| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| Your Honey Or Your Lyin’ Eyes?: The myth of a vibrant “moderate Islam |
| 2006-02-15 |
| Little wonder that the moderate, influential Muslim Council of Britain refers to Qaradawi as "a voice of reason, understanding and wisdom." Indeed, with moderates like these abounding, how surprised should we be to find Secretary Rice herself — while very publicly hosting an Iftaar dinner to mark the end of the "holy month" of Ramadan — bestowing a federal promotion on the Muslim Umma, whose creed, she announced, is now the "religion of love" as well as the firmly entrenched "religion of peace." (The ACLU was evidently unavailable for comment.) "We in America," Rice effused, "know the benevolence that is at the heart of Islam." A MIRAGE At least we say we do. And we repeat it with all the sincerest, heel-clicking fervor of Dorothy's chanting "There's no place like home" while she hopes against hope that all will be well when she opens her eyes. We all want to believe there is a vibrant "moderate Islam." Not just the State Department, the CIA, the Bush administration, the European Union, and the West, but all people of good will. Nonetheless, the contemporary vision of "moderate Islam" as a meaningful force for good is a mirage. Certainly there are moderate Muslim individuals. Large pockets of them, there and there, who have assimilated to the modern world and want only to live in ecumenical peace. But many of the people we call "moderates" are flat-out phonies, the bag-men who rise on the shoulders of the leg-breakers. The authentic moderates, meanwhile, tarry in muted resistance to the domineering strain of their faith. The strain we like to tell ourselves is a mere fringe. The strain that has just managed, yet again, to unleash untold thousands (not handfuls of militants, but transcontinental thousands) to maraud over a trifling affront. The moderates must carry on by pretending, much like the State Department pretends, that the commands of their scriptures — toward brutality, beheading, conquest, death to unbelievers, eternal damnation to apostates, the subjugation of women, the dehumanizing of non-Muslims, and so on — either do not exist or have somehow been superseded (even though the Koran is said to reflect the words of Allah Himself, and even though much in it of a threatening nature actually comes later in time than the passages bespeaking moderation and tolerance). RTWT |
| Posted by:Robert Crawford |
| #11 In the West they are over dependent on welfare. Now, now. They don't think of it as welfare, but as jizya. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-02-15 20:49 |
| #10 The Labor participation rates of Muslims generally hovers around 50% of the population, globally. In the West they are over dependent on welfare. And Muslims can't legitimately point the finger at discrimination, because the low participation figure applies even in Islamic tyrannies. In prominently Muslim, Indonesia and Malaysia, ethnic Chinese participation is 10% higher than that of the lazy ass, carpet humpers. Most Western democracies prohibit data gathering based on race, hence little hard data is available on Muslim sloth and parasitism. Check out your local halal shops at 10AM, and I guarantee you will see innumerable Abdullahs doing the lazy dog act, at the expense of hardworking "kafirs." I wish they would do that back in their cess-pool homelands. Islam is a sandbag on Modernism. Muslims are the cockroaches of humanity. And their umma is a stagnation factory. Brotherhood sucks! Everybody: GET MEAN! |
| Posted by: Spaviting Glavise6090 2006-02-15 16:59 |
| #9 Besides, State doesn't know sh*t from shinola. ;) |
| Posted by: BH 2006-02-15 15:56 |
| #8 But State's job is to paint the poops. Can't polish a turd. :) |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2006-02-15 15:11 |
| #7 But many of the people we call "moderates" are flat-out phonies, the bag-men who rise on the shoulders of the leg-breakers. Yup. Which is why I've published my "Tipping Point" article today. The cartoon controversy has finally torn the mask off of "moderate Islam." |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-15 12:35 |
| #6 I'm starting to agree with you re: lawmakers or politicians, SR, since the Muslims have responded to our soothing, non-escalating, religion of peace offerings by shoving Mohammed's sword in our faces. But State's job is to paint the poops. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-02-15 11:58 |
| #5 Diplomacy should not be just saying nice things - it is advancing the nation's business without the big stick. Appeasing the Muslims about foundational freedoms does not advance the nation's business, and it makes "continuing diplomacy by other means" more likey. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-02-15 11:46 |
| #4 State sez nice things, arm forces bring the club :) |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-02-15 11:12 |
| #3 great article. But I still don't understand all the outrage over the State Department issuing diplomatic statements. Isn't that their job? Also in the article, at whom it bats one winsome eye while winking at suicide bombers with the other. It's State's job to bat their eyelids as our army crushes them. I don't know, maybe it's just me. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-02-15 10:52 |
| #2 Secretary Rice herself — while very publicly hosting an Iftaar dinner to mark the end of the "holy month" of Ramadan — bestowing a federal promotion on the Muslim Umma, whose creed, she announced, is now the "religion of love" as well as the firmly entrenched "religion of peace." Well, what'd you expect? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-02-15 10:32 |
| #1 Sorry. This should prob. be p4. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-02-15 10:05 |