Monday, January 22, 2007

Sound Bites for the Counterjihad

Last month the Hon. Virgil H. Goode, Jr., our congressman from the Fifth District of Virginia, stepped in it big time. His mistake was to make public a letter he wrote to one of his constituents about newly-elected Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and his use of the Koran at his swearing-in.

Forget Social Security — Islam is the new Third Rail of American politics, and dissing Allah, the Prophet, or the Book can have a negative impact on a political career. If Rep. Goode declines to follow the example of European politicians, and fails to apologize and make the proper obeisance to Islam, he can expect serious trouble from the likes of CAIR and MAS during his next re-election campaign.

Rep. Goode broke new ground with his letter, becoming the first national politician in the United States to make an unequivocal statement against Islam. Had I known ahead of time what he was going to say, I might have suggested to him that he follow a more subtle strategy, leaving himself less of a target for the Muslim Brotherhood’s front organizations and their shills in the MSM.

Sound bites for IslamA direct frontal attack on Islam inevitably gets a politician ruled off the turf, shoved beyond the pale, cast into the outer darkness, and generally banished to the realm of extreme metaphors. The media will turn him into a combination of pariah and laughingstock, his message will be lost, and the cause that he espouses thereby set back a pace or two.

So, as a public service, I’ll design a set of talking points for someone like Virgil Goode, a red-state politician who speaks for the majority of average Americans. The idea is to present an argument which can actually strike back effectively at CAIR during the six- or ten-second sound bites which are the most that the media will allow him.

1. The problem is that Islam is not just a religion, it’s a political ideology.

Amplification: Muslims who interpret the Koran literally are obliged to subvert all other political institutions and institute an Islamic state over the entire world, a government which will function under shari’a, or Islamic law. The Koran requires the killing or subjugation of non-Muslims, the murder of apostates, the oppression of women, and intolerance for any other forms of religion. Such tenets, taken literally, are not only contrary to the American Constitution, they are actively seditious to our form of governance.
- - - - - - - - - -
2. There are many Muslims in America who do not subscribe to the seditious version of the Koran; we need to hear from them.

Amplification: I believe that the majority of Muslims in this country are “Reform Muslims” who do not subscribe to radical beliefs, are willing to live in tolerance of other faiths, and reject all seditious interpretations of the Koran. I encourage them to make their voices heard, and I decry the threats and intimidation from the radical groups which force loyal American Muslims into silence.
3. Unfortunately, there are radical and dangerous Islamic groups in this country which masquerade as peaceful Muslims under the protection of umbrella organizations like CAIR.

Amplification: CAIR has known links to terror organization, and provides a network of funding and support organizations for Islamic terrorists. We need to expose CAIR for what it really is — it does not speak for all Muslims, and above all it does not speak for American values and the American way of life.

I know, I know — no national politician is going to speak out in public like this for the foreseeable future. But I can dream, can’t I?

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

Muslims who interpret the Koran literally are obliged to subvert all other political institutions and institute an Islamic state over the entire world, a government which will function under shari’a, or Islamic law.

But those who do not interpret it literally are not true Muslims.

There are many Muslims in America who do not subscribe to the seditious version of the Koran

Except there are not several different versions of the Quran out there, so the statement is nonsensical.

I believe that the majority of Muslims in this country are “Reform Muslims” who do not subscribe to radical beliefs, are willing to live in tolerance of other faiths, and reject all seditious interpretations of the Koran.

So most people who call themselves Muslims are not in fact true Muslims. Besides, what is the factual basis of a statement that most Muslims are "reform Muslims"?

Unfortunately, there are radical and dangerous Islamic groups in this country which masquerade as peaceful Muslims under the protection of umbrella organizations like CAIR.

And they are radical and dangerous because they represent true Islam.

We need to expose CAIR for what it really is — it does not speak for all Muslims, and above all it does not speak for American values and the American way of life.

CAIR speaks for true Islam, which is obviously incompatible with American values and the American way of life.

A direct frontal attack on Islam inevitably gets a politician ruled off the turf, shoved beyond the pale, cast into the outer darkness, and generally banished to the realm of extreme metaphors. The media will turn him into a combination of pariah and laughingstock, his message will be lost, and the cause that he espouses thereby set back a pace or two.

That's sad, but true. However, it is better than outright Islam apologism, which Baron's suggestions are colored by.

Baron Bodissey said...

Anonymous,

One can choose to be either ideologically pure, or to be effective.

I'm opting for effective -- not for myself; I can't really affect anything! -- and am thus willing to overlook for the time being the likelihood that Islam is not reformable, and that it requires "radical" behavior by its core beliefs.

However, there are some Muslims who do not agree, who interpret the Koran differently, and who want to live in a modern and tolerant fashion. Some of them actually go on the record, and then face intimidation and death threats as a result.

I refuse to overlook them completely.

Eric said...

Anonymous - I don't think it's a good idea to concede the battle for moderate Islam without firing a shot. Islam has meant a lot of different things over the centuries, and there is a wide variety of practice, interpretation and belief today, despite what Wahabbists would like you to think.

A moderate, non-expansionist Islam is possible, but the moderates need support both within Islam and from the rest of the world. Statements like yours allow CAIR to push the middle towards radicalism "See, even the infidel says you are not a True Muslim. Why turn your back on your heritage, they'll never accept you anyway."

Anonymous said...

One can choose to be either ideologically pure, or to be effective.

But in order to be effective, one has to be credible.

However, there are some Muslims who do not agree, who interpret the Koran differently, and who want to live in a modern and tolerant fashion.

So they allow themselves to ignore the will of Allah, and are therefore apostates. Why are they relevant? They do not represent Islam.

I refuse to overlook them completely.

They should be overlooked, but that Islam shouldn't be credited for their lack of religious practice.

Anonymous said...

Islam has meant a lot of different things over the centuries, and there is a wide variety of practice, interpretation and belief today, despite what Wahabbists would like you to think.

Well, I would rather say that the degree to which Muslims have been devoted to their religion and taken its teachings seriously has varied over the centuries.

A moderate, non-expansionist Islam is possible

No, it is not possible, because a moderate, non-expansionist Islam wouldn't be Islam.

but the moderates need support both within Islam and from the rest of the world.

Why? Or else it wouldn't be viable?

Statements like yours allow CAIR to push the middle towards radicalism

They do not need an infidel's statement to do so. They can simply refer to the Quran.

However, the supposed power of my statement would only indicate that there is a significant potential for radicalism, a potential which can be easily unleashed!

Baron Bodissey said...

Anonymous, neither you nor I can say who "represents Islam". If a billion Muslims adopted the moderate interpretation of the Koran, then that would then be "Islam".

I agree it's not likely. But it is they, and not you or I, who will determine what Islam is and believes.

I will treat anyone who subscribes to tolerance and peaceful living with respect, Islamic or otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, neither you nor I can say who "represents Islam". If a billion Muslims adopted the moderate interpretation of the Koran, then that would then be "Islam".

Islam per se would be unaffected by the decision of a billion "Muslims" to adopt a moderate interpretation of the Quran, simply because Islam is not defined by what Muslims believe or do, unlike what Baron's statement suggests.

It is sad to witness that Baron makes a matter of truth ("what is Islam?") into a matter of authority ("who has the right to define Islam?"), and also adopts nominalism, the backbone of most - if not all - Islam apologism.

Anonymous said...

A very interesting debate here.

It is hard to get past what the Holy Word of Allah (the Koran) says. However, despite the ammunition that the Koran gives them, it is in fact several small minorities in the Islamic world that are shouting down and intimidating not just the rest of the Islamic world, but our own gutless/clueless politicians, academicians, etc., in the West. Most Muslims have no desire to return to the Caliphate.

Eric, I agree that we must not surrender the battle for moderate Islam. We need to let the moderates and liberals in Islam (and they are many) know that we can find common ground with them. Those moderates and liberals need to loudly denounce terrorism, they need to convince us that they mean it, and they need to convince us that they are using the term "terrorism" (and other words) the same way we are. (For example, when the Jihadis denounce "terrorism", they are just denouncing American and Israeli military action.)

But, then, we get back to the previous points: 1) when I read the Koran, I think the Jihadis' interpretation of it is in many ways quite accurate, in that it's a call to an essentially anything-goes war of annihilation against non-Muslims; and, in any case, 2) the Jihadis aren't about to debate the point. Anyone in the Islamic world who doesn't agree with them, they label as not a true Muslim. The biggest disagreement in their camp right now is whether they should attack the US and Israel first, or attack apostate Muslim governments (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, all of them really) first.

It's interesting how much of the Muslim world is actually in as much danger as us infidels.

How does it go? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Anonymous said...

By the way....

Baron, you're soundbites are right on the money, and totally reasonable. If the issue at hand were anything other than Islam, so many people would already be saying stuff like that, that we wouldn't be having a discussion about it.

Your whole article just emphasizes the extent to which our society has been intimidated by the Khawarij (heterodox Muslims -- the "Islamofascists", the "Jihadis") -- we whisper in the blogosphere perfectly rational and reasonable contentions, while in front of TV cameras they scream hate and burn us in effigy. We have to be "tolerant", and they get to be "diverse".

Anonymous said...

We need to let the moderates and liberals in Islam (and they are many) (...)

Could Nevsky present 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?

jimmytheklaw said...

just curious cnn had a special on islam, terrorism and the UK it showed moderates debating and talking down the "radicals" if you get a chance to see it its must see tv. some will look and call it a cnn fluff piece however there were parts that showed moderates trying to kick out the radicals. example womens groups going on camera saying the veil was cultural not a requirement, demanding to be able to pray equally in mosques etc...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

I don't think I said that there was (or wasn't) "a moderate school of Islam".

What I said is that there are many moderates and liberals in Islam. Not everybody in the Islamic world believes or accepts the preaching of what are essentially Khawarij.

What else I said is that the Koran appears to me to be "a call to an essentially anything-goes war of annihilation against non-Muslims".

That is why in the radical view of the Khawarij, these "moderates and liberals" (as I call them) are considered no better than us infidels. As I said, the biggest disagreement among the Khawarij right now is whether they should attack the most important enemy, the US and Israel, or the nearest enemy (the governments of the Islamic world).

One line of thought among the Khawarij is that they need to truly Islamify the Islamic lands and establish a Caliphate somewhere, and from there "jihad" their way out to world domination. This is a serious threat to all of the governments in the Islamic world, except for the Taliban regime, which no longer controls Afghanistan, and so is no longer a government in the Islamic world. That is why bin Laden decided to pitch his tent in Afghanistan.

:)

Gordon Pasha said...

The problem is that Islam is not just a religion, it’s a political ideology.

And there, in that phrase, which I have oft repeated, is the essence of the problem. If only that one fact could become a mainstream understanding amongst the infidels, it would mark a tremendous bound en avant.

Anonymous said...

Gordon Pasha:

Yep.

Please keep repeating it -- it needs to get heard.

John Sobieski said...

...Eric, I agree that we must not surrender the battle for moderate Islam. We need to let the moderates and liberals in Islam (and they are many) know that we can find common ground with them. Those moderates and liberals need to loudly denounce terrorism, they need to convince us that they mean it, and they need to convince us that they are using the term "terrorism" (and other words) the same way we are. (For example, when the Jihadis denounce "terrorism", they are just denouncing American and Israeli military action.)...

This whole paragraph contradicts itself. First you say there are plenty of moderate Muslims then express proofs of their insincerity and deception. All I ever see on the news are pretend Moderate muslims.

The Koran's whole existence is around conquest and parasitic behavior on the infidels. Throw in rambling retelling of Abrahamic stories, badly done and demented, and you have yourself a major religious book of crap.

D.K. Shideler said...

Anoy, others:

I agree with your intrepretations of the Koran, and with the oft referenced, "there are moderate muslims, there is no moderate Islam." However, denying ourselves even the remote possibility that a 5th column could be created within the muslim world, is to deny that any ideological victory can be achieved. I've seen the statistics that say 40% of british muslims favor sharia (that's of the top of my head, I can't state that accurately), but it also means there is 60% that do not. Whether that makes them good muslims or bad muslims (in an ideological sense), doesn't matter, it makes them useful. We know that the majority of them will favor keeping some kind of muslim identity. If you make that impossible for them, than they have no choice but to weigh in in favor of fundementalist, (ie. accurate) Islam, and therefore wage Jihad. If a victory for moderate muslims means they edit the Koran down to, "there is no god but allah...," than that's what it takes.

The problem with the stance you take, is that it leaves the West with no options. We refuse ourselves an ideological weapon, and give ourselves no chance of winning a conflict of ideas in a forum already stacked against us (the MSM, as the Baron points out excellently in his post).

In the struggle against Communism, the red menace was defeated by strong stances from the outside, including from Reagan, Thatcher, and the Pope. But it was also defeated from the inside, by russian scientists, polish workers, czech poets, the types of people the regimes had founded themselves upon, and ostensibly anyway, founded themselves in support of. So while it is good that we should be strong, and counter jihad wherever we must, by military might when that option is necessary, it is silly to leave those people with an interest on undermining the regime from the inside, blowing in the wind just because our strict reading of the koran says they aren't accurate. If a moderate muslim is a muslim whose only islamic stricture is "thee mustn't wear white shoes after labor day," than those are the ones we want to support.

Eric said...

I happen to be in Malaysia at the moment on business. If you don't believe there are moderate Muslims, take a trip to Kuala Lumpur.

BTW...I'm not the same Eric who commented earlier.

Anonymous said...

What I said is that there are many moderates and liberals in Islam. Not everybody in the Islamic world believes or accepts the preaching of what are essentially Khawarij.

OK, so the point is basically that there are moderate Muslims. The thing is, those aren't true Muslims, and therefore do not represent Islam, and their being moderate and liberals is nothing that Islam can be credited for.

So what's their relevance?

The problem with the stance you take, is that it leaves the West with no options.

That's not true. The key is to recognize that Islam - and therefore Muslims - do not belong in the West.

it is silly to leave those people with an interest on undermining the regime from the inside, blowing in the wind just because our strict reading of the koran says they aren't accurate.

It is silly to speak of "our strict reading of the koran", as if that was the problem... One should also keep in mind the phenomenon known as taqiyya, which means that even if a Muslim appears to be moderate, he might not actually be moderate.

scrilla said...

the only moderate muslims i've met seem to be non-practicing muslims.

D.K. Shideler said...

the problem isn't the strict reading of the Koran.

Nor is it that your accurate estimation that muslims who are not pro-sharia, and not pro-jihad are bad muslims (in an ideological sense).

The problem is the refusal to accept that bad muslims (in an ideological sense) may be good for us. That's, IF, as noted, they aren't practicing Taqiyya.

Perhaps it would be more constructive for us to discuss ways in which we can DETERMINE, if they are practicing Taqiyya, and to out those who do, (particularly if they are public figures).

It is fine to say that muslims (either pro-jihad/Sharia, or of undeterminable jihad/sharia stance) don't belong in the west. Do you have a strategy for removing up to 40% of some European urban areas, when it is impossible for the politicans of those areas to even openly discuss STOPPING immigration as it is? Is there any political will for that? No. Nor can there possibly ever be any, when the issue will not even be allowed so much as an open forum in the MSM. The Baron was proposing a series of talking points, which MIGHT actually see the light of day, and reach people.

If one sticks to the "There are no moderate muslims" playbook, than what is our next step? Where do we go from there?

Anonymous said...

Many of the "moderates" and "liberals" are in fact "not practicing Muslims".

However, there is also a growing movement of Muslims who believe that some of the more violent or objectionable passages of the Koran were intended for a specific set of circumstances, and that some of the more peaceful and agreeable passages were intended as more eternal guidance. Sorry, I don't have time to post details and links, but it's not too hard to find.

This does leave us with the question of whether we're being "had" by al-Taqqiyah. Some of these folks have been doing that -- Yassir Arafat, I think, was an example. Some of these folks, however, are preaching their more peaceful message to the Islamic world. That's why we in the west don't hear about it, and that tells me they are sincere; the lies would be intended for our consumption, but the truth is intended to persuade the Islamic world: hence the difference between Arafat's messages in English and in Arabic.

If we reject those who reject violence, then where do they have to go but to our enemies? True, we need to make sure we're not being deceived, and we should not be pandering to folks; they need to sincerely buy into our agenda of freedom.

Insulate them, don't isolate them. We have a common enemy.

pela68 said...

Anonymous has a valid point here. A practicing muslim has to be a jihadist, has to wage war on dar al harb, has to promote sharia.

Every other stance makes the individual an apostate, which under the rule of sharia must be killed.

Remember- and do not forget- that as a country get a majority of muslim citizens, it tends to get more islamized. Look at turkey- "the most sekular and democratic muslim country in the world"- where a majority of the people has woted islamists in to parliment. Look at "palestine", where people had theire chans to democraticly wote for parlimentary candidates, and what happened? Hamas happened!

Moderate muslims has no authority in the umma. Because they are the ones who are wrong. They are the ones who has interpreted the quran wrongly and they are not considered muslims at all by the muslim community.

Therefore it is not the "moderate muslims" we have to win over to our side. It is the radicals who has to be overcome- one way or another.

merrimacshores said...

We should not forget that, according to the Koran, not all Moslems are called upon to be active, violent jihadists. Rather, the majority of Moslems are required, instead, to look after the interests and families of the jihadists, to support the jihadists with funds and materiel (arms, for example) and, crucially, to practise 'taqqiya', the doctrinally sanctioned lie, dissimulation, swearing of false oaths or bearing false witness, even denying 'allah' if, in the Moslem's heart, he or she remains true to Islam and if this use of taqqiya is for the purpose of presenting a 'good image of Islam' to the non-Moslems. This taqqiya may be employed if a Moslem also feels personally under threat, as well as a tactic to assist the active jihadist. So, I think Anonymous's question, what makes a 'moderate Moslem' a 'moderate' is quite pertinent. Praying 5 times a day and giving alms to the poor (which Mohammad said should be only given to Moslems, not non-Moslems) doesn't really 'fill the bill.' Nor does failing to kill his non-Moslem neighbor. Time to put those Moslems who declare themselves 'moderate' in the spotlight and ask the hard question.

Anonymous said...

The problem is the refusal to accept that bad muslims (in an ideological sense) may be good for us.

I think we should all be grateful that a lot of Muslims are bad Muslims. However, it is important to remember that bad Muslims do not constitute a potential for Islamic reform. Besides, even if these Muslims are currently non-practicing, they may resume their practice later on (remember, they have no foundation on which to justify their lack of devotion), and their children may also turn out to be more devout to Islam than they themselves are.

Is there any political will for that? No. Nor can there possibly ever be any, when the issue will not even be allowed so much as an open forum in the MSM.

The bottom line is that it is necessary, although it might not currently be politically possible, to remove Islam from the West.

However, there is also a growing movement of Muslims who believe that some of the more violent or objectionable passages of the Koran were intended for a specific set of circumstances, and that some of the more peaceful and agreeable passages were intended as more eternal guidance.

So they refuse to see the Quran as the immutable, perfect, eternally valid word of Allah. That makes them apostates. They do not constitute a potential for Islamic reform either.

D.K. Shideler said...

Again... What than do you propose be done?

If we refuse to accept the possiblity that Muslims can be Muslims who are secular, tolerant, and otherwise not a real problem, and we acknowledge that they will not abandon their self-identity as being Muslims, than we are left with a population which we MUST force into the arms of the enemy, because the enemy's interpretation of what it means to be muslim is literally the correct one. I think we agree that the problem can't be addressed except recognizing that Islam IS the problem as it stands. If we reject its possibility for its reform, where does that leave us?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:

"So they refuse to see the Quran as the immutable, perfect, eternally valid word of Allah. That makes them apostates."

My understanding is that such would be the opinion of many Muslims, most notably the Khawarij terrorists. These "liberals" and "moderates" are therefore in danger, just as we "infidels" are.

It is not my opinion that the "liberals" and "moderates" are apostates; it is my opinion that they have a different view of Islam, a view that is more compatible with the concept of liberty. My understanding is that a Muslim who has not left Islam for another religion is not an apostate, and that throughout much of the Islamic world, such people would merely be called to be "better Muslims", whatever that term may mean to the person using it. People who think like the Khawarij terrorists do would insist that they are apostates.

It is my opinion that these "liberals" and "moderates" have reason to be on our side, or at least to not be against us. It is my concern that as these "liberals" and "moderates" keep getting told they are "apostates", more and more of them may decide that they in fact are apostates, and that they need to radicalize along the lines of the Khawarij terrorists in order to be proper Muslims.

Which brings me to two important questions:

1) Is it your opinion that they are apostates?

2) Are you in favor of insisting and telling them repeatedly that they are apostates?

Anonymous said...

It is not my opinion that the "liberals" and "moderates" are apostates; it is my opinion that they have a different view of Islam, a view that is more compatible with the concept of liberty.

(...)

1) Is it your opinion that they are apostates?


They are apostates by definition. It is not a matter of opinion.

Anonymous said...

Funny how this worked out -- I was just browsing the Internet, and came across this: Al Queida's War on Islam

The recent terrorist bombs in London muffled another significant event. Near Baghdad, Al-Queida assassinated Egyptian diplomat, Ehad Sherif, never even negotiating for his release. The group stated that it self-proclaimed Islamic court convicted Sherif of "apostasy." Their statement arrogantly slapped the face of offical Islam, which never recognized a change (or attempted change) in Sherif's religion.

Just what we were discussing!

What is their real agenda?
The answer: their rhetoric is a sham. Far from being defenders of the faith, they are at war with Islam.


The author then gives a bunch of statistics about how many Muslims have been killed by the terrorist acts of Al Qaeda.

The key point is that not everybody in the Muslim world agrees that such is the definition; but, the Khawarij terrorists do.

Anyway, I think you have answered both my questions. :)

chaoticsynapticactivity said...

I think it's time to decide which new word to use to define Islam in the political realm:

Choice 1: "Poligion"

Choice 2: "Religitics"

I long ago thought that the absolute integration of the religious and political aspects of Islam needed new words to more properly represent this concept. Those are my contributions to the discussion...

David M said...

Trackbacked on The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 01/23/2007

anon said...

Eric,

Let me be blunt in my response to your comment on Malaysia, a country in which the Malay race (automatically Muslims of the Sunni school) form the majority of its population. Westerners who don't know better always point to Malaysia as a model moderate Muslim country. In reality, it's moderate DESPITE Islam. It is common knowledge, though never reported in the heavily censored Malaysian media, that Muslim clerics often spread hatred for non-Muslims during their Friday sermons in mosques. Especially irrational is the extra dollops of hate reserved for Jews, even though Jews live far, far away and have never been in any conflict with the Malays. Citizens of Malaysia are barred from visiting Israel and Malaysian passports are printed with a statement to that effect. That Malaysia has not experienced serious religious violence has much to do with the historically peaceful nature of Malay culture before the arrival of Islam and the lack of interest in understanding the Quran among many Malays. Unfortunately, nowadays, increasing religious piety and the attendant slavish adoption of Arab values is leading to rising religious and political tension. The web site http://westernresistance.com/ has very accurate accounts of the situation in Malaysia (search under "Malaysia" for the relevant articles).

Steve said...

Converting Islam into New England Unitarianism doesn't seem like a very likely prospect to me, in spite of their agreements in first principles.

Anonymous said...

In reality, it's moderate DESPITE Islam.

That seems to sum up the situation concerning the "moderates" and "liberals" discussed above: they are "moderate" and "liberal" despite Islam.

To not be bent on jihad in the Islamic world, there are two things that seem to have to be overcome: the Koran, and the example of Mohammed.

The parts of the Koran that seem to advocate peace are the earlier chapters, revealed in Mecca, which, in the view of many, were abrogated by the later chapters, revealed in Medina, that call for violence (especially Chapter 9). Mohammed himself said he had been order by Allah to fight against the people until they submit.

"I am not suggesting that the radicals are right and that the moderates are wrong; only that their extremist followers are teaching and convincing young men all over the world today that they are right and that the moderates are wrong. To do so, they invoke the teaching and example of the Prophet."
Robert Spencer, Onward Muslim Soldiers, pg 148

pela68 said...

The bulk of the "foreign" islamist terrorist plauging the middleast consists of second generation immigrants with a "moderate" upbringing.

The first and foremost plantschool for terrorists are Europe- or should I say eurabia?

This only proves that no muslim is a "safe" muslim. They are all candidates as reverting islamists.

Let's not fool ourselves. The greater problem is islam itself. Not the humanbeing muslims.

Remember: There is ceartanly a lot of people in the world calling themselves muslims without beeing islamists. But! All the islamists are for ceartanty muslims!

Anonymous said...

Let's not fool ourselves. The greater problem is islam itself.

No argument there.