"Wouldn't it be Better to Support the Peaceful Muslims (than to Criticize the Violent Ones)?"
Monday
EVEN IF the number of Muslims who believe in the basic political objective of Islam and are willing to vote in that direction (and take other actions) are as small a minority as people hope they are — this small minority is, by definition, more politically active and more committed than the "peaceful majority of Muslims." If the majority is largely silent and politically-inactive, then it doesn't really matter what they think. They are having no influence on the public sphere. In other words, the idea of stopping the Islamization of the West by strengthening, encouraging, and supporting politically-apathetic Muslims is a fool's errand. This approach will do nothing. It will not stop the politically-active Muslims, and it will have very little impact on the apathetic Muslims, since they don't really care much about politics or religion anyway, and they just want to live a normal life in peace. As a matter of fact, supporting politically-apathetic Muslims may even strengthen the recruiting efforts of the jihadists because they will correctly see it as "attacking Islam," since Islam strictly forbids apathy and commands active political participation from every Muslim. It seems very encouraging when people say, "The vast majority of Muslims are not fanatics about their religion's political goals." But I think the author of Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant made a persuasive point when he wrote that totalitarian ideologies do not need a majority to take over, and they never have. A small number of committed fanatics can easily dominate a larger number of people who just want to go about their lives in peace. So let's try to answer this question: Which approach would work better? Option number one: Educating non-Muslims about Islam's prime directive so enough of us have enough knowledge to vote for policies that will stop the Islamization of the West? Or, option number two: Focus on supporting the peaceful Muslims. How would we even "support the peaceful Muslims," anyway? Give them more of a voice in newspapers, radio, and on television? That may actually make our situation worse, because almost no peaceful Muslims are publicly honest (or they are ignorant) about Islam's doctrine. So if they spoke their minds more freely in the media, even more people would think Islam really is peaceful and loving, and they'd be even more likely to be fooled by the politically active orthodox Muslims, and thus more likely to continue to yield to Islam's relentless encroachment, giving away concessions to these "peace-loving" people. No, supporting the peaceful Muslims will not solve the problem. The answer is to educate non-Muslims about Islam, so they know what's going on, so they stop being duped and deluded, and so they will help stop orthodox Islam's destruction of the free world.
7 comments:
hello citizen warrior, your article is a bunch of poppycock. it makes very little sense and does not coincide with a secular democracy. the so called fanatical Muslims are not involved in the political process at all; rather, the Muslims that are involved are people like Keith Ellison, a Muslim congressman in Minnesota who is not a fanatic, along with all the muslim citizens who vote at every election. in addition, the peaceful Muslims are the most educated about their religion, and that is why they are peaceful, the fanatics are the ones that pervert a historically significant religion. wake up citizen warrior - this is a secular democracy set up by people that were escaping Christian extremism/fundamentalism in Europe. Let keep it secular and united instead of religiously divided.
John, I agree with you: The data doesn't support the premise in the Muslim world or in the UK. I don't know about the Muslims in the United States.
But the argument is for those who are completely convinced that OF COURSE the majority of Muslims are peaceful. One approach would be to show them that isn't true. Another approach would be to argue that even if it was true, supporting the peaceful Muslims would not solve the problem.
And as for you, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, the politically-active Muslims ARE participating in the normal political process, AND they are participating in political action like changing history textbooks, promtoting a hostile mindset toward the surrounding culture, influencing how Islam is covered in news organs, infiltrating government security organizations, etc.
"Politically active" means taking action for political purposes, in this case to eventually replace the Constitution with Sharia law.
Keith Ellison, whether he is doing it on purpose or not, is serving the political purpose of those who wish to undermine the legitimate government of the United States.
Here is the top Google result on US Muslim Polls:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/483/muslim-americans
It's 2007, and I'm not sure what it is telling us in light of reports from ex-Muslims like Walid Shoebat who reports talking jihad freely among fellow Muslims, but cleaning up the conversation when non-Muslims joined them (What the West Needs to Know about Islam).
He says that even flyers for jihad fund-raisers were different in Arabic, where they plainly said what the event was, and in English, where it said it was a Middle-eastern cultural party.
The U.S. was born as the last great hope of mankind, starting with a July 25, 1776 valedictory address at Yale by its future pres. Rev. Timothy Dwight, who called America the "favorite
land of Heaven", which was born at the time of the Englightenment and the Scientific Revolution, "when every species of knowledge, natural and moral, is arrived to a state of perfection, which the world never before saw", and "mankind have in a great degree
learned to despise the shackles of custom, and the chains of authority, and claim the priviledge of thinking for themselves." The American people are a new people "who have the same religion, the same manners, the same interests, the same language, and the same essential forms and principles of civic government."
After 2 centuries of mainly winning with a melting pot strategy for immigrants, we're now up against the unmeltable Muslims, who don't just bring themselves but also bring the Quran and its world domination mindset, along with a mentality that they're colonizing America in order to absorb it into the Muslim world. Sorry, but America can't survive this wave intact, and Congress must declare a moratorium on Muslim immigration until the Muslim world itself is kaput as proved by disestablishing Islam in all ways and opening up to all religions, and rejoining the human race by ditching suppression of women, polygamy, etc.
Read the Historyscoper's Islam Watch blog for daily links to all important articles and op-eds:
http://tinyurl.com/islamwatch
It is true that all of the Islamists are not the cause of this worldwide ‘jihad’. However, it is also true that wherever in the world there is violence, the Islamists are at the center of unrest there. This is a problem created in the name of Islam and has basically become an Islamic problem and, therefore, can be best solved by peace-loving Islamists. But most of them are on the sidelines of this problem and may be considered as the silent supporters or sympathizers. The slogan repeatedly aired is that Islam is for the peace although the facts point to a different conclusion. What a tragedy the world is facing in the name of religion!
"How would we even "support the peaceful Muslims," anyway? Give them more of a voice in newspapers, radio, and on television? That may actually make our situation worse, because almost no peaceful Muslims are publicly honest (or they are ignorant) about Islam's doctrine"
Peaceful muslims are active in condemning acts of violence and speaking out.People like you choose to ignore that, and the media would rather show the unpeaceful ones or the peaceful ones. As for peaceful muslims not publicly honest and most are ignorant. Well I would have to say your the ignorant one here. I am no muslim but I have studied Islam intensly. To me it seems thats you are supporting the radical muslims in their version of islam.
"Anonymous said...
hello citizen warrior, your article is a bunch of poppycock. it makes very little sense and does not coincide with a secular democracy. the so called fanatical Muslims are not involved in the political process at all; rather, the Muslims that are involved are people like Keith Ellison, a Muslim congressman in Minnesota who is not a fanatic, along with all the muslim citizens who vote at every election. in addition, the peaceful Muslims are the most educated about their religion, and that is why they are peaceful, the fanatics are the ones that pervert a historically significant religion. wake up citizen warrior - this is a secular democracy set up by people that were escaping Christian extremism/fundamentalism in Europe. Let keep it secular and united instead of religiously divided"
Reply:
I would have to agree with you there mate.
Since the tragic day of Sept.11, 2001, Muslim Americans have spent good amount of our time and resources praying, preaching and marching for peace. I feel a slight level of comfort reporting that based on Gallup and PEW surveys, FBI findings and a RAND Corporation report, Muslim Americans are less tolerant of violence than generally depicted by the news. It is also a significant contribution of the Muslim community that 40 percent of all terrorism related cases since 9/11 were reported by Muslim Americans themselves to the law enforcement authorities.
It seems that the preachers of peace have fallen short.
Although both the Quran and the Bible contain the commandment that killing one innocent human being is like killing the whole of humanity, a large number of Americans believe it is justifiable to intentionally attack civilians. But more non-Muslim-Americans say that compared to Muslim Americans. There are multiple surveys that substantiate this point. The first time I noticed this was in 2007.
Public Opinion Surveys
A World Public Opinion (WPO) survey done in collaboration at that time with the University of Maryland reported that 51 percent of Americans believe "bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified," while only 13 percent of American Muslims hold a similar view, with a full 81 percent saying violence against civilians is never justified.
A recent Gallup survey (2011) asks the same question separately -- first for a "military attacks against civilians" and then "individuals and small groups attacking civilians." Muslim Americans came out as the staunchest opponents of both overwhelmingly as compared to their neighbors.
In response to military attacks against civilians, 78 percent of Muslim Americans said such attacks are never justified as compared to 39 percent of Christians and 43 percent of Jews. Only 21 percent Muslim Americans approve of it "sometimes" as compared to 58 percent of Christians and 52 percent of Jews.
Eighty-nine percent of Muslim Americans surveyed by Gallup rejected violent individual attacks on civilians as compared to 71 percent of Christians and 75 percent of Jews. Muslims are the least likely to justify attacks on civilians. Only 11 percent of Muslims justified that sometimes such attacks are acceptable as compared to 27 percent of Christians and 22 percent of Jews.
The same is true when it comes to opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Muslim Americans are way ahead in their opposition to wars as compared to their neighbors.
However, when the Pew survey first came out in 2007, it did not provide any relief for Muslim Americans from Islamophobic media frenzy. Most reporters used it as an opportunity to fan hatred against Muslim Americans, focusing on the smaller number of Muslim Americans who justified attacks on civilians without comparing it to Christian Americans, who did the same even in a larger numbers
Post a Comment