A New Era in Muslim-Non-Muslim Relations


I DON'T really care what Muslims would consider a "moderate Muslim." I've got my own definition: A moderate Muslim rejects jihad except in the sense of a "personal inner struggle." That would be a Muslim who rejects 97 percent of the references to jihad in the Hadith. That also means a moderate Muslim must reject much of the sacred example of Mohammad.
It would also include a rejection of the intolerance, hatred, and violence toward non-Muslims in the Quran. And a moderate Muslim would reject the subordinated position of women.
If that person still wants to call himself or herself a Muslim, that's fine with me.
What brought this up was reflecting over the last nine years. We started Citizen Warrior in 2001, about a month after 9/11. And in that time, we've heard from hundreds of Muslims, all of them arguing that we either don't know what we're talking about because "true Islam" is peaceful and tolerant, or arguing that it doesn't help anything to tell non-Muslims about the intolerance, hatred, and violence in the Quran.
And this is the surprising thing that has never occurred to me until yesterday: In all that time, we have never heard from a Muslim — not once — that acknowledged the existence of the immense number of passages in the Quran that non-Muslims find disagreeable — passages that any idiot could understand why non-Muslims would find them disagreeable. And not once have any these Muslims acknowledged the existence of the egregious example of Mohammad (that Muslims are supposed to follow) — an example anyone with the slightest amount of human empathy would understand might be offensive or even frightening to non-Muslims.
What we've heard again and again was that none of this stuff really counts, or it's all taken out of context, and that the terrorists have it all wrong and nobody else except the terrorists believe in or follow those teachings, or the teachings don't exist.
Over the years we've come across a very small number of genuinely jihad-rejecting Muslims, like Tawfik Hamid. And of course, if they genuinely reject the hatred and political ambition and calls to violence in Islamic doctrine, they don't have a problem with what we write about Islam.
Those are the only ones that qualify for the badge "Moderate Muslim." For the rest of them who think my speaking honestly about Islamic doctrine will only drive the "moderates" into the arms of the "extremists," I say "try again," because that nonsense doesn't work around here. If someone rejects jihad, then my speaking even derisively about the passages they reject will not cause them to embrace it.
And we non-Muslims need to stop coddling the so-called moderates. We need to be forthright and say, "you either stridently reject jihad or we will assume you embrace it." It's not up to us to bend over backwards trying to prove how tolerant we are. If Muslims want to be welcomed into this society, they had better start standing up and making their voices heard. They had better openly acknowledge and reject the hatred, misogyny, and violence in their core doctrines, or we must assume they don't.
Many of us are reading their source books. We know the doctrine. We would be foolish not to assume a Muslim believes in Islamic doctrine. So it is up to Muslims to tell us they do not believe in that doctrine, and to say specifically which parts of the doctrine they do not endorse.
What got me thinking about this was an article by Christopher Hitchens in which he mentioned that Governor Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon, firmly stated "that he did not regard the prophet, or head of the Mormon church, as having ultimate moral and spiritual authority on all matters. Nothing, he swore, could override the U.S. Constitution."
Now why did Romney feel he needed to say that? Because quite a few of us are aware of Mormon doctrine. So he openly reassured us as to where his loyalties lay.
Have you ever heard a Muslim do this? Neither have I. And yet Muslims are in a worse situation. They experience more suspicion and hostility than Mormons. But rather than doing what Romney did, what do Muslims do? Usually they blame us for it, make us wrong for it, and imply the problem is our lack of "tolerance."
So here's the situation: We've become aware of Islamic doctrine and we don't like it, so we naturally wonder where they stand, and instead of Muslims saying, "We acknowledge the intolerance and violence of our core doctrines, and we reject them totally," they open up with hostility, and in essence, deepen our suspicions. The hostility and finger-pointing are exactly what we would expect from someone who believes in the supremacist, intolerant teachings of Islam.
And weak, vague assurances are not good enough. "We reject the killing of innocents" doesn't work any more because too many of us know already that nowhere in the Quran does it imply non-Muslims are innocent. It implies just the opposite.
Muslims need to be clear and explicit, and we need to demand that of them. Anything less will not do, and if they want to whine and complain about it, too bad.
We need to make it clear what they must do to be welcome in this society. And we need to be clear that our "tough-love" attitude toward them is a sane response to what we know of their ideology.
Imagine you were putting an avowed communist in charge of the Federal Reserve. You wouldn't do it without very firm assurances from him that he completely rejects the economic model of communism. You have to demand that assurance because you know what the communist ideology is. You have to assume when someone says he's a communist that he believes in the communist ideology. It's an assumption we can take for granted. Otherwise, what does it mean to say you're a communist? That's what it means: That you believe in the communist ideology.
Same with Islam: You say you're a Muslim. That means you believe in Islam's ideology. Fine. I have studied the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sira. I know what your teachings consists of. And no, I don't want you running the country or involved in law enforcement or teaching my children or writing textbooks or working in counterterrorism or joining the military, unless you can assure me of what parts of that ideology you reject. This is simple common sense.
And making a big stink out of it only makes you look like you don't reject it. What other conclusion can we come to?
I think others are coming to the same conclusion, and I've seen much more direct challenges to Muslims who say they are moderate. They are being asked direct questions like, "Do you repudiate what Hamas is doing?" and they're asked to sign the Freedom Pledge and when they don't sign it, they are asked why they won't. These are steps in the right direction.
But more interviewers need to become educated about Islam so they can ask stronger, more specific questions. And this challenge needs to become incessant and intense from all of us, everywhere. Muslims must feel the heat. They must realize they have to come right out and say, "Yes, there is a political agenda in Islam, and I completely reject it" or they will not be welcomed or trusted or invited to any "interfaith dialogs for peace and understanding."
For someone who is unfamiliar with Islamic doctrine, all this sounds terrible and unfair, but it isn't. We would do the same for any group who openly declared their membership in a seditious or treasonous or intolerant or violent ideology and who wanted to live among us as equals.
I've been collecting "tests" for moderate Muslims that have been used or proposed by someone. So far I've found four: Tests for Defining Moderate Muslims.
We call on all non-Muslims in the free world to join us in this stand — to put the onus on each individual Muslim (not just "Muslim organizations"). We must make this clear to every Muslim: If you do not openly reject jihad in all its forms, we must assume you abide by it and believe in it, and we will have to treat you accordingly.


Civilus Defendus 10:36 AM  

Being raised in an orthodox islamic home has social consequences beyond religion. In the West, we largely consider the individual to have rights and responsibilities, and we celebrate and support a child's natural curiosity, analytical tendencies and developing empathy. The individual is a unique and valued member of the community. Rights and wrongs have a natural foundation in what being human means to us. Law and restraint of law comes from the deliberation of men. There is a universality of law, that all are treated equally before the law.

However, under islam the lawgiver is separate from those upon whom the law is enforced, and it is immutable, unchangeable. The islamic community, the “ummah” is vested with the power to impose on each individual the world according to allah and the “perfect man” mohammed. Right and wrong is set aside for what is allowed and what is disallowed. And there is no universality to this “law” as muslims are set above, superior to all others. This is not a healthy world. When what is allowed includes intimidation, unrestrained anger, misogyny, pedophilia, rape, murder, deception, theft, slavery; when there is lack of interest in philosophy and contemplation and when discrimination is promoted in all relations between the in-group (muslims) and the out-group (non-muslims, kafirs, infidels) trust is nary to be found. When individuals need not concern themselves with thoughtful reflection upon their actions, because the community does that for them (or rather it is considered unnecessary), we enter a dangerous world of pack mentality, where the actions of the individual are lost and become part of the pack – and the pack is always “right.”

Oh, what a mess we are in. However, once we examine these concepts and see they are incompatible with and destructive of our Western societies, I trust we will act in our own self-defense and take steps to ensure human liberty will prevail.

For a fascinating discussion – and one ESSENTIAL to our future – please consider the crucial insight into the disconnect between Western values and traditions and those of islam provided by Nicolai Sennels:


Anonymous 10:41 AM  

When a person announces himself as a Moslem, he has stated that he follows Islam and all that goes with it. PERIOD. This talk of "moderate Moslems" is total and utter hogwash.
Speaking on Kanal D TV’s Arena program, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West said:
‘These descriptions are very ugly.
It is offensive and an insult to our religion.
There is no moderate or extremist Islam.
Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007

Citizen Warrior 4:00 PM  

Someone just emailed this comment:

Your site has been a God-send to me, trying to educate the appeasers to you know who. Were I have a problem is when you ask a muslim if he rejects jihad. Obviously taqiyya comes into play. muslims in my opinion should NEVER NEVER be believed. Tough I know, and it was tougher on the 9/11 victims families. I will never believe in moderate or extremist islam, there is only isam, spawned by the devil. muslims must accept that sharia law must be abandoned and confined to the pit!! Any and all islam is totally incompatible with western culture and values. If they want islam, they should go back to the pit, and practice it there!!! When I hear citizens shouting for debate, I shudder, have they not realised that there is nothing to debate with liars. When they are sufficient in numbers THEY WILL try to force a take-over. islam demands the world as its own, with the rest of us as slaves, no thank you.

Citizen Warrior 4:01 PM  

Absolutely. A Muslim would have to demonstrate his loyalty to America, and I don't know if I'd believe them even then, but it would be a good start.

It's a tough issue, but for sure one thing we need to do is stop coddling. Stop trying to be tolerant. The nature of their doctrine needs to be openly acknowledged by everyone, especially by Muslims.

Citizen Warrior 4:14 PM  

Someone emailed this comment:

I must tell someone that as a Christian I do not hate Muslims but am against their theology. As a follower of Jesus I am afforded only the hatred of sin and what it does to people. I will read the Qu'ran when I get a copy to be fair but cannot hate Muslims, for they too are children of Abraham (Genesis 12:3).

I told him I hope he does not hate Muslims, and asked him if he got the impression I was advocating hatred. He said:

By no means! There seems to be this idea that if we disagree that it is "hate!" I value and recommend your work! Thank you for your candid writings. It is not hate when we demand truth on these issues! Keep up the good work!

Citizen Warrior 12:06 AM  

Someone emailed me this comment:

So what if a Muslim did sign the freedom pledge. In Islam it is o.k. to lie and break a contract, verbal or written. Citizen Warrior, it is what it is, Pure Evil!

Citizen Warrior 12:08 AM  

This is how I answered him:

What I am trying to get at is an attitude we can impart to the rest of our fellow citizens. Most people don't know enough about Islam to know it is a danger to non-Muslims, and those fellow citizens are impairing our ability to stop Islam's advance. They are in our way. They are DEFENDING Islam, for crying out loud!

But we can certainly change the game. We can describe what a "moderate Muslim" would be, and in the description, I think new eyes could be opened. When you see a description of what a moderate should be, I think even most multiculturalists would have to admit that certainly a Muslim should believe in equality between men and women, for example, and then it will show up in starker relief when they don't act that way. Do you know what I mean?

We do have Muslims here. And most of them will not be sent out of the country. Many of them were born here. So the question is, "How are we going to deal with them?" I say we need to be firm about what we expect of our fellow citizens, and if you can't do that, you will get no "respect" or "tolerance" or welcome or trust from us. You will be shunned in this society as a sociopath is shunned, until you declare and demonstrate whose team you are on.

Citizen Warrior 2:56 PM  

In the article, The Specter of Muslim Disloyalty in America, Raymond Ibrahim writes:

Koran 5:51 warns Muslims against "taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them," i.e., he becomes a non-believing "infidel," the worst thing in Islam. According to authoritative Muslim exegete, al-Tabari, Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who "allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community." Similar scriptures include Koran 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22; the latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims — "even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin." Conversely, according to Muhammad, "A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. He neither oppresses him nor humiliates him nor looks down upon him…. All things of a Muslim are inviolable for his brother in faith: his blood, his wealth, and his honor" — precisely those three things Islamic law singles out as not being vouchsafed to free infidels.

The problem here is that these scriptures are not mere words; American Muslims act on them. Consider the ongoing case of Nasser Abdo, an infantryman assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan: "I don't believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims. I don't believe I could sleep at night if I take part, in any way, in the killing of a Muslim…. I can't deploy with my unit to Afghanistan and participate in the war — I can't both deploy and be a Muslim." And why is that? "Abdo cited Islamic scholars and verses from the Quran [no doubt such as the above] as reasons for his decision to ask for separation from the Army." Indeed, his loyalty to foreign Afghani Muslims is such that, if he does not get discharged, "he will, apparently, be facing a prison sentence."

Rather than going quietly to prison, major Nidal Hasan went on the infamous Fort Hood killing spree, slaying thirteen Americans. Maintaining that "Muslims shouldn't kill Muslims," he was, like Abdo, adamant about not being deployed to a Muslim nation, his "worst nightmare." He was also "very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second," thereby showing where his true loyalty lay. Tabari's words come to mind: the Muslim who "allies with them [e.g., Americans] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community," i.e., he too becomes an infidel.

Citizen Warrior 2:57 PM  

Here's more from the article, The Specter of Muslim Disloyalty in America, Raymond Ibrahim writes:

And of course there was sergeant Hasan Akbar, who was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait: "He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq." Previous to the attack, he confessed to his diary: "I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the army is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to kill."

At this point, one may justly ask: if Muslim disloyalty to non-Muslims is a ubiquitous phenomenon, why are most examples limited to the military? Simple: Islam is primarily concerned with actual deeds; and the military is one of those rare institutions that requires people to demonstrate their loyalty through action, such as, by going to the frontlines and, if need be, combating America's enemies — even if they be one's coreligionists. It is therefore only natural that Muslim loyalty/disloyalty is primarily revealed in military related scenarios, including instrumental support via food or other aid. Concerning this latter, Muhammad said, "One [Muslim] who equips a person on his way to raid [the enemy's camps] in Allah's path [jihad] is considered to have the same status as the raider [jihadist]." The willing Muslim financial enabler of the infidel American soldier thus acquires the same infidel status.

Damien 12:30 PM  

Citizen Warrior,

Here's an example of a Liberal (moderate) Muslim.

Citizen Warrior 8:18 PM  

In the article, Maryland: Muslims whine about "Islamophobia," refuse to address jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism, Robert Spencer writes:

If Muslims really want to cure "Islamophobia," here is an easy way. They can:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.

2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people.

3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.

4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.

5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

If Muslims do those five things, voila! People like me will no longer suffer from the illness of "Islamophobia"!

And Pamela Geller said it best: "Muslims in the U.S. are not the ones living under death threat. People who are standing up to jihad activity and Islamic supremacism are. They are not the ones targeted. We are. They are not getting death threats. We are. They don't have to live with 24/7/365 heavy duty security, Geert Wilders does. Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie, the producers from Comedy Central, and accidental counter-jihad tourists like Molly Norris live under death threat. As do I."

Indeed, I have a stalker who has threatened my life and posted private information about me online with the clear intention of inciting Muslims to attack me, who lives in College Park, Maryland.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on CitizenWarrior.com is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


All writing on CitizenWarrior.com is copyright © CitizenWarrior.com 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP