate those people.

A little over three years ago I thought Islam was just another religion. I have educated myself, not believed everything until I could verify it. I get my education from Muslims and ex-Mulims, not the so called white experts. Although there are a few good ones, but they are few and far between.

If everyone had a computer and everyone had a high speed connection and everyone had the time to visit blogs, do research, verify, etc the job would be much easier.

But most people in this world have only time to work to make a living for their family and to try and get some rest, so as to go at it again, way too soon in the morning. Their money is too valuable to them to spend on frills like computers and fast hookups.

Their priorities are not the same as those priviliged few like us. I'm retired (but raising a child) so I have time after Sarah is in Kindergarden or asleep.

Most will never get to retire, but will work until they drop.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Frank said...

Baron said: "I'm giving up all the bickering. Flame me all you want; I'll just sit here and grin like Forrest Gump."

I think we should chop Baron's head off! He's clearly a moderate and moderates on our side might as well be moderates on their side...no wait...moderates on our side are against...no, wait...moderates on their side are pigs and...no, moderates should be beheaded because they don't want to nuke anybody and are Dhimmified! Let's get Baron!

Anonymous said...

Seeing as Baron says he has withdrawn from debate, my question to him probably comes a little late, but as it shouldn't be much of a challenge for him to answer it, I'll ask it anyway.

Baron, in your previous post, you wrote "First of all, the point of differentiating between “radical” and “moderate” Islam is that the difference exists.".

I presume this means that you think there exists at least one version of Islam that is moderate. Given this, it should be a trivial task for you to give me at least one example of a moderate school of Islam, and tell me its name, approximately how many practitioners it has, what is moderate about it, and why the moderation can be attributed to this school as such instead of being a result of its practitioners not being devout Muslims.

If you do not know of such a school of Islam, then your quote is indeed very strange. An educated guess on my part, however, would tell me that perhaps you do not know of any moderate school of Islam, yet you think that it would be possible for such a school to exist.

Let's suppose that my educated guess is correct. I'll assume you have at least a rough overview of the contents of the Quran and other "holy" Islamic scriptures. What is it in these scriptures that suggests a potential for a moderate version of Islam?

If you can't point to a moderate school of Islam or explain to me the potential for moderation in Islam, but can point only to moderate Muslims as somehow representing moderate Islam, then the natural question is why would you attribute to Islam the moderation of Muslims, and not to the Muslims themselves?

If none of the options I have specified represent your position, I would appreciate it if you could outline your position before giving your explanation.

I'm looking forward to your answer, as always.

Zerosumgame said...

Baron,

Maybe the way to end this argument is simple -- tell your critics that there are millions of other blogs, probably thousands of which deal with Islam and terrorism. If they do not like your treatment of the issue, let them find another one.

Baron Bodissey said...

David S. --

There are disagreements on certain specifics, but at this point it's more important to simply have solidarity against Islam, don't you think?

Amen to that.

As Fjordman has often pointed out, Islam is not the real problem. Islam is the symptom and not the disease. The disease is the rampant politically correct multiculturalism which has destroyed the moral fiber of the West and created the weakness which the Islamic virus exploits.

Multiculturalism is the HIV virus in our culture, and Islam is the pneumonococcus which will shuffle us off this mortal coil.

Baron Bodissey said...

Zero --

Nah. I'll just amplify the comments of people I agree with. It's easier, and less time-consuming. Except for ol' Mad Jad at the top, I don't disagree seriously enough with anybody that it really matters.

Y'all argue with each other; you're better at it than I am, anyway.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the way to end this argument is simple -- tell your critics that there are millions of other blogs, probably thousands of which deal with Islam and terrorism. If they do not like your treatment of the issue, let them find another one.

No, saying that there are other blogs that deal with this issue differently is actually evading the issue, as the existence of other blogs tells me nothing about the rationale behind Baron's treatment of the issue in question.

Actually, the adjective evasive sums up Baron's contribution to this issue. He is clearly reluctant to answer my question directly. I'm sure he has his reasons...

Baron Bodissey said...

Anonymous --

You know, if you'd give me half a chance, I would answer your question. I've been jumping back and forth among three threads this morning, plus doing other things, and I got to yours as soon as I had time.

I think you're right that there is no "moderate Islam"; there is only Islam. I should have used your terminology and referred to "moderate Muslims", which is more precise.

Here is my definition of a "moderate Muslim":

Anyone at least putatively Muslim who does not engage in violent acts on behalf of his "religion", nor exhort others to commit violent acts.

As I have said before, the only "moderate Muslims" are probably apostates, or "lapsed Muslims". It seems likely that any Muslim who hews closely to the tenets of his religion will become "radical".

There. I hope that settles it. And I wish that you would stop being so abrasive in your comments; it serves no useful purpose.

Papa Ray said...

"Multiculturalism is the HIV virus in our culture, and Islam is the pneumonococcus which will shuffle us off this mortal coil."

Baron, please don't use words like that. I spent 15 minutes to find out what that word meant, and it just confused the issue all the more for me.

I'm not saying you have to keep the discourse here down to Texas high school level, but just try and keep it simple enough for a google search to do it's job efficiently.

By the way, I don't think Islam fits that word. I think it connects better with the word Virus:a harmful or corrupting agency; "bigotry is a virus that must not be allowed to spread"; "the virus of jealousy is latent in everyone"
AND
"...an infectious agent of small size and simple composition that can multiply only in the living cells of animals, plants or bacteria. In the strictest sense, viruses should not be considered organisms, because they are not free-living: they cannot reproduce and carry on metabolic processes without a host cell."

Anyway, Islam is a CULT, look that up and you will see that word defines it perfectly.

Muslims are but it's victims and weapons.

Islam is the Muslims worse enemy, moreso than the infidels which Islam will force to destroy it's followers.

I hate being forced to do anything, but fear is driving me to the point were I will resort to violence to protect my family, my future and my two Republics.

(For you that don't understand, Texas is the only state that is also a Republic.)

And pleeeeese, don't say that the Baron evades issues. That is the opposite of the truth and of his nature.

Oh, and Anonymous --
your the kind of person that we throw out of the bars and meetings in Texas. We don't need someone down here, who has nothing better to do than nit-pick and cause trouble.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

felix said...

Baron, good definition of moderate islam. I think all this will become important some day, outside the blogosphere, when our country approaches the issue of deporting individuals classified as radical islamists. Seriously, I can see administrative hearings set up to determine who is a radical and who is a moderate.

Frank said...

Baron, kudos for not walking away from what is, I think, an important definitive. Most people would. I think your answer has grace.

Your definition: "Anyone at least putatively Muslim who does not engage in violent acts on behalf of his "religion", nor exhort others to commit violent acts."

My definition: "A moderate Muslim in the west is a Muslim who doesn't want to go to jail for being a good Muslim."

Anonymous said...

I think you're right that there is no "moderate Islam"; there is only Islam.

I'm glad to hear that we actually seem to agree on this after all, and I suppose that this also means that you realize that since "there is only Islam", that there is no such thing as "radical Islam" that is distinct from Islam.

I am obviously curious to see whether your future posts on this blog will reflect or contradict what you have just stated as your view on this matter.

KG said...

Baron, thanks for your grace and patience during this debate. And for the space to air differing views.

Profitsbeard said...

The point of this site is to undermine and derail the tyrannical Juggernaut of Imperialistic Islam, not criticize the spanners [HIV metaphor] and monkey wrenches [Radical/Moderate Schism] thrown into the works.

Exposing the despotic aim of homicidal Mohammadism is the Target of those struggling in the anti-Sharia Resistence.

(The Baron, et al.)

The missiles we use can be as crude as a rock {is the "Black Rock" in the Ka'aba a 'meteorite'?] or as subtle and 'unsubstantial' as re-wording a Sura to make a good anti-militant bumper sticker / slogan [supply your own].

Analogies are grease to make our weaponry work better.

Let's worry more about improving the weapons than spitting in the lubricant.

blert said...

Through out history religions and cults have been created and destroyed.

Shintoism was famously destroyed by a photograph: Hirohito standing with McArthur. A culture that swore to die to the last to preserve Hirohito gave it all up after only millions of fatalities, mass starvation, economic collapse and military ruin.

So it is possible to terminate even a devout conquest cult by destroying its most ardent combatants, shutting off its wallet, and shattering its symbols.

This last element is the most devastating. It is, after all, why the muslims always built their biggest mosques right atop existing religious sites... everywhere.

The complete destruction of Islam will occur when a Jewish temple is built over the Ka'aba; for if Allah is Allah such could never happen. And with that the whole cult will be rapidly de-programmed.

All other acts are mis-directed effort.

Islam has a glass jaw.

Always On Watch said...

Papa Ray said, A little over three years ago I thought Islam was just another religion. I have educated myself, not believed everything until I could verify it.

I have had a very similar experience. I didn't want to believe that Islam is what it is. But after innumerable hours of research, I came to the conclusion that while some Muslims may seem moderate, they are in actuality not practicing "the real Islam." Furthermore, many "moderate Muslims" become "radicalized" easily, particularly if they are serious about their soul's destination after this life, particularly if those "moderate Muslims" are of devout bent.

Pavel said...

I actually met a few "moderate" and really nice and friendsy Muslims. In Turky, a few years ago. What united them all was the fact that, despite their "Muslim" background, all of them were non-observant, sceptical and fun-loving folks and I made quite a few friends there. I think they know what's in the Quaran, but take it for what it is, a superstition of the first grade. I can't belive Turks are giving up their freedom.

Frank said...

Anon said:
I think you're right that there is no "moderate Islam"; there is only Islam.

I'm glad to hear that we actually seem to agree on this after all, and I suppose that this also means that you realize that since "there is only Islam", that there is no such thing as "radical Islam" that is distinct from Islam.

I am obviously curious to see whether your future posts on this blog will reflect or contradict what you have just stated as your view on this matter.


Don't be ridiculous. There is still a distinction between those who blow things up and those who don't. There is also a distinction between those who WANT to blow things up and those who simply self-identify as Muslim. Until such time as we are ready to start stringing razor wire for both groups, the best alternative is to come down like a ton of bricks on the former so the latter doesn't get bright ideas.

Pavel said...

I think most of people take the issue of militant Islam backward.
The quietly prozelitying and colonizing Muslim majority infiltrating the West (98%) is the real time-bomb, buying influence and corrupting hosting countries immune system (Mass Media, education and legislation systems). Those are the major recipients of Saudi oil money.
The wild bunch of plain and train blowers, the blowhards, are just a small,(1-2%) but important sideshow, cheerleaders, like USO. Boost your troops moral and upset the enemy. Terrorism is just a propaganda war for the most part. Beside, it diverts public attention from the real danger to a decoy.

Baron Bodissey said...

Anonymous --

I'm gratified that Your Majesty is pleased with my efforts at last. I can but hope to receive the same approval in the future.

Anonymous said...

Don't be ridiculous. There is still a distinction between those who blow things up and those who don't. There is also a distinction between those who WANT to blow things up and those who simply self-identify as Muslim.

ScottSA, that is not a distinction between those Islams that blow things up and those Islams that don't. There is of course a distinction between Muslims who blow things up and those who don't, however I have said nothing to suggest otherwise, so I think your claim that I'm being ridiculous is misplaced.

If you think that this is indeed a distinction between various types of Islam, however, I would appreciate an explanation why you think this is so.

Pavel said...

My point of view on the danger caused by colonizing "moderate Muslims" and a supplementary role of the terror was just reaffirmed by Daniel Pipes' new article "Muslim Radicals: Piggybacking on Terrorism"
I think D. Pipes is about to abandon his "moderate Muslims are the solution" mantra.