Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Making the World Safe for Apostasy

HamasEven if he is not strictly speaking a Muslim, President Barack Hussein Obama has an Islamic background and is a famous sympathizer with Islam. He received an Islamic education as a child in Indonesia, and seems to identify with Muslims when implementing what passes for his foreign policy.

Modern American policy towards Islam — especially that subset of Islam which avowedly intends to destroy the United States and the rest of the West in the name of Allah — went though several stages of development. It began as avoidance under Bill Clinton, escalated to denial under George “The Religion of Peace” Bush, and has now reached its full flower under the Obama administration. If the country continues on its present course, it is headed for full Islamization and cultural dhimmitude.

We have reached a point where nobody in public life who values his career prospects dares to mention the word “Islam” in connection with terrorism or mob violence. “Jihad” has officially been ruled out of the lexicon by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The word “terrorism” itself is discouraged, because too many people have come to associate it in their minds with Islam, for some strange reason.

We are so far down the rabbit hole that returning to a state of denial would be an improvement.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

In her book The Death of the Grown-Up, Diana West examines the cultural infantilization which has allowed the West to become such easy prey for Islamic expansionism. A suicidal policy of mass immigration driven by the ideology of Multiculturalism leverages the demographic advantage of Muslims, but to guarantee an Islamic ascendancy we had to abandon “discrimination” and all the other virtues that formerly guided Western Civilization.

Ms. West was writing in 2007, before the Husseinization of America, but everything she said in her book is even more relevant today than it was back then. In her final chapter she gets to the heart of the matter:

In retrospect — namely, post-9/11 — it seems odd that these terrorists have always been called “Arab terrorists,” or “Arab Palestinian terrorists,” and have never been labeled according to the animating inspiration of their religion as “Muslim” terrorists. Such coyness has buried a relevant part of the story: the Islamic context. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, it was Muslim terrorism that had come to Europe, and, as a result, Jews were worshipping, if they dared, at their own fearsome risk.

And not just Jews. By now, the same fearsome risk extends to whole populations, in houses of worship and the public square alike. After reading Bat Ye’or, I realized that the now-familiar strategies of fearsome-risk management — guns around the synagogue, for example — represents a significant capitulation. The security ring around the synagogue — or the airport ticket counter, the house of parliament, or the Winter Olympics — is a line of siege, not a line of counter-attack. The threat of violence has become the status quo, and, as such, is incapable of sparking outrage, and is certainly not a casus belli. Guns at the synagogue door — or St Peter’s Basilica, or the Louvre — symbolize a cultural acquiescence to the infringement of freedom caused by the introduction — better, the incursion — of Islam into Western society. Thus, dhimmitude — institutional concessions on the part of non-Muslim populations to Islam — has arrived in the West.
- - - - - - - - -
And it’s here in the U.S. of A., as well. Brandishing automatic weapons, police and soldiers patrol our cities, our buses, our banks, our institutions, our subways, our trains, our stadiums, our airports to prevent specifically Islamic violence. This, lest we forget, is a situation unparalleled — unimagined — in our history. Official Washington has become an armed camp. No longer does traffic stream down Pennsylvania Avenue past the White House; the historic street is now a cement-dump-lined “plaza” blocked off by retractable security stumps. The Capitol, meanwhile, sits behind a hamster-cage Rube Goldberg might have designed, its grand staircases blocked, and metal posts — called “bollards,” I recently learned — bristling down the sidewalks. The fact is, we are living in a state of siege. After 9/11, the United States embarked on an open-ended war against Islamic terrorism, with varying degrees of foreign cooperation. But even as we fight abroad, we simultaneously assume the status of victims at home, surrendering our bags and purses for security searches, erecting aesthetics-destroying metal detectors, transforming our ennobling vistas and public halls into militarized zones under 24-hour-surveillance. This is necessary, we understand, for public safety: But is it the new “normal”? Or do we ever get Pennsylvania Avenue back? Do we ever get to make that mad dash down the airport concourse onto a plane just pushing off from the gate again? (This was an odd, if recurring point of pride of a family friend who used to time his drive from Kennebunkport, Maine, to Logan Airport with perilous precision). Don’t hold your breath; these homeland defenses sprouting up across the country look and feel like they’re here for good.

In this seemingly permanent climate of fear, then, ignoring genuine heroes — our exemplars of such adult virtues as bravery and sacrifice, honor and duty — is more than a cultural matter of infantile vanity. It is a security risk. “By our focus on victimization,” Crossland writes, “we have adopted our enemies’ standard of measure, and are handing them a victory.” It’s a psychological victory, of course, not a strategic one; but this, above all, is a psychological war.

As a people, then, we begin to make choices predicated on our new siege mentality, choices that a free people — free from fear, and, I would add, free from dhimmitude — would never make.

I’m old enough to remember when you could just walk into Dulles Airport and ride the escalator up to the observation deck to watch the planes take off and land. No one had to pass through metal detectors or have his bags searched. Departing passengers were advised to get to the terminal twenty minutes — twenty minutes! — before their flights were due to board.

I suppose we can credit the new security regimen for the lack of successful terrorist attacks since 9-11 — even though the Lap Bomber and the Shoe Bomber demonstrate that luck and alert civilians have also played an important part. But nobody should confuse the current situation with victory. A victory would have consisted of reducing half the Middle East and South Asia to rubble, and then installing compliant dictators of our own choosing in the half that remained. I can guarantee you that if we had chosen such a path, taking a plane out of Dulles would not be the grueling ordeal that it is today.

We didn’t get into this mess overnight, and it wasn’t just the jihad that brought about our current debased state of fearfulness. Cuban terrorists — remember them? — started the hijacking fad back in the seventies. By the time the mujahideen deployed their forces on the information battlespace, it had already been softened up by the Marxists, cultural and otherwise.

Our collective fear and cowardice took decades to mature, and we are now living with the predictable results, as Ms. West so lucidly describes:

Standing around Logan Airport last summer with some time to kill, I watched crowds of travelers winnow down to single file in order to pass through a phalanx of metal detectors, dutifully unstrapping wristwatches, dropping off keychains, and removing their shoes. They were, of course, cooperating with airport “screeners” charged with determining whether any of them had secretly bought a ticket to paradise — not the Pearly Gates one, but the 72 Virgins kind — and not some earthbound destination. I wondered whether these low-level indignities would get passengers home safe and sound, or whether they would require body bags, burn masks and prosthetics to reach their final destination. It was shortly after the London Underground bombings (7/7, 7/25), and it seemed like an open question. As this final line of defense against murder-in-the-skies deployed, I wondered when the arsenal would also include those high-tech scopes and scanners we read about that are designed to identify retinas and fingerprints; and I thought how strange it was that even as we devise new ways to see inside ourselves to our most elemental components, we also prevent ourselves from looking full face at the danger to our way of life posed by Islam.

Notice I said “Islam.” I didn’t say “Islamists.” Or “Islamofascists.” Or “fundamentalist extremists.” Or “Wahhabism.” Except for Wahhabism — an overly narrow term for the jihadism that permeates all schools of Islam, not just this infamous Saudi one — I think I’ve tried out all the other terms in various columns since 9/11, but I’ve come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so. In their amorphous imprecision, they allow us to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam — the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it “moderately” tolerates, or “extremistly” advances jihad — with the West. Worse than its imprecision, however, is the evident childishness that inspires this lexicon, as though padding “Islam” with extraneous syllables (“ism,” “ist” “ofascist”) is a shield against PC scorn of “judgmentalism”; or that exempting plain “Islam” by criticizing fanciful “Islamism” or “Islamofascism” puts a safety lock on Muslim rage — which, as per the Danish cartoon experience, we know explodes at any critique. Such mongrel terms, however, keep our understanding of Islam at bay.

Diana West has put her finger on the essence of the problem. The taboo against discussing the nature of the Islamic threat is part and parcel of the universal childishness of modern American society. We don’t want to look at the heart of the problem because what we might see is too awful to contemplate. It’s scary and icky and would force us to make choices that almost none of us are ready to face.

So we’re putting it off. We say, “Eeewwww! Gross!” and push it away from ourselves. We wait for Daddy to come home and make it all go away.

But the grown-ups aren’t going to take care of it. There aren’t any grown-ups left anymore, at least not within the cloistered precincts of those who make and implement public policy in Western countries. The kids are running the show.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Just for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that instead of the limp-wristed milquetoasts who man our present governments, the real grown-ups — people like Diana West and Mark Steyn and Col. Allen West and Bat Ye’or — were in charge of dealing with the Islamic threat. What would they do differently?

To start with, they wouldn’t rule out any terminology or body of description when studying the enemy. They’d examine the stated doctrines of those who are trying to kill us, and would take them at their word.

By doing so they would learn that our enemies publicly state that they make war on us in the name of Allah, in order to impose Islamic law on the entire world. They do this because their scripture requires it — it is written down quite clearly in the Koran, the hadith, and the sunna — and all four major schools of Sunni Islamic law, as well as Shi’ite doctrine, describe violent jihad as a duty for all Muslims.

They would come to realize that Islam is not just a religion — and perhaps not even primarily a religion — but a specific totalitarian political doctrine with violence at its core.

A reasonable investigation would reveal that the command to subjugate the infidel through violence is not “extremist”. It’s not a “fringe doctrine”. Islam has not been “perverted” or “hijacked” by those who practice violent jihad. Violence lies at the very core of Islamic doctrine, and Islam itself has told us that repeatedly, if only we would listen.

I’ve been blogging the Counterjihad for almost six years now, and during that time I’ve been watching for evidence that Islam has the capacity to reform itself. I long to see a demonstration that there really is an alternative to “extremism”. I’ve been patiently drumming my fingers, waiting for the “moderate Muslim” to appear and take charge.

And, throughout those six years, whenever I thought I’d found a “moderate”, it always turned out to be some brave soul who was raised as a Muslim but no longer believes in Islam. Virtually every “moderate” is an apostate in all but name.

It’s a hard fact to face, but anyone who truly believes in what is written in the Koran either fights jihad in the name of Allah, or supports those who do.

This is the crux of the problem, but it also offers a solution: the way to encourage “moderate” Islam is to create a space in which people can abandon their belief without risking their lives. Millions — perhaps hundreds of millions — of Muslims are ready to leave Islam, but they are justifiably afraid for their lives if they do so.

We need to make the world safe for apostasy.

But first we have to man up. It takes guts to say the forbidden words:

“The problem is Islam.”

There! That wasn’t so bad, was it? Don’t you feel better now?

It is incumbent upon us to look at the situation clearly and realistically, even if it leads to grim and alarming conclusions about the nature of what is facing us. Several decades of dire consequences lie ahead, no matter what we do.

Whether we decide to hide under the bed and whimper, or grab a shotgun and confront him, the intruder is already in the house.

It’s time to start acting like grown-ups.

17 comments:

Engineer-Poet said...

The problem is Islam.

More generally, the problem is faith; embrace doubt!

Profitsbeard said...

If Islam fails to Reform out the Terror in its creed, it will be destroyed.

As all other such totalitarian theocratic lunacies have been destroyed throughout history.

At some point, the self-divided pussyfooting of the West -and all westernized nations- will have enough of this deathcult [you try to leave, they try to kill you] and expunge it from daily life as one more diseased ideology of absolute intolerance sent to the ash heap of oblivion.

Zenster said...

But nobody should confuse the current situation with victory. A victory would have consisted of reducing half the Middle East and South Asia to rubble, and then installing compliant dictators of our own choosing in the half that remained. I can guarantee you that if we had chosen such a path, taking a plane out of Dulles would not be the grueling ordeal that it is today.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, THANK YOU, for having the courage to put into print what I have been saying for years.

Moreover, just try to imagine all the other ways we could be spending almost three billion dollars each week.

As Diana West notes:

After 9/11, the United States embarked on an open-ended war against Islamic terrorism, with varying degrees of foreign cooperation.

And, as Old Bill would say, therein lies the rub.

Islamic terrorism is but one subcomponent of the overall problem. It is not just terrorism but shari'a law, abject gender apartheid, consanguineous marriage, halal slaughter and every last vestige of Islam that must be fought and defeated to set things aright.

Engineer-Poet: More generally, the problem is faith; embrace doubt!

Even as a devout agnostic, I begin to find your religion bashing more than a little tedious. Permit me to furnish an antidote for your prescription of doubt: (from an atheist, no less)

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

− Bertrand Russell −

A little faith may go a long way but a life without it can be more barren than the typical atheist lunar-landscape-of-the-soul.

And, contrary to what you may think, the problem IS Islam. It has always been Islam and will continue to be Islam until Muslims are made to fear for its continued existence on earth in its current form.

Zenster said...

… anyone who truly believes in what is written in the Koran either fights jihad in the name of Allah, or supports those who do.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Give that man a Kewpie doll!

Either our world's Muslim population begins to pay close attention to the full implications of this fact or they can prepare themselves for the looming holocaust whose precipice Islam steers them ever closer to with each passing day.

Islam is the Roach Motel™ of idologies. You can check in but you can never check out (save by going feet first).

Please allow me to be the first to suggest that this post get a permalink on the home page's leftmost side. If only for the sake of your definition of "victory" and Ms. West's splendid parsing − or should I say, paring down − of Islam to its core whilst discarding the childish rinds of -ism, -ist and -ofascism along with "radical", "fundamentalist", "extremist" and every other obsfucative prefix, suffix, rider, qualifier and all the other bowdlerized balderdash that our mincing diplo-speaking Effete Elite™ use to obscure the undeniable truth.

rebelliousvanilla said...

I remember flying as a child(elementary school) and it took about 15 minutes to board once on the airport. Now it takes about an hour comprised of searches and the like. Quite annoying. Funny enough, I had this metallic bracelet that could be made straight and it looked like a knife, I guess, to the airport people and I had to open my bag and look through my panties and bras to find it so that they see it's not a blade. Yep, 18 years old European girls are the terror threat for everyone. But again, profiling is evil, isn't it? :P

Jedilson Bonfim said...

The point made by Profitsbeard reminded me of how Fjordman concluded his essay, Why Israel's Struggle is Our Struggle Too. I don't think that just another Six-Day War, but also the end of oil, could greatly contribute to that, by making mahoundianism die by the sword and also by the impossibility of its adherents to raid caravans of that accident of geology which replaced the booty they found themselves unable to steal from intellectually, economically and militarily superior infidels (US aid to Jordan, Egypt and Porkistan has reestablished some of that though.)

The problem is, I'd like to see Israel go to war against the mahoundian savages surrounding her ONLY after Buraq Hussein has been impeached or lost his bid for reelection. Dhimmi Carter and his naitonal security advisor, with their anti-Israel venom and suggestions that the US should shoot down IDF planes on their way to Teheran, could also no longer be taken seriously by any US leader. That way, Israel wouldn't be alone in her struggle.

And the drying up of the ayrab oil reserves, something for which mahoundians would never be able to make up because of their inherent inability to perform any actual hard work or critical thinking, is still a couple of decades away, unfortunately.

---------------

'The word “terrorism” itself is discouraged, because too many people have come to associate it in their minds with Islam, for some strange reason.'

The excerpt above of this excellent essay clearly shows us why Buraq Hussein's islamophilic and dhimmified administration came up with that man-made-disaster nonsense... Mahoundianism trying to dissociate itself from terrorism would be just like egg rolls and beef chow mein trying to distance themselves form the Chinese-cuisine label, wouldn't it?

LAW Wells said...

Having not too long ago finished Nonie Darwish's Cruel and Usual Punishment, I have great reason to believe that Sharia law is the most fundamental part of the current Islamic stranglehold. It is Sharia that legitimises Islamic revolutions against the Kaffir (for example, the Iranian revolution against the Shah would have been legitimised by this, whereas Christianity would never have theologically permitted it), that legitimises inequality between people based on sex and religion, and that permits those who murder apostates to get off scott free. It is that final point, that those who kill apostates are not punished, that is the ultimate insulator of Islam.

Were the world safe for apostasy, Islam would have to engage in the intense theological battle. Against the elder religions of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and perhaps the revival of ancient religions such as Zoroastrism in Persia, Islam cannot compete, because it is stuck in a theological dearth. They can only interpret the Quran, they cannot add to it, unlike the Bible (which is pretty hefty on its own, but is still supplemented by the substantial works of Aquinas, Bacon and many others), the Torah, and the holy texts of Hinduism and Buddhism (do forgive my ignorance - I've no idea what they're called).

If Sharia were to be demolished, and its abolition made real, then Islam would have to reform itself, or it would die. Either way, it would have to content itself to being a minor religion. And that would require such a radical rethink that Islam without Sharia would be unrecognisable compared with today's Islam, and Islam that is faultless, without sin. Perfect.

I guess they didn't get the memo - nothing made of human hands is perfect. Original Sin may not be a universal idea in Christendom, but it reminds us of our humility, that we are born in sinners, and must work to Grace. Such a philosophy is missing from Islam, and Sharia's removal is the most important step in rectifying that.

Zenster said...

LAW Wells: Were the world safe for apostasy, Islam would have to engage in the intense theological battle.

To put your excellent observation another way; Islam would have to contend as a fair player in the marketplace of competing spiritual ideas. Considering that it marginalizes over half of this world’s population as people without rights solely based upon their gender; that alone would see it rejected more often than not. Even if it were possible to temporarily set aside the barbarity of shari’a law and terrorism (which it isn’t), Islam’s institutionalized policy of abject gender apartheid represents a crucial deal breaker for any civilized culture.

What’s more, Islam has absolutely no intention of competing at all, much less as a fair player. Taqiyya is one of the ultimate ethical crimes and constitutes the very definition of unfair. In addition, Islam could not be bothered to actually compete with anything. It is a warlord ideology whose idea of fair play is killing all resolute contenders through deceit or any other means necessary.

Regardless of how vigorously this world’s political Effete Elite™ try to ignore it, Islam is in a continual state of war with the unbelieving domain of dar al-harb. At its unvarnished core, the Qur’an is a war manual and that is why it prescribes capital punishment for apostasy. Conversion away from Islam constitutes deserting the battlefield in a time of war and Islam has no other interpretation of this act, nor does it want any. There is no compassion for anything not Muslim.

It is also important to recall this as well; No matter how Islam blathers on about supposedly respecting “people of the book” that, too, is a lie. How else to explain its obsession with genocide against the Jews? They are a people of the book but, nonetheless, are the subject of incessant hate. In fact, Islam reserves a special hatred for Jews and Christians as they alone resisted the original Muslim onslaughts that eradicated all pagan cultures from the Arabian Peninsula. This defiance will forever be taken by Islam as an eternal slap in the face.

Against the elder religions of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and perhaps the revival of ancient religions such as Zoroastrism in Persia, Islam cannot compete, because it is stuck in a theological dearth.

Not so much “stuck”, but more like “cemented firmly in place”. Again, Islam has no intention of competing at all and, therefore, has no need to alter itself to suit anybody ever. It does not base itself on appeal but rather, upon a person’s sense of self-preservation, as the only alternatives have always been dhimmitude or death. To prevent any compromise or compassionate alteration of itself, Islam is cut in stone. The door to any independent interpretation through ijtihad was slammed shut nearly a millennia ago and Islam has been trapped in amber ever since.

Zenster said...

LAW Wells: They can only interpret the Quran, they cannot add to it, unlike the Bible (which is pretty hefty on its own, but is still supplemented by the substantial works of Aquinas, Bacon and many others), the Torah, and the holy texts of Hinduism and Buddhism (do forgive my ignorance - I've no idea what they're called).

The Bhagavad Gita and Mahabharata hold that position for Hindus while Buddhists have a more diverse set of guides that include the Tipitaka (Thervada school), plus additional texts for the Mahayana and Tantra schools as well.

If Sharia were to be demolished, and its abolition made real, then Islam would have to reform itself, or it would die.

From all indications, it would rather die and the West has begun to seem rather churlish in denying Islam access to its fervently desired paradise of expired ideologies.

Either way, it would have to content itself to being a minor religion. And that would require such a radical rethink that Islam without Sharia would be unrecognisable compared with today's Islam, [an] Islam that is faultless, without sin. Perfect.

Le bingo! As the received word of Allah through the angel Gabriel, not one speck of the Qur’an can be altered on pain of death. Furthermore, altering any of the five pillars of Islam: The shehada − declaration of faith, salat − five daily prayers, zakat − tithing, saum − fasting during Ramadan or the hajj − each Muslim’s pilgrimage to Mecca, would (as you note above), render Islam alien to itself. Plus the niggling little fact that those Muslims who do attempt to make any such alterations are killed by their more devout co-religionists.

I guess they didn't get the memo - nothing made of human hands is perfect.

This is most likely why the Qur'an is deemed to be the direct word of Allah, so that it is exempt from any such qualification. The interlocking and self-reinforcing characteristics of Islam are no accident. Their explicit purpose is to entrench a superstructure of violently imposed male superiority that has no other intention but world domination.

Proud Infidel said...

An outstanding and right on the money essay, Baron. And Zenster's comments are spot on, as usual.

The refusal to name the real culprit for the terrorism, Islam, is a key element in all this. Watching the contortions people in the US government go into just to avoid the truth about Islam would be amusing if it didn't constitute such a real threat to our safety and well being.

Sadly, it goes back to GW Bush and his "Islam is a Religion of Peace" bunk. I wonder how much better things might be if we had leaders with the courage to call Islam what it is.

gun-totin-wacko said...

What bothers me, and has done for some time is the basis of Islam. At the bottom, the doctrine as I understand it has two pillars. The first is "the rules must favor the prophet. Anything he wants for himself is permissible. If the koran forbids it, then there must be a built-in exemption for Mo." It looks like an insane cult- the rules don't apply to the leader, so he can gain his hedonistic pleasures, and have a textual basis for it, while denying the same pleasures to his followers (except when necessary).

The second pillar is "all things that are good, including paradise, are the nomadic ideal". 72 virgins? Not bad for a primitive culture where women are already considered inferior. MIlk and honey? Pretty uncommon in the desert, I understand. Children as wives? Again, you take what you can get. Constant warfare? Hey, whatever gets me riches, which is all that matters.

Islam is strictly a set of medieval rules laid out for Arabian nomads to use to get ahead in their little corner of the world. It seems to have no utility or relevance to anything outside of the Middle East. But, as many have said, it needs riches to plunder, else it simply can't expand.

Engineer-Poet said...

Zenster, I'm generally anti-dogma.  Doubt kills fundamentalism of all kinds; it's poison to Islam, but also Pentacostalism, Mormonism and much of Catholicism.  It also kills orthodox Objectivism, which is deliciously ironic.

Quoth Jedison Bonifilm:

"also the end of oil, could greatly contribute to that, by making mahoundianism die by the sword and also by the impossibility of its adherents to raid caravans of that accident of geology..."

Yet so many anti-Islamization people insist on driving gas-guzzling vehicles.  There is a huge disconnect there, running something like "economical cars are ``green'', ``green'' is leftist, leftist is pro-Islamic, so if I don't drive a truck I'm giving aid and comfort to other enemies (and my friends will laugh at me)".  Kevin Baker has bought into this, "Wahhabism Delenda Est" notwithstanding.

"the drying up of the ayrab oil reserves, something for which mahoundians would never be able to make up because of their inherent inability to perform any actual hard work or critical thinking, is still a couple of decades away, unfortunately."

You can dry up demand for it, if you're willing to work hard enough at it.  OPEC income has skyrocketed since 2005; they're pumping less, but getting more for it because demand is so high.  The less the demand, the less money they get.  High fuel taxes are one very effective way to dry up demand; Europe has a bunch of cars getting 70+ MPG, and ways to get around besides cars.  Are you willing to sacrifice to end the jihad?  Demand higher gas taxes, no taxes on mileage or tolls (to encourage replacement of oil by other things), and be prepared to pay other taxes as fuel consumption drops.  Freedom isn't free, so stop whining.

Robert Marchenoir said...

Outstanding clarity. That's a commodity we need more of.

Gregory said...

What about the Ahmahdiya muslims? They don't believe in jihad or that muhammad was the last prophet....

Zenster said...

Gregory: What about the Ahmahdiya muslims?

Well, what about them?

Considered complete and total heretics by the majority sects (i.e., Sunni and Shiite), the Ahamadiya are also of such an infintesimal size that their numbers are statistically insignificant by all measures. They might as well be a physical form of taqiyya created specifically by other Muslims to point toward for the purpose of convincing foolish infidels that there are peaceful followers of Allah in this world.

Remember, the Sunnis and Shiites would just as soon kill all of the Amahdiya as pump another barrel of oil. The Amahdiya would do far better converting to another religion such that they will not be so easily confused with other Muslims when Islam finally meets its self-imposed demise.

urah2222 said...

LAW wells -

In a "World Safe for Apostacy" ISLAM would be left with a following approximating that of Zeus, Thor or Ba'al.

Anonymous said...

Quote: "This is the crux of the problem, but it also offers a solution: the way to encourage "moderate" Islam is to create a space in which people can abandon their belief without risking their lives. Millions - perhaps hundreds of millions - of Muslims are ready to leave Islam, but they are justifiably afraid for their lives if they do so.

We need to make the world safe for apostasy." and "The problem is Islam."

Agree. That is the first step in correct direction.

It is not enough to close borders for mass immigration from moslem countries. The moslem part of the population in Western countries grows faster than the rest of the population. Thus they will outnumber non-moslems after some decades.

Of cause it is not possible to dislodge millions of moslems from the Western World to their original home countries. That leaves only one option: The moslems must convert to an other religion. A safer world for moslem apostates is neccessary to achieve this goal.

The next step is counter attack islam because islam is the problem: Encourage moslems to convert. Then we need to see what could motivate conversion from islam. We must remember that religious conversion may be a very difficult task to handle for many moslems. Moslems still need a safe spiritual home, a substitute they can be confortable with, can have peace in mind that they choose right, never have anxiety of ending up in Hell because they left the Creator's will. We could dislike it or not, but in most cases that will probably Christianity is the closest option because they will not have any guilt for leaving the Creator's will.

My impression is that many of those who write critical article on internet about islam, also dislike strongly all kinds of religion. If this is correct, would these people continue to be passive to conversion from islam or expect moslems to convert to atheism only? What is the best soulution - no conversion of moslems or moslems' conversion to Christianity?

In my view, conversion to Christianity would leave no difficult challenges and Christian ex-moslems will be more compatible with Western culture and also be more repellent to sosialist streams. Larger compatibility to Western culture and rejection of sosialism should be the goal.