Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Fjordman: On the Illusion of a Moderate Islam

Fjordman’s latest essay has been published at Jihad Watch. Some excerpts are below:

All things considered, empirical evidence from different continents strongly suggests a common pattern wherein Muslims create repression where they constitute the majority and violent unrest where they constitute the minority. This happens regardless of the ethnic and racial composition of the local population. The only common factor is Islam and the violent supremacist teachings contained in the central texts of this religion. As long as these texts remain unchanged and in force, so will Muslim violence against non-Muslims everywhere.

This leaves another hypothetical possibility for significant change of Islam: That a major armed confrontation with groups of non-Muslims results in such a crushing defeat that it totally shatters the confidence Muslims have in the supremacy of their Faith and their Umma. A Jewish gentleman once pointed out to me that when Roman forces destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the earthly center of Judaism, Jewish scriptures didn’t change per se but were reinterpreted to fit a new situation in the diaspora, as Jews were scattered in different corners of the world. An equivalent to this in Islam would be the destruction of the major mosques in Mecca and Medina. This analogy is imperfect because Judaism has never advocated world conquest and does not exist as a vehicle for achieving global military dominance. Islam does.

Given that Muslims are currently engaged in open conflicts with most of the global centers of power at the same time, and given that many non-Muslims from North America via Western Europe, Israel, Russia and India to China have nuclear weapons, the destruction of Mecca in the course of the twenty-first century should be treated as a real possibility. What kind of effect such an event would have on the Islamic psyche is hard to predict. Perhaps it would shatter Islam completely because the Islamic mentality is based on dominance and supremacy; perhaps it would create a tidal wave of Muslim anger and global Jihad. It is said that those who live by the sword will also die by it. Islam has certainly lived by the sword. Perhaps the creed will exit world history just as it entered: With a great burst of violence.
- - - - - - - - -
To sum up, it is very difficult to see how Islam, based on its existing texts, can be changed into something that is peaceful enough to be satisfactory from a non-Muslim point of view. It is a highly unpleasant thought that a religion with over a billion adherents worldwide is inherently violent and incompatible with a modern society. It is understandable that some observers dislike this idea so much that they create an illusory reality where this isn’t the case, but an honest, straightforward reading of Islamic texts leaves us with few other conclusions.

What, then, is to be done? In the short run, damage control. Islam needs to be caged and restrained as much as practically possible and Muslim Jihadists must be deprived of the financial and technological resources to harm us. Wherever possible, non-Muslims should seek to physically separate themselves from Muslims. In the long run, one can only hope that Islam will be broken by its confrontation with modernity before it forces mankind into a massive confrontation that could cause tremendous human suffering before the dust settles.

Read the rest at Jihad Watch.

11 comments:

mriggs said...

There appears to be one set of circumstances wherein muslims as a minority have historically existed without violent upheaval - under an even more repressive ideology, namely communism. The Soviet Union, Tito's Yugoslavia and Mao's China were sufficiently repressive societies to keep the lid on islamic violence. However, as soon as the repression ended, muslim violence flared, in all these cases.

Lygeia said...

I have my new favorite sentence: "It is a highly unpleasant thought that a religion with over a billion adherents worldwide is inherently violent and incompatible with a modern society." Gosh, Fjordman, I think I love you.

Zenster said...

From the full article: One complicating factor is that lying to or deceiving non-Muslims using techniques known as taqiyya and kitman are perfectly permissible in Islam and widely practiced by Shias and Sunnis alike.

Islam's institutionalized deceit permanently and irrevocably damns it. There will never be any sure way of determining whether or not a Muslim is being truthful. This precludes any otherwise productive forms of negotiation and diplomacy. Exactly as Islam desires, it reduces all interaction to force-of-arms.

While for much of Islam's history this method met with frequent success, modern communications and the Internet have shone disinfecting sunlight on such Muslim perfidy. Also, the Muslim's world's technological stagnation has rendered it particularly vulnerable with respect to Western military capability. It is only lack of political will and the inability to understand the vital role of reciprocity when dealing with Muslims that appears to give them any upper hand.

Can there be such a thing as a reformed, moderate Islam in the sense of a creed whose followers and believers will: coexist peacefully and on equal terms with non-Muslims, without forcing their beliefs or rule on anybody; refrain from reacting violently to perceived criticisms or insults of their Prophet or Holy Book; accept that individual Muslims should be free to openly leave their Faith if they so desire; accept that religion is primarily a private matter that should not regulate all of society according to unequal and totalitarian sharia law?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Still no. Islam is far too repressive and brittle for it to withstand a fair fight in the marketplace of competing ideas. That is why it remains so dependent upon violence. Consider this: was there a single nation or culture in all history that ever adopted Islam voluntarily?

Zenster said...

Erdogan … said: "Assimilation is a crime against humanity."

… Prime Minister Erdogan has repeatedly suggested that "Islamophobia" is a crime against humanity and that there is no such thing as moderate Islam vs. radical Islam, there is only Islam.


One basic aspect of Islam that renders it so incompatible with Western civilization is the readiness with which its adherents indulge in moral inversion.

Islam's historic atrocities and mass murder has been on a scale which probably exceeds that of Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined yet, somehow, demanding that Muslims assimilate in their host nations is "a crime against humanity".

Furthermore, in light of Islam's bloodsoaked history, deeming Islamophobia to be another "crime against humanity" is the most craven sort of attempt to play victim when aggressor has always been Islam's primary role.

This sounds fine on paper, until you analyze the details of his [Thah's] arguments and discover that he retained the option of using violence against those "immature" individuals and peoples who do not quietly submit to Islam, which amounts to a highly traditional view of Jihad.

This is in keeping with Islam's practice of exclusivity whereby all supposedly blanket statements actually apply to Muslims only.

Given that Muslims are currently engaged in open conflicts with most of the global centers of power at the same time, and given that many non-Muslims from North America via Western Europe, Israel, Russia and India to China have nuclear weapons, the destruction of Mecca in the course of the twenty-first century should be treated as a real possibility.

Short of targeted assassinations directed at Islam's clerical, financial, scholastic and political elite, immolation of Mecca and Medina is one of the only other ways of adequately conveying the ultimate fallibility of jihad and Muslim supremacy. That is, without commiting genocide on a scale only matched by Islam.

For this measure to be fully potent, fusion weapons would be required to render the respective areas uninhabitable for centuries. As one wag put it; "After a while, Muslims would begin to feel rather silly bowing five times a day to a plain of hot, smoking glass."

While more desirable, the logistics of holding these shrines physical hostage simply is not practible. Especially not within the West's current political climate.

None of that eliminates the distinct possibility of Islamic terrorists commiting an atrocity of such staggering proportions that obliterating the shrines or even a larger portion of the MME (Muslim Middle East) will emerge as a sole option by which the West can sufficiently demonstrate its displeasure.

NorseAlchemist said...

You know, I like this idea. Let us glass Mecca and Medina. Let's even blow up the Dome of the Rock and give it back to the Jews. No matter what happens after, I'm calling it a win. I do think that all Muslims would rise up and in violence, though, but at the same time, if the World is ready, I don't see why even that should be a problem. In fact, that might even be the solution we've all been waiting for, because then everyone would see Islam's true colors, and those who willfully remain blind would be done away with.

EscapeVelocity said...

Consider this: was there a single nation or culture in all history that ever adopted Islam voluntarily? -- Zenster

France, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Norway?

EscapeVelocity said...

And as Malise Ruthven the Islamic scholar observed;

“If imitatio Christi meant renouncing worldly ambition and seeking salvation by deeds of private virtue, imitatio Muhammadi meant sooner or later taking up arms against those forces which seemed to threaten Islam from within or without.”

Zenster said...

NorseAlchemist: Let's even blow up the Dome of the Rock and give it back to the Jews.

Patience. The Palestinian Waqf are so eager to destroy priceless archaeological artifacts proving early Jewish inhabitation at the Temple Mount that their unauthorized and hurried vandalism is destabilizing the al Aqsa mosque.

The Waqf had received authorization for excavation at the Temple Mount's southeastern corner to construct an emergency exit for the new underground mosque (which had formerly been Solomon's Stables). Authorization was given to widen the mosque's main entrance to a maximum of two meters. The work was conditional on Antiquities Authority inspection, and included only two arches. The Waqf had no authorization to excavate to the depth and width actually completed. Supervision for the excavation was non-existent. Heavy equipment was used, including bulldozers, in violation of the accepted norms at archaeological sites, wiping out and removing entire strata. At the government meeting held to discuss the issue, Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein called the Waqf excavation a swift kick aimed at the history of the Jewish people. Antiquities Authority director Amir Drori called it "an archaeological crime."

Of course, if the mosque happens to collapse, we all know who will get blamed. In fact, an online search indicated a huge number of articles attempting to place blame upon the Israelis who have conducted the majority of their digs under strict guidelines.

Zenster said...

EscapeVelocity: France, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Norway?

Nice gallows humor there, EscapeVelocity. Now, how about addressing the actual question? Can you or anyone else name a country or culture that voluntarily adopted Islam without undue coercion?

Not even the European nations are "voluntarily" adopting Islam. Shari'a is being insinuated into their legal codes through a combination of implicit terrorist threats and willful enabling by Europe's budding Social Engineers™.

I truly doubt that a majority of indigenous Europeans would describe their Islamization as anything remotely resembling "voluntary".

Jewish Odysseus said...

Voluntarily? To ask the question is to answer it!

But the noble dissidents at IraqtheModel put up a great defense of Pope Benedict's critique in 2006, and had a superb quote to definitively answer this particular question:

Sheikh Khaleel Abdul Kareem in his book "Shadu al-Rababa fi Ahwal al-Sahaba" (first edition 1997) said:

"Did the invaded people take the belief of the invaders voluntarily? What were they expected to do after seeing with their own eyes their men being slaughtered even after they surrendered and raised the white flag? Or when they saw their houses burned down, women taken slaves, belongings purged and taxes imposed, where they expected to keep their religion or move to embrace that of their invading masters to get away from the punishment?"

NEXT!

Jewish Odysseus said...

BTW, the link to that 2006 post at ITM (which has some superb history on the mega-atrocities committed in the days of the "prophet") is:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/09/when-will-we-be-ready-to-accept.html