Writing in the National Review Online this morning, Andrew C. McCarthy offers that moderate Islam can’t be invented “without confronting mainstream Islam and its sharia agenda.” In other words, moderate Islam is a fiction created by Islamists and echoed by elitists, drones, and those hoping beyond reason that such a thing exists:
The sad fact, the fact no one wants to deal with but which the Ground Zero mosque debate has forced to the fore, is that Qaradawi is a moderate. So is Feisal Rauf, who endorses the Qaradawi position — the mainstream Islamic position — that sharia is a nonnegotiable requirement. Rauf wins the coveted “moderate” designation because he strains, at least when speaking for Western consumption, to paper over the incompatibility between sharia societies and Western societies.
Qaradawi and Rauf are “moderates” because we’ve abandoned reason. Our opinion elites are happy to paper over the gulf between “reformist” Islam and the “reformist” approval of mass-murder attacks. That’s why it matters not a whit to them that Imam Rauf refuses to renounce Hamas: If you’re going to give a pass to Qaradawi, the guy who actively promotes Hamas terrorists, how can you complain about a guy who merely refuses to condemn the terrorists?
When we are rational, we have confidence in our own frame of reference. We judge what is moderate based on a detached, commonsense understanding of what “moderate” means. We’re not rigging the outcome; we just want to know where we stand.
If we were in that objective frame of mind, we would easily see that a freedom culture requires separation of the spiritual from the secular. We would also see that sharia — with dictates that contradict liberty and equality while sanctioning cruel punishments and holy war — is not moderate. Consequently, no one who advocates sharia can be a moderate, no matter how well-meaning he may be, no matter how heartfelt may be his conviction that this is God’s will, and no matter how much higher on the food chain he may be than Osama bin Laden.
Imam Rauf refuses to condemn terrorist organizations like Hamas. He refuses to solely blame al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks upon our nation. He is for the discrimination and barbarism practiced in every Islamic-governed nation, as dictated by sharia law. And he is for imposing sharia law here in America. So, who are the bigots in this debate over Imam Rauf’s plan to build a 15-story sharia-compliant mosque and Islamic “cultural center” overlooking where genocide was committed by sharia-complying Muslims?
Say what? Proselytizing for Islam from the "
{ 5 comments }
New website just launched. Similar views to your own. Please visit and tell us what you think. You can access the site via Google by typing in “Ground Zero Declaration ”
Child rape, torture and murder cover-up…
Next week is the sixth anniversary of the Islamic child-rape and torture orgy and massacre in the school at Beslan . Yet for six years the mainstream media have covered up what happened and who was responsible, with all mention of Muslims being censored. This is of particular concern because there is some evidence that jihadists are planning similar attacks against American schools.
So it’s time to set the record straight, not only about the identity of these sadistic murderous savages, but also about the Islamic ideology that approves of pedophilic attacks on children as a way of getting at their ‘najis kafir’ parents. (All non-Muslims – Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists etc are ‘najis’ – literally ‘filth’.)
Of course every culture produces rapists and child molesters, but in non-Muslim societies these are usually isolated loners. In contrast, Muslim rapists and pedophiles are well-organised, and these predators often hunt their prey in rape-gangs in a tradition of Muslim razzia going back to the ‘prophet’. The reason for this cultural difference is that pedophilia and rape are abhorrent in civilised societies, but are socially acceptable to Muslim communities because the perps are dutifully following Mohammed’s example – and Mohammed is the ‘Perfect Man’: a pedophile, torturer, rapist and mass-murderer.
Child-rape, as well as being a permitted means of satisfying the jihadists’ religiously repressed lusts, also degrades, violates and humiliates the hated ‘najis kafir’ children and their parents, thus asserting the supremacy of Islam and Muslims.
Of course not all Muslims do this sort of thing, no more than they all plant bombs. However all Muslims (presumably including the ‘peaceful’ Ground Zero Sufis) revere Mohammed as the ‘Perfect Man’ and role model, and as such have no religious or moral doubts about ANY course of action that increases the power of Islam.
Could everyone please use their blogs, networks and forums to ensure that this horrendous Islamic attack is not airbrushed out of history by the MSM.
Imam Rauf has said that until the U.S. and the West acknowledge the harm they have done Muslims, there can be no end to terror.
If you were Muslim, planning a terror attack, how might you interpret those words of Rauf?
Rauf also has said the U.S. President must give an “America Culpa” speech to the entire Muslim world. He has not specified if the U.S. should apologize for intervening in Kuwait, his home country, when Saddam attacked it.
Could Rauf’s demand for an “America Culpa” speech, together with his “there can be no end to terror” statement be construed by an Islamic terrorist as a justification for terror?
What is the difference between Rauf’s statement above, and saying “There is no justification for terror, period.”?
The Hamas charter states “Israel shall exist until Islam destroys it.” Yet Rauf will not designate Hamas as a terror organization. He says doing so would prevent him from “building bridges.” So in his view, he can’t call Hamas terrorists, because to do so would stop him from “building bridges,” but, he can say the U.S. was “an accessory” to the 9/11 attacks, i.e., bears some of the responsibility for the attacks occurring, and that is part of his building bridges to the U.S.
Suppose the Hamas charter instead of saying “Israel shall exist until Islam destroys it” said “The World Trade Center shall exist until Islam destorys it” or even “Times Square shall exist until Islam destroys it.” Would Rauf then say Hamas are terrorists? Or would he still want to build bridges with them?
Rauf does not unequivocally reject terror. That is a fact.
One must truly know their enemy, do we? A simple study of the Koran validates this report. Nice job, Gutsy!
Yes– proponents of the mosque like Imam Rauf need to be confronted and asked to show if they’re truly moderate.
The idea should be, for opponents of the mosque, not to simply play defense, but to put the ball in the Imam’s court. To put him on the defensive.
He’s a shrewd individual. Intelligence must be opposed with intelligence, history with history, symbolism with symbolism. It’s the only language fanatic Islamicists understand.
This is what I’m trying to do with the El Cid Project. The 1961 movie “El Cid” is a liberal work of art from the days when liberalism knew the difference between right and wrong. It portrays Christians uniting with moderate Muslims in medieval Spain to defeat Islamic jihad led by a Bin Laden-like imam. (In that sense the film is prophetic.) Watch the film yourself on as large a screen as you can and note its unreal relevance and power. This is powerful “magic.” When seen on an actual movie screen, as I plan to show it, in New York, the power is magnified. Powerful propaganda, if you will, that all the imams on the planet would not be able to resist.
Comments on this entry are closed.