The Islamophiliacs and the EDL

Our British Correspondent JP takes this opportunity to specifically attack the fence-sitters who refuse to come out in public to defend the EDL when they are in influential positions to make a difference.

The British No-Islam-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) Squad — The B-NIMBLE-SQUAD in disavowing the English Defence League

by JP

Among back-slapping Etonians and other stalwarts of this small island establishment, Cameron’s clownish antics at the G20 may have won our increasingly-detached from reality Prime Minister some lukewarm applause. But Cameron forgot to mention in his list of Great British Achievements (not to mention endless repeats of the Britain’s Olympics opening ceremony — the greatest celebration of mindless multi-kulti propaganda since Leni Riefenstahl’s Nazi shenanigans) our very own merry band of Islamophiliacs — one can mention them by name without great embarrassment or discomfiture, since they themselves admit to such — Melanie Phillips, Douglas Murray, Andrew Gilligan, John Ware; the list is endless.

And how do these self-confessed Islamophiliacs, for this is undoubtedly what they are, proclaim their adherence to Islam and its entire evil works? They do this by any number of means — through faults of omission, subfuscation, obfuscation. They have books to write, mortgages to pay, the full spectrum of entanglements which prevent them from them taking an honest look at what Muslims do and say, and taking ethically-sound journalistic steps to inform their readership of what is taking place in our towns and cities, in Europe, the USA, and most everywhere else.

Surely they have taken lessons at the feet of Horror and Horrorwitz with their ability to twist truths and argue against factual evidence. For their ultimate shame and everlasting iniquity is to scapegoat the English Defence League, as if the inability of the British Government to control and police its unruly, uncouth, vulgar, and quite frankly, murderous Muslim community is somehow the fault of a bunch of unruly and uncouth English lads who like a pint occasionally.

It needs to be spelt out loud and clear to Phillips and her ilk that when it comes to an understanding of Muslims and Islam in the United Kingdom, or anywhere else for that matter, that she is holding the wrong end of her too-clever-by-half stick.

There are no moderate Muslims in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in the world. They do not exist. Repeat: there are no moderate Muslims anywhere on this planet. There are Muslims who are inert, there are some that are politically active, there are others that lead moderately sedate lives, but to actually characterize a Muslim as moderate is a fallacy, an inconceivability, a panjandrum of an astonishing singularity. Find me a moderate Muslim and I will produce you a unicorn or a fiddling leprechaun, hey presto.

It is a gross disgrace for writers such as Phillips, Ware, etc., to calumniate the EDL and to purse their lips when it comes to discussing its activities, as if Phillips et al are in league with the authorities in a damage limitation exercise to keep a lid on an explosive situation, to scapegoat the EDL in the mistaken belief that somehow the British on this small island, which Cameron chortles has produced such great wonders of history, will muddle through, Blitz spirit, carry on camping amidst a surfeit of endless Jane Austen and Downton Abbey re-customizations while Muslims Islamify this country to their hearts’ content.

Get this straight — it is people like Cameron and his misbegotten cabinet of power-hungry ornaments that will ensure Britain, England, Wales, have no history when the salami-slicing Islamic project of conquest of the UK reaches its not-so inevitable conclusion. The alternative of a bloody awful civil war might lead to a pile of smouldering rubble which may retain an aroma of spent forces unpleasant to the nostrils, but is one option of which many ordinary people could quite correctly say: ‘Could see it coming, without a doubt.’

The reality is that Muslims do not mix with other communities and are toxic wherever they may be found: countries would do well to control the number of Muslims permitted to reside within their borders, and those that do decide to live in the West should be reminded in no uncertain terms that they reside in these countries according the laws of those countries and fake religious courts will be prohibited, ridiculed if need be, particularly the misogynistic sharia courts, one of Britain’s most grievous mistakes, which should never have been allowed to mushroom into such prolific prominence. Similarly, every single minaret defacing our towns and cities should be removed, no argument.

Credit to Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League for recognising these essential facts, and eternal shame on the Britain’s small island establishment enforcers for getting it so wrong, but then the British small island establishment has had centuries of practice of being maladroit when it comes to questions of leadership, and were it not for the achievements of small groups of individuals, we would be rooting around in the dirt for turnips and other salutary treasures.

References:

1.   Melanie Phillips: “A hysterical and ignorant response”, Melanie Phillips’ blog, 29 June 2013.

Quote Phillips: It [EDL] targets mosques indiscriminately for its demonstrations, threatening Muslims regardless of whether they are extremists or not.

This is simply a lie — the EDL has consistently targeted mosques and communities of Muslims which are quite relaxed about harbouring extremists in their midst, for example, the East London Mosque, itself subject of a one journalistic crusade to expose its extreme Islamic politics in the borough of Tower Hamlets. See for example Andrew Gilligan’s blogs at the Daily Telegraph, and who has earned for himself the right to call Lutfur Rahman an extremist Muslim, which is all very well, but when it comes to the EDL, Gilligan is a bit too quick to apply the nose-pegs of small establishment conformity.
 

2.   Douglas Murray: “Mehdi Hasan and the EDL”, Coffeehouse blog, The Spectator, 30 July 2013

Quote: To claim that this statement constitutes a ‘welcome’, expression of ‘support’ or praise of the EDL is to rather obviously ignore not only an ‘If’ and a crucial ‘But’, but everything else besides.

And Murray should be careful of over-fastidious fence-sitting, not to mention mortgages, TV appearances and a whole host of benefits which come from kow-towing to the official line.
 

3.   John Ware: “Time to wise up to the Muslim Brotherhood”, Standpoint magazine, July/August 2013

Quote: What particularly worries Merley is that extreme right-wing groups here and in America are filling this vacuum. They claim that all Muslims are the problem and that the Koran is at the heart of a Muslim master-world plot. This is as dangerous as it is unjust.

Well, if the Koran is not at the heart of a Muslim master-world plot I don’t know what is — in my opinion the Koran should be handled with extreme caution and it should not be taught to school-children in the UK or any other Western country without certain caveats in place. They can do what they like in the Muslim world and they can reap the fruit of what the Koran has to offer: mayhem, bloodshed and axiomatic ignorance until eternity.
 

52 thoughts on “The Islamophiliacs and the EDL

  1. good stuff here…
    dumping on the edl is a great way of keeping
    the rays of the sun off of one’s head..eh??

  2. Personally, I think people should know the truth about the Koran. They should learn about its violent message. The more I understand about islam, the more I hate it.

  3. There certainly is a class divide in the UK regarding Islam. I wonder if some of the elites in the UK were sentenced to spend 6 months of their lives in Luton that they might feel differently…
    I am reminded of a cruise I took in 2002 on the Danube through Romania and Bulgaria. There was a couple on the cruise from the San Diego area that had been to almost everywhere else in the world. Having recently fled from SoCal because of the invasion of Spanish speakers into our school system and the heavy public cost of health care, etc. I asked them what they thought of the influx of “non-English speakers” into our culture. The wife quickly replied “they come in, mow the grass and go home.”
    Until a change of culture/language directly impacts you it is very easy to ignore. When your Dr. office has all Spanish speaking magazines; none in English, it becomes less so.
    This is the problem with the elites. They have little if no impact with the changing culture. Were every single politician in the UK be condemned to 6 months in Luton I think they would be marching with the EDL!

    • BTW both my boys were fluent in Spanish by the time they were in 9th grade… Anyone raising a child in the United States today that doesn’t demand that they be fluent in Spanish is a moron.
      If you want an entry level job in a host of industries; and I am talking about one up from a ditch digger, you better be fluent in Spanish…

      • “Anyone raising a child in the United States today that doesn’t demand that they be fluent in Spanish is a moron.”

        That sounds a bit like surrender to me.

        The morons in this scenario are the Mexicans. They had a country. It was called “Mexico.” What did they do with it? The same thing they’re going to do to the American Southwest: wreck it and move on. They are incapable of concocting a long-term vision for anything.

    • Recently I heard a man describe taking his young daughter to her first day of public school in San Jose (a long way from the border) and finding that nearly everyone else there was speaking Spanish. He then learned that all instruction would be given in Spanish, except for the English-language class. This was confirmed on the air by the person who picked up the phone when the radio host called the school. The man found other arrangements for educating his daughter.

      Most of the advocates of amnesty or open borders — at least those who aren’t leftists or La Raza activists — have probably not had this kind of experience, or even gone into a store right here in America and heard mostly Spanish around them. They indulge in airy pronouncements about immigrants being the soul of the country, the engine of economic growth, etc., because they don’t see up-close the real results of the open-borders philosophy. At least not yet.

  4. I stated this before.
    Why don’t we have these discussions about Hindus or Sikhs.
    I am old enough to remember Hindus being here in the 1940s and we
    never had the trouble we are experiencing now.
    As is said in the article, fact speak for themselves.
    The following is a quote from Winston Churchill in “The River War” as far back as 1899

    “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
    Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
    “The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
    A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

  5. Luke 11:24-26 (ESV) states: “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and finding none it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house swept and put in order. Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there. And the last state of that person is worse than the first.”

    We need to be very careful what spirits we invite in. And when we kick out the false, we need to fill our hearts and minds and nations with the truth about Christ. Nothing else will stand up.

  6. The EDL is not a political party , it is the nucleous of an as-yet not existing army strugling to come into existence .
    The first time I saw Tommy on TV this was clear to me , because Tommy is the kind of guy who inspires men like me to follow them into an aparently lost battle . I once had a sargent whith that same quality , and one of the most important memories of my life is the Time Of Doubt when this man made me follow .
    This Quality is ofcourse why Tommy is feared and hated by the establishment .
    The future is unknown , but in my favorite version of it Tommy Robinson has a role to play ,that will change history . In the right circumstances , he could lead an army of a kind not seen in english history since Cromwell .

    • Agreed re Tommy’s virtues. He *is* charismatic and very smart. I’ve noticed he learns quickly in the areas that interest him and it makes me furious to think how the English caste system wasted this capable young man. Not only wasted his talents but are deliberately trying to destroy what he does have to offer in saving their sorry selves.

      Tommy is an example of what is so so wrong with modern Britain. His obvious intelligence should have been grabbed while he was in the early grades and good teachers should have steered him toward a cornucopia of learning. That they failed to do so is more than just their loss, it’ s actually costing them still.

      Those upperclass snobs have half the brains and a tenth the grit and tenacity of Tommy Robinson. They aren’t fit to shine his shoes (oops. Don’t think you can shine trainers).

      Any culture that fails to promote the best among them is on the road to ruination. Sad, sad Britain.

      I think we are going to fail just as badly too.

    • The establishment in Britain have always feared the masses since the New Model Army essentially gained control of the country at the end of the civil war. This is why Tommy and the EDL are so feared and persecuted by the state. The EDL is a genuine populist grassroots movement, totally outside the control of the elites, and Tommy is very much its inspiration.

      Talking heads like Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips do pose anything like the same threat. They may be safely permitted onto mainstream programmes, where they are always heavily outnumbered by the acolytes of the left, despite their non-pc message. They know, and accept, that they can only go so far if they wish to maintain their cosy sinecures.

      Tommy has no such restraint and is therefore regarded as persona non grata by the talking heads. Tommy may not have the flowery eloquence of some but he more than makes up for it with his sincerity, something entirely lacking in the political establishment. No one who has heard him speak can doubt that Tommy believes every word he says, that he speaks straight from the heart and not from a cynical calculation of his own interest. His passion comes across clearly in his words and motivates others to follow him.

      Get Douglas Murray, for example, to address the crowd at half time in a packed Wembley stadium and his rhetoric would go over their heads. Tommy in the same situation could get 100,000 people following him down the road. That’s why the establishment fear him.

  7. Singapore’s population is 15% Muslim but, you never hear of them causing trouble. The reason: the authorities will not put up with Islamic misbehaviour, and the Muslims know it.

    • A few questions then.

      Do you think the 15% Muslim population in Singapore is there to succeed in their endeavors?

      Do you think Singapore’s strikingly successful business environment atttacts the cream of Muslims?

      Those who don’t want to sponge off the country but are ambitious entrepreneurs?

      • I had many gay friends in Singapore, who used to bitch and moan about having to do military service. These gay professionals in their 30s, had been doing military service every couple of years since they were 18.

        Singapore has a population of 5 million, and a reserve army of almost 1 million. Incredibly, it looks like even their regular army is the size of that of Iran and Egypt. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/armies.htm (I find that really hard to believe).

        I asked my friends why Singapore is so obsessed with their army. “Because we are surrounded by muslim countries”, came back the answer.

  8. I don’t have anything original to add here…so I’m going to repeat what I’ve heard about Moderate and Radical Muslims.
    A Radical Muslim is one who wants to kill the infidels. A Moderate Muslim is one who wants the Radical Muslims to kill the infidels.
    A Moderate Muslim is one who’s out of ammo.
    A Moderate Muslim is one who’s surrounded.
    A Moderate Muslim is one who knows Absolutely Nothing!! about Taqiyya.
    A Moderate Muslim is one who’s waiting for his friends to show up.

  9. I’m astounded by this article.

    Anyone who knows me and my writing knows I’m under no illusion about Islamists, The Muslim Brotherhood (I refer to them as Nazis with a crescent instead of a swastika) or jihadis in general. I’m also by no means ignorant of the Qu’ran, the hadiths or sharia or hostile to Tommy and the EDL.

    For that matter, I’ve even had an e-mail conversation with Melanie Phillips, whom I know slightly over the piece referenced here.

    But this article goes way over the line.

    So there’s no such thing as peaceful, decent people whom happen to be Muslim? Horse manure. I know a number of them. For example, one of them is a Turk he emigrated to America, joined the marines as a teenager, spilt blood for MY freedom, rose through the ranks and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. Another is a teacher from Sri Lanka who runs an amazing pre-school in my neighborhood. Both of them are two of the most decent people I know, and reasonably observant Muslims, but like people of all religions pick and choose what’s relevant to them. Is it their fault that the last few governments in Britain and America promote the Muslim Brotherhood and wahabi Islam for political and pecuniary reasons? Are you seriously telling me that every Muslim in Britain is a jihadi?

    Are you aware that at least in America, most of the terrorist plots concocted by jihadis have been outed by Muslims themselves, who heard something or saw something and told the authorities? Is it their fault the UK decided to become a haven for jihadis (complete with dole benefits) and made sharia the equivalent of British law for domestic matters? Is it their fault that in America, the entire leadership of Muslim Brotherhood front groups was saved from being jailed because Attorney General Eric Holder refused to prosecute them? Do you really think there weren’t a number of Muslims who wanted the kingpins behind ISNA, CAIR, ITNA and MPAC put away? Do you think there aren’t some Muslims bright enough to realize that jihadis paint them with the same brush and endanger their own peace and freedom?

    Put the blame where the blame belongs, please.

    This article suggests summarily deporting most Muslims because they’re all evil, because ‘all Muslims do not mix with other communities and are toxic wherever they may be found’ , and advocates destroying their religious structures. It wants any permitted to live in your country to be reminded constantly that they’re mere guests whose beliefs can be ridiculed and who can be tossed out whenever you feel like it.

    Go back and read Der Stürmer, Völkischer Beobachter , or Hitler’s speeches in the early 1930’s. They weren’t specifically talking about genocide then, but steps exactly like the ones you outline – for Jews, whom they describe exactly as this article describes all Muslims. For that matter, take a look at sharia, the sections on dhimmis and how they’re to be treated. Any difference? Not that I can see.

    The ironic thing is that Tommy Robinson, in every public utterance that I’ve heard doesn’t endorse this kind of behavior towards Muslims either. He’s smart not to do so, because this kind of behavior leads to two outcomes, neither of which I hope you want. On the one hand, it empowers jihadis, who can point to it and use it to recruit Muslims – ‘see how they feel about you? we’re your one hope, your only protection’. On the other hand, it distances you from people like me who aren’t willing to go to the lengths you recommend and embrace injustice ourselves.

    Remember what Victor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor had to say about this “The only division in mankind is between the decent and the indecent.” Though I would add that people cross over those lines in both directions from time to time.

    There’s a middle ground to be found here. Think about it.

    My apologies for the rant.

    Rob Miller@ Joshuapundit

    • @Rob Miller,

      “Is it their fault the UK decided to become a haven for jihadis (complete with dole benefits) …”

      Selective islamophobia and class antagonism, the (comment) criteria for the classification of bad muslim – good muslim appears to be based on socioeconomic status – good jihadists work, bad jihadists claim the dole.

      A democracy of the hypocrisy class that will share the platform of the House of Lords with Lord Jihad and the TV studio with Jurno-Jihad but will not dare be associated or share the platform of the streets with the “thuggish elements” of the EDL, waged or unwaged. A self defeating class xenophobia, the “thuggish elements” of the UKCJ should remember to put the islamaphobic marbles in their mouths before muttering any counterjihad thoughts, otherwise you will be classed as a “thuggish element”, a class status lower than that of the jihadists.

    • Dear Rob
      Your reaction highlights the single greatest problem we have in the world today; the one that is behind all the others. That problem is the rejection of objective truth and objective morality in favour of relativism and emotion.

      You, understandably, like your friends (acquaintances?) the ex-Marine and the teacher. They call themselves Muslims, they are “reasonably observant”, “but like people of all religions pick and choose what’s relevant to them.” Newsflash: they are not Muslims, they are apostates. This is not my opinion, or my bias, or my bigotry, or my racism, or my “Islamophobia”. This is Islamic dogma, agreed upon by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence and it is much more comprehensive and far-reaching than most people are aware. In “Reliance of the Traveller” a definitive exposition of apostasy includes:
      ”3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death” pp. 595-598
      And:
      ”(O: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. It may come about through sarcasm, as when someone is told, “Trim your nails, it is sunna,” and he replies, “I would not do it even if it were,” as opposed to when some circumstance exists which exonerates him of having committed apostasy, such as when his tongue runs away with him, or when he is quoting someone, or says it out of fear.)”
      ”o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”
      ”o8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).”
      But it gets worse:
      ”ACTS THAT ENTAIL LEAVING ISLAM”
      ”o8.7 (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:
      (7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it;”
      ”(8) to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith is”;”
      ”(14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma’, def: b7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);”
      ”(17) to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;”
      ”(19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;”
      ”(20) to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-‘Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24).)”
      ”There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)
      p. 109, f1.3”
      If they are picking and choosing what’s relevant to them, they are not implementing Sharia as fully as their circumstances permit and, therefore, are apostates. This is one of the main justifications jihadis have for murdering so many of their supposed co-religionists across the globe and it is “nearly limitless”.

      No:14 and No:20 above are doozies when one reads in “Reliance of the Traveller” that:

      ”1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation
      pp. 599-603”
      ”THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD
      09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),”
      “He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,”
      ”WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD
      Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able-bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.”

      So, your plea to, ”Put the blame where the blame belongs, please.” is answered by explaining that the blame belongs with mainstream, theologically (in Islamic terms) justified and fully observant Muslims. This is what JP means when he says, “There are no moderate Muslims in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in the world. They do not exist. Repeat: there are no moderate Muslims anywhere on this planet.”

      Your assertion that, “This article suggests summarily deporting most Muslims because they’re all evil…” is simply false, no such formulation or suggestion appears in JP’s article. This is the Ron Radosh technique of critiquing things that aren’t there.

      I’ve had to do some tactical breathing and calm down before addressing the jaw-dropping moral relativism displayed in your comparison of JP’s article to Nazi propaganda and Sharia law. I really have to ask, are you serious? Are you serious! Because, unless you are joking, only five conclusions can be drawn from what you say:
      1. You haven’t actually read any real Nazi propaganda (not likely)
      2. You haven’t actually read JP’s article (doubtful)
      3. You haven’t actually read any Sharia law or koranic exigesis (highly likely)
      4. You are dishonest (I hope not)
      5. You have been thoroughly conditioned into a morally and culturally relativist worldview which you are unable to see beyond (dead certainty)

      And, again, you are ”Radoshing” (I claim copyright!) by stating, ”They weren’t specifically talking about genocide then, but steps exactly like the ones you outline – for Jews, whom they describe exactly as this article describes all Muslims.” No, that isn’t in JP’s article. It isn’t there. You are making this up.

      Your conclusion is the same suicidal relativism and lack of understanding of doctrinal Islam that we have, sadly, grown accustomed to from the overwhelming majority of mainstream commentators, including those supposedly trying to alert us to the dangers of “radical Islam” (whatever the hell that is), as JP so clearly and accurately points out. So, to sum up where you are wrong in your conclusion:
      1. Jihadis want to kill and conquer the entire non-Muslim world because it is an irreducible and immutable central doctrine of their faith, irrespective of absolutely anything we say or don’t say, do or don’t do (short of becoming Muslims ourselves).
      2. People like you who are unable or (more commonly) unwilling to fully grasp the reality of Islam and it’s inescapable implications and consequences for Western civilization, and who urge yet more moral and cultural relativism, are an active support and enabling factor for the cause of the global Caliphate.
      3. There is no middle ground.

      • There is a middle ground, but it is small and under attack from both sides.

        The middle ground is Muslims who do not accept the authority of the Koran. You agree with the Koranic Jihadists that those who do not accept the Koran as authoritative are apostates. Think about that for a moment.

        Why uncritically accept the Jihadist claim that the Koran is absolutely authoritative? Wouldn’t it make sense to think about why the Jihadist claims this? Shouldn’t the fact that the Muslims most emphatic about the unquestionable authority of the Koran are the most violent and radical give you pause about acceding to their view?

        In point of fact, the authority of the Koran is historically indefensible. It is clearly established that the collection of transcribed Suras to be propagated as Islamic teaching was at least denigrated by Mohammad and understood to be prohibited prior to the writing of the Koran. It is also clear that the most prominent living followers of Mohammad were vehemently opposed to the content of the Koran, characterizing the Suras presented as perversions and fakes. This is a historical fact, which can be proved on the evidence.

        The essential values of Western Civilization restrict actions like banning a religion outright. But they commend measures to punish and discourage provable fraud, and the teaching that the Koran is an authoritative source of Islam is just such a fraud. It can be proven beyond any doubt that the Koran is fundamentally contradictory to Mohammad’s teachings and therefore cannot be trusted in any detail it represents as Islam.

        If we continue to behave as if this is of no consequence, we sacrifice the most effective means of fighting Jihad without abandoning the basic values of Western Civilization. I do not claim that there is no other option, no other way to hold the line against Koranic Islam without sacrificing the principles of a free society. But demanding that the Koran be presented in its verifiable historical context as an aberration from Islam rather than accepting it as the foundation of Islam is the best strategy I have seen, and if there is a better strategy I think it will only be found by honestly confronting the historical truth about the Koran.

      • @MANOFTHEWEST

        Hello, and thanks for the reply.

        You are quite correct that to the four main Muslim fiqhs as they now stand, these people are apostates. As the Blind Sheik famously said, ‘There is only Islam and not-Islam’. And you’re also correct that an awful lot of Muslims have been murdered on those grounds.

        But we are NOT Muslims, and that has nothing to do with how WE act. The Muslims I’m talking about still pray and observe many tenets of Islam but have gone past the misogyny, the violence for Allah, the hatred of Jews and other non-believers and pose no danger to anyone. Should we therefore forget our own principles and start labeling people as toxic because they’re Muslim apostates? Do we want to cede that ground to the jihadis?

        The jihadis have their worldview, that as Mo told his followers before he died, that non-believers can choose to be Muslims, corpses or slaves. Are we going to sink into that extreme from the other direction? As I said earlier, Tommy Robinson, to his credit has never done a blanket condemnation of all Muslims in any public utterance of his that I’ve heard.

        And it’s the blanket labeling that bothers me.

        This, by the way is not my way of trying to promote ridiculous labels like ‘radical Islam’ and ‘moderate Islam’. I’m am simply saying that there are a lot of decent people whom consider themselves Muslims who are no danger to us, and that a lot them hate and fear the jihadis as much as we do, for obvious reasons. I’ll repeat what I said earlier..in America, most of the domestic jihad plots have been foiled because a Muslim heard or saw something and reported it to the authorities. And this is with the US. government doing very little to encourage it, or to stop Brotherhood shills like CAIR from mounting campaigns urging Muslims not to talk or cooperate with the FBI.

        Actually, as I pointed out, JP’s article labels all Muslims as toxic. That’s EXACTLY how the Nazis started – remember this one: “Die Juden sind unser Unglück!” ‘The Jews are Germany’s misfortune’ from Der Stürmer in 1934? Remember Hitler and others referring to Jews as an ‘infection’ ? They were doing that a long time before Wannsee. My point is not that JP is advocating genocide, JP may not even realize it, but that the blanket labeling of all Muslims as ‘toxic ‘ is an important step in that direction. After all, what do you do with something toxic? You eradicate it.

        If JP’s right, that is one position, and it’s easy to see where it leads. If you wish to go there, fine.

        I don’t.

        • Your analogy fails for the reasons I pointed out already:

          Your “just a step away” assertion is manifestly untrue.

          Islam is not a race, it is an ideology.

          The original article recommended only that Muslims living in Western countries have to observe the law of the land, same as everyone else.

          • If you want to make the point that there is a distinction to be drawn between individuals and their religious beliefs and it is A-OK to harshly criticize religious beliefs, that’s a fair comment. And your point is well taken, that those in our society who want to attack our human right to freedom of speech and foist Islamic values and policies upon us may use someone criticizing people (as opposed to their beliefs) as an excuse to throw those toxic (there’s that word again) labels around that we’ve all heard so often before. But there’s no need for you to try to make their argument for them, in order to make the point that someone else might follow in your footsteps. If you see what I mean …

          • I really need to get some sleep man, I’m starting to ramble.

            In short, we all know that there are some people out there who would like nothing better than to get hold of a stick to beat GoV with. That’s hardly news.

            But your assertion that the extreme measures you mention inevitably follow, and in short order, from what was actually said in the original article – is clearly false. That obviously does NOT follow. It is the enemies of free speech who would claim otherwise in order to shut down legitimate criticism of Islam, and there’s no need for you to make half of their argument for them.

    • When Muslims first began settling in Europe (and Dearborn, Mich.) in significant numbers, apparently they seemed generally decent and moderate and tolerant — often just nominal Muslims who had been born into the faith but had no strong commitment to it and recognized non-Muslim societies as better places to live. But with larger concentrations of Muslims, the problems of Islam as the dominant influence on a culture or subculture have become more and more apparent, and menacing. Some of those Muslims may be uncomfortable with the ugliness and menace, but (aside from specific cases of reporting a terror plot in progress) the “good” Muslims have not been effective in restraining or suppressing the malignant aspects of Islamic influence. And it isn’t uncommon for nominal or “moderate” Muslims to decide that a stricter and more aggressive practice of Islam is the answer to their personal grievances.

      Whether some individual Muslims are genuinely nice and decent is not, I submit, the key question. The key question is whether a substantial and growing presence of Islam within non-Muslim societies is benign or damaging. The overwhelming evidence from history and current events around the globe is that Islam itself is a menace.

      I’m more concerned about the survival of my civilization than about the hurt feelings of nice Muslims who think they’re being unfairly associated with “radicals.” If they start recognizing the malignant character that Islam has displayed throughout its history, then they’ll get some sympathy.

      • I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Civilization is based on essential values. Western Civilization in particular has succeeded because of a set of values which have developed to give individual freedom, including freedom of religious affiliation, the strongest protections and greatest priority. If you compromise that in order to “defend” your civilization, then you will merely contribute to its destruction.

        I agree that, “Whether some individual Muslims are genuinely nice and decent is not, I submit, the key question.” The key question is how to reliably punish the propagation of dangerous ideology (not one particular dangerous ideology but all of them) without infringing on the essential values of individual freedom on which the virtue of Western Civilization is founded.

        The answer is simple. Defend individual freedom by prohibiting intentional dissemination of provable falsehoods. Dangerous ideologies are invariably based on false premises. And while it is sometimes difficult to prove falsehoods, this is not the case with the foundational falsehood of Koranic Islam, which is based on the definitive authority of the Koran as containing the teachings of Mohammad. The historical context of the Koran, when examined in light of contemporary evidence, is that it the simple act of creating a single, written version and abolishing all deviations was a major departure from Islam and directly condemned by known teachings of Mohammad concerning how his other teachings should be propagated. This is provable historical fact. The Koran is NOT only not authoritative, it is not even authorized, it is in point of fact not permitted by Islam.

        There is no need to limit Islam as such. All you need do is prohibit anyone from making provably false claims about the authority of the Koran. Every Koran must have a foreword explaining that it was compiled, edited, and promulgated in direct contravention of Mohammad’s known teachings and over the objections of Mohammad’s most respected followers still living. Every course of instruction on the Koran must present the historical evidence that the Koran is a perversion and violation of Islam. These are provable historical facts, the protection of individual freedom demands that they be presented to all interested individuals.

        It is that simple.

      • @Radegunda,
        No problem with most of what you’re saying from my end. But I would point out that the way to deal with the problems you see is to take steps like curtail immigration from certain countries, use the Smith Act against Islamists and their organizations, curb the flow of cash to ikhwan front groups from overseas, shut down hate mosques, deport/convict and/or imprison jihadis when found, get jihadi propaganda like al-Jazeera off the airwaves and the ‘net and encourage non-jihadi Muslims to take a public stand.

        We still vote, and by not insisting our so-called leaders take steps like this , we are aiding and abetting. Remember the garbage that was spewed at Reps. Michelle Bachmann and Peter King just for suggesting that we look at the Brotherhood ties of a number of people embedded in the Obama Administration? I didn’t see a lot of public outrage then.

        Since in America ( and definitely in Britain) our governments have done precious little if anything of this , is it any wonder more Muslims – or ‘apostates’ if you like- haven’t been more active in opposing jihad and the nascent Caliphate?

        I think steps like the ones I’m suggesting make a lot more sense than condemning an entire group of people as ‘toxic’.

        Your results may differ, of course.

        Regards,
        Rob

    • Decency requires that you not follow a philosophy which says a rapist and murderer was the perfect man and a book that says kill the infidel and the apostate. How do they explain this?

      Take the guy in the military. Right away, he’s not a musim no matter what he says, as islam requires working toward a Caliphate and sharia.
      These people sound secular, like secular Jrws. who are born into it but don’t follow it. A muslim follows the Koran, hadiths, and fatwas.

  10. I think that one of the worries is that if the radical/violent/noisy elements in the so-called “Muslim community” gain power – over that same community, and potentially via proxy (our own politicians) over the non-Muslim community as well – that any moderate/non-violent/silent people living in the Muslim community will choose to side with the real hard-core Muslims from within their own community, for a number of reasons: lack of intellectual or psychological ability to stand up to them, lack of desire to do so, etc. As such they are perceived to be “silent partners” in the whole jihadist enterprise.

    There have also been so many “sudden jihad” events in recent years that it becomes extremely difficult to discern which submitters to Islam doctrines would be willing to go the whole hog & one way or another (violent OR peaceful) attempt to inflict their poisonous Islamic doctrines on our NON-Islamic society.

  11. And your mention of the NSDAP is interesting – do you think Churchill or indeed the British public would have allowed 3 million Germans who, whatever their declared personal views on using violent means to achieve the ends of the Nazis, were all members of the Nazi Party, to come and live in Britain, in separate communities?

    Do you think if there was a wave of child rapes committed by some members of that Nazi Party community the authorities would cover it up for years because they didn’t want to “offend” the other members of that Nazi Party community?

    Winston Churchill likens AH’s book to the Koran in “The Gathering Storm” – and he did so without fear of prosecution I might add. Yet look what happened to Geert Wilders for doing the same thing.

    If the doctrines and practices of Islam have nothing to do with the actions of the real hard-core jihadists then why can’t those Islamic doctrines even be discussed in the UK, let alone criticised? (A position that is contrary to human rights legislation btw.)

    • @nick:

      <a href="http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/quran-vs-mein-kampf.html"So did I, in a post 7 years ago.

      But my point is quite different…that the sort of solutions this article proposes are identical not only with Nazi doctrine but with the Qu’ran’s own rules for dealing with dhimmis.

      It’s just a step away from calling all Muslims ‘toxic’ to saying, let’s resettle them in camps somewhere, or maybe even embrace some kind of Final Solution. You ready to kill a billion and a half people?

      As for the UK’s ridiculous speech laws and toleration of jihadis, again that’s your government’s fault, not the fault of those Muslims who want to live in peace. Someone ought to ask Tony Blair a few pointed questions about tolerance for jihadis and sharia in Britain.

      It isn’t my position that what’s in the Qu’ran and Hadiths has nothing to do jihadis, and I’ve never said so, not here and not in anything I’ve written.

      My point here is that the approach help jihadis recruit and alienates people whom would be allies.

      • What I was driving at, in accordance with your own position I believe, was that British politicians (not you yourself) invariably assert that there is no connection between Islamic doctrines and practices, and acts such as the murder of Drummer Rigby on the streets of London. See Nick Clegg’s comment immediately after that horrific event; also the remarks made by Cameron before he popped off on holiday with the wife.

        So yes, I agree that some rather pointed questions aimed at our elected representatives would be appropriate.

        But it is you who are going too far by asking: “It’s just a step away from calling all Muslims ‘toxic’ to saying, let’s resettle them in camps somewhere, or maybe even embrace some kind of Final Solution. You ready to kill a billion and a half people?”

        In the first place you have no heard, nor will you ever hear, me advocating such a course of action. (A major turning point in my life was visiting the Holocaust Exhibition at the IWM.: No need to go into that here.) You’re trying to put words in other people’s mouths there, and there’s just no need to do that in order to make your point. In the second place it is not “just a step away” at all. That’s just nonsense. (It wasn’t “just a step away” even for the Nazis; they took years to get to that stage – I mention what those evil b****rds did only to refute the “just a step away” assertion.) In actual fact, the measure proposed in the original article was, and I quote:

        “… those [Muslims] that do decide to live in the West should be reminded in no uncertain terms that they reside in these countries according the laws of those countries and fake religious courts will be prohibited, ridiculed if need be, particularly the misogynistic sharia courts, one of Britain’s most grievous mistakes, which should never have been allowed to mushroom into such prolific prominence.”

  12. Why is there a Muslim community anyway? If multiculturalism was correct then surely there shouldn’t be such a thing, only one big happy family.

    I think the core problem though is that the Koran says what it says. The principle of abrogation, used to interpret the Koran, is what it is. The history of Islam is what it is.

    It’s difficult to get around that.

    As one of the suspects in the Lee Rigby murder explained, live on camera, he was compelled to act as he did because of the ninth sura of the Koran.

    It is not unreasonable then, to wonder if anyone other devout Muslim who believes in the same text would one day, without any warning, act in a similar manner. Or support anyone who did. It is difficult to get a definitive “no” as an answer.

    • We can separate the Koran and Islam. The provable historical fact is that the Koran is not the source of Islam, and was compiled and promulgated in contravention of Islam. There is a small but vibrant minority of Muslims who are convinced by their study of the history of Islam that the Koran is unIslamic.

      The degree to which anti-Koran Muslims are feared and hated by Koranic authorities is a measure of how dangerous the historical facts about the Koran are.

      • Do they still revere Mohammed? If not, they are not muslims, but a breakaway group following some islamix traits, but not the major ones.

        • Reform Muslims do not revere Mohammad in the ordinary sense of the term. They do not assign any special virtue to his life or person categorically above that of other men. They do generally regard him as “the best a man can be”, but no better (not all agree that he was literally as good as a man can be, taking it only to mean that no man is categorically better).

          However, they are clearly Muslims, because exactly that resignation of the possibility of human moral superiority is at the heart of why the religion was termed Islam, and its adherents Muslim, in the first place.

          To say otherwise is like saying that Christ’s original disciples were not Christian because they did not accept the Nicene Creed.

  13. @Rob Miller

    Since you enjoy using rhetorical questions – why isn’t all this being discussed openly and honestly in British society today? You mention the position taken by Tommy Robinson – well look at what has happened to him for speaking his mind & adopting that position (a position you apparently agree with.)

    Talk about Germany in the early years of the NSDAP – look at how they treated their own political opponents (their first enemies) & then look at the heavy-handed approach employed by the British State today whenever anyone challenges the official narrative. Are there parallels?

    The very fact that this question can be seriously considered is extremely troubling.

  14. No apologies are necessary. You have answered a polemic with your own polemic. Long on emotion.

    But this :

    So there’s no such thing as peaceful, decent people whom happen to be Muslim? Horse manure. I know a number of them. For example, one of them is a Turk he emigrated to America, joined the marines as a teenager, spilt blood for MY freedom, rose through the ranks and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel.

    You’ve employed a rhetorical fallacy…proof by anecdote. And for every Good Guy you name, our writer could give you a dozen who have harmed him.

    Sure, we all have “our own Muslims”. My doctor is one. But so what?

    It is an inescapable historic fact that when Muslims reach a certain percentage of the population in an area, that area “flips”. Luton is an inescapable fact, the banlieues in France are gone, Turkish areas in Germany.

    Try Dearborn Michigan…or certain areas of Tennessee.

    It is also an inescapable fact that the two-year undercover anthropological study that David Yerushalmi did in the US found that only 20% of mosques in the US are NOT pushing for Sharia-based law in this country to supersede the American Constitution. IOW, 80% want your country, Rob. And they’re willing to fight you for it.

    It is an inescapable fact that the police in the UK, in collusion with Melanie Philip’s chattering classes, hid and abetted the grooming of hundreds of young English ethnic girls by gangs of Muslim men over more than a decade. It was only via the EDL that the tip of the iceberg was exposed. It’s still going on.

    Frankly, you’re an American so you don’t experience the horrors that working class Brits endure at the hands of immigrants, police, the middle and upper classes and the bureaucrats..

    I could give *you* many horror stories equal and opposite to your outstanding citizens. Innocent people driven out of their homes as a deliberate strategy to have them replaced by Muslims. Tortured by bullies, never feeling safe, their doors banged in, noises at all hours of the night, mail stolen, reported for trumped up charges, etc. And the police either look the other way or they arrest the English because it’s easier.

    Our team members have been deliberately exposed by the MSM in England and lost their jobs. Outed now, they are at physical risk just for their political beliefs and unemployable.

    If Frankl made such a facile division between people, then he failed at the most essential task any psychiatrist has: to accept the basic ambiguity and mystery that lies at the center of human experience.

    You are safe here. For a taste of what it would be like, move to a Muslim majority neighborhood. See how safe you feel. See if you tell your children to hide their Jewish identity in order to walk the streets safely.

    Seriously, are you telling someone who lives in a country where a Muslim can kill a soldier in broad daylight on the streets of his own hometown that he’s not moderate enough? Do you realize that the ‘yobs’ cannot fight back or they will be jailed? Tommy Robinson gets gruesome death tweets but he is forbidden by the police to retweet them as a way of protecting himself? Yet NOTHING is done to those openly sending him the threats.

    Our politicians are corrupt enough but they’re amateurs compared to what the English endure; our police forces are turning into militarized SWAT teams killing old men. But it’s nothing compared to the sovietized UK which has more CCV cameras than any country on earth, and even your household trash is monitored. The suppression is extreme and it is troubling. The alcohol consumption in Britain is troubling – it is similar to the levels reached in the USSR.

    As for your Sri Lankan and Turk friends- why are they here? Is it because their countries of origin are not safe?

    Sri Lanka is 17% Muslim and 17% Christian – by coincidence. The majority is Buddhist and they persecute the Christians and Muslims. In the south, extremist Muslim groups keep things stirred up & the Buddhist majority have plans to subdue them.

    Turkey is a dangerous place unless you’re well-connected.

    IOW, your friends moved here because it was safer. And they didn’t come in without skills and impoverish the areas they moved to. If you want to see how Muslim immigration is NOT working in the US, check out Ann Corcoran’s Refugee Resettlement Watch. The sub rosa scam carried out by the State Dept and the Christian and Jewish charitable organizations is ruining small towns. But the media doesn’t report it so it doesn’t exist.

    England is a prison now. The middle class like Melanie Philips never have to look out the window at what is happening to her fellow countrymen. In fact, like all of her class she is insulated from the reality. While Tommy Robinson rotted in a basement prison cell, denied mail or visits, kept in solitary confinement over the winter holidays, with Muslims spitting at him as they walked by, and he forbidden to even put up papers to block the spittle…meanwhile, above ground, Melanie Philips and her ilk had lovely holidays undisturbed by riff-raff like Tommy.

    And it will shortly be our turn. As the Congress deliberately opens our borders to south, Muslims and low-skilled, sick and hungry immigrants will pour in. Small places will be inundated. Schools will cease to speak English. IOW, they are planning the same thing with us. Right now it’s 11 millions. In five years, that will have doubled.

    We are about to enter a world of hurt. While your exemplary Muslim friends may have to join you in staying safe from the crime and disease…it’s going to be ugly. But it’s for the exact same reason the Political Class in Britain did it: a deliberate strategy to ensure the vote. That’s what our Dems are doing.

    We don’t see you often on our comment section. The last time was a complaint too, IIRC…?

    • Would you not agree that it is also to ensure a world government, with the U.S no longer sovereign, solvent, or militarized?

  15. Hi Dymphna,
    I promise to drop by more often, but the fact is I agree with at least 90% of what appears on Gov – and you know that.

    This isn’t a complaint, but an attempt at shedding a little light on what I consider to be a pretty counterproductive position on this particular article.

    I have to be honest, I think there’s a difference between saying ‘all Muslims are toxic’ and saying that some are. That was exactly what Frankl was talking about. That’s why I provided some examples of people I know personally. And BTW, both of them came to America as young adults, before the problems in Sri Lanka or in Turkey and for the same reasons a lot of immigrants come to America – they wanted a better life in a free country.

    I have a question, my friend. You write: “..for every Good Guy you name, our writer could give you a dozen who have harmed him.” So what? If I were robbed by a Hispanic, does that give me the right to label all Hispanics ‘toxic’? Call for their wholesale expulsion? I don’t think it does.

    As for what England has become, I’m not exactly clueless. But who did that? Who passed the laws, who openly courted jihadis, who disarmed the country, who put together the Islamist Muslim Council of Britain, who appoints the directors of the BBC, who is doing nothing about the horrors you mention? And more importantly, who voted for the people that put it all in place?

    You mention a scenario where I might have to tell my children to hide their Jewish identity in order to walk the streets safely. I don’t see that happening in America (if it does, I have a few places to bolt to, and believe me, I sniff the wind) but it’s been like that in Britain and other parts of Europe for some time. Did the general populace give a damn? Really? Britain has been anti-Israel (and not particularly Jew friendly) for years. In the UK, when Tory Michael Howard ran in 2005 against Tony Blair, Labour actually put out ads using Howard’s Jewish religion as a campaign issue, especially vis a vis Israel. Blair won that election handsomely and no one complained. That’s not the main issue we’re discussing, but is there perhaps a little karma biting back here? If the British populace would have stood up for the Jews and Israel and called Blair to heel, would they have as bad a problem now?

    Let’s point the finger in the right direction. With Ukip, the EDL, and a few others it looks like a recovery of sorts is at least starting.

    In America, the main crux will be on dealing with The Ikhwan and related Islamists. What we’re seeing now is similar to the way the Soviets penetrated the FDR and Truman administrations, but that can be fought successfully without indulging in wholesale deportation of Muslims. In fact, we might both be surprised at how many American Muslims would help in that battle.

    Here’s the main point that it looks like we’re going to have to agree to disagree with, as friends do from time to time. First, I don’t think labeling all Muslims as ‘toxic’ and treating them as such is either decent or in the end, a practical solution unless we’re talking genocide, ethnic cleansing and forced conversions. That is certainly a position, but it just doesn’t happen to be one I agree with, either on a moral or practical basis. I’ve already stated why.

    You get the last word, if you want.

    Take care, OK? I hope you’re well, and I’m so glad to hear that the Baron’s eye is improving. I owe you several ‘attaboy’ or ‘attagirl’ comments after this!

    Warm Regards,
    Rob@Joshuapundit

    • Rob —

      I agree that labeling all Muslims as “toxic” is not a good idea. Not only is it counterproductive, it is inaccurate. It is Islam that is completely toxic. Muslims are various; we may take each of them as he or she comes, and see what we think.

      If I were robbed by a Hispanic, does that give me the right to label all Hispanics ‘toxic’?

      No. But what it does do is give us is the right — indeed, the obligation — to stop Hispanic immigration into our country. If Hispanics are, say, ten times as likely as Anglos to do bad things, then politicians who allow them to immigrate are violating their oath of office to protect their citizens.

      If, on the other hand, they are already native citizens, then they should be treated like all others. If that results in a ten-times disproportionate Hispanic prison population, then so be it; it is not evidence of “profiling” or “discrimination”.

      Finally, concerning Muslims who “pick and choose”: the previous commenter was completely correct: they are not “moderate” Muslims; they are apostates. I’m so glad he cited the specifics from Reliance to demonstrate this fact; now I don’t have to go look them up.

      Actually, I would insert an additional level of nuance into my taxonomy of Muslims. I see three types:

      1. Muslims. These obey the commands of the Koran and the hadith in full, observe the practices of the Sunna, and follow the established tenets of the fiqh. They include Al Qaeda terrorists, Salafists, Wahhabis, the Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood fanatics, and taqiyya artists such as Tariq Ramadan and Imam Rauf.

      2. Lapsed Muslims. These are the ones who “pick and choose”, or who have even fallen away entirely. They don’t always wear hijab, and may sometimes drink beer or take out loans with interest. They include apostates, declared “ex-Muslims”.

      3. Dormant Muslims. These appear similar to lapsed Muslims. A dormant Muslim may not have a beard or wear a nightgown. But the dictates of the Koran and the Sunna are still working deep in his heart, and someday he will return to them and become part of #1. He will then be a full Muslim.

      The problem for us kuffar is that it’s very, very hard to tell the difference between a lapsed Muslim and a dormant Muslim. The latter looks and acts just like the former for years or decades. Then one day he gives up Budweiser, grows a nice long beard, starts praying five times a day, and sports a zebiba on his forehead. The next thing you know, he’s blowing himself up in the food court of his local Mall on a Saturday afternoon.

      This is why Islam is toxic: because we cannot functionally distinguish between Muslims who are harmless and Muslims who appear harmless, but will suddenly try to kill us without warning. The only way we can protect ourselves against the latter is to place armed guards in schools, shopping areas, stadiums, train stations, and convention centers; to frisk innocent passers-by and put metal detectors and naked scanners all over the place.

      As you may have noticed, the above description applies pretty well to the state of affairs in the USA and Europe ca. 2013. And it is entirely due to Toxic Islam. None of those liberty-destroying measures would have been necessary were it not for all those dormant Muslims among us.

      For the purposes of public safety it is therefore the duty of our elected officials to:

      1. Exclude further Muslim immigrants from entering our countries.

      2. Remove the status of “religion” from Islam and assign to it the status of a “subversive political ideology”, like Communism or Nazism.

      3. Pursuant to #2, monitor all mosques closely and shut down any that preach sedition and treason.

      These are the necessary measures. But they will, unfortunately, not be taken in the USA. As our Islamic population increases, we will eventually become like Britain, France, and the Netherlands. Then we will pass that stage and enter a dreadful time, the details of which I prefer not to speculate about.

      • You forget the most important category of Muslims. It is an easy mistake to make, because they are very rare. But they are rare because they are so dangerous to the Jihadist ambitions of Koranic Islam.

        I generally call them Reformist Muslims, as this is a term they often use for themselves. These Muslims are aware of the historic facts surrounding the Koran which indicate that the establishment of the Koran was directly contrary to the teachings of Mohammad and vehemently opposed by the most prominent followers of Mohammad still living at the time. These Reformist Muslims vary in their ultimate goals, some seriously want to try and find out what Islam was before the Koran, a work that would take lifetimes of free archeology and historical inquiry, both currently prohibited by Koranic religious authorities. Others simply want to accept Islam as a mutable tradition which consists of acceptance of the imperfect state of humanity, and do not believe that recovering the original teachings of Mohammad is really possible or even desirable. Most fall somewhere in between, wanting to find out more of what Islam was before the Koran but accepting that a complete restoration is impossible.

        But they all agree that the historical context of the Koran must be examined and the authority of the Koran must be challenged and confronted with the evidence that it is a fraud and a perversion against Islam. They do not have the strength of numbers or of will to do this alone in the face of murderous opposition from Koranic Islam. They generally know this well, as those that mistakenly test the will of the Koranic authorities usually don’t survive long. But they believe that most Muslims really would rather come to know the truth about the Koran rather than continue to be bound down by to worship a horrific lie.

        I am not attracted to Reformist Islam. I really don’t see the appeal. But when it comes to a question of how to effectively resist Jihad without betraying the essential principles of personal religious freedom, I see great value in the existence of those who have confronted the historical facts of the Koran and are willing to risk being considered apostates as a result. Because the protection of individual freedom demands that we punish those who engage in provable fraud just as we punish those who engage in violence.

        We do not need to outlaw Islam, or even the Koran. We only need to prevent dissemination of the provable falsehood that the Koran represents an authoritative source of Mohammad’s teachings rather than being a perversion and direct violation of those teachings. And we accomplish this by the means consistent with a free society, by widely and publicly disseminating the proven historical facts and evidence.

      • Hello Baron,
        As I said earlier ( see my reply to Radegunda, 6:31 PM), you and I are pretty much on the same page when it comes to the steps needed to deal with jihad here in America.

        I respectfully disagree that these measures will never come to pass in America, but we’ll see. I’m sure you’d rather I was right rather than wrong on that one!

        You raise an interesting point here: “we cannot functionally distinguish between Muslims who are harmless and Muslims who appear harmless, but will suddenly try to kill us without warning. The only way we can protect ourselves against the latter is to place armed guards in schools, shopping areas, stadiums, train stations, and convention centers; to frisk innocent passers-by and put metal detectors and naked scanners all over the place.”

        You’re right…but that’s because our government refuses take obvious precautions like profiling, hiring trained and dedicated security instead of the unionized DMV-type people staffing the TSA, as well as the other steps you mention. In Israel, school teachers are routinely armed, (after horrendous tragedies like Ma’alot), no one gets scanned at airports or takes their shoes off because a professional, well trained security personnel profiles potential trouble (El Al hasn’t had an ‘incident’ for years ) .

        Domestic terrorism as a whole is limited because you have an armed, aware population and a government committed to fighting jihad while preserving freedom. And remember, this is in a country where the population is 20% Arab, surrounded by genocidal enemies, and subjected to pressure from governments in the EU and U.S. that could be characterized as jihad friendly, or at least Islamist friendly.

        So it can be done.

        We get what we vote for, and what we demand our politicians take action on.

        Take care, OK?

        All Good Things,
        Rob

        • @Rob,
          As a matter of fact, I’ve been reading Israel, A Nation of Warriors by Moshe Katz on my Kindle and he talks about the sensible security measures taken by El Al.

          Interesting book, btw.

          best wishes,

          Nick.

          • Yes, Israel. They have Arab citizens with the right to vote and no need to serve in the military.

            But they feel aggrieved, many of them, and that can’t be changed. They’re aggrieved but not stupid, which is why they stay in Israel.

            If only the rest of the West would put the suicidal pc/mc religion aside, we’d all be better off.

  16. Pingback: “Moderate” vs. “Dormant” | Gates of Vienna

  17. @ Nick, @ Dymphna

    Yes Israel has definitely managed to do a decent job fighting jihad while balancing liberty and individual rights. They’re not perfect (some Arabs whom live in towns in the Galilee, some members of the Knesset and a number of the 250,000 Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians, are not Israeli citizens but have residence permits to live in Jerusalem are openly seditious and need watching – or deportation in my view ). Arabs also commit arson, throw atones at cars and start fires, and in many cases I personally feel the Israeli government is far too lenient. But it’s managed pretty well, and you don’t find CCTV cameras everywhere, scanners, or the equivalent of TSA agents feeling up children. I also think that it’s because a lot of the population is armed, looks out for each other and takes certain precautions. For instance, leaving a bag or backpack just laying around in a bus or cafe on the floor or in an empty seat with no one apparently being attached to it definitely gets some attention, for obvious reasons.

    But the point is, this stuff can be handled if we demand our politicians handle it. We’re not, IMO. As Dymphna puts it, the West needs badly put the suicidal pc/mc religion aside. I’m convinced we will, eventually, but at a greater cost in blood and treasure than if we’d done it years earlier.

    One more thing that relates to Dymphna’s point above. Yes, many Israeli Arabs are not required to serve in the military, but many do. The Druse (Arab, but not Muslim) insisted in the early days of the State that they wanted to be subject to conscription and any Tzahal vet will tell you they’re damned good fighters. So did the Circassians (Arab and Muslim) and lots of Bedouins (Arabs and Muslim) volunteer. The Bedo are expert trackers and especially valuable when hunting any infiltrators . Many Arab Christians also serve.

    Here’s a story about a particularly brave Arab security guard who saved a trainload of his fellow Israelis. A Muslim, incidentally.

    The point is, again, that line between the decent and indecent, at least to me. I’m getting spanked here quite a bit (no big deal , I can handle it) but I still say; why force people into the enemy camp by an all inclusive condemnation?

    All Good Things,
    Rob Miller @ Joshuapundit

    • I do take your point about making universal affirmative statements (in logic, an A proposition) with “Muslims” as the subject term. This could be problematic, and could give certain people a stick to whack GoV with.

      That’s a fair point, and definitely one that IMO should be taken on board by the Baron & Dymphna, big time.

      However, IMO the way to make that point was not to act like those black-suited SS b*****ds were about to boot up Auschwitz all over again as a result of the original article. That was going waaay too far, dude!

      If you see where I’m coming from.

Comments are closed.