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?


Ahmedinajad said...


Visit the following websites for further information on ISLAM.
(MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE),,31200-galloway_060806,00.html (Quran and Science)

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...

Sluggo_f16 said...

While Anom is over the line in most cases, his quote: "I think the best policy is to contain Islam in dar al-Islam." is right on and meshes with your point #2.

As for the clown who posted before me, please come out and vociferously condemn the terrorist acts and calls to Jihad against the west. If we believed in the same philosophy of no-holds bared warfare, you would be missing one of your "pillars" because Mecca would be a slag heap.

Sluggo_f16 said...

You make a very good point in making the distinction about "tradical or moderate" Muslims versus "radical or moderate" Islam. There is no moderate Islam it is only the way it is observed that makes a difference.

And yes, no matter what, it will continue to breed radicals bent on conquest.

Anonymous said...

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

And what cases would that be?

Sluggo_f16 said...

After re-reading your post, I mis-applied your italicized supposition and quotes of other to you. Sorry.

I think you make some good points, but I don't think the BB and you are far off. I think your use of the term "Islam apologism" is unfair to the owners of this site. With that said, your explanation of Islam vs Muslim is more useful for describing the situation we find ourselves in, but not any more helpful than a true "Islam apologists" religion of peace mantra.

One, thing a lot of sites like Gates of Vienna and Jihad watch are good at is ringing the alarm bell (something very much needed in our PC world). 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".

Peace never solved anything,

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.

ScottSA 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

David S. said...

I agree with Baron, and until we take back the culture it is really quite pointless to try and come up with a specific set of policies we would implement in dreamland if sane people ruled the country. I also agree that most to all of this dispute has been about simple terminology while all parties involved agree to the same basic set of facts:

1. There are at least two different sets of muslims in terms of actions - the 'active' jihadist and 'passive' jihadist.
2. The active, or radical muslims, are the real and immediate threat and needs to be taken care of NOW, or there will be serious consequences.
3. The passive, or moderate muslims, are absolutely not doing anything to change their culture of violence, whether because of fear or agreement or any number of reasons.
4. Passive Islam is, in some way, a part of the destructive culture of Islam; however, there exists at least a POSSIBILITY of cultural control and/or reform with these, whereas the Actives simply need to be killed.
5. Leftist influence and general apathy are the great weaknesses of Western Society, and these are and will be exploited by Islam in an attempt to destroy our civilization.

I am fairly certain that everyone involved in this discussion (save Mad Jad at the top) can agree on these very basic points. There may be a legitimate case to be made against calling any muslim 'moderates', but the fact is it is the common terminology of today to describe the muslims who arent blowing us up. As long as there is an agreement that Islam as a culture is destructive (which there is), it is quite pointless to continue any debate on the matter.

This sound good to everyone, I hope? Let's not take up any more of the Baron's time because terminology is not what we would like it to be. There are disagreements on certain specifics, but at this point it's more important to simply have solidarity against Islam, don't you think?

Phanarath said...

Islam is the same as radical islam.

Its just that people who have lived in islamic cultures for generations have lived with the death penalty for leaving islam. So if some people had other values, they would pass those values on to their children, without opposing islam.

I think its hard for westeners to imagine the tabu there must be about leaving islam. There are many "muslims" who are only muslims in name. I think that moderates are a wrong name for them, since it indicates that there is a moderate version of islam and there isnt.

We need to insist that religion is a personal choice. It shouldent be acceptable to cut in little childrens sexual organs to mark them for a religion. The can do that themselves when they are addults.

People who are not muslims but still want to call themselves muslims out of fear or tradition, must be held responsible for the club they are in. They are not going to like it and they will complain a lot. But thats the way we treat members of any club in the west.

ScottSA 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 wait...moderates on our side are, wait...moderates on their side are pigs, moderates should be beheaded because they don't want to nuke anybody and are Dhimmified! Let's get Baron!

ajm said...

Let’s get real!

As long as we talk about what Muslims believe or do, we can chase our tails indefinitely. But the signification of Islam also is something quite real. What Islam does want is quite clearly stated in its laws, the Sharia.

The Sharia is not the work of extremists or moderates or what have you - it is the works of real good academics. The people who built it all knew all scriptures by heart - it was the substance of their lives. They were working in some sorts of colleges (madhahib), meaning that they were controlling themselves between pairs. They did the job of interpreting Islam in several of those colleges, and those were politically independent, if not opposed, soaked in different basis cultures, located in quite different regions of the world.

What those people all agree upon cannot be argued away. That is Islam. Period. So Islam is djihad (a endless war of conquest), dhimma (religious segregation), hududs (bodily punishments on public places), and systematic slavery, for mentioning only the most evident examples.

From this we can say, for example, that all people who do know Islam, that is, who read the Koran and the tradition regularly, and believe in that, ARE terrorists and should be treated as such.

From this, we can say that the only logical approach towards Islam in the West is prohibition. Islam, all manifestation of it, must be banned, because its very core is against our laws.

Let’s get real – ban Islam.

David S. said...


Ajm inspired me. I created a t-shirt with "Ban Islam" on it and the flag of Malta (a decapitated muslim pirate's head). Check it out, buy it if you are interested:


Hey Baron, if you could mention the shirt somewhere on the main page that would be great - that is, if you would like to. No pressure.

ajm said...

I like the t-shirt – I’d love to take it over on my site devoted to the banning of Islam (–, but not the explanation that comes with it.

Islam is a religion that has been destroying cultures for centuries, but it is not a culture itself. You cannot say that (you might even say it is an “a-culture”). And while Mohamed sure did not exist at all, according to the Muslim "historical record", he was not a pedophile. It has always been understood that Aisha had reached puberty then. And there are other, contradictory hadiths about her age at the time. Only shias have chosen to consider that age of nine as a given.

David S. said...

I would disagree with you - it is quite clearly a culture, though it also is a component of many cultures (like Western Civilization). A set of beliefs, traditions. social mores and practices long held by an ethnic group or multiple groups would be a culture. Calling Islam a culture does not equate to calling it a good culture.
And where is this "Mohammed wasn't real" stuff coming from? I've done my research on Islam and never heard anything remotely close to that. Also, I have seen numerous hadiths that give the same story: that Mohammed 'consummated' his betrothal with Aisha when she was 9 after she was done playing with dolls. This is apparently coming even from her own mouth.
By the way, for everyone else interested, here is the description:

This image is the flag of the isle of Malta, who battled Muslim pirates. They would decapitate the pirates and place their heads on poles along the coast to deter others from approaching. It worked, and soon became their national symbol. Islam is a hateful and evil culture, and its founder Mohammed was a pedophile, a racist and a rapist. Ban Islam.

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.

ajm said...

@ David

A culture (New Oxford: the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievements regarded collectively) depends directly on people, it is evolving. It is a living thing. Islam seen as a culture is a delusion. Islam depends on eternal laws, is rigid, its rules and traditions are fixed for all eternity (apart from what can be interpreted, but that is not much and not recommended anyway, according to Koran 3:7). And when people depart from those rules, making them part of a culture, as it were, Islam systematically generates extremists who take back the culture to the Islamic a-cultural core.

A culture is not obligatorily good, but it can always evolve into something good, whereas Islam cannot. Islam is an enemy of all cultures.

As for the non-existence of Mohamed, see:
And then:

Zerosumgame 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.

David S. said...

Ajm --

I was using the term culture more loosely than you; like I said above, a culture refers to a set of ideals, traditions and mores in the context which I was using. I think you can agree that Islam is this. And fine, I can agree with you, in terms of ordinary cultural elements such as development Islam is entirely stagnant and destructive, so it would not match that definition.

As for this Mohammed not existing thing: Thank you for the links. I had never heard anything like this before, which surprises me because I am somewhat familiar with Ibn Warraq. I will definitely do more reading on this. However, it does not matter whether he was real or not, at least in terms of the moral standard he represents. He is portrayed as a pedophile, racist and rapist in hadiths (not sure that is the plural) and so that level of depravity for others and will to dominate is a major element of the Islamic mindset. Nevertheless I would find it quite intriguing if the whole story of him, or at least the accepted accounts, were entirely false. It wouldn't be terribly surprising - the Koran is already a work of pseudo-history which takes historical figures and uses them however it wishes, like Christ and Alexander the Great. Mohammed would just be the last in a long line of historically false 'Islamic prophets.'

David S. said...

One more thing, and then I am done for the night, scout's honor :).

Zerosum, I agree.

Baron, this is your blog. Any discussion you do not want here just say the word. I will certainly stop immediately, and I'm fairly certain most others would as well.

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"
" 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

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.

ScottSA 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.

David S. said...

Anonymous --

How about in the future, since you know now what the Baron means, where he puts "radical Islam" or "moderate Islam" you just understand it like he means it? If it is still really distracting to you, think of it like the words 'sunrise' and 'sunset'; they are short, not terribly accurate words we use to describe something we mention often, which exist to shorten the clunky phrase that necessarily comes with explaining everything out every time.

Phanarath said...

I just want to say that I like david s,s point here. But with a big "but"

When I hear people talk about moderate islam, I know what they are trying to say. So I just Ignore it and move on.

I have a friend who is a muslim or who say that he is muslim. But he is as ignorant about islam as the most leftwing ignorants could be. Other then that he is a great guy in everyway, who just happens to be born in Iran.

He thinks along with many others, that all the bad things done by muslims are done by extremists, who have misunderstod and/or misused the religion.

I understand that a "moderate muslim" is someone like him, and many others I have meet.

If we get rid of all the dangerus muslims and leave all the peacefull ones in peace :-)
we will be ok for awhile.

BUT: Some of all the children growing up, being told that they are muslims, will deside to become more serius about religion. They will study and read and give a rebirth to the true islam once again.

And this is without even going in to how many true muslims will use these "moderates" as a place to hide.

So we need to insist that a muslim is a muslim is a muslim. And we need to ensure, that people can safely leave any religion. We need to demand that religion is a personal choise, that you will be jugded by.

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.

B29 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.

ScottSA 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.

B29 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.

Don said...

Well, there are the Ahmadi Muslims, who believe in advocating "peace, tolerance, love and understanding among followers of different faiths."

Of course, the Ahmadis are regularly persecuted, declared non-Muslims by Pakistan's constitution, and are the only self-identified Muslim group that the Saudi Arabian government bans from Mecca...

In other words, most Muslims don't consider moderate Muslims to be Muslims at all. Westerners have to get it through their heads that the ideology of Islam is inherently "radical".

There might have been plenty of moderate Nazis, but that doesn't justify Naziism.

B29 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.