Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Moderate Muslims: A Case Study

The news article below provides a concise illustration of why any Islamic “Reformation” is unlikely ever to occur. From ANSAmed:

(ANSAmed) - TUNIS, JANUARY 31 - A group of people who showed up yesterday at the airport in Tunis to peacefully protest the return of the leader of the Islamist movement Ennahda, Rached Ghannouchi, chanting slogans such as “yes to Islam, no to Islamism,” were attacked by his supporters, thousands of which had gathered in the arrivals area at the airport. A young Tunisian, Mehda Barsaoui, wrote to the newspapers about the incident today, saying that “we were treated like unbelievers, Zionists, young irresponsible people and that one day Allah will judge our mistakes”. Ennahda supporters started with insults and switched to physical attacks, said the young man, not only ripping the signs held by their rivals away from them, but also “slapping a woman and attacking another two friends”. “This is the freedom of expression of the Islamists,” wrote Barsaoui, “beating demonstrators and slapping women who were not in their place, since they should be at home taking care of the household chores.” [emphasis added]


Islam is a closed logical structure that automatically purges itself of any deviant elements. Much of its energy goes into maintaining a social immune system that surrounds and destroys anything it considers a pathogen — that is, any individual who evidences a failed replication of the ideological DNA of Islam.

That’s why there are so few moderate Muslims: the culture they were born into does not allow “moderate Islam” to exist. Anyone with such inclinations is either killed, driven out, or remains silent.

It’s a very ingenious system. I feel compelled to admire its effectiveness, in the same way I might admire the ruthless lethality of a particularly deadly spider.

12 comments:

sulber nick said...

A refreshingly candid take on Islam c/o The Press, a local newspaper serving the Yorkshire town of Dewsbury (home to the 7/7 London bombers): http://thepressnews.co.uk/Edlines.asp

Elby the Beserk said...

Muslims may be moderate. Islam is not. That's what matters. Until Islam moderates itself, it is a problem for us in the West, moderate Muslims or not.

gsw said...

No moderate prions!

A prion is an infectious agent composed of protein.
When a prion enters a healthy organism, the prion form of a protein induces existing, properly-folded protein to convert into the disease-associated, prion form;

gsw said...

My acknowledgement to wikipedia.org was cut off - my apologies!

joe six-pack said...

No surprises here. A quick comment about moderates: It does not matter.

In 1944, many Germans and Japanese were moderates. It did not matter.

In 1864, Many of the southerners who backed and fought for the Confederacy were moderates.

Islamic governance and law is at war against us. When it comes down to it and shooting starts, who will you side with? Moderate or not, we can expect the average Muslim to do the same. They will back what they know and are familiar with.

Hesperado said...

joe six-pack brings up one good counter-argument to the "Muslims may be moderate. Islam is not" meme (first started by Daniel Pipes, I believe) -- namely, that when a good society is at war with an evil society, the mere existence of "moderates" in the enemy population traditionally has not warranted a moderation of warfare to inordinate degrees. Currently, however, as Diana West has documented exhaustively over the years, our Rules of Engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan has evolved a solicitous anxiety of harming every hair on the head of every innocent Muslim in the region to an absurd degree, reversing the traditional order which the West pursued when it had its head on straight: now we tend to put the lives of hypothetically innocent Muslims in the war zone above the lives of our soldiers.

Which brings me to the second good counter-argument to the "Muslims may be moderate. Islam is not" meme: given a complex of factors that one would only know were one up to speed on the elementary facts about Islam and about the society and psychology of Muslims, we cannot discern with accuracy sufficient for our primary concern (our safety) whether any given Muslim is genuinely "moderate" (i.e., genuinely harmless to us). This inability on our part becomes magnified with a complexity fraught with peril when we consider Muslims in large numbers, pullulating and motile throughout the global diaspora and increasingly throughout the West.

Thus, reason would lead us to conclude that not only is the "Muslims may be moderate. Islam is not" meme unwarranted, it is downright dangerous, for it tends to reinforce the notion that we can discern which Muslim is harmless and which isn't, and this in turn perpetuates our lack of concern about the millions of Muslims immigrating into the West (every decade and breeding when here under their demographic jihad bolstered by unofficial polygamy).

For me, this isn't merely a matter of not liking masses of Muslims among us in my society; nor it it merely a matter of disliking their ways, customs and laws. Primarily, it's a matter of the fact that among those masses are innumerable fanatics obsessed with mass murdering as many of us as possible and fomenting terror and chaos through WMD attacks, to pave the way (in their minds) for a destabilization and demoralization of the West sufficient to gain Muslims a foothold for eventual conquest. Given the sophistication and superiority of the West, it would be extremely difficult to plan WMD attacks: a complex cell of Muslims would have to get all its ducks in a row through many years of patient planning, during which time they would have to lie low under the radar. We are not talking about the buffoonery of the Times Square bomber, or the shoe bomber; nor of the deranged volunteerism of the Fort Hood shooter. We are talking about a deadly-serious sophisticated network of Muslims who have the long view, perfectly capable of waiting two decades, if need be. It would be unconscionably irrational (and naive) for us to assume that there are not innumerable Muslims whom we cannot pinpoint who are in fact in the planning stages for such attacks. And their success in finalizing such attacks in the future will be helped by the sheer presence -- and relative acceptance -- of millions of Muslims throughout the West in various places and levels of society.

Richard said...

Hesperado and Joe Sixpack have it right, in WWII we fought all Germans not just the Nazi's, just as we fought all Japanese, not just the ones attacking us. If we don't wake up and start fighting this was as a war of survival with all Moslems being considered dangerous we are going to lose a lot more people. This tactic of not everyone in a group is our enemy was tried before WWII and rejected once the shooting started, now the left has enough control of the news media they can continue to push this idea.

Mikishman said...

I don't know how joe six-pack can compare Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan with Southerners who were fighting for their independence. The first two were trying to conquer people and committed genocide. The Confederates were just trying to start there own country and were conquered by the north. They didnt invade anybody. They were fighting for their freedoms and lost (obviously not for blacks but the North was not any better in that regard). Could they be considered extreme? If an invading army invaded your state and you fought against them would you be considered extreme?

goethechosemercy said...

I've read at least one excellent historical comparison between the Antebellum South and Saudi Arabia in the present day.
If you favor slavery, you are definitely one of the ummah. You have submitted already.
And if you try to justify the protection of slavery, they you are definitely on the Oriental side.
In the end, you will favor life in an Islamic-run state, mikish. You will knuckle under and SUBMIT.

Mikishman said...

goethechosemercy I don't think that you read my post. It wasn't a defense of slavery. Thats just a ridiculous smear. In fact I said the Confederacy did not provide freedom for blacks. The war wasn't about slavery, initially it was about Tariffs namely the morrill tariff of 1861. Slavery became a larger issue after the emancipation proclamation of 1863. Also the North had slavery until 1865, namely Delaware, Maryland and the parts of the south that had already been occupied by the north at the time of the proclamation. Saying that I submit to islam merely because I pointed out that the Confederates were a people who fought and resisted what they considered tyranny, is ridiculous. How is defending someone who fought equal to submission? You are the one who would submit to islam not me. Since you seem to think that resistance is pointless and by definition that is a submission.

Mikishman said...

Here is a good article about the Morrill Tariff.

Morrill Tariff

goethechosemercy said...

The Civil War was not about slavery?
I've done three extensive field readings for comprehensive exams in American history.
I know what the Civil War Was about.
And if I tried to assert or argue that it was not about slavery, I'd be laughed right out of the damn profession.
Southern plantation owners, in the run-up to the war and even during and immediately afterward, asserted time and time again that the war was about their right to own slaves. They said the war was about slavery repeatedly.
It was only in the 1870s and 1880s, when the segregationist South was being created, that they began to argue otherwise.
These facts have been documented.
The Civil War was about slavery.
The Antebellum South was a reactionary political community.
It is easily compared to the Muslim world.