In an article posted on August 19th titled “Donald Trump and Islamists,” I stated that I do not use the term “moderate” when referring to Muslims because it is so grossly misused as to have become meaningless. Nevertheless, one commenter stated, “It’s dangerous to perpetuate the myth of moderate Islam,” which I had neither intended to do nor done. This post elaborates on the word “moderate” as it applies to Islam.
The term “moderate” Muslim is often applied to those who do not want to kill for Allah, but who want other Muslims to do it for them and for Allah. Many “moderate” Muslims also want Sharia law for themselves and others. The following video, presented by The Clarion Project, shows Obama and Hillary expressing their views on Islam as the religion of peace. It then rebuts their lies with facts.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and similar Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated Islamist organizations are viewed by the Obama administration as “moderate” Muslims. They are integral parts of the “countering violent extremism” scam perpetrated by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security.
Their goal is not to fight Islamic “extremism” but to defeat American constitutional principles by implementing Sharia law. Among their tools is their lamentation of the “Islamophobia” which Islamist terrorist activities generate. CAIR and other “moderate” Islamist groups are so intent upon combatting “Islamophobia” that when they can’t find any they solicit Muslims to engage in anti-Islamic “hate crimes” and then blame them on the “Islamophobia” of non-Muslims. Here are a few examples from Jihad Watch. The linked article provides more.
The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesita-ted to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. A New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”
This kind of thing happens quite frequently. The New York Daily News reported just last week that “a woman who told cops she was called a terrorist and slashed on her cheek in lower Manhattan on Thursday later admitted she made up the story, police said early Friday. The woman, who wore a headscarf, told authorities a blade-wielding wacko sliced open her face as she left a Manhattan cosmetology school, police sources said.”
. . . .
In today’s politically correct environment, hate crimes are political capital. They foster the impression that resistance to Islamic terrorism equals hatred of Muslims, and results in the victimization of innocent people. Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacist organizations want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims. Want power and influence? Be a victim! [Emphasis added.]
An Oklahoma City man was charged Wednesday with a felony after he allegedly sent a threatening letter to a mosque containing a white powder meant to be mistaken for anthrax.
Justin William Bouma, 32, was charged in Oklahoma County District Court with the rarely filed felony count known as the crime of terrorist hoax. Bouma also was charged with one misdemeanor count of malicious injury and destruction of property.
Prosecutors allege Bouma sent the letter to the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City on June 1. The imam at the mosque, 3815 N St. Clair Ave., contacted the FBI after opening it.
After testing the powder, the Oklahoma City Fire Department determined it was harmless. Police reported the powder was potassium perchlorate.
Bouma admitted to police on Aug. 18 he sent the “anthrax” letter to the mosque, police reported in a court affidavit.
Bouma “purchased some cheap detergent and placed it in the envelope,” according to the affidavit. Police reported threats in the letter were cut out of a magazine and a newspaper.
On Aug. 11, OK Halal Meat & Grocery, a Muslim-owned store adjacent to the mosque, had anti-Muslim sentiments spray-painted on the back.
Bouma admitted he painted the store but said the imam told him to, the affidavit states. [Emphasis added.]
The graffiti referenced the Council on American- Islamic Relations, also known as CAIR. One statement said “CAIR not welcome.” Other remarks were crude and the terrorist group ISIS was mentioned.
Bouma reportedly attended the mosque in the past. Bouma became a suspect after authorities discovered threatening emails he had sent to mosque members, police reported….
Muslims who want to reform Islam are not “moderate” Muslims; neither was Martin Luther a “moderate” Roman Catholic. Both represent small minorities seeking material changes in their religions.
Luther came to reject several teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. He strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God’s punishment for sin could be purchased with money, proposing an academic discussion of the practice and efficacy of indulgences in his Ninety-five Theses of 1517. His refusal to renounce all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the Pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.
The changes sought by Martin Luther were feared by the Church leaders because they would disrupt its cash flow. The changes sought by Muslim reformers are feared by CAIR, et al, because they would disrupt governmental approval and patronage and eventually their power over Muslims. Perhaps Martin Luther was, and those who now seek the reformation of Islam are, “radical” — not, however, in the sense that the term “radical” is used with reference to Islam. Martin Luther did not murder those who did not believe as he did and neither do Muslim reformers.
Mecca and Medina Islam
We sometimes refer to those who adhere to the post-Mecca teachings of Mohammad, as they evolved in Medina and elsewhere later, as “radical” Muslims. It is apparently the view of Obama and His associates that they are not “radical” Muslims because they are not really Muslims. Hence, the Islamic State “has nothing to do with Islam.” The murderous activities directed by Sunni Muslims against Shiite Muslims and vice versa and, of course, against non-Muslims and Muslims who express “incorrect” views of Islam, are seen as not Islamic.
Please see Donald Trump and Islamists for a discussion of the substantial differences between Mecca Islam and Medina Islam.The article provides a lengthy quotation from Ayaan Hirsi Ali — a former Muslim now intent upon the reformation of Islam to coincide with Mohammad’s views as set forth in Mecca and to reject those as set forth in Medina. The differences are quite substantial and there appear to be substantially fewer Mecca Muslims than Medina Muslims.
There is more in the next video about Mohammad in Mecca and later in Medina.
Sharia law, sometimes referred to as Islamic law, focuses on human rights — as practiced in important Islamist countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia — where homosexuals, apostates and others whose words and deeds are seen as offending Mohammad and Allah are executed, often in the most painful ways possible. The Islamic State does the same and, as noted in the By the Numbers video presented above, millions of Muslims want Sharia law. Are they “radical” or “mainstream?”
Muslim reformers in America oppose Sharia law because it is grossly inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and is also grossly evil per se. Here are the goals of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy as set forth at the adjacent link:
The American Islamic Forum for Democracy’s (AIFD) mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state.
AIFD is the most prominent American Muslim organization directly confronting the ideologies of political Islam and openly countering the common belief that the Muslim faith is inextricably rooted to the concept of the Islamic State (Islamism). Founded by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD looks to build the future of Islam through the concepts of liberty and freedom.
AIFD’s mission is derived from a love for America and a love of our faith of Islam. Dr. Jasser and the board of AIFD believe that Muslims can better practice Islam in an environment that protects the rights of an individual to practice their faith as they choose. The theocratic “Islamic” regimes of the Middle East and some Muslim majority nations use Islam as a way to control Muslim populations, not to glorify God as they portend. The purest practice of Islam is one in which Muslims have complete freedom to accept or reject any of the tenants or laws of the faith no different than we enjoy as Americans in this Constitutional republic.
AIFD believes that the root cause of Islamist terrorism is the ideology of political Islam and a belief in the preference for and supremacy of the Islamic state. Terrorism is but a means to that end. Most Islamist terror is driven by the desire of Islamists to drive the influence of the west (the ideas of liberty) out of the Muslim consciousness and Muslim majority societies. The underlying philosophy of Islamism is what western society should fear most. With almost a quarter of the world’s population Muslim, American security will never come without an understanding and winning out of the ideas of liberty by Muslims and an understanding of the harm of political Islam by non-Muslims. [Emphasis added.]
AIFD seeks to build and establish an institution that can provide an ideological infrastructure for the ideas of liberty and freedom to Muslims and our future generations. We seek to give Muslims a powerful intellectual alternative to political Islam (Islamism) ultimately seeking the defeat of political Islam as a theo-political ideology.
Can the Muslim reform movement succeed?
Under Obama, the Muslim reform movement has not had even a ghost of a chance to succeed. Obama supports such “moderate” Islamist groups as CAIR and has made no attempt to consider the contrasting views of Islamic reformers which CAIR — and perhaps Obama — deem “Islamophobic.” Perhaps the reform movement actually is “Islamophobic,” if one deems Islamism perfect and any reform harmful to the already perfect status quo.
How many have heard of “moderate” CAIR? How many have heard of “Islamophobic” reform movements such as Dr. Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy? Substantially fewer, I suspect, than have heard of CAIR, et al. Perhaps the lack of attention afforded the Islamic reform movement is among the reasons many adhere to the view that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. Perceptions of the views of Muslim reformers seem likely to change for the better under President Trump.
Insofar as Islam is concerned, we have been living on Obama’s Islamist plantation for nearly eight long years. Blacks have been living on the Democrat Party’s racist plantation for far longer.
Trump has tried to convince Black voters to leave the racist Democrat Plantation. As he recently asked rhetorically, “what do you have to lose?”
What do we have to lose by abandoning Obama’s Islamist plantation? Nothing, but we have much to gain. When we do, our relationship with Islam won’t get worse and seems very likely to get better as Islamic reform movements get a voice in our official policy toward Islam.
Would you prefer to have Islamist organizations such as CAIR, or Muslim reform organizations, speak to and for American Muslims? One or the other will do so.