The Myth of “Moderate Islam”

I’ve always spoken to you straight from the hip.  I’m not scared or intimidated by anyone or anything.

So, let me continue by stating the following.  “There is no such thing as “Moderate Islam.”  You are a true follower of the faith or you are not.  Islam is a cut and dried proposition.  It is not gray.  It is black and white.  You are a follower of the faith, and that means lock stock and barrel, or you are not a follower of the faith and therefore not a true Muslim.

I will also say this; Make no mistake about it, we are facing a clash of civilizations and by their accounts Islam is winning, inch by inch, step by step.

Europe is already on the very edge of the tipping point.  For example, how many of you know what is the most common name of males born in the United Kingdom today?  James, William, Joe?  No, it is Mohammed.  However, if you look at the official statistics of the national registry it will not state that the name of the Islamic prophet is the most popular name of males born in England today.  Rather you will see that the national registry has segregated all of the 12 different spelling variations of Mohammed into individual and separate categories so as not to alarm or awaken the general (English) population to the overwhelming increase in birth numbers of Islamic born children in the U.K.  When combined together in the various forms of its spelling.  Mohammed is the #1 name currently being registered on a daily basis in Great Britain.  Needless to say other European countries face far worse.

There are many reasons that have allowed this predicament to occur.  I will not take the time to list them all in this dissertation but it is suffice to say that Islam is aware of all of them.

I will say this; Radical Jihadist Islam has allowed and abetted the slow methodical expansion of Islam to occur right under our noses, under the radar so to speak.  Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and other pro-active radical groups have been the greatest benefactor to the steady methodical march of Islam into the West that Muslim expansionism has ever known.

By grabbing the spotlight through spectacular acts of violence they have garnered the world’s media and political attention.  This has been a great benefit to the overall and much larger underlying Islamic “peaceful” march.  A march toward the breakdown, subordination and domination of Judeo Christian societies and Western civilizations as a whole.  Such is the steady onward march of so called “Moderate Islam.”

It’s time for us to wake the hell up!   Anyone who is a student of Islamic culture, religion and history will note that there is no and there never has been the concept of “Moderate Islam.”

The very doctrine of Mohammed, the Koran and its interpretation does not define, promote or allow the practice of its’ religious tenants in “moderation.”  You are either a Muslim or you are not.

If you would be what this current administration characterizes as a, “Moderate Muslim” you are simply not practicing Islam.

Whereas Christianity and Judaism have always allowed and accepted various degrees of participation and levels of faith, Islam does not and never has since its beginnings.  The Koran is the last word on all things, religious, political, social, and economic.  It dictates the daily activities of its followers, in regard to diet, business, family, education, and legal issues.

Since the Koran represents the transcribing of the literal words of God, (Allah) as dictated via The Angel Gabriel to Mohammed, there is no room left for debate or discussion as to what the intentions, philosophically, socially or religiously are, since God (Allah) is all wise, all knowing and omnipotent there can be no question about their meaning.  And in regard to their relevance to today’s (Modern society) versus their time of creation (Seventh century), since God (Allah) is infinite in wisdom and transcends all time (knowing all from beginning to end), what was written in a seventh century world is without question, 100 per cent applicable and relevant to these modern times.  Any challenge to these words would constitute a direct challenge to God (Allah) himself, an affront of such blasphemy that it is punishable by death.

It is interesting to note that in spite of being God’s words in whole and verbatim, there are seeming contradictions in the prophets (Mohammed) words as written in the Koran.  For example in regard to the tolerance of religions;

It states in Sura 109, “For you your religion, for me my religion.”  This verse is frequently used to show the moderation and tolerance of Islam.

However in Sura 9:29 It states,

“Fight those who believe not
In Allah nor the last day,
Nor hold that forbidden
Which hath been forbidden
By Allah and his messenger
Nor acknowledge the religion
Of truth, from among
The people of the book
Until they pay the Jizya-‘
With willing submission,
And feel themselves subdued.”

Pretty much sums up the Islamic view of tolerance, doesn’t it?

How can this contradiction be?  Can God contradict himself?

The verse Sura 109, is often used by Non-Muslim Apologists and of course Islamists themselves to promote and propagate “The Religion of Peace.”  However what the Non-Muslim apologists do not know and what the Islamists won’t tell is this.  The earlier more benign verses of Mohammed’s writings (Sura 109) were done in the Meccan (610-622 AD) period when he was trying to recruit and convince various tribes, cities and regions to accept and adopt Islam.

The latter verses, including Sura 9:29, more violent, more vengeful and most warlike come from the Medinan(622-632  A.D.) period when Mohammed was busy conquering cities, tribes and regions, forcing those conquered to either convert to Islam or submit to Islam.  A much more effective and profitable strategy for him.

And now.   As to the explanation of this contradiction?  According to the Tafsir (the authorative Koranic commentary) set down in the 13th and 14th centuries by the foremost Imans of their time, the only and final time the words of the prophet have been “explained,” the decision was and is, that where there are ambiguous or contradictory ideas or statements is that the latter verses of the Koran supersede and abrogate earlier verses.

So as Mohammed’s needs for the furtherance of his growing empire of conquest grew, the methods, tactics and justifications of God himself changed to support Mohammed’s violent spread of Islamic domination over the Arabian Peninsula.  How convenient.

The real definition of Jihad

You may have recently seen the current U.S. administration’s recent attempt to define for us, the ignorant U.S. citizen, (their view, not mine) the meaning of Jihad, from the Muslims point of view.  Their statement defining Jihad as “a personal struggle in the individual trying to lead a better, Islamic life” is an insult to the intelligence of every U.S. citizen.   In reality the definition of Jihad according to Islam is not just the word.  Jihad is a shortened version of the words, “Jihad Fi Sabil Allah” meaning: to struggle in the path of Allah.  To struggle in the path of Allah is to; “work to the purpose of advancing Islam” (their definition, not mine).

The Overall Goal of Jihad

Very simply stated, but correctly stated, the overall goal of Jihad is to defeat the enemy by any and all means possible.  The enemy being defined by Islam as those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad.

Islamists realize now as did Mohammed in the Seventh century that the ability to conquer is not always achieved by force of arms.  Therefore Jihad as employed in Muslim terms (not in an Obama administration appeasement definition) has two distinct overall categories that can exist singularly, or in combination depending on the strategy of attack deemed most effective at the moment to achieve Islam’s stated goal, “complete domination of the world.”  These two sides of the same coin (Jihad) are as follows;

Jihad by Force of Arms

The strategy of this form of Jihad is obvious to both us and them.  When Islam judges that it is being threatened or, “under siege,” then it is justified to wage war and use violence in all of its forms to combat the perceived threat.  This includes of course, “Resistance” (Terrorism) in all of its forms, from beheadings to Nuclear and Biological attacks.

Jihad By “Other” Means

The other side of Jihad is the more subtle yet in modern times a more effective strategy.  You could also call it Jihad by cultural infiltration.  This is a concerted effort, by design, to gradually overrun a culture, society or country with an ongoing migration into the target country of both legal and illegal Muslim immigrants.  At some point, the influence of the ever growing population works its way into and penetrates businesses, unions, lobbyists groups, local and regional politics and all other social and political spheres of influence.  Add to this, the extremely high birth rate of Muslim families along with the missionary work of converting non-Muslims to Islam, and the march of “moderate” Islam is in full unified step.

You must understand that this infiltration is not based on these immigrants becoming “Americans” and assimilating into our culture, our form of government, our way of life.  The Islamic religion, by design does not separate religion from any aspect of their society or culture.  There is no separation of church and state in Islam, which is one of the foundation stones of America’s Greatness.  To be a Muslim, you must be all Muslim and that includes everything from the government and its Islamic laws (Sharia) all the way down to what you wear each day.

This process of cultural infiltration also allows those who would, the opportunity and means to facilitate the violent face of Jihad in providing, “inside” help, ie., sabotage, funding, etc., to support actual terrorist attacks against us from within.  In other words, once the network is established, it can and will be used to coordinate acts of violent terrorism.  In fact, it has already happened, most notably the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing and the terrible attacks of 9-11-01.  Again, in fact, all the terrorist attacks including the two just mentioned, and all the foiled terrorist attacks here inside the U.S. (there have been dozens) had as a component of their plans, networking and logistical operations taking place right here, on our soil, in our very midst.  And almost all of these plans involved “moderate Muslims.”

Let me digress for a moment.  A few paragraphs earlier I stated that the ultimate goal of Islam was “complete domination of the World.”  Even now when I hear those words I think of a plot in a bad 1960’s James Bond film.  The frightening thing is that it is not a movie plot.  It is the Islamist plot and it has, is, and will be spoken, written and preached tens of thousands of times in Islamic historic literature, current Islamic doctrinal literature and from the speaking platforms in Mosques all over the World.

A very wise friend told me once that anyone can find numerous calls to violence and cruelty in the Holy books of Christianity and Judaism and that those references are often cited as a tit for tat argument when countering the calls to violence and cruelty listed throughout the Koran.  The difference is that these calls to war, violence or cruelty were done, gone and vanished centuries ago.  Further he stated, “There are not hundreds, thousands, of ministers, priests and Rabbis still preaching to their congregation to go out and commit acts of violence, cruelty, and terror as is currently being done behind the closed doors of Mosques all over this planet, where the calling for Jihad, “resistance”, martyrdom and war against infidels is part of the regular curriculum.  It is important that we understand the overall goals of Islam and have clarity in defining the terms used when analyzing Islamic thought and action.

We cannot just use our understanding of certain words and our Western definitions and simply apply them to Islamic thought and their use therein.  We must look through their eyes, see as they see and how the use of the very same words that comes from their point of view, can carry completely different meanings and interpretations than how we define them.

Islamists and Islamic spokesmen are well aware of this and they certainly do use certain words that carry completely different meanings and interpretations in Islamic doctrine than Western interpretation to their advantage.

Let’s look at the word Terrorism.  In our terms the word means death or destruction brought about against innocents, civilians, and non-combatants designed to bring terror to and to destroy the enemies’ social, economic or political structure.  Their definition does not include the “defensive” use of violence and force, if Islam is, “under Siege.”  They call the use of violence in this case “resistance” and they decide the terms of “Islam under Siege” and it is applied to almost any situation where Islamic interests do not “get their way.”  Islamic thought has extremely elastic conceptions of murder when it comes to condemning non-Muslims.  They call their violent actions in these cases, “resistance” and not terrorism, (even when they blow up a bunch of soccer fans at a World Cup celebration).  So, if the Imans say “we do not support terrorism” or if they say “we support the “resistance” against oppressors,” you know what they are actually saying.

Another often used term is the word freedom.  To us here in the West, freedom can be applied to almost everything we do, everyday.  We really are free, more free than any other society or civilization that has ever existed on this planet.  However to contrast this, the word freedom in Islamic terms and by their definition, is; “to be free to submit to complete subjugation to the will of Allah, Mohammed and Sharia Law.

In Islam this is the perfect society as defined by God himself and its control over Muslims is the application of Sharia Law.  So, when a Muslim states “Yes we too value freedom, or we fight for freedom” their meaning is completely different than what our, Democratic, Judeo Christian meaning is.  To know this enemy you must know how they view the world and the subtle yet effective ways of their methodology.

So you see, that when a Muslim Iman or one of the Muslim sympathy/victim groups such as CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relation), ISNA (Islam Society of North America), or MAS (Muslim American Society), comes out saying that they are against terrorism, and for freedom, it is just a cloak to fool the uninformed about the true intentions of the overall Islamic agenda.

It is, as you can see, their use of words and public pronouncements are nothing more than strategies of deceit on their part, and for the most part we buy into it.

I ask this simple question.  Can a Religion that undeniably advocates, encourages and supports the overthrow and destruction of freedom, liberty and democratically elected governments by violent means be called radical?  Can it be called extreme?

If your answer is yes, then I would ask the following question.

Can a religion that advocates, encourages and supports the overthrow and destruction of freedom, liberty and democratically elected governments by peaceful means be called radical?  Can it be called extreme?

In the end, the result is the same.  And my answer to both questions is yes.  It’s only the methods that differ.  And believe me they’re both in play and one is succeeding.  This is the true face of Islam.

Which brings me back to my original premise that there is no such thing as a Moderate Muslim.

So, in the end, when contrasted to bombs, beheadings and acts of violence, the “other” side of Islam appears meek, mild and “moderate.”  However, the goal of both is the same and we cannot allow the ever growing roots of Islam to take any further hold in America or our social, economic and political system.  Do your research and you will see that the myth of Moderate Islam is just that, a myth.  The so called “Religion of Peace” is making an ever increasing never ending march towards complete domination and destruction of the West and the Judeo Christian Civilization.  If we do not see them in their terms, I am afraid we will be fighting a losing battle that we cannot undo.  We must realize that a war is being waged against us on two fronts and that if we engage one at the expense of the other we will lose a war that we as a civilization, if we are to survive, cannot lose.

Ernest Emerson
The Ranch 

July 2010

Tags: , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply