Smack down…the idea that there exists something called Moderate Islam.

This is an old post of mine that I was just admiring and thought hey why not bring that suckerhead up front so y’all can admire my brilliance again…hehe.

Without a valid opposition party this country is in extreme danger due to the lack of debate regarding exactly who we are fighting. Are we in a religious war? Is it true that Islam is a religion of peace? What do we make of Sharia and what is its bearing on this war? Can Islam co-exist with other religions including atheism, capitalism and agnosticism? Does Al Queda speak to a small minority of Muslims? Is Saudi Arabia our ally and if so exactly how does their funding of thousands of Mosques and Madrassas that perpetuate Radical Islam fit into their role as an ally? How inconsequential is the support for terror amongst Muslims?

These are all valid questions that Hugh Hewitt seems to want to avoid or worse assume that they have been answered already and that there are no contradictions. Its a measure of our misunderstanding of our enemy that President Bush has been seen several times to be associating with Muslims who were later prosecuted for aiding Terrorists. Exactly how much of a misunderstanding of Islam must be present at the White House for that to happen? Does Hugh want to respond to why they are so misguided in the White House? And if they are misguided enough in the White House to place the President of the United States in such compromising positions exactly why should I trust that they have a grip on the facts?

In this latest attack against Rep Tancredo Hugh goes completely over the top in what Glenn Reynolds called a Righteous Fisking of Rep. Tancredo’s article in the Denver Post. Not sure if Glenn just has a delightfully wicked sense of irony or he was simply unaware of the marvelous contradiction in praising both Hugh Hewitt’s attack on Rep Tancredo and Mark Steyns takedown of multicultural ideas regarding Islam on the same day but, I report you decide. Lets get on to Hugh Hewitt’s soft-minded attack on Tancredo. Hugh will be in bold cause we don’t want to miss a single word.

He fails because he doubles down on his absurd insistence that “bombing Mecca” ought to be “on the table.” No serious politician in the country has come to Tancredo’s defense, and indeed I have not seen any credible authority on war or religion endorse this foolishness. No serious Christian theologian can endorse what is obviously an immoral threat against another faith.

Excuse me for offering this observation but these are the same serious politicians who allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. Pardon me for not being impressed by the absence of any honest inquiry going on in regards to our enemies by our politicians after all they are so busy taking polls on how they should feel. We have an entire party in the Democrats that may at this point believe that 9/11 was the invention of President Bush and his Mossad Allies then we have a bunch of Republicans who absolutely refuse to consider where we might have gone wrong. Witness the idiocy of grown men still insisting that there was no collaboration between Al Queda and Saddam. At least Rep Tancredo is considering the worst case scenarios which if you haven’t realized it yet has been notably absent from our political discourse, even as every expert declares that it is not a matter of if but when we get attacked by WMD’s.

In regards to any credible authority on war coming to his defense, that is absurd, any credible authority on war will tell you that no options are ever taken off the table. We bombed the hell out of civilians in WW2, French, Italians, Belgians, Germans, Japanese and any others who might have gotten in the way of victory. Hugh doesn’t take this war seriously or he would understand that wars are not nice, he is still playing cricket, he doesn’t believe the barbarians are at the gates wishing to rape, pillage and burn their way through him. If he did have that sort of attitude this conversation wouldn’t be happening.

This lack of urgency in regards to our war is prevalent amongst our political and intellectual elite who cannot for the life of themselves see war as the brutal horrible thing it is. That lack of understanding of war leads to the idiocy of us apologizing for not handling Korans of terrorist thugs with white gloves, it leads to assinine discussions on whether having someone stand for 1 hour is torture and it will ultimately lead to us losing unless some seriousness enters the fray.

And the last sentence in Hugh’s paragraph is illustrative of a dangerous multiculturalist view of our war. Islam is not a religion in the sense that we understand it but a way of life, it does not compare to Christianity in anyway except for the parts that Mohammad borrowed when he formulated Islam. Witness that Islam gave its conquered foes but three choices convert, pay a poll tax or die. Certainly Christianity has seen its bad episodes but none of them could be justified by the written word of God in the Bible whereas all of Islam’s worst characteristics are called for by its writings. Indeed one of the most horrible crimes that we are witness to these days, that of beheading your foes was practiced by Mohammad himself; imagine Christ in the same position.

Tancredo says: But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is “offended” by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed.

Hugh responds to this valid idea with a straw-man:
In fact Tancredo is preoccupied with attention-getting statements that play to the frustrated edge of the conservative camp that sees any denunciation of “political correctness” as an endorsement of their desire for blunt talk against media elites.

Guess I am part of that frustrated edge of the conservative camp but the rest of that nonsense has absolutely no bearing on my interest in what Rep Tancredo has to say. Furthermore Rep Tancredo is accurate when he states that PC worries have kept the discussion of who are the enemies are subdued to the point of nonexistent. But it is absolute nonsense to think that I care about the media elites except for what part they have in subverting this important discussion. Hugh Hewitt at this point takes the part of Media Elite since he is so intent on discrediting this idea before it is discussed.

But not threatening Islamic countries and populations with the destruction of the places they devoutly esteem is not p.c.-generated double-talk. It is sensible respect for a vast group of Muslims abroad and a few million Muslims who are our fellow citizens from whom we must ask cooperation and to whom we must pledge a non-bigoted appreciation for their religious choices.

It has been really fun declaring that we are not at war with Islam but it might be instructive to look and evaluate whether they are at war with us? Considering that they have been attacking us for well over 1,400 years one might be forgiven for thinking they mean us ill. Mark Steyn as always can be counted on to be eloquent: For four years, much of the western world behaved like Bryant. Bomb us, and we agonize over the “root causes” (that is, what we did wrong). Decapitate us, and our politicians rush to the nearest mosque to declare that “Islam is a religion of peace”. Issue bloodcurdling calls at Friday prayers to kill all the Jews and infidels, and we fret that it may cause a backlash against Muslims. Behead sodomites and mutilate female genitalia, and gay groups and feminist groups can’t wait to march alongside you denouncing Bush, Blair and Howard. Murder a school full of children, and our scholars explain that to the “vast majority” of Muslims “jihad” is a harmless concept meaning “decaf latte with skimmed milk and cinnamon sprinkles”.

And if Mark Steyn is too Western for your tastes Hugh how about you consider this article asking where the condemnation of terror is in the Muslim community by Salim Mansur.

There has been no spontaneous or organized demonstration of Muslims across the Arab-Muslim world, nor in European or North American cities where Muslims reside in increasing numbers, in support of victims of such terror and in unqualified condemnation of extremists who exploit Islam for their criminal purposes.

Dissension among Muslim religious leaders on whether to condemn terrorism and suicide bombings — and the absence of any effort by the Muslim majority to express its disgust with extremism — invariably lead to ques-tioning the nature of Islam by non-Muslims.
Instead of witnessing “moderate” Muslims resolutely taking back their faith-tradition from extremists and murderers, the world has grown numb to endless apologetics and polemics explaining away “jihadi” politics as a misguided, though inexcusable, response to the wrongs inflicted upon Muslims by the West.

The truth is there does not exist an identifiable body of Muslims, substantive in number or an outright majority, who could be described as “moderate” by their repudiation of Muslim extremists.

And as has been the case all through history there have always been just a few people in any organization that were at fault and who had the ability to control events. Sadly to get to those people most of the time you had to attack those who pay the bills, the common folks. This was the case when we attacked both Japan and Germany and killed thousands upon thousands of people not directly involved in deciding to prosecute the war. This is one of the reasons wars are so hellish, so many people who have so little to do with it die. Sorry Hugh I don’t make the rules, I just follow them.

Tancredo says: Until “mainstream” Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks and start repudiating and purging people like Ali and Hajjar from its ranks who do, this war will continue. As long as this war goes on, being “offended” should be the least of anyone’s worries

And Hugh considers it an insult.
This insult to every Muslim who has courageously stood up to Islamist terror should not be allowed to pass uncondemned by supporters of the GWOT. There needs to be more and more and louder and louder condemnation of Islamist terror from within Islam. There needs to be more and more cooperation from among Muslims in the identification of Islamist threats at home and abroad. But Tancredo’s absurd hypotheticals injure that prospect. The Congressman needs to review the record, finding the good –not just the evil– and praising it. He might want to start with the fact the Muslim community in upstate New York helped DOJ uncover and halt the operation of a cell there.

Yea those Muslims sure are condemning terror, the list is long and illustrious….thats why Hugh didn’t quote any, so many choices to choose from. For instance he could have chosen Abdallah Bin Matruk Al-Haddal, a Saudi preacher from the Ministry of Islamic Affairs in Saudi Arabia who is quoted as saying: “…Osama bin Laden is a Jihad warrior who implemented the principles of Islam and of faith, and then reached the pinnacle by going to fight the Jihad in Afghanistan. This is a man who gave his soul for Allah, and Allah guarded his soul until he reached a point where he became a hero like Salah Al-Din Al-Ayyubi [Salladin].”
“Like all other Muslims, bin Laden wanted to apply the Shari’a fully with its values, principles, economics, media, and education. Even in sports there should be Shar’i sport.”
Sounds like a reasonable sort and this guy is from our “ally” the Saudi Government. Whew with friends like that who needs enemies eh?

Notice that even some other Muslims wonder where the heck the mainstream of Islam is on the issue of fighting terror. Hugh in a fit of irony he probably doesn’t appreciate links to this article that decries the lack of a Million Muslim march condemning terror.

If you were a Muslim, would Tancredo’s outrageous speculations make you more or less likely to assist in the GWOT? Obviously the latter. After braving Islamist threats to help the authorities break a cell, you open the paper and find that your holy places will be “on the table” if terror takes another huge toll in the United States.

Regardless of Rep Tancredo’s remarks shouldn’t Muslims according to Hugh have an interest in destroying this supposedly virulent form of Islam? And exactly why did poll after poll find that Muslims across the globe admire Bin Laden? If Muslims are as a whole this peaceful religion that President Bush and others like Hugh keep insisting they are, then why the heck are they in large part standing around doing nothing to silence the thousands of Imams preaching hatred and idiocy every single Friday? When do they get upset about this hijacking of their religion? When do I start wondering if the mainstream of Islam is really that upset that the terrorists, who don’t “really” represent Islam, murder us in the thousands? And those same thugs threaten to murder millions more, when can I expect Islam to stand up and put this stuff down? And when do I get to conclude that maybe the mainstream Muslims aren’t really that upset and that indeed, they are kind of quietly gleeful that someone else has the balls to kill us in such numbers? And when I conclude that, exactly what should my response be, should I get to know their inner devils? Before or after my sister in NYC is caught up in one of those lunatics? designs? Before or after my children are caught outside when New Orleans goes up in nuclear smoke? Is it really necessary for me to ask nicely for Islam to police its worst Imams from preaching that Jews are monkeys and apes and that Infidels like me and mine deserve to die? If Islam is so peaceful why must you insist that I ask nicely for them to put down Muslim Fanatics?

“Being ‘offended’” is not my worry.
Having progress in the GWOT compromised handicapped by a publicity-seeking Congressman is my worry. Handing propaganda to Islamicist is my worry. Encouraging the wrong-headed belief that the world cannot be made safe until Islam is destroyed is my worry.

Baloney no one has even suggested that we destroy Islam. We have begged, though, for some rational voices to rise up and gain control of Islam even though so far every attempt at a reformation over the past 1,400 years has met with failure. Besides if Muslims are as peaceful and horrified by the actions taken in their name they will understand that we cannot sit by idly while millions are murdered in our country. And Hugh you seem to think that we must ask nicely or it won’t happen, how odd. Why must we ask nicely for something you say is natural to Islam?

The United State is locked in a deadly war with Islamists who would indeed use nukes against American cities if they could, or any other WMD for that matter. There are some states that support these Islamists, including the governments of Iran and Syria, and some of the elites in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is center of Islam and those “Radical” elites exist at the pleasure of the Saudi government. So we have the Saudi Government allowing these elites to fund and preach in favor of murdering millions of us. You are still trying to sort out exactly who we can or cannot kill should they be successful and murder perhaps millions of us? Not only do they allow those “Radicals” to continue to exist the government itself funds Madrassas all over the world and the US that teach the young things like this . Is that ok Hugh? This is the same government that punishes Christians for having crosses around their necks, this is the same Saudi government that does not allow any Christian Worship, what is the punishment for being a Christian in Saudi Arabia again? Gee Hugh you sure you know what you are talking about? Seems like its a few more than just some misguided elites that worship at the altar of a religion that won’t abide by us existing on the same planet. Seems like that makes Saudi Arabia a fairly high priority in the targeting list if we should cross that terrible Rubicon where we are binding the wounds of our fellow citizens after a Nuclear Attack perpetuated probably by people trained in those Madrassas and who worshiped in those Radical Mosques we allowed the Saudis to establish around our country.

But there are also governments like those in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan that are providing us enormously valuable assistance in the war, governments which come under huge pressure from their fundamentalist Muslim populations to stop assisting the “crusaders.”

Pakistan read the tea leaves and understood that if they didn’t help us that India would be our next stop for help and that might not be the best thing in the world. Furthermore if the average Muslim was so shocked and horrified by this hijacking of his religion why haven’t they allowed us into Pakistan to pursue Bin Laden? Why do they honor him so? Is that Tancredos fault?

Egypt exists solely because of Mubarraks tight grip on power and the help we receive comes at the price of a tremendous amount of foreign aid. They help when it suits them. But none of these governments answer to their people and indeed if they did answer to them its is likely they wouldn’t be helping us even in the small ways that some do. Why is that Hugh?

Tancredo made all of their jobs more difficult, and ours as well, by sounding exactly like a Christian jihadist would sound, even though it is clearly contrary to Christian teachings to threaten retaliation against non-combatants even in a just war.

Whatever do you mean Hugh, Christian Jihadists? There is no such thing. Jihad is justified in the Koran and in all of the teachings since Mohammed, there is nothing comparable in the Bible. What does it mean to say that Islam has bloody borders? Why did the Hindu’s die in such numbers, was it because they refused to submit the way countless others had, how can any religion that we call the Religion of Peace accept the murder of millions of Hindus in the Hindu Kush? Islam was spread by the sword Hugh, explain exactly why you believe they have stopped spreading Islam in that fashion? And sorry but we have bombed other innocents in the quest for victory. Sadly it is the way of war that people die.

I am sure I will hear –again– from all the “realists” who want to quote the Koran to me and instruct me on how blind I am to the threat of Islam. Look, feel free to write me, but try and find at least one quote from a serious conservative on the American or world stage to back you up. Dick Cheney’s pretty solid, right? So is Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, right? O.K., then, send me some citations to their Tancredo-like remarks. There’s a reason they are leading and Tancredo is simply milking rage and anger for personal benefit. They are interested in the national security and victory in the GWOT. Congressman Tancredo is interested in, well, Congressman Tancredo.

How about Winston Churchill? Is that a man with enough stature to have you consider for just a moment if everything is the way you imagine it to be?
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.? (emphasis mine)
?Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Hugh, you demanding a consensus before you will use your own judgment is worrisome. Consensus does not make right, it only means that everyone is seeing the same facts and processing them the same ways. To deny that those facts may be interpreted incorrectly is just a bit scary since mistakes at this level are disastrous, witness 9/11. FBI agents who believed that it was wrong to single out a Muslim even though he was extremely suspicious failed to inspect Moussaui’s computer, which had they, might have saved 3,000 peoples lives.

Look I have a tremendous amount of respect for the President, Hugh, Captain Ed and others who espouse this line that we are not at war with Islam. But it is a bit frightening to see them so sure of something that any debate about our enemies must be shouted down and ridiculed when in actuality there is a case that can be made about it. It is a fact not propaganda that the West endured a centuries long battle with Islam that we very nearly lost several times. It is a fact not propaganda that Christians have been attacked with the sword for over 1,400 years, when did Islam declare that sort of pursuit over? To portray Islam as the Religion of Peace insults those you address Hugh, the question isn’t whether Islam is the religion of Peace, it isnt. The question is how much motivation will it take to cause a reformation inside of Islam to finally take place?

In my view Representative Tancredo is doing the “moderate muslim” a favor by reminding him of the price of his continued apathy regarding terror. He has pointed out a perfectly rational point of view that should the unthinkable happen then all bets are off in regards to our reactions.

The attempt to reform Islam by introducing Freedom and Democracy is the sort of Idealistic notion that we Americans are known for. We managed it with Japan perhaps it will work in Islam.

But there must be no mistake that should a nuclear weapon go off in a US city the tribulation we would set upon the terrorists and their allies would be terrible. The Jacksonian wing of this country would demand immediate full scale war upon anyone and everyone even remotely associated with terror. This would include the populations who had up till then stood idly by and allowed those Imams and Governments to fund, train and support the terrorists. As I have noted the Saudis are neck deep in funding, perpetuating and supporting worldwide terror, they would be target number one.

Now to say that we musn’t hit Mecca because we might offend and alienate the average muslim is sort of laughable when you consider that we would be forced to retaliate somewhere. And likely unless we blame Denmark for the attack a significant number of Muslims would find themselves underneath some fairly significant action. Does Hugh suggest, as James Lileks did in a moment of unclarity so uncharacteristic for Lileks, that we don’t do anything? Is Hugh suggesting that as we bind up the wounds and bury the thousands perhaps millions of our dead after an attack, that we simply sit on our hands and avoid killing Muslims for fear of alienating those who didn’t help us enough to stop a fearsome attack on our country? Or does Hugh suggest that if we were to attack and destroy Syria, Iran and other Islamic Nations that the Muslims would be a lot less pissed off than if we hit Mecca? Or does Hugh mean to say that defending ourselves is only acceptable when we don’t offend our enemies and the populations that support and hide them?

No Rep Tancredo has done the average moderate Muslim, if he exists, a favor by letting him know that there is a line over which he must not allow his radicals to cross. Perhaps that will get that so called Muslim moderate off the dime and into the battle. We will know this is true when Imams begin to declare that Jihad against Christians is against Islam, we will know this is true when Imams begin to declare that Jews are not apes and pigs. Islam must win the battle for converts by allowing them to choose without the threat of the sword. When Islam allows and defends Christians in countries like the Sudan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia then we will know we have crossed another marker in Islams growth into a 21 Century religion not a 7th Century one.

Pierre Legrand

Hugh Hewitt: July 24, 2005 – July 30, 2005 Archives
Related posts over at Captains Quarters here and here
Related posts over at Ace of Spades here
Related posts over at Allah’s here
Dhimmi Watch showing that Rep Tancredo understands Dhimmitude which Hugh does not.
Some possible alternative responses to a nuclear weapon going off here, though give the suggestions I am not sure why they think this would be less offensive to muslims.
Instapun**K slaps Hugh Hewitt around here and here
Related posts over at Michelle Malkin
Little Green Footballs is a veritable link heaven for those pursuing Islams character.
Baldilocks has more
La Shawn Barbers corner with more
Jawa Report with more
Cutler’s Yankee Station with more
Powerpundit agrees with Hugh
Q and O blog agrees with Hugh
IMAO has a unique view of it
Argghhh! is onboard
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Right Wing News is not pleased

Source: Pierre Legrand’s Pink Flamingo Bar » Hugh Hewitt takes the Norquist definition of Islam hook line and sinker…

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One thought on “Smack down…the idea that there exists something called Moderate Islam.

  1. Michelle

    Yes, very well worth re- reading. What do you make of the isolated group (are they?) that planned to attack US bases (including Dover Air Force Base)? Also, do you see an upside to the recent elections in France. Can they be an effective ally?

    Reply

Leave a Reply