A message to moderate Muslims.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

A message to moderate Muslims.

What we need is a Muslim backlash, and we need it now. You may be a moderate, peaceful Muslim, but there’s nothing moderate or peaceful about your religion, and you know it.

The bigots who preach in your mosques, who take sustenance from your religion, are hiding behind you. And your silence is helping them to do it. If your mosque is letting anyone preach hatred and violence on its premises, you have a duty to call the police. And the police have a duty to take off their politically correct-tinted glasses to go into that mosque, without removing their shoes, and arrest that person. Anything less than this, and you’re on the wrong side.

As always, Pat Condell puts it bluntly but honestly. If Islam is being hijacked by radicals, as so many politically correct people claim, than the religion can easily be saved if the reasonable people within stand up to them. If they don’t, however, they tell us that the religion isn’t being hijacked. It is radical, and violent, and should be shunned and opposed by all reasonable people worldwide.

Share

10 comments

  • joe

    Political correctness is a disease that allows this kind of terror to invade us in this country, these are the no borders type that are after a lot more than just turning the United States in to a hell hole, the beauty of the U.S. was the freedom of religion, but that seems to have been turned against us, as long as the liberals are allowed to control the language we will have these problems.

  • I’ve read the Koran. There’s nothing moderate about it. The problem with Islam is that it’s all Old Testament. If Christianity was based solely on the Old Testament, we’d be an intolerant, bloodthirsty bunch, too.

  • Hm. Judaism is “based solely on the Old Testament”, and Jews have practically never been “an intolerant, bloodthirsty bunch.” In fact, they have routinely been the targets of intolerance and violence.

    Moreover, the Protestant revolution, especially in the United States, was strongly Old Testament-based. Once again, intolerance was and has never been an aspect of that revolution. Instead, it brought us the Constitution, America, freedom, and millions of huddled masses yearning to breath free.

    I think you should rethink. The Old Testament is without question very law-based. It demands justice, above all. However, it does not demand power and control. It very clearly leaves the choice of what each person does completely up to them. Thus come the ideas of freedom and liberty of conscience.

    The Koran, however, demands power and control over everyone. The distinction is not trivial.

  • Apologies.

    Judaism is, to my understanding, based mostly on the Laws (the first five Books). There is much smiting and vengeance in the Old Testament. My distinction (poorly expressed) was that the Old Testament and the Koran were written as a civilizing influence in a generally lawless land. Helpful millenia ago; not so much now. We, and the Christian faith, have evolved. Not the case with Islam.

  • JGL

    You are all immersed in a side conversation, the “religion” of Islam is based on the control of people, it is a handbook designed to control. Look at it this way, its the difference between only being able to react to something based on primal DNA which is more base and not on a higher and more intellectualized interpretation of existence. (which is not to say that people of the Islamic mind are not or can not be intellectual)

    We make the mistake of defining both as religions and religion in “our” interpretation is more of a spiritual map based in the intellect and that informs our actions and behavior and the other is based on the rules of a handbook designed to control people who were uncontrollable which is both called a religion and it informs governance, punishment and retribution.

    We apply our definition to something that is really not wholly defined by our definition so in effect we are having two conversations where we submit to the rules that we impose on ourselves and the other gains a strategic advantage because we are constrained by the rules that we constrain ourselves by, namely the Constitution.

    If this perspective is not properly adjusted it is only a matter of time before the two become one, especially if administrations like the one in power at the moment continues into the future. We must allow the recognition that there are real and counter interest purposes between the two “religions”. No apologies necessary.

  • JGL

    PS: There will be no “peaceful” Muslim backlash, for they know what might happen to them in the dark of the night, as proscribed by the handbook.

  • Tom Billings

    More to the point, many of those Muslims who would speak out hear that the media will mostly ignore them when they do speak out, leaving the only effect on them coming from the Caliphatists. The terror of the Caliphatists held by the media journalist population silences even those who would otherwise make clear their opposition to a new Caliphate.

  • This is not a ‘side conversation’, it goes to the root of the issue. As Mr. Zimmerman points out, the fundamental choice is between self-determination and state-controlled allowance. The Judao-Christain heritage emphasis the individual, while the Muslim tradition emphases the State. For a free people, it’s not a choice.

  • JGL

    Its only a choice for you and I but the handbook leaves no room for choice. And that is my point, you are applying “our” rules of morality and fair play to something that does not recognize or allow your choice and has no room for it.

    “we” are having a side conversation that is keeping us busy while “enemies” of our way of life threaten its existence and because we will not redefine their “religion” and may not be able to redefine their religion because we are constrained by our morality model (the Constitution).

    And our morality model in the form of the Constitution happens to contain the means of its own destruction if we are unable to properly make adjustments. They have all the time in the universe, “we” do not.

  • JGL

    In addition, the “religion” is not just a religion, the religion informs and controls the governance, they are one in the same and are not separable. This is a key difference and is at the core of the problem. The Constitution as a core concept distinguishes between the two to the point that they must be separate. The difference is black and white, no accommodative shade of gray here.

    You could conclude that Islam and Mid Eastern thought exists closer to a subjective DNA based interpretation of how they should live and Western thought leaves that behind and objectively intellectualizes how they should live. Very different.

    The two are fundamentally incompatible but there are people who wish and insist that they must be compatible. This is a fatal flaw in the thinking process. Wishing is for little boys and girls and has no place in the adult world. If it were to be so than the Constitution must be abandoned and something else must take its place, this IMO is what is really going on in todays American administration. Call it ideology, call it naïve call it what you will it is not what America is built upon and this must be rectified.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *