Saturday, January 27, 2007

In Search Of The Moderate Muslim

Serge Trifkovic - who along with Robert Spencer and pop culture celebrities like Britney Spears, is accused of inflaming radical Islam by Dinesh D'Souza - goes on the attack:

Nearly two years ago the Jihadist lobby in the United States made a concerted affort to have my book The Sword of the Prophet banned from National Review Online. Jihadi activists gathered around CAIR claimed the book defamed Islam and its "prophet." When it did not get immediate satisfaction from National Review, CAIR instructed its partisans to pressure the Boeing Corporation to withdraw its advertisements from the magazine. Faced with the loss of revenue National Review briefly took down The Sword, but then quickly reposted it, under pressure from mainly conservative quarters.

It is now, perhaps inevitably, the turn of a phony conservative to join CAIR's ranks. In his latest book, The Enemy At Home, Dinesh D'Souza writes that,

"In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet."

Two of the titles D'Souza finds so offensive that condemning them tops his list of "critical steps" are by my friend Robert Spencer, and "The Sword" is mine. D'Souza wants us, and presumably other similarly minded authors (Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, Andrew Bostom, Walid Shoebat et al), to shut up.

As my fellow offender Spencer has noted has noted, D'Souza assumes that peaceful Muslims will have a greater sense of solidarity with jihadists than with non-Muslims, which is indeed the case, but it makes hash of his entire thesis—that social conservatives should ally themselves with these "traditional" Muslims:

"For if these peaceful Muslims really abhor jihadism, they should have no reason to object to critical presentations of the elements of Islam that foster jihadism. But if such presentations will just drive them into the arms of the jihadists, then how committed could they really have been to peace and moderation in the first place?

If they think "Islamophobic tracts" are more threatening to their religion than acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam, how ‘traditional' and moderate could they possibly be?"

It is noteworthy that D'Souza is condemning our writings as "Islamophobic" without further elaboration. Like the term "Islamophobia" itself—a classic product of the Hate Crime Industry—his technique is characteristic of the totalitarian Left. I remember reading, as a teenager in Tito's Yugoslavia, similarly worded condemnations of dissident writers and their "tracts" in the communist-controlled press. Once they were defined as "anti- socialist," "reactionary," or "nationalist," no further elaboration was needed and no debate allowed.

We, somewhat often, have Muslims comment here that we "Nazis", or that we are "Islamophobic". I always respond the same way:

We condemn the preaching of Jihad against the Infidel. We condemn capital punishment for apostasy, homosexuality, and adultery. We condemn the burqa, and the idea that women have half the rights of men. If you join us in condemning these ideas, then we have no problem with you as a Muslim.

So, which are you? A Muslim who condemns these ideas, or one who supports them?

I have yet to receive an answer to this question from any Muslim.


revereridesagain said...

Good to see D'Souza getting some well-deserved backlash lately. Too bad somebody didn't talk some sense into his head before he published that idiotic book.

Fortunately, Walid Phare's latest, "War of Ideas", is due out next month. Early next month, I hope.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure there'll be a happy ending to our current problems with this tiny minority of Jihadists.

Very soon, the Moderate Muslim Cavalry will come riding to the rescue on their unicorns.

Pastorius said...

Yes, and they will defeat the extremists among them by throwing out rays of light which will instantly convert them over to the logic of love of loving your neighbor even if he is a Samaritan.

Anonymous said...

I was browsing the Clarity and Resolve blog and this phrase "Taiwan - Muslim Imam Objects To Year Of Pig Greeting Cards" in one of his latest posts caught my eye. I was particularly surprised by the Taiwanese connection. So, I did a bit of digging on the Taipei Grand Mosque mentioned in the link and found this old Taipei Times news article ( that was published on 2 OCT 2007, shortly after the WTC attacks.

Here are some revealing excerpts from that article with my comments:

One Senegalese Muslim who has attended prayers at the mosque for several months since he last arrived in Taiwan describes the Islam practiced there as "very orthodox."

[Hmmm, this has Wahhabism written all over it.]

...the structure of domes and minarets was built in 1960 by a local Islamic community with assistance from Saudi Arabia, which even today remains a major source of financial support for Taipei's main Islamic center of worship.

[Holy Shiite! Continuing Saudi funding, huh? Definitely Wahhabism!]

Ties between the mosque and Saudi Arabia, the nation in which Islam was founded, have been strong throughout its entire 41-year history. Visiting Saudi imams preach in the mosque each year during Ramadan, and many of the mosque's past homegrown imams have traveled to Saudi Arabia to learn Arabic and undertake religious studies. In several instances, Taiwanese imams have also spent part of their careers in Taiwan's diplomatic service in Saudi Arabia. In 1971, Taipei's Grand Mosque was even visited by Saudi's King Faisal.

[Taiwan naively breeding its own home-grown fifth columnists and future troublemakers.]

"There are no divisions in Islam," said Ma, in regard to the compatibility of Muslims from so many traditions for worshipping together under one roof.

Nevertheless, he also discounted non-Sunni Muslims, such as Shi'ites, as unorthodox sects. Sunnis account for the vast majority of Muslims the world over.

[This Arabisation is just creepy. A Taiwanese Chinese swallowing wholesale the 'Sunni good, Shia bad' mentality.]

The statement further emphasized that Islam is a religion of peace, that a few terrorists do not represent Islam and should not be seen as doing so, and that Islam shares much of its history and values with Christianity and Judaism.

[There is that 'Islam is a religion of peace' and "tiny minority of extremists" thing again. Isn't that oxymoronic when you think about it? If it's a real religion of peace, then why should there be even a tiny minority of violent followers?]

Of the hijackers, Ajaz, an Indian Muslim, said, "They are not Muslims. Muslims can not be terrorists, and terrorists can not be Muslims."

[Right, how convenient. If any follower commits atrocities in the name of the religion of peace, we'll just disown him.]

Atilla Kahveci, a teacher from Turkey, said, "Suicide is one of the biggest sins in Islam. Trying to express a point of view in a violent way is not the Islamic way."

[As we all know by now, suicide bombings AGAINST KUFFARS are permissible. Speaking of Turkey and the religion of peace, does 'Hrant Dink' and 'I killed the kuffar' ring a bell?]

On the first Friday following the terrorist attacks against the US, Ma addressed such issues, delivering his weekly lesson on the theme, "What is jihad?" In his sermon, he equated jihad not with "holy war", as it is often translated, but with the Chinese words for hard work or striving (努力), struggle (奮鬥) and diligence (用功).

"Jihad is personal," he said. "If people are doing immoral things, you need to tell them. You should not attack [them], you should use your mouth."

[There is that 'peaceful inner struggle' thing again.]

But while Ma denounces violence, including any potential retribution by the US, he is hesitant to assess blame for the traumatic events of mid-September or take critical positions against other Muslim groups, including the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

[Closing ranks like the Council on American-Islamic Relations.]

When approached on such topics, he is generally eager to turn the conversation in other directions, including the peaceful conduct advocated by Muhammad, Islam's major prophet, and Islamic culture's tight focus on an ordered, moral society.

[This Ma guy is in denial; 'peaceful conduct' and 'Muhammad' don't belong in the same sentence.]

On a deeper level, however, he and many others at the mosque find trouble viewing the recent acts of violence against America without linking them to other concerns related to challenges to their faith. The mosque's statement about the September 11 attacks averred that "the hijackings and crash attacks on the World Trade Center buildings were extremely shocking. But almost as worrisome are `American products,' like movies, that reappear in the real world."

[Ah, the Chewbacca defence ( Does it make sense? Do American products make you fear for your life?]

Several at the mosque echoed the statement with concerns about how media, especially Western media, broadcasts a bombardment of messages at odds with their religious beliefs. Paramount among these worrisome signals, said one man from Sri Lanka who declined to give his name, are the glorification of drinking alcohol and casual attitudes toward sex.

"I can't send my kids to school here [in Taiwan]. What they teach is what I am opposed to in every way," he said.

[You know, if you find Taiwanese values so intolerable, maybe you should go live in the Sunny Sunni paradise that is Saudi Arabia.]

Ma elaborated on the cultural friction, saying that Western individualism admits much behavior that Islamic collectives find unacceptable. As examples, he mentioned homosexuality, abortion and sex before marriage.

"Islam says these are immoral. The West says this is freedom," he said.

[Ma, baby, why didn't you mention that the punishment prescribed by the religion of PEACE for all these examples of immorality is DEATH?]

Also a source of tension that a few people at the mosque could not help mentioning was "the Palestine problem." Specifically, Ma cited Palestine's millennia-old territorial dispute with Israel, while one or two others broached their bitterness at US support for Israel, which is compounded by Israeli troops' continued shedding of Palestinian blood.

[Another creepy example of Arabisation of a Taiwanese Chinese.]

Agitated by such topics, the man from Sri Lanka went so far as to threaten this reporter, who is American, saying, "You are safe in the mosque today, but if there is an attack, you better watch out. Then you must go back. Out of Taiwan. You will not be allowed to stay here."

[What's this? A follower of the religion of PEACE actually THREATENING someone on religious grounds?]

Soon afterwards, others from the mosque told me that this man's views were found abhorrent by many of his fellow Muslims. They implored me to disregard him. He was only one bad apple, they said, and only a few ever listened to him.

[Maybe they should disown him. That should keep the religion of peace nice and pure.]

Anonymous said...

Small correction. The date should be 2 OCT 2001, not 2 OCT 2007.

B.M.I said...

I've just stumbled on this blog, first time I've seen this. I have no idea what your ideology and views are but if you're a reasonable person then I'll be willing to discuss issues with you.

I am so glad you are searching for moderate Muslims because you've just found one. Me.

I am a practising Shii Muslim but very moderate. You can tell this from my blog, I feel so strongly about the importance of being a moderate Muslim and oppose and condemn any extremism.

Please watch the latest entry on my blog a video by a very educated Shii Muslim scholar explaining the virtue of being moderate and opposing extremism and violence.

This will give you a clear picture of the beautiful truth and message of Islam.

Pastorius said...


If you condemn

1) violent Jihad against the Infidel

2) capital punishment for gays, apostates and adulterers

3) the subjugation of women, and specifically the burqa

then you and I are in agreement.

Other than that, I don't care what you beleve. You are free to do what you want, just as I am free to do what I want, as long as we don't hurt each other.

In other words, I believe in Freedom. If you believe in that, then I think you are great.

Oh yes, and then I am happy to meet you, my friend.

B.M.I said...

Answer to your 3 conditions are:

1) Yes not only condemn but completely reject any form of terrorism, suicide bombings, violence against any human being.

I am a Shii Muslim so Al-Qaeda Wahabi extremists also see us as 'infidels' they are massacring us in Iraq.

3) Totally against any subjugation of women even forcing someone to wear the burqa. This is another Taliban Wahabi invention they created.

Islam sees both genders as equal.

2) Sorry cant agree there I accept this as part of Sharia law. However this should only be done under a true Islamic state when the Imam Mahdi (AS) comes and rules the earth.

Until then, this will not be allowed as a true Islamic state will only be ruled under Imam al-Mahdi (as).

You see no matter what anyone's belief is, no matter how strange and different, Islam tells me I must respect it.

However you don't seem very tolerant of Islam as a religion, by putting up the Prophet (AS) insulting cartoons on your blog.

So you're not as respectful of different beliefs as you claim to be.


Pastorius said...

Yeah, for instance, I don't respect your belief that people who decide they don't want to be Muslims anymore should be killed.

That means they have no freedom of choice.

I think that is an apalling idea. So, I think you are an extremist, and if that's the way you want to live, you should go live in a Muslim country, and leave us alone here in the West.

B.M.I said...

That sounds really ironic!

You say you hate extremist Muslims who force their beliefs on others and don't respect other beliefs.

However you have no problem giving me an ultimatum that If I dont adopt secular beliefs and reject Islam then I must pick up and leave the West.

Sounds very ironical! Almost like a French type of attitude. lol.

I believe I am a moderate Muslim I practise Islam and yet at the same time I reject Wahabism, extremism, violence, murder, subjugation of women etc.

You see that's why as a moderate Muslim I am bigger than this. I believe that no matter how different and bizarre a belief is I will accept and respect it. A person should choose to believe what he likes and should be respected as long as doesnt harm society.

This is the true meaning of acceptance and tolerance.

B.M.I said...

Anyways too busy so wont be posting here anymore.

Also i dont feel too comfortable here and we failed to reach an alliance.

Its clear you have a problem with Islam full stop and not just extremist Islam.

Pastorius said...

Sorry if I have hurt you, but I'm only telling you the truth as I see it.

We believe in personal freedom here in the Western world. Muslims tend to believe in coerced virtue over personal freedom.

The two are not compatible.

We call your beliefs extremist, and you are right, I am not at all tolerant of your beliefs.

Please, move back to a Muslim country and leave us alone. We don't want your kind here.