Hunting the Unicorn of Moderate Islam

moderate muslimby Glenn Fairman   11/12/13
In hunting the unicorn of moderate Islam, the West has taken on the Fool’s Errand by passing through a mental gauntlet of Herculean moral contortions and attempting to separate the proverbial sheep from the goats. As I see it, those “moderate” voices of Islam, which have been protesting the violence of their brethren by thundering at the volume of a hushed whisper, will diminish even more fully as the Islamicist ascendency moves towards its apex. Who can doubt that in time the faint defiant murmurs of “peaceful Islam” will ultimately become qualitatively indistinguishable from the bloody rancor of the vox bellicose?

I say this not because I am a despiser of the Arab people. Quite to the contrary, I have found them hospitable and courteous in all my private dealings. But those dealings are primarily with Western Arabs and Muslims, who have for the most part been saturated in the subliminal American ethos of free intellectual exchange—although one can make a case that the exotic hot house flower known as intellectual liberty is a rose whose bloom has incurably faded as a species from America’s more halcyon days.

How then do we separate the wheat from the tares? Does a moderate follower of Islam, who is not an Islamicist per se, guard his tongue when American ambassadors are sodomized, murdered, and paraded through the streets? Do they remain cryptic when twin towers of steel become sarcophagi for 3000 human beings? Do they counter-demonstrate in Tehran, Cairo or Darfur against radicals co-opting their sacred religion and Holy Writ? How do these doves answer a teaching that patently instructs its adherents to sublimate and enslave– to convert and war down the infidel? Do moderate Muslims, after the Friday Prayers (the Islamic Sabbath), stand in the path of marauding fanatics who have been whipped into agitated bloodlust by Imams for the express purpose of: storming embassies, murdering Coptic Christians, burning churches, and torching any symbolism linked to an omnipotent and blasphemous Western evil?[pullquote]Once again, the voice of these courageous saints of Islamic moderation are as crickets chirping, while the only sound to be discerned in the vacuum of the Middle East, where nobody can hear you scream, is the crescendo drumbeat of war…[/pullquote]

Once again, the voice of these courageous saints of Islamic moderation are as crickets chirping, while the only sound to be discerned in the vacuum of the Middle East, where nobody can hear you scream, is the crescendo drumbeat of war– the Holy admonition uttered to the faithful in the service of conquering and subduing the unbeliever. The trained ear discerns only the march towards ascendency and the infernal Anti-Semitic rhetoric of foaming hatred that castigates Jews as: Apes and Pigs, or drinkers of Palestinian toddler’s blood in the form of their Passover Matzo.

No, Jews, and increasingly Americans, are as the blight of the earth whose kingdoms must be thrown down. Where is the significant Muslim response of righteous indignation against these calumnies? Where is this hallowed moderate face of Islam that we can draw common cause with against those who propagate the reptilian dogma of God?

Our invidious President, who has missed no opportunity to apologize for every perceived historical American slight: actual or fabricated, and who many have argued himself subscribes to the moral ascendency of Islam over Christendom, has played a dangerous game. In prostrating himself before the Arab Street, he has sought through rhetorical triangulation to mollify the one hundred million or so Arabs who are hell bent in their desires for America, Israel, and the totality of the entire West to achieve room temperature at the soonest possible moment.

The dilemma Obama may now be awakening to is that the whiff of fear and death in the atmosphere surrounding his stratagem of American obsequiousness has both emboldened the Islamicists and solidified their hand in the volcanic Middle Eastern arc. Our president has actively participated, in concert with the Islamicists, in spoon feeding the propaganda necessary to gather the ignorant into the Devil’s legions. Can it be doubted any longer that Obama‘s hands are complicit in shepherding those who were once silently and shrewdly straddling the Islamicist fence? The Arab Street, waiting forebodingly to see whom the victor would be before pragmatically hitching their camels to the winners in this most precarious of political calculations, has tragically been sold down the Nile without a barge.

Barack Obama gave the Arab Spring his forked blessing, and in the bargain was instrumental in igniting the House of Islam into a firestorm that will swallow what little peace remains left in the world. The Myth of Islamic Moderation will soon pass the way of all naive pipe dreams — like the utopian Kellogg-Briand Pact that theoretically should have outlawed the powers of the earth from waging war any longer. Both this Pact and the Arab Spring share two things in common: They both made the coming conflagrations inevitable and in turn made the Spirit of the West incapable of adequately countering the inhuman mutating visage of unrelenting and unapologetic tyranny.
__________________________________________________
Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be reached at arete5000@dslextreme.com. • (2051 views)

Share
Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

retired
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Hunting the Unicorn of Moderate Islam

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    I think of the problem as Koranic Islam. Those who consider themselves Muslims but are basically secular and somewhat westernized (most of the traditional political and military elites, for example) are non-jihadist and often even actively anti-jihadist. But those who genuinely try to practice Islam in accordance with the Koran generally turn out to be at least pro-jihadist. Apparently much of the problem even in the US comes from relatively harmless Muslims who decide to study the Koran, and then become radicalized.

    But my own view of how to deal with Muslim terrorism involves massive reprisals. Every time they kill one of us, launch a reprisal strike to wipe out a pro-jihadist community. The basis could be the same as that expressed at the end of the movie The Haunting: “They should burn it down, and sow salt over the ashes.” Nor does It matter who is wiped out in the reprisals; the jihadists are at war with everyone and operate on the Chivington principle (“nits grow into lice”), and we should treat them as they treat others.

    • faba calculo says:

      As I have said in response to this view before, no one would be happier with the outcome of such a policy than the jihadists themselves. They would have an endless stream of bodies, especially of women and children, to use for recruiting.

      I won’t speak certainly for jihadists, but, in my understanding, hoping for such a result was exactly the reason that Russian anarchists did their bombings. If they could goad the government into responding brutally on the public at large, or even a signification portion of it, they’re recruiting efforts suddenly became more productive.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The result of my policy would either be that Muslim death-worship is brought to an end, or they’re all killed off (which brings it to an end that way).

        • faba calculo says:

          You would never reach your goal, as the policy would be canceled soon after it was initiated. The moment phrases like “in violation of the Geneva Convention’s prohibition of collective punishment” and pictures of piles of dead babies became regular fixtures on the evening news, the American people simply wouldn’t stand for it. Nor should they. There are excellent reasons that collective punishment was banned.

          Collateral damage is one thing, deliberately targeting large numbers of people who had no involvement in the action being punished is another.

      • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

        Americans are killed in an attack by Islamic terrorists, but we mustn’t mount a massive reprisal, lest we act as “recruiters for al-qaeda”. Faba recommends instead that we do nothing – surpirse!

        The good thing about killing the enemy, Faba, is that either those left alive decide to reconsider their plans to attack, or else all of them are dead and therefore finally ready to leave us in peace. The leadership especially should be targeted, as they are less ready to leave this world for the promised paradise of 72 virgins than their foot soldiers.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Exactly what I favor. One way or another they’ll stop the killing.

        • faba calculo says:

          Killing terrorists is one thing. Killing people simply for being “pro-jihad” is another. That’s why one is against the Geneva Convention and the other isn’t.

          Note: this is not to say that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorist. It doesn’t. But it applies to the population at large, and if someone is merely pro-jihad as opposed to being an actual combatant / terrorist, they’re part of the population at large.

          And if being in favor of this much of the Geneva Conventions makes me a liberal, so be it!

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I realize that my plan is unworkable in that sense, just as is my plan for dividing up Palestine (presented on an earlier thread here). It’s more an emotional reaction. But I do think it’s a good idea anyway.

            • faba calculo says:

              “It’s more an emotional reaction.”

              Fine. If this is more of a “FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING TERRORISTS!!!”, I’ve much less objection. It’s when emotion is transformed into action that I grow concerned.

              But, in more general terms, that’s been a lot of the problem recently: the transformation of emotion into action. That’s Prager’s point about the shutdown happening because it felt good to do it. I’d say it somewhat differently as it having been born of the frustration over the lack of success and an (at least perceived) lack of effort at, among other things, killing Obamacare. That’s Dr. Sowell’s point about the shutdown having been principled but not rational.

              Hell, that’s my problem with the Palestinian people in general. I can understand why they are angry that Israel was granted fully half of the former mandate area (though I understand that reaction more from the people in 1947 than today). It’s when they translate that into endless attempts at war, where they have no chance of winning, that my understanding ceases and turns to revulsion. And it’s when they turn from open war to out-and-out murder of civilians (often children) that my revulsion turns to…something far worse.

  2. faba calculo says:

    Where do you get your figure of 100,000,000 Arabs “hell bent in their desires for America, Israel, and the totality of the entire West to achieve room temperature at the soonest possible moment” from?

    • LibertyMark says:

      Pick a percentage of the world’s Islam population that is “extremist” and calculo as a factor of 1,500,000,000 (world pop. of mooselems)… 10%? 8%? 5%?

      Whatever the calculo, the number of extremists hell-bent on Western destruction is frightening. Golly, there’s a whole regime in Iran alone with this very goal!

      100,000,000 sounds low to me!

      • faba calculo says:

        At the risk of being pedantic, by and in large, the Iranians aren’t Arabs. In fact, most Muslims aren’t Arabs. If you’re talking 100,000,000 people, that’s about 10% of all Muslims (15% using your sum), but it’s almost 33% of Arabs.

        And the question of what the percentage of Arabs who are hell bent as described above is exactly what caused me to request a source. Is this a real estimate or more a wild guess?

  3. Glenn Fairman Glenn Fairman says:

    The figure of 10 percent is regularly thrown about describing the world Muslim population who are jihadi sympathizers. Assuming this is correct, then 100 million is quite conservative…….and quite significant. In fact, 50 million should be quite alarming.

    • faba calculo says:

      That it is “thrown about” says very little.

      I’m not actually doubting this number. For years I’ve had a Google Alert set up keyed to the phrase “Palestinian Polls”. There’s actually quite a few of them, including a couple of recurring ones done by Palestinian organizations, allowing a kind of tracking poll (more or less). The ongoing results haven’t been encouraging. There is, for instance (as best as I can remember off the top of my head) a percentage of Palestinians that openly says that, no matter what, they’ll never accept a permanent peace with Israel that runs from the mid-20s to the low 40s.

      Therefore, I suspected that this number came from a poll of the larger Muslim world, and I was curious to know which it was. (Admittedly, I also saw a significant likelihood that this number was just being pulled out of thin air, so, again, I asked.)

  4. Glenn Fairman Glenn Fairman says:

    Actually, I have read many books, journals and scholarly pieces on the subject, but I can’t off the top of my head give you a citation. My original reaction to the number was incredulity also when I began my studies of Islam a decade ago. Since then, I have ceased to be shocked by what passes for civility and “the “norm” in that hellish region.

  5. Tom says:

    At what point historically was Islam non-violent? When the founder destroyed 364 gods and kept #365, the moon god for himself? At The removal of the first several hundred jewish heads by his own sword? Islam has never not been at war, it means submission. In early America, this nation was paying a large percentage of its national wealth to Islamist kidnappers. Thomas Jefferson obtained his famous copy of Islams book, I believe, with the effort in mind of understanding where they were coming from with all the violence. We have the Marine Corp as a result, I think.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Exactly, Tom. The real history of Islam is not being taught.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The Marines already existed, but their performance during the Tripolitanian War (“to the shores of Tripoli”) certainly created their reputation, especially the remarkable march to Derna that basically won the war. (Ian Douglas, in his future Marine Corps novels, recreated that in the first, set on Mars.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *