In astrophysics, a black hole is also referred to as a singularity. When matter in a collapsed star is compressed past a certain point — known as the Schwarzschild radius — it becomes impossible for anything to escape the body’s gravity well, and all electromagnetic energy and matter within that radius must continue to collapse, producing a point-mass of infinite density. From the point of view of the rest of the universe, within such a singularity the laws of physics are no longer applicable.
So there’s a resemblance between Islam and this type of singularity. When the density of a Muslim population reaches a certain point, nothing can prevent a general collapse into a sharia singularity, within which normal political processes are no longer applicable.
Islam is, of course, singular in another way: it’s different from all other religions. Its apologists maintain that Islam is just like Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and all the others. So what if it has a different holy book and its own unique religious precepts? To them, it’s still essentially the same.
But this is not true: Islam is a singular religion. Its texts very specifically mandate not just a rigorous moral code, but a particular political structure, a system of jurisprudence, and an elaborate social regimen that directs the minutiae of daily life down to the finest details.
In addition, the core doctrines of Islam — as written in the Koran — insist that it be spread to non-believers aggressively, and with violence if necessary. The scripture of no other major religion requires that non-believers be converted, enslaved, or killed. This is unique to Islam.
Islam is a singular religion.
The occasion for this observation is the appearance at Gates of Vienna of a “moderate” Muslim named Solkhar. He brings a welcome contrarian voice to our comment threads, since he is willing to debate our regular readers in an intelligent and civil manner.
By his own description,
Solkhar is the pen-name of a retired western diplomat and a specialist on tracking of terrorism financing. He is a liberal Sunni Muslim by choice since the age of 17 and is now a permanent resident of the Moroccan city of Marrakech. He continues to provide advice and consulting services to governments in North Africa.
There has been an extensive exchange between Solkhar and several other commenters on two recent threads, “Sharia in the Netherlands” and “Killing the Golden Goose”. Readers are advised to consult these comment threads in their entirety, since I have only reproduced below a selection from the exchanges.
Before I quote from Solkhar and his interlocutors, I’ll throw in my own two cents’ worth. His arguments against Gates of Vienna’s positions fall into four general categories:
1. The extreme or fundamentalist version of Islam is not representative of Muslims in general.
According to Solkhar, the fundamentalists who have hijacked discourse about Islam with their violent behavior are a small splinter group and have no relation to mainstream Muslims, who are average people like most non-Muslims, and just want to live a normal and prosperous life under peaceful conditions.
2. Tu quoque: “You, too.”
This argument asserts that the Bible, the Torah, and other religious scriptures are essentially the same as the Koran, and contain just as many inconsistencies, fallacies, and obnoxious doctrines as does Islamic scripture. It also maintains that the behavior of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., can be shown to display as much intolerance, bigotry, and violence in the name of their religions as does the behavior of Muslims.
3. The historical fallacy.
Solkhar relies on historical events involving non-Muslims — the Crusades, kamikaze fighters, Tamil suicide bombers in Sri Lanka, etc. — to demonstrate that the behavior of Islam’s adherents is no worse than those of other religions.
4. The statistical fallacy.
The statistical fallacy is best illustrated by an old chestnut: “I don’t think cigarettes are bad for your health — Grandpa smoked three packs a day for seventy years and lived to the ripe old age of 89, when he was killed in a meteor strike.”
This argument asserts that a single counterexample — or a selection of counterexamples — is enough to disprove a general argument about the behavior of Muslims acting on the precepts of their religion.
I’ll tackle each of these debate strategies in depth:
1. The extreme or fundamentalist version of Islam is not representative of Muslims in general.
This is frequently asserted by Muslims and their leftist enablers in an attempt to squash the depictions of Islam as a violent and dangerous political ideology. But how true is it?
First of all, non-extreme Muslims have little apparent influence in international Islamic proselytization. Fundamentalist Muslim da’wa materials overwhelm in their numbers any reasonable or mild Islamic tracts. This may be due to Saudi and Iranian funding of such materials, or it may be inherent in the Islamic faith itself.
As Laine points out in some of the comments reproduced below, “moderate” Muslims do not make their voices heard when massive atrocities are committed by fellow Muslims in the name of Allah. The mass slaughter in Darfur or Nigeria carried out by Muslims on religious pretexts goes virtually without notice in the “Muslim street”. Yet that same street is filled on numerous occasions with tens or hundreds of thousands of angry believers whenever any real or perceived slight, no matter how trivial, is directed at Islam.
Furthermore, public opinion surveys — which are virtually the only way to evaluate the sentiments of Muslims, given the repressive political conditions under which most of them live — routinely reveal that large numbers, often a majority, favor strict sharia law, death for apostasy, suicide bombing for the purpose of killing infidels, and all the other violent repertoire of radical Islamic behavior that has become so familiar during the last decade.
So where is the evidence — actual evidence, not simple anecdote — that “mainstream Islam” differs fundamentally from the radical version?
2. Tu quoque: “You, too.”
If we rule out historical cases (which I will address in #3 below), what evidence is there that Christians, Jews, and Hindus behave like radical Muslims?
- - - - - - - - -
So what if the Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka invented suicide bombing —who uses it now? Taoists? The Russians invented the AK-47, but how does that address the behavior of the Janjaweed when they employ the weapon to such notable effect in Darfur?
Which religion routinely amputates hands and feet, beheads blasphemers, hangs homosexuals, and stones adulterous women to death? What’s the record of Mormons and Buddhists vis-à-vis these practices?
Above all, which religion mandates and carries out a death sentence for apostasy on a regular basis? Do Christians do this?
3. The historical fallacy.
I have consistently maintained that it is the behavior of Muslims now, today, in the 21st century, that is the problem. If the violent and intolerant nature of Islam had gradually disappeared centuries ago, then Islam would not be an issue. Unfortunately, the last thirty years or so have demonstrated that as soon as the forcible suppression of Muslims by infidels ceases, violent jihad resumes with a vengeance.
It doesn’t matter what Christians did a thousand years ago during the Crusades. It’s not relevant that the Inquisition burned heretics at the stake.
The issue is what’s occurring right now. And Islam is the sole religion whose followers today behave en masse in such a violent and barbaric manner. Nothing that Christians, Jews, Hindus, Jains, and Jehovah’s Witnesses do can remotely compare.
4. The statistical fallacy.
Bad deeds are indeed committed by Christians and Jews. But how many?
In the last twenty years, out of all the people intimidated, threatened, assaulted, maimed, tortured, and killed in the name of religion, what percentage were so victimized by non-Muslims?
You can always cite an abortion doctor shot by a Christian fanatic, or a Palestinian assaulted by irate Jews, or a Muslim woman stabbed to death by a secular European in a German courtroom.
Yet these incidents are notable for their rarity. Muslims all over the world mounted public demonstrations after the murder of the “hijab martyr”. But literally tens of thousands of non-Muslims have been massacred by Muslims since the beginning of the new millennium, and it has caused scarcely a ripple of public attention in the Muslim world.
Why is that?
And, above all, why don’t prominent Islamic scholars and clerics appear on television in Muslim countries and denounce the barbarous behavior of their co-religionists?
Statistically speaking, what proportion of Muslims have publicly objected to Islamic violence?
I’d like to see the figures.
The unfortunate fact remains that today, in the 21st century, Muslims have a virtual monopoly on mass religious violence. No other religion can even get into the game.
There are other issues that could be discussed — for example, taqiyya, zakat, and the sura and verse of relevant Koranic scripture — but I’ll leave that up to Solkhar and the other commenters.
I have compiled a selection of the relevant commentary below. Certain of Solkhar’s arguments are listed first, followed by those of his opponents. Robert Marchenoir did not want to leave such a long response in the comments, so he sent it by email instead.
These comments are drawn from both posts. Each individual entry is separated using the author’s name as a header. I have edited them only for spelling and punctuation:
Certain things need to be clarified and the first two things are:
1) Most actual Muslim countries do not use Sharia courts but secular systems with most having Sharia inspired courts. And,
2) There is no singular Sharia Law. What a Moroccan Maliki-Sunni considers Sharia is different to those of Turks, Hannafis in South Asia, the Shi’ites all have different variations.
Thus, what extremists such as Wahhabists (like Bin Laden) would claim something that would be at odds to the existing Sharia Court system in Saudi Arabia and it would be again different to say what the fundamentalists in the UK would consider Sharia, the Taliban with their mix of local tribal culture and what they “think” is Islam again is completely different again.
Thus I find it even ridiculous that there are communities trying to install Sharia courts in European countries when in fact those courts would not even be accepted let alone recognised in the Muslim World itself.
If you read my posting correctly, you will note that I do not support Sharia Law as a legal system for a number of simple reasons.
1. There is no single codex, it is based on the various interpretations of what is mostly Hadith and not Qur’an.
2. Those countries that put full Sharia Law place clerics as judges and not professionals, clerics in all religions by nature are mostly ultra-conservatives and in the Muslim world, Fundamentalists.
3. The Hadith were created by “men”, perhaps with best intentions but still by “men”.
Like another posters mentioned, Sharia Inspired secular courts are mostly created from western based systems. So was that to be a criticism? Most western secular courts copied their systems from one or the other until the as-best-as possible system is running and following European tribunal systems over the lesser US/Brit/Australian jury system. Again, Sharia in most of the Muslim Countries only “inspires” morality elements in secular legal systems.
I think many of the posters here read to many of your own websites and the rantings of westerners with agendas or third-fourth-party errors. Sharia certainly does not put non-Muslims as second class citizens. It certainly distinguishes between who is and who is not a Muslim for the purpose of Zakat, responsibilities. Please do not discuss ancient history of what or how non-Muslims were treated in some forgotten land, the response about the inquisition, treatment of indigenous peoples up to and including the 1970s is easily thrown back — the selfishness of man, often in the name of God is simple history.
As for redeeming features of Islam — I can immediately think of family values, civic responsibility, charity, respect for the elderly, personal challenges and development and there are much, much more but will not spend the time here.
Of course do not confuse these aspects in the Qur’an with the words and deeds of men, be they murderous militants or extremist fundamentalists who do not represent most of us Muslims, even though they wish it or would force it.
[S]uicide bombers are actually a Tamil separatist invention in Sri Lanka and southern India. Crashing planes deliberately into targets as a weapon was done by the Japanese military in the later part of WWII in the 1940s.
Concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boar War in the first decade of the 1900s.
There is no doubt and I do not deny that it is militant fundamentalists abusing the name of Islam that is the great threat at the moment.
But what I am saying is that playing the blame game on the entire religion or one group, apart from being blatant bigotry and incorrect only makes the matter worse by diluting an effort on identifying and dealing with the real threat and alienating the entire community and thus making the matter worse.
You wish to imply that suicide attacks are the invention and the sole ownership of Muslims was incorrect and it needed to be pointed out clearly.
Of course these monstrous extremists, militant fundamentalists are doing it all now, maximizing the most horrible and effective methods of terror.
I am the first to agree with you that the Muslim moderates sit back and do almost nothing to fight it, and for me it is a painful point and all the causes, reasons and excuses still do not justify the point that still nothing is really being done. No argument there.
From my own background and work, I can tell you even more — the embarrassment that fundamentalists in Europe do to the name and reputation of Muslims world-wide — they would never dare do, claim or demand what they do in an “actual” Muslim country — simply because they would be caught out with their lies.
So really, the question comes to mind — what is your point? If you think it is Islam that is at fault, you are completely wrong. If you blame extremists and fundamentalists using and abusing the name of Islam — then you would be correct.
If you believe that there is some great religious conspiracy to change the world into some Islamic Caliphate, then the answer is that perhaps those fundamentalists have that pipe-dream and they may even try it by force — but they are a small albeit dangerous minority.
Lastly, it is all well and good to be concerned, if not worried about the actions of these fundamentalists, the dangers they pose are more than real, they are a day-to-day reality for many millions of people. But attempting to assume, presume and fabricate on what actually is Islam, the ideals, aspirations, objectives, faith, and the habits of Muslims from a comfortable chair and desktop comes out as rather embarrassing and silly to an actual Muslim who actually lives the life and lives there.
There is no denying that Fundamentalists in the Muslim World are a huge danger, problem and it is the Muslims themselves that live in those countries dominated or run by them who suffer the most. It is an issue and it is the Muslims themselves that must change it.
But the article is simply another one of those attempts to simplify, generalize and imagine rather than reflect any reality.
There was no reflection in the item that the bulk of the Muslim world lives within the developing world, harsh lives, poor education — that results in their reliance on the only form of education — madrasas and ironically — do not care for nor are bothered to even think about world domination, Caliphates and all the paranoid west thinks about. But having said that, they believe what fundamentalists clerics tell them.
The real Muslim world is something very different to that article.
Most Muslims wherever they are, live their life, try to improve it, only turn up at a mosque at prayer times and go back to what they are doing and only a handful remain to “chat” to the Imam or Mullahs there.
The article assumes that the Muslim world is dominated by these Fundamentalists and that their actions represents all of Islam and Islamic ideals — it is simply not the case.
They are prominent because of their violence and because the very foolish western governments in the 1970s let the real nasty ones into the UK, US and other countries without thinking why the host country was targeting them. They did so as a political game that backfired.
30 years of establishing themselves, building networks, targeting conservative immigrant groups. These fundamentalists you see in these countries demand things that are NOT ACCEPTED in the actual Muslim World and yet it is writers, bloggers and other agenda based groups that seem to think that they represent the entire Muslim World!
This article assumes that some 70yr old Berber lady in the Atlas Mountains with her apple trees along with some 70yr old Indonesian rice farmer and a 10yr old boy in Bangladesh with his ox are all conspiring somehow.
The typical and predictable use of taqiyya (i.e. no matter what I say you will thus say I lie) does not stick, it denigrates the common sense of readers and is just a last resort and rather lame excuse that somehow you know Islam better than Muslims themselves.
As for westerner, born in Leidschendam near Rotterdam in The Netherlands. Educated at Erasmus College Den Haag, member of the foreign service for 22 years, serving in numerous postings representing my country which I am proud of — your fear laine is realised, a Muslim who was brought up in the west AND represented it and yet is a Muslim is able to read through your hype.
The examples of a Moroccan, Indonesian and a Bangladeshi stick — and your retort only shows you have no knowledge of the real world. A Bangladeshi boy in a village would rather drown in a pond then ever turn up in Pakistan, he is more likely to die of a water-born disease or drown in the next cyclone. The old man in Indonesia may perhaps only visit a big city once in his life and the old lady in a Berber village in the mountains gives her zakat to a poorer neighbour. Your lack of awareness of the life or plight of other people is an endemic example of western ignorance.
I have made it clear in all my postings that fundamentalists are a real and present threat, particularly to those that have to suffer its day to day abuse. What I am saying and have made it just as clear is that the arrogance and bigotry of those that push the paranoid agenda that you are, distracts from the real threats, proves the arguments that some of them give to the conservative mass that westerners hate Muslims and wish to start a holy Crusade. Thus you wittingly or unwittingly (to use your phrase) is in fact supporting the efforts of fundamentalists. Great, thank you on behalf of humanity!
The reality of fundamentalists in Europe and the US is a very sad case, whom much of the blame should be on the authorities themselves. Why is it that in the 1970s that thousands of asylum seekers from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran and other locations were allowed in without check? It was a political game and it has backfired. These refugees were in fact hard-liner fundamentalists who were a danger to everyone.
What you avoid in your ranting is the fact that the fundamentalists in the west are demanding, pushing and demonstrating for so-called “rights” that in fact are not accepted back home in the Muslim World. That says it all.
Your simplification of issues is just as bad as your painting broad strokes, you cannot claim that the emotions of youths are a reflection of one issue…. the argument of Israel/Palestine automatically produces extreme opinions on most people, the war in Iraq, 9/11 or simply unemployment in France and so forth — then you have an understanding of “opinion polls”.
Lastly, I have stated it already twice now on this blog — yes there is no excuse that the moderate Muslim is not fighting back adequately or overtly to battle against fundamentalism. They are as human as the rest of the world, their own politics, nationalism (which shows the concept of Caliphate is a pipe dream and boogey man only), ethnicities and sheer desire to survive all have an input into why they stay silent — still no excuse and I certainly am amongst the first to condemn that.
To thus repeat — give it up laine, your repetitive and rather nauseating agenda is clear and does not stick as valid but rather stick as something that smells on an out-house door. In the end, the subject is about fundamentalism and right-wing bigotry versus liberalism and people trying to get on with their lives……
The language, emphasis and conceptuality of the Torah, Qur’an and Bible are much the same, to say otherwise just shows that your just another western arm-chair pretend-theologian. Just as Christianity followed the Hebrews, Islam continues the faith of the People of The Book.
The Hadith should not even be uttered in comparison with Holy Books and has no relevance, it is the words of men of the time and depending on which community/sect/region you are from, its importance varies.
I suggest you study history before you even start the game of justifying acts of men from one time and not from the present, emotionally giving examples of atrocities now as some ridiculous proof. We should all be honest with ourselves, the acts of men of all religion has caused countless “hell” for everyone at various times through history and to make something horrible in a simple phrase — right now it is Muslim fundamentalists who are doing so.
I find your presumptive position that you can tell a Muslim what his or her religion is rather pathetic just as much as your assumptions about what my contribution to society is. To add to that your question regarding why I even post on a blogsite like Gates of Vienna is more than obvious — the time for self-confirming, self-feeding paranoia is over — shock/horror a real Muslim is watching and he can point out all the gossip, confusion, lies and myths.
1) That is because many of those countries still benefit from Western law (based on Roman law and/or Common law) as introduced in the past (19th century). Apart from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, to name a few, and parts of Nigeria and Indonesia (Aceh, and don’t forget archipelago-wide attempts like the Porn Bill), etc., there at least is Islamic family law in most OIC member countries.
To note here: Don’t forget that there are no less than thirteen member states of the OIC (out of 56, thus a quarter) that do not even have a Muslim majority. Gabon for instance has only 1% Muslims and Surinam even has a substantial Christian and Hindu majority. Six other OIC members count between 50% and 75% Muslims of which most are just over the 50% barrier. Only 66% of the OIC member countries (37) have some sort of a ruling Muslim majority.
On the other hand, in countries like the Philippines and Singapore to name a few, who certainly are not Muslim countries, there is a dual system. As is the case in Singapore, it is to keep the Muslims both happy and under control. It has limits to its jurisdiction and is under strong supervision of the President, who is not ignorant and knows what they have to deal with. As you also will know, Islam starts with taking a finger and when successful, goes for the hand and the rest. Banning criticism of Islam accompanied with death threats is according to Shariah and one of those fingers, or maybe even the hand.
2) Of course there is one Shariah. Shariah is tribal law based on the interpretations of the (inconsistent) Qur’an and Sunnah, and in some cases extended with the somewhat evolving part: fiqh. Interpretations might vary a little, as does the scope. But comparing Taliban Shariah to UK Shariah, is not about a different Shariah, but about more or less Shariah. If you desire, it may even address how to go to the toilet.
Solkhar: your argument is an oft-repeated one. It looks superficially reasonable. Alas, it carries no weight.
You say that most Muslims live their lives and try to improve them. And? How is that supposed to assuage our legitimate fears about Islam?
100 % of people on earth live their lives and try to improve them. And, while doing so, a significant number of them manage to wreak havoc on their neighbours, invade them and kill them. Both are perfectly compatible.
Indeed, it’s precisely because some of those people want to “live their lives” unhindered and “improve them” in a parasitic way that they find, collectively (a key word here), that a convenient way of doing so is to colonise the West through immigration.
You say that fundamentalists are but a minority, and that many Muslims do not accept them in Muslim countries.
But the issue here is not whether fundamentalists are a minority or a majority; it’s not whether they are accepted or rejected by a significant number of Muslims.
It’s whether their strategy and actions are scoring points or not.
Are the fundamentalist-rejecting Muslims having any success in their rejection? Not any that I can see.
Are they having any success doing so in the Western countries where they live? Quite the contrary: Muslim communities in Europe and the US radicalise by the day; their hostility to natives and local institutions is growing by the day; their acts of aggression, looting, arson, rape and murder are getting more numerous and more violent by the day.
Those “fundamentalist-rejecting Muslims” look quite powerless to me. And that’s the kindest opinion I can offer. The other one involves a healthy dose of double-talk, otherwise known as taqiyya.
All this smooth talk about “majorities” and “minorities” conveniently avoids the fact that wars, riots and revolutions are not fomented and won by “the majority” or by “70-year old Berber ladies in the Atlas Mountains with their apple trees”, or by “70-year old Indonesian rice farmers”, or by “10-year old boys in Bangladesh”.
They are fomented and won by ruthless politicians and warriors, using great masses of 70-year old ladies and 10-year old boys (plus everybody in-between), plus their national and tribal interests, plus strong ideologies, values and beliefs (and Islam certainly qualifies in that department).
I’m sure there were plenty of nice 70-year old ladies and cute 10-year old boys in Nazi Germany, and that most Germans at the time essentially “lead their lives” and “wanted to better them”.
Does that mean that it was wrong for the Allied powers, during WW II, to do everything they could in order to crush Germany — and not only a “tiny minority of SS fundamentalists”, who, you know, completely misinterpreted the genuine, peaceful, tolerant German spirit, and were even opposed by part of the German population?
Actually, there’s one part of your comment that makes me think that you are, yourself, a fundamentalist in disguise. A moderate radical, if you will.
You say that the blame for the radicals’ influence must be borne by Western governments. Bingo! How convenient.
That’s the perennial Muslim way of thought. A Muslim is always right. If anything goes wrong, it’s always someone else’s fault. The Joooz’, the capitalists’, the Western governments’, the racist white Americans’ or Europeans’… whatever.
Muslims never, ever admit an ounce of responsibility for their failures or wrongdoings.
I’ll believe in your peaceful statements and loyalty to the West when you stop putting the blame on us, and start talking about ways to fight Muslim supremacy, and defend Western values.
Until then, you’re on the list of suspects, as far as I’m concerned.
You see, it’s not only Muslims who can divide the world between believers and kuffar. When push comes to shove, we can also drop the nice talk about democracy and human rights, and start counting up friends and enemies.
And remember: we have a long experience doing quite horrible things to our enemies. I wouldn’t push your luck if I were you.
“This article assumes that some 70yr old Berber lady in the Atlas Mountains with her apple trees along with some 70yr old Indonesian rice farmer and a 10yr old boy in Bangladesh with his ox are all conspiring somehow”.
But they are conspiring, wittingly or unwittingly as long as they are guided by the supremacist take-over documents the Koran and hadith. They are a part of the billion whose sheer number is used to boggle the western elite’s mind.
And the other necessary half to bring the plan to fruition is the naiveté of Solkhar assuming he/she’s a westerner and if it is in fact naiveté and not deliberate taqiyya to advance the Muslim cause.
I lean toward taqiyya artist because of the manifest manipulation of choosing three thumbnail sketches of Muslims designed to make them look innocent as lambs. The 10 year old Bangladeshi may well end up in a Pakistani madrassa, still illiterate but indoctrinated while memorizing the Koran in Arabic of which he cannot understand a word to become a human bomb. The rice farmer may have joined the Muslim street in the semi-regular protests against the latest Western “insult” to his religion like cartoons or Teddy bears. The old lady’s zakat goes to arm the militants etc.
But Solkhar sings his Lorelei lullaby. Everyone go back to sleep until western civilization founders on Islamic rocks. Listen to the fairy tale that Muslims are just old and young people in far off places, living pastoral lives of simplicity and grace…and conversely, anyone who lumps these people in with the activist fundamentalists whom Solkhar minimizes as so few in number (instead of at least 10% of a billion) is way off base.
No mention of the much more typical Muslim with whom most westerners now have personal experience:
He’s urban, congregates in Muslim ghettos, knows of suspicious types hanging out at his mosque but lets them and the imam get on with it. She’s mummified to her eyeballs and wears the religiously unnecessary “uniform” to get in westerners’ faces and occupy territory visually. The daughter rebelled briefly against the hijab, but was brought into line with news of honor killings in her city. The son gets his hours of hate lessons daily on the Internet. The uncle has initiated a frivolous human rights complaint that will cost taxpayers thousands and advance the constraints of sharia on non-Muslims. With his multiple wives and children all drawing Welfare he is a one-man drain on social services that the rest of the family will never make up in taxes.
No mention of the Pew poll showing over 20% of young American Muslims agreeing that suicide bombing is justified and those were only the ones who admitted it.
Conversely, the mythical moderate Muslims who do NOT work toward sharia in every Western country have yet to show up in any numbers. They are a brave few but impotent, shunned by the Ummah as apostates. Not a single congregation has ejected their Saudi-provided firebrand clerics as “too fundamentalist” for their tastes. Instead, the few moderate members of the congregation who speak up are ostracized or ejected.
Give it up Solkhar. The training manual and blueprint for Muslims is the same no matter how old they are or how far away. That you refuse to read them is one thing. That you try to throw desert sand in the eyes of those who have read and understood their significance makes you either a liberal whose sloppy sentimentality and refusal to do his homework endangers all of us or more likely committing taqiyya for the unholy alliance of Islam and Leftism.
Hell hath no fury like the taqiyya artist scorned.
The “credentials” you present are irrelevant when you tell a whopper like Islam not being a supremacist religion and comparing the Koran and believers’ attitude toward it to the Bible or Torah. This invalid comparison of the Koran set in stone in the stone age and believed to be the immutable word of Allah by every practising Muslim, to be followed slavishly along with the warlike example of Mohammed in the hadith, this comparison to how contemporary Christians look and act on the Bible and Jews the Torah is shameless. It has been refuted thousands of times by people well versed in these matters. There is not a single Muslim country that is not ruled by sharia except for Turkey strong armed by Ataturk into the twentieth century and even it keeps trying to revert. Conversely, there is not a single majority Christian state where there is NOT secular government. Do not take other people for fools especially on this site.
You embroider the alibis of your three unrepresentative Muslims to no purpose. You chose them to illustrate the canard of Islam as a religion of peace. Every day’s newspaper brings fresh evidence of that lie, evidence, not fairy tales of how you perhaps would personally like Islam to be (your truculent attitude hardly deserves the benefit of a doubt).
As soon as Jews and Christians go about blowing up civilians including women and children in thousands of incidents in dozens of countries around the globe in the name of their Gods without the worldwide Jewish or Christian community raising their voices except to whine about disrespect to their religion, then they can be described as “crusading”. Even the original crusades were merely an attempt to take back by force what Muslims had stolen by force. You cannot use “crusade” as shorthand for Christian wrongdoing here as on a leftist site. Your fellow Muslims are committing ongoing racial genocide of Sudanese blacks of all religions with a death toll over 400 000 and counting which perturbs you not a whit. Historical Christian sins pale by comparison.
Oh and let us not forget the obligatory name calling of bigot (definition: non-Muslim who’s winning an argument with a Muslim).
If you are indeed a western Muslim, you are part of the problem. Your pretense of disapproval for fundamentalists and chiding of the mythical moderate Muslims for not doing more (LOL how about doing ANYTHING) to counter their bloodthirsty brethren is hardly convincing when you simultaneously and aggressively promote taqiyya 101, the basics, not even an advanced form to non-Muslims at a site named Gates of Vienna for a purpose that appears to escape you.
I could almost feel sorry for you if you actually were one of the largely mythical moderate Muslims and felt caught between a rock and a hard place, afraid to confront the Muslim majority threatening your cushy western life by drawing westerners’ attention to Islam but resenting the justified suspicion their actions bring on their co-religionists. Islam just does not stand up to close scrutiny, does it, so you do your part to distract from its tenets and habits. However, your bullheaded Groucho Marx approach “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” and sense of entitlement to have your fantasies believed mitigate against sympathy. I know of some moderate Muslims by name and read their sincere and informative warnings to non-Muslims, and you are no moderate Muslim but an enabler of the fundamentalists on the front burner by fuming on the back burner at uppity infidels instead of the supposed “hijackers” of your religion/ideology.
And if this is your idea of serving your birth country, the Netherlands as a Muslim, then it goes a long way to explaining their present problems.
That’s the only truth that you’ve spoken, that you’re a real Muslim.
And that’s your only worth at this site, to demonstrate what the West is up against, another type of actor who is no less damaging than the fundamentalists you pretend to decry while defending their koranic script. Are they or their educated handlers so stupid they’ve misread the script? If so, where are your religious authorities denouncing them in unison and repeatedly to get things back on track?
Let a Muslim run on long enough as you now have and the hatred of Jews starts seeping through. Your main objection to Wilders besides his being another truth teller about Islam is that he is a friend to Israel. Your own words betray you.
You are not even embarrassed at the logical incoherency of comparing what Christianity did centuries ago to what your ideology is doing in the present. What can that be termed but bald-faced taqiyya, comparing centuries’ old apples to contemporary oranges?
You have no moral explanation for the silence on Darfur of the same Muslim Ummah that has no trouble getting thousands to riot on streets around the globe about teddy bears and cartoons insulting your warlord prophet. Obviously Arab Muslims killing hundreds of thousands of other Muslims because they’re black does not insult your prophet or religion. In fact, Muslims are the largest killers of Muslims in the world today. They are also the largest persecutors of every other faith. Your illusion that the best defense is to go on the offense fools no one. Your religion is the one busy offending and physically attacking adherents of every other faith in every Muslim dominated country and even non-Muslim countries now (e.g. Mumbai, India) in thousands of documented incidents.
You express contempt for anyone who dares to make factually based observations on Islam that you prefer to keep in a cognitive “no-go” zone. You keep repeating how nervy it is for a non-Muslim to tell a Muslim about his own religion while making pompous pronouncements about Christianity and Judaism yourself. Hypocrite.
In fact, your vast sense of entitlement is also Muslim/Arab. You are not the almighty representative of all Muslims who cannot be contradicted and most of my information comes from trustworthy Muslims who unlike you are not continually trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes and dressing up the wolf of Islam in sheep’s clothing.
I take it as a given that there are nice Muslims who wish the West no active harm but they are part of a system that very much wishes us harm and if they do not stand up and oppose sharia creep in Western countries, they are part of the problem.
You are not even in that relatively benign category as you are actively trying to gain strategic advantage for Allah by misrepresenting Islam as you likely did during your entire career “serving” the Netherlands. Why you come here to the very Gates of Vienna where there’s a shortage of the gullible and the dhimmi-spirited is a mystery.