Papa Farook is a Moderate Muslim

Syed Rizwan Farook, the mujahid of San Bernardino, was a “violent extremist” who had been “radicalized”. His daddy, however is a moderate. The elder Farook did not approve of his son’s religious fundamentalism.

At least that’s the story the media have been telling us. Based on an interview in today’s edition of the Italian newspaper La Stampa, however, Papa Jihad’s ideological stance is somewhat more nuanced. Breitbart has the translation of what the father said:

My son said that he shared [IS leader Abu Bakr] Al Baghdadi’s ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He was also obsessed with Israel.

I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist anymore. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there any more. They are going to bring the Jews back to Ukraine. What is the point of fighting? We have already done it and we lost. Israel is not to be fought with weapons, but with politics. But he did not listen to me, he was obsessed.

Asked if he knew whether Syed Rizwan Farook had contacts with terrorist organizations, the father replied, “I do not know. But these days, who knows, with the internet and all that technology.”

US correspondent Paolo Mastrolilli inquired whether Farook believes his son may have been radicalized by his 29-year-old wife, Tashfeen Malik. “Maybe, I do not know,” he replied.

Hmm… A political solution to the problem of the Zionist Entity, in which all the Jews will be moved from Israel to Ukraine. Yep, that’s bound to work.

All kidding aside, however — as Breitbart points out, Farook Senior is simply stating the general position of the Muslim Brotherhood: victory over the infidel will be achieved in stages by political means, with no violence necessary until the last “milestone”.

From the media point of view, the “radical” is the masked mujahid standing in the desert with a bloody knife and a severed head, while all the rest are “moderates”.

Hat tip: Andy Bostom.

33 thoughts on “Papa Farook is a Moderate Muslim

  1. Papa Farook is indeed your archetypical “moderate” Muslim. And an astute analyst of world geopolitical affairs to boot. Then again he does have exceptionally privileged access to the highest levels of diplomatic exchanges and agreements.

    Personally, I am very disappointed that Vlad didn’t tell me, on the last occasion he sought my counsel on world affairs, that he and the leaderships of the USA and China had decided to transfer the population of Israel to the Ukraine within the next two years. I suspected that something in our hitherto candid and open relationship had changed when he had previously telephoned me, and, hearing an Americanized-Israeli voice in the background (Bibi was over at my place at the time playing Bananagrams and losing badly I might add), asked me whether Netanyahu was hanging out with me again. I confessed that he was. And now it seems just because of that I’ve been cut out of the loop.

    I know it is churlish, indeed childish, of me to resent Papa Farook for apparently having replaced me as Vlad’s confidant (maybe Papa Farook has a special relationship with BHO instead, so perhaps everything is not lost as between myself and Vlad), but what intrigues me is how on earth did Vlad, BHO and Xi Jinping manage to persuade the Ukraine to accept 6 million Israeli Jews en bloc? I wonder whether Bibi’s going to put this to a national referendum – I suspect I’m not alone in believing that there’ll be a handful of hard core Zionists who won’t like the idea one little bit.

  2. Speaking of Moderate Muslims, the London correspondent and Managing Editor for Breitbart news is a Muslim — Raheem Kassam. Since he works for Breitbart and files stories that demonstrate analytical alarm at the Islamist extremist radicals, and since he was awarded “Islamophobe of the Year” award by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) — Muslims who aren’t as clever as Kassam (and Maajid Nawaz) and so earn the ridicule & suspicion of Breitbart news — Kassam must be a Moderate.

    Extra-clever Muslims like Kassam, Nawaz, and Zuhdi Jasser (and many others) have been busy infiltrating the Counter-Jihad — sucessfully, apparently.– massaging its leadership to continue thinking that a certain indeterminable number of Muslims are just peachy keen and should remain in the West.

    • There are people of Muslim origin who agree with us.
      Actually, they are usually a lot more freaked out than we are, because They Know.

      I assume that he’s not one of them? I don’t know his work.

    • I’ve read comments like these before and it is unsettling. Would like to hear the Baron comments.

      • Hesperado is right. This the central problem in dealing with Islam, and one to which there is no easy and palatable answer. Any attempt to devise a meaningful solution leads into the sort of ugliness that the average Westerner prefers to avoid thinking about.

        The fact remains that there is no reliable way to determine whether any given Muslim really believes everything in Islamic scripture and law, and is therefore dangerous. He may be a nice guy; he may drink beer and eat bacon and hang out with the kuffar. Yet, since the core tenets of his faith require him to lie, dissemble, and mislead in order to advance the cause of Islam, there is no way to determine his sincerity.

        To make matters worse, we have numerous examples of Muslims in the West (often second or third generation) who seem fully “integrated”, but who suddenly become more religious and are rapidly “radicalized”. Then come the bodies lying in pools of blood in the street, with all the neighbors saying, “I can’t believe it! He was such a nice, quiet, polite man.”

        The problem arises because we have imported millions of Muslims into our midst en masse. Now they are here. They’re not going to suddenly decide to make hijra to Somalia or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. So what are we to do?

        Ordinary citizens can do nothing, of course; and by the time our governments take action, the situation will of necessity be very ugly indeed.

        The only “safe” Muslim is a former Muslim, but even that can be tough to determine for certain as long as the fellow is still alive. A public repudiation of Islam, the profession of another faith, and multiple death fatwas against the murtad for apostasy are fairly reliable indicators. But Muslims who no longer believe in Islam are understandably reluctant to go that route.

        Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to think of any peaceful and humane solutions to this problem. There is an inherent horror to it that makes most of us shy away from discussing it.

          • And who are “we”? Yourself and a few armed friends? How far do you think that will get you?

            Before “we” can do anything, “we” must grow to incorporate a far larger share of the population. Before that happens, specifications for what “we” must do are of no significant value.

            Attention and energy are better focused elsewhere.

          • I don’t agree at all. In fact I believe you are being deliberately flippant.
            “We” of course means “we in the West” which implies there are some governments who have the means to take some serious action. You may say, “fat chance” (as I do) but what I say simply has to be said.
            How exactly do we “grow to incorporate a far larger share of the population”? How much time do we have left do to this? We have the physical means to handle the symbols as I indicated, and in fact it may be the only way of handling what is, as this site often suggests, a precarious situation.
            Lastly, where exactly should attention and energy be focused, how should it be focused and who should do the focusing?

          • Your energy should be focused on activities that might possibly increase the size of the group of people who are attempting this sort of change, and strategies that might help them take effective action.

            What you say may or may not “have to be said”, but in the eleven years I’ve been doing this, I’ve heard (or read) it literally thousands of times, with no measurable effect. Yes, “we” should stop Muslim immigration, deport people, shut down mosques, etc. It’s been said countless times, yet today, more than a decade later, the rate of immigration is even higher and the number of mosques is increasing exponentially. Why on God’s green earth do “we” need to say it yet another time??

            You would do better to focus on the possible reasons why the general population still allows these things to be done by voting repeatedly for the same politicians who do it to them over and over again. If you and I could get a grip on how this happens, we might, just MIGHT, have a chance of being able to effect the first tiny beginnings of change.

          • Quite right.
            But when you consider – as I’m sure you are doing continuously – that the US voters voted for Obama twice, then just a few weeks ago, we sensible people in Canada voted in a person whom I call “Obama-lite” (whose picture you have shown above, praying in a mosque), I can’t see a so-called political solution. Mind you, I’m not a politically-minded person, so what I just said is perhaps due to my own weakness in this respect.
            It may take something of a catastrophe to galvanize some leader to action. My suggestion is potentially relatively bloodless… or is it? The reaction may be nasty. Perhaps if we watch the outcome of France’s stand (or possible stand) on closing their worst mosques, somebody, other than the readers of this blog, will turn around to “the people” and tell them that if it works for France it will work for us.
            But I’m not holding my breath…

          • keelie —

            If a political solution is not possible, then what can “we” do? We certainly can’t deport anyone. If the civil order collapses, then certain things may become possible when angry citizens take matters into their own hands. But I’m sure you’re not proposing armed insurrection or anything similar. So, once again: How do “we” do these things except via a political solution?

          • You’re right. I’m certainly not proposing armed insurrection. On the other hand how can one come to a “political solution” when the only possible solution on the other side is death and/or enslavement. There is no possibility of compromise no matter what is written on paper.
            What it essentially boils down to is a simple binary solution: us or them. Ugly, to say the least.
            A possible alternative is to essentially ban the practice of Islam in the West. Somewhat difficult. Or , using a somewhat different approach, to instill in the minds of the Muslims in general that they are Muslims as a result of what their ancestors did to preserve themselves: converted. When one considers how many Muslims are the descendents of “the forcibly converted” my feeling (for what it’s worth) is that these descendents owe it to their ancestors, bearing in mind what pain and suffering they went through, to return to their original religion.
            As far as I have heard, this is happening to some extent in “Persia” but I have no proof of this.
            In order to do this, the current hierarchical Muslim structure must be broken…

          • keelie,

            “Somewhat difficult” is an understatement.

            However, Donald Trump just shifted the political landscape. He’s saying essentially the same thing that Geert Wilders is saying — and he’s the leading Republican presidential candidate! Change is in the wind.

            Imagine if he were president, and Geert the prime minister of the Netherlands, and Marine Le Pen the president of France… Ah, dreams.

          • Understatement? I’m from Glasgow…

            What you say about Trump, Wilders and Le Pen is “awesome” as they say.
            Many people don’t “get” Trump. He’s fractured the “gentleman’s agreement” to talk shop in nuanced undertones. I love it!

        • No. Us “Westerners” don’t like violence. We don’t & we
          want to live in peace.

          However, these Muslims seem intent on going “Full Nazi” on us. Hitler imagined that would work. We met him with
          the hell he had fantasized for us instead!

          My dad put an example in front of me; one of wanting to
          live in peace, but being resigned to CHARGE HELL WITH
          A BUCKET OF WATER if that’s all you have. For love of
          your brothers and sisters back home; for love of your
          buddies on the front lines. Not for “conquest” or some
          imagined earthly glory.

          He was in the U.S. Army Infantry in WWII, and he charged
          Hitler with everything at his disposal – until Hitler was
          driven into his hole in the ground and took his (Hitler’s) own life rather than face the hell he had called down on Germany and the world.

          Yes; it was costly. He was shell shocked all his life and
          didn’t glorify war; but he didn’t shirk it if it was laid on
          his head either.

          These Jihadists have no idea what they are calling down
          upon their own heads. No idea.

          • King Twinkie,

            But there is a difference between the fight against Hitler and the current war. In World War Two the American government opposed Hitler and mobilized its full might against him.

            In contrast, our government is on the same side as Islam and opposes us. The warrior is indeed valiant, but how far will he get when the apparatus of his own homeland, formerly his patria, is aligned against him?

            This is a fundamental obstacle.

        • Around a decade ago I was chatting with a Nigerian Christian taxi driver. He came from Kano, from memory, in any event from a place which is near the geographical centre of the country and at the fault line of its traditional Muslim/Christian geographical north/south divide (see below).

          I drew him out by gently conveying some knowledge of his country fof origin and its sectarian problems. Then graduated to opining that the British should have never joined the two Nigerias together. The floodgates of candour opened.

          The driver told me that he had had a Muslim neighbour for more than twenty years with whom he and his family had always enjoyed amicable, warm, helpful, neighbourly relations. Until one day there was a minor quibble over a local election where the Muslim candidate or slate had won by allegedly dubious means. His friend and neighbour turned vicious in an instant: cold, pure, hatred. The taxi driver and his family shortly learned on the grapevine that they were targeted and had to hastily flee their home (to save their lives). Permanently.

          The driver also said to me, almost tearfully and very memorably, as the ride came to an end: “They NEVER forgive”. His experience of Muslims in terms of depth, frequency and longevity far surpassed mine. I took his word for it and it has only ever done me good.

          It brought to mind a friend’s experience with her family Rottweiler which was nine years old and had been their pet from early puppyhood. She came home from school one day at 13 or 14 and noticed a strange look in the dog’s eye as she passed him. Alone and unnerved she walked then ran to her bedroom and the dog chased after her barking like it never had before and furiously tried to repeatedly barge the door down as she held it shut, utterly terrified. She had a landline in her bedroom and managed to ring the local police on speed-dial (her Dad was the local Anglican Minister). The police came in and shot the dog dead in the hallway. As an adult she remains very frightened of all Rottweilers and is also wary of all dogs. Including mine (which was deliberately named to allay any concerns her breed’s appearance might generate) which is how I came to learn the tale of the Rottweiler around 1990.

          The only safe, prudent, way to regard a Muslim in my, not inconsiderable, experience of them is just as that woman regards Rottweilers. It could be said: one could just “stereotype” all Chinese, Greeks or Finns in the same way, that it’s just rank bigotry. The problem with that critique is that neither the Finns, the Greeks nor the Chinese are subsumed en bloc by a violent creed/ideology that history knows as Islam.

          Some third level Colonial Office official in Whitehall observed that the tax revenue collected in Northern Nigeria consistently fell short of expenditure whilst that of Southern Nigeria exceeded expenditure. So the two were units were fused together and subsequently millions have died because of that administrative decision.

  3. A typical Muslim family. The women ate separately from the men. Apparently, they don’t KNOW each other the same way as Westerners know each other when they live together as a family. The mother lived upstairs but knew nothing, despite the fact that there were pellets and gun oil in the baby’s closet upstairs, from what we saw on TV.

    Aside from the Aztecs, Islam would have to be the most sadistic and masochistic waste of human potential on the face of the earth!

    • And moderate is all anybody ever asks of them.

      It’s like a lousy student whose parent’s beg of him, “Can you please just get a D-minus? We’re not asking for an A-plus here! Just get a passing grade!”

  4. I wonder if Israel has ever considered running disinformation campaigns in the Muslim world. Considering the absolutely ludicrous things that Muslims are apparently willing to believe, they could probably even be convinced to like Israel, if the story is fanciful enough.

  5. The particular portion of his statement merits further investigation…

    “I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist anymore.

    Donald Trump received a great deal of press resistance to his verbal recollections of mu[slims] celebrating 9/11, including some who were well aware and prepared to watch/celebrate on rooftops.
    For those convinced that there are a majority of ‘moderate’ followers of the Islamic doctrine that are just as concerned about the ‘radicals’, where are they? Why aren’t they articulating concerns about what they think they know about “in two years Israel will not exist anymore”?

    • Anonymous

      That was precisely the point I was attempting to satirize in the first comment in this thread: a “moderate” Muslim told his son to be patient and wait a mere two years and Israel will be gone. (The son, however, could not be patient and was thus compelled to go out and commit mass murder in San Bernardino County. Where’s the nexus?)

      How on earth can wishing a nation-state to cease to be constitute being “moderate”? How can believing it will cease to be within 2 years, due to some agreement having been reached between three world powers, be considered “moderate”? The latter is self-evidently a delusional, if not clinically insane, state of mind.

  6. Radical Muslims murder infidels. Moderate Muslims want Radical Muslims to murder infidels. It’s a closed system.

  7. Is anybody else disgusted by the term “Homeland”? It rubbed me the wrong way in the beginning due to it’s Nazi parallel, but now I just want them to say “Dept. of American Security”.

    How hard is that?

    Would the fact that it would be the biggest lie they ever told if they said it like that?

    All of these talking heads saying “homeland” attacks. It was on America. Just say it already!

    • Thank you. Sometimes I’ve thought I was the *only* American who heard the word “homeland” and just wanted to Make It Go Away.

  8. Any belief system that espouses the forced conversion or murder of those who do not or will not subscribe to their beliefs cannot by definition enjoy the legal protection that the First Amendment affords.
    That Syed’s father was aware of his son’s intent, and no doubt his arms cache, makes him complicit before the fact of the slaughter as the Federal Authorities (BATF) should have been notified. Yes, Syed would have gone to jail, but 14 people including a Christian Jew would still be alive today.
    The story has also come out on the Freedom Post (unvetted or verified by me) that Syed’s mother was a member of a local Muslim advocacy organization that is connected to the Pakistani Jaamal al-Islam. She could have ‘radicalized’ her son as well as choosing for him a wife who would finish the job and thereby bring ‘glory’ to Allah.
    Thus you have a Federal Case for complicity at the least or conspiracy at the worst. If the Federal AG office refuses to prosecute then imp[eachment charges should be brought against the current Federal AG for dereliction of duty.
    As for the rest of the Muslims that are here in this country, they should be reminded that when they became citizens they swore an oath to uphold our Constitution. That means that as citizens, Shari’a comes second and is subject to the Laws of the Land. If they do not like this or wish to comply, they can renounce their citizenship and be deported to the countries of their origin. As for the mosques, if any upon search (we already have probable cause from the Qur’an) have any weapons stockpiled, the mosque will be closed for weapons violations and the Imam and governing board taken into custody and charged with Federal weapons offenses.
    Geesh, 50-60 years ago this would not even have been an issue!

    • Your logic is impeccable.

      Your final sentence (and the use of the colloquialism) are hopefully an attitude shared by the majority of Western people over 40. Or maybe 50. Tragically, I believe my hope is probably misplaced.

  9. To tell radical Muslims from moderate Muslims, gather a bunch in an auditorium.

    Give a critical speech denouncing Islam, attacking all its human rights defects. Attack, cajole, lampoon, denigrate.

    See who stands up to defend the religion.

    All those sitting are moderates.

Comments are closed.