Yesterday I heard from a woman who said she was insulted that I criticized Islam. She said she was a Muslim and her parents were Muslims and the people in her community were Muslims and none of them were terrorists.
I told her I was criticizing Islamic doctrine, not Muslims.
She said she felt I was insulting her family and community.
I've heard these kinds of things before, of course. I've been writing about Islamic supremacism for seven years and I've heard from hundreds of Muslims who feel offended when Islam is criticized.
In this case, however, I used to work with her and I knew she had a reputation as a promiscuous woman and a heavy drinker.
I said, "Why are you taking this personally? You don't even practice Islam." And that was the end of that conversation. She never said another word about it.
Let's look at this a moment. She considers herself a Muslim, but she's a Muslim in name only. I know several people like this. They don't pray five times a day, they don't fast during Ramadan, they've never read the Qur'an, they have no plans to visit Mecca, they don't pay their alms. In what sense are they Muslims? In name only.
And yet, they staunchly defend Islam. They dutifully act offended when you try to tell non-Muslims about the most basic teachings of Islam if it sounds bad.
These people need to be identified. They need to identify themselves. We are in a serious situation.
We all need a way to distinguish them from practicing Muslims. We need a name for them. Their existence (and defensiveness) is, in a very real sense, preventing the free world from defending itself.
If they didn't exist, the solution to Islam's relentless encroachment would be sublimely simple: Close the mosques and deport all devout Muslims from the free world, and stop making concessions to Islamic countries. This could easily be done because if there were no "Muslims in name only," the only Muslims left would be those who are following Mohammad's example and waging continuous warfare on non-Muslims, seeking to overthrow the legitimate Western governments and instituting Shari'a law. It would be a no-brainer to cast them out or put them in jail.
But because there are so many Muslims in name only (let's call them MINOs) it would be indecent and unfair to deport all people who identify themselves as Muslims.
MINOs defend Islam even though they don't practice its teachings. Why are they doing this?
It reminds me of a story about Paul Rokich. When he was a child growing up in Utah, he lived near a copper smelter that poured toxic waste out onto the land and killed every living thing for miles around. The land was black and barren and smelled bad. When a visitor once said, "This place is crummy," Paul felt insulted and knocked him down. Why? The place was crummy. Anybody could see that. But it was his place. It was where he lived. He was genuinely offended. He had identified with the place.
I believe that's what we're dealing with when MINOs defend Islam. But the pressure is going to continually increase for them because their presence and their "being offended" prevents non-Muslims from being able to protect themselves from the practicing Muslims.
I think a growing number of people who are working to stop Islam's relentless encroachment on the West are coming to the realization that MINOs should either criticize Islamic teachings or follow them, and the issue will become more pronounced as time goes on.
The vague, undeclared middle ground will become increasingly less tolerated.
A Muslim living in a free country who is offended by criticism of Islam but neither practices nor criticizes Islamic teachings is either a liar or a coward. A liar because the criticism of Islam is legitimate. A knowledgeable, devout Muslim would not be offended by my saying, "Islam teaches that Muslims must wage jihad until the whole world submits to Islamic law." An Islamic supremacist may make a show of being offended because it furthers the goals of Islam, but privately he will simply be annoyed that a kafir found out about it.
And if he is a Muslim who does not practice Islamic teachings yet feels offended when someone criticizes those teachings, he is a coward. He should join with us and criticize those teachings. Obviously, he doesn't think much of them or he would be practicing them.
And beyond cowardice or lying is a much bigger issue. Whether they mean to or not, undeclared MINOs are aiding a deadly enemy of both non-practicing Muslims and non-Muslims: Islamic supremacists.
We should change our stance with regard to "moderate" or peaceful Muslims. If you hear from a Muslim who defends Islam, ask him: "Do you abstain from alcohol? Do you pray five times a day? Do you fast during Ramadan? Do you fight in the way of Allah so that one day the whole world will submit to Islam? Have you read the Qur'an?"
Probably his answers will be no. You can then respond, "Then you don't follow the teachings I am criticizing, so why take offense? Why don't you stop the pretense and become an apostate?"
The very least a MINO could do is acknowledge the teachings — simply acknowledge that there are some passages in the Qur'an and the Hadith that should legitimately concern non-Muslims, and maybe even tell us how they justify ignoring those passages (and share their thinking with other Muslims).
Short of that, they are being cowards and are part of the problem. They should not be coddled by the West. We should not try to curry their favor. They should take sides or shut up. And that's what our stance toward them should be.
Citizen Warrior is the author of the book, Getting Through: How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam and also writes for Inquiry Into Islam, History is Fascinating, and Foundation for Coexistence. Subscribe to Citizen Warrior updates here. You can send an email to CW here.
Read more...
