Moderate Muslims and the Islamisation of Europe

 

 

(1) Who is our enemy? Is it mainly (or only) the Islamists/jihadists who plan and carry out physical terror acts?

 

(2) Why don’t moderate Muslims forcefully oppose the Islamists? Aren’t they opposed to them? Do moderate Muslims cooperate with us – or with them?

 

 

It has been pointed out regarding issue (1) that terror is just a tool, a short- or long-term tactics of the Islamists, and one of many possible policy alternatives. It can be used, or it can be dropped if the Islamic decision-makers conclude that another strategy is better and that terrorism starts to be counterproductive. So terror and terrorism is not the enemy but just a tool among many. Naming what probably will be called World War IV in the future, for “The war on terror “ is just an attempt to be tactical in the short term: don’t irritate “normal” Muslims and be politically correct. However, it plays into the hands of the enemies of the Western Civilisation if one doesn’t talk straight about whom the enemy is. It also reflects a deep flaw in the understanding of the Islamic doctrine. Instead of committing such errors, it is necessary to clearly define which Muslims are the enemy.

 

The basic doctrine of Islam consists not only of the Quran but also of the sunnah of Muhammed (the Ahadith and the sira). The religion contains both peaceful and violent principles but the peaceful suras (from Mecca) are generally abrogated by the later – and violent – ones from Medina. The small number of peaceful maxims regarding non-Muslims (generally not valid because of abrogation) are now used over and over again in the West in order to deceive Europeans and Americans, while the real ruling principles are covered up. But even the “peaceful” part of the Quran created by Muhammed in Mecca is generally not peaceful. Quantitative research shows that e g about 2/3 of that part “deals with condemning unbelievers to hell for merely disagreeing with Muhammed” (1).

 

What is then a “moderate” Muslim? It is necessary to understand the difference between what a Muslim means with moderation and what an European or American thinks the term stands for. It is reasonable to argue that a moderate Muslim is one who wants to closely follow the quran and the examples and principles of the perfect model of a man for all future and for all the world, i.e. Muhammed. And any true Muslim naturally wants e g to implement sharia laws which are just consequences of the quran and the sunnah. Such a person cannot in any sense be described as an extreme Muslim.

 

So-called moderate Muslims in the West cannot pick and choose the parts of the doctrine that they like. That is forbidden by the religion and doing so would mean that they are not real Muslims in the traditional sense. There is also a prohibition against personal interpretations of Islam. There are established interpretations and principles regarding interpretation which were accepted many centuries ago and are respected throughout the Muslim world. It is not permitted to arrive at new conclusions which contradict the old ones and violate the rules of interpretation. “Ijtihad” – interpretations not based on case law or past precedent – have been forbidden since the 11th century and a moderate Muslim must respect that. Innovation regarding religious principles is a very serious crime in the Muslim world.

 

Sharia law is the practical application of the quran and the sunna, and a moderate Muslim must accept these laws. Even if an European Muslim initially doesn’t do that owing to a lack of knowledge of the quran and the sunnah (evidently very common owing to a low educational level; that the clerics try to conceal parts of the doctrine which may cause opposition also among Muslims during a period when Muslims are still a minority in Europe a s o) he or she will later accept also these theses. When shown that he has misunderstood and is wrong about the doctrine according to the real, traditional Islam, a Muslim will after a while accept that he has been misguided earlier and will then follow the lead of the faithful interpreters of true Islam.

 

Many Muslims in the West now temporarily accept to follow the laws of the land because they as a group constitute a smaller minority here. But when they grew stronger in a country, their doctrine will force them to work for implementing Muslim values and primarily, the sharia laws. It is evident that Muslims now lacking in knowledge about Islam or believing in local liberal interpretations with no special basis in the accepted doctrine, will be pushovers when influenced by representatives of real, traditional Islam. The liberal Muslims are just influenced by national/cultural reinterpretations of the doctrine which were made a long time ago in order to create a society more harmonious and easier to live in. But these interpretations are deviations and have no real theoretical basis. They can only survive as long as nobody challenges them energetically. Most moderate Muslims will certainly abandon them when shown his/her errors regarding understanding Islam. They will then do what is demanded of them as Muslims, and even if some will not like it, they will obey. The quran itself (sura 2:216) states that even if you don’t like certain things, they are/may be good for you. In that situation probably only a small minority will withdraw from Islam in opposition. Open apostasy will be looked upon as an option by a still smaller minority.

 

A moderate Muslim is not a reform-minded Muslim, who is willing to eliminate some, many or all those principles of Islam that violate e g human rights. The moderate Muslims already want – or will want after some religious re-education – pretty much the same things as the Islamists. The main goal is then partial or full implementation of sharia laws in Europe. Even if they now (for lack of knowledge) object to certain parts of the sharia, they still prefer important parts of it to man-made Western laws. And why shouldn’t they accept the sharia? Then they can keep their superiority over women, which is so important for the comfortable life of many Muslim males whose lifestyles just depend on the exploitation of women. And it means that they can become rich without any effort: the Western population can in the future be transformed into half-slaves (dhimmis) and their property (slowly) taken over by those in power – Muslims.

 

The content of the sharia is mainly political; just a small part regards religion as such (as a religion is defined in the West). The contents violate human rights and accepted political principles in the West: secularism, democracy etc (see 8.1.2 below). However, as discussed in Part 6, a moderate may not find it a religious duty to implement the doctrine by force n o w in Europe or the US as long as a correctly chosen Muslim leader for the Ummah doesn’t exist (and who hasn’t proclaimed jihad in Europe). In that respect he is different from an Islamist who works for an Islamist society by force now. But the medium- or long-term goals of the moderate Muslim and the Islamist are pretty much the same.

 

What a European means with the term “moderate Muslim” is very different from the Muslim concept of moderation. The European basically means a “Reform(ed)” Muslim. These brave persons still look at themselves as Muslims but they break a myriad of the principles of the real, traditional Islam accepted by the overwhelming majority of Muslims. In reality, the Reform Muslims create a new religion which has few similarities to traditional Islam. Why it then should be called Islam can be discussed but they proclaim themselves to be Muslims. Depending on their arguments, that claim can be logically rejected or accepted. They may be called “New” or “Reform” Muslims but they are surely not moderate Muslims according to the established faith. That term doesn’t stand for a Muslim with Western values regarding secularism, freedom, human rights, and democracy with rules protecting minorities. And the New or Reform Muslims are still very few.

 

So basically: what an American or European liberal or socialist means with the term “moderate Muslim” is in reality a Muslim who disregards many of the most important principles of his faith. These Westerners delude themselves regarding the contents of Islam because they are scared of the consequences of the fact that they cannot square the circle. An objective analysis can never reach the conclusion that Islam is peaceful, tolerant and consistent with human rights.

 

The evidence seems to show that there are no important theological differences between jihadists and so-called "peaceful" or "moderate" Muslims. It may be that jihadists are just more faithful and more serious with regard to realising islam. One religious obligation which every muslim must observe, is to realise and institute the laws of islam if he is in such political position that he has the power to do so. Some believers think that it is mandatory to work hard to realise that situation. Moderates think that if muslims are not in power, there is no special religious duty to work directly to reach it (unless a jihad has been legally proclaimed). But probably many or most moderates want the muslims to reach that kind of power so they can implement the sharia.

 

The traditional doctrine is the leading one in the muslim world. Local and more moderate interpretations are now retreating in many countries probably because communication and interaction is easy in the modern world, and therefore the real, traditional islam can recover the initiative again from local and earlier somewhat isolated variants of islam. The traditional faith can now control the contents of the doctrine in various countries better. Because all four schools of sunni islam agree on so many matters, this force is difficult to withstand intellectually if one is a muslim.

 

It has been said that islam has been hijacked by terrorists. Even if that may be the case in some instances where the terrorists really interpret the quoran in too extreme a way, it is no reason at all to conclude that the judgment is true in general. What seems to be true is instead that many - from the beginning normal, peaceful and sound - persons are hijacked by islam and transformed into fanatics and enemies of democracy, freedom and human rights. And some of these persons may for many reasons develop into terrorists. But that transformation doesn’t depend on the discovery of other tenets of islam but on psychological or sociopsychological reasons, and the individual circumstances of the person in question.

 

Because of the misery of their current life, an end to it and paradise may seem preferable. A person may feel a greater fear of hell than others; or for young sex-starved men, the free sex in paradise may seem more important than anything else. Or the person takes the teaching that this life is of little importance than the other more seriously and tries to reach the next faster – and dying in jihad is the sure free ticket to paradise. Or he is a strict, serious and logical person and makes reasonable conclusions on the basis of the quran, hadiths and sunnah.

 

In many cases, a moderate muslim evidently has the same goals as the terrorists but refuses to fight for them with a weapon in his hand and sacrifice himself in battle (until jihad has been legally proclaimed). But that is no reason to make a sharp differentiation between a moderate and an extreme muslim religion. The final goals may be very similar, or even the same. It is also always necessary to observe the possibility of taqiyya when listening to a so-called moderate. Extremists find advantages in being labelled as moderates.

 

Without a reformed doctrine proclaiming distinctly and unequivocally different theses which secure all human rights and eliminate the unacceptable parts of the quran, the opinions of the moderates are not specially useful as a religious basis. Opinions can be abandoned and may crumble fast if they come under serious pressure from hardliners. No policies in western countries can be based on a belief in the moderation of muslims without the existence of a clearly reformed islamic doctrine. The survival of a nation: its human rights, political system, culture and future cannot rest on such a weak hope.

 

Multiculturalism according to the common interpretation, multiculturalism in practice means that all cultures and religions are equal. For the reasons given above, that assertion is totally wrong. People are equal as human beings but the opinions, culture and values of people have not the same worth. Opinions and culture can generally be valued according to various criteria. Different cultures – being value systems - are therefore not equal. From a political and humanistic point–of-view, some of these systems are - just owing to their positions concerning human rights - worthless in a western democracy as value systems guiding the society regarding political issues.

 

 

Source:

 

http://www.islam-watch.org/NoSharia/PreventEuropeIslamization1.htm