Wilders, Islam and the Immoderate Moderates

There is an excellent Geert Wilders interview with Jeff Jacoby on Boston.com today here. Unlike the dhimmi media tools who do Islam's bidding on a daily basis, Jacoby gives Wilders the opportunity to explain and/or refute the popular memes the media and the Islamic propagandists throw at Wilders in the traitorous attempt to marginalize and smear him.

Please read it all.

There is one issue in this interview I would like very much to address because there has been little refutation or coverage of the viability and intellectual integrity of "moderate" Muslim.

Q: What do you say to Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser? He is an American, a former Navy officer, a doctor. After 9/11, he was so horrified by what was done in the name of Islam that he founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy: pro-American, pro-democracy, anti-violence, anti-Islamist. How do you answer Muslims like him, who say: "I love my religion. I also love freedom, democracy, Western values. I believe in separation of mosque and state. But how can I be an ally with someone who says my religion itself is evil?"

A: Well, I would tell him I wish there were more people like you. It didn't happen. I would not agree with [Dr. Jasser] about Islam, but I wish there were more like him.

Everyone loves the idea of Jasser and his "moderate Islam," without doing even so much as the most preliminary analysis or review of his position and many of the things he has said.

In May 2007, I conducted an  interview with Zuhdi Jasser. Jasser NEVER met Dr. Andrew Bostom or read his work -- let alone read an advance copy of The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, the manuscript of which had just recently been completed and had only been viewed by a few close contacts, including myself.

"Empowering Moderate Muslims" Pamela Geller interviews Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Chairman American Islamic Democracy Forum

05-22-07

64:41

14.8MB

Alternative MP3 audio link here.

Jasser, in the interview linked above, had the temerity to claim that Muslim Antisemitism is a "Wahhabi" problem, which Bostom is “promoting.” I guess that makes it a combined Bostom-Wahhabi problem. Never mind that Muslim Antisemitism was fully functional without the Wahhabis for over 1000 years before the movement arose in the 18th century, or some 1300 years before Bostom was born in 1956.

Listen to ~ minutes 20-25. Also, Jasser makes a point of repeatedly referring to Judea/Samaria as "occupied" — (and he does not mean the historically accurate characterization Arab-occupied Judea-Samaria.). I strongly recommend you listen to the whole interview if you are buying into the moderate narrative.

It is also important to mention that Jasser was recently kicked out of his own "progressive" mosque because of his take on Islam, so who exactly is he representing? He's living in his own private Islam. Islam considers Jasser a hyporcrite, an apostate. There is no interpretation of Islam. Reform or reinterpret the Qu'ran and you are a "hypocrite" -- punishable by death.

Muhammad is to strike hard against the unbelievers (fight them with weapons and armaments—ibn Kathir. Fight them with swords—Jalalyn), hypocrites (punish them according to Sharia laws—ibn Kathir) and to be firm (harsh) against them; the abode for the unbelievers and the hypocrites is hell...66:9

Another force behind the fallacious "moderate" Muslim meme is noted scholar Daniel Pipes -- perhaps the most damaging propagandist of this impossible argument, because of his credibility.

Jacoby asks Wilders about Pipes as well here:

Q: What do you say to scholars of Islam like Daniel Pipes, who argues that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution? Why should one accept what Geert Wilders says about Islam, rather than someone like Pipes?

A: I respect Daniel Pipes, but I fully disagree. There is no moderate Islam. It's like the [prime minister] of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan, said himself recently: There is only one taste of Islam, and that is the taste of the Koran.

Q: But he's an Islamist. You would expect him to say that. What about anti-Islamist Muslims, Muslims who reject the radicals?

A: Listen, the Koran is seen by Muslims, unlike all the other religions, as the word of God that can never be criticized. If you criticize the Koran, you are a renegade, an apostate. There are people who are moderate and call themselves Muslim. But moderate Islam is totally nonexistent. It will never have an Enlightenment as happened with Christianity.

Q: Why not?

A: Because unlike the interpretations of other holy books, Muslims believe that the Koran is the word of God and can never be changed.

Q: Hold on - the New Testament today is the same New Testament as a thousand years ago. What's different is the way that book is read and understood. A thousand years ago, one could have said Christianity was a violent, militant religion; today one wouldn't.

A: Yes, there was a change in Christianity. It was possible because Christians don't believe that the Bible is literally the word of God - not like the Koran. If you really believe [the Koran] is the word of God, it will never have room to change

Pipes's mantra is tired. We have all been listening to it for the past ten years without so much as a scintilla of supportive data. But now, thanks to repeated polling, reality paints a vastly different picture -- here. for example is data from 2006/2007, reported by Dr. Bostom: The Muslim Mainstream and the New Caliphate.

The openly expressed desire for the restoration of a Caliphate from two-thirds of an important Muslim sample of Arab and non-Arab Islamic nations, representative of Muslims worldwide, should serve as a chilling wake-up call to those still in denial about the existential threat posed by the living, uniquely Islamic institution of jihad.

And with the most recent follow-up, reported at the end of February from World Opinion polls here, we can quantify how factually-challenged his formulation is -- unless one accepts the absurd notion that desiring "strict application" of Sharia, and global Caliphate, are "moderate". Overwhelming majorities i.e., better than 2/3 of the best conducted sampling of the world's most populous Muslim countries, want these hideous outcomes.

As Bostom has previously written,

A World Public Opinion.org/ University of Maryland poll released February 25, 2009 indicated the following about our erstwhile Muslim ally nations of Egypt and Pakistan—81% of the Muslims of “moderate” Egypt, the largest Arab Muslim nation, desire a “strict” application of Shari’a, Islamic Law; 76% of the Pakistan’s Muslims—one of the most important, and sizable non-Arab Muslim populations—want this outcome. Moreover, 70% of Egyptian Muslims and 69% of Pakistani Muslims desire the re-creation of a “..single Islamic state or Caliphate.”

Earlier, I detailed the totalitarian impact of these fulfilled Islamic desires —based upon their doctrinal and historical application, across space and time.

When I first came to study Islam post 9/11, I watched and waited and wanted very much to believe in the Moderate meme. But I am not a fool. You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

Wilders cites this Reagan quote frequently, "If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly."

BINGO.

Comments

[NormanF]

There are moderate Muslims but there is NO moderate Islam. The difference is moderate Muslims don't take the Koran literally. They understand what it means. In contrast, Islam demands total submission and the eradication of all counter-vailing values. Its just not one more belief in a universe of different creeds. It is the sole creed - the only way to God. In that respect, it is totalitarian. You can find common ground with moderate Muslims because they reject that message of the Koran but you can never find common ground with Islam because its intent is to extinguish you (the infidel) and freedom from the world. Make no mistake about it: this is the defining issue of our time and in this respect, Geert Wilders is completely right. Islam and our Western civilization are incompatible.

[Colin]

There's another article on Geert Wilders in Islamica magazine by ISNA president Ingrid Mattson:

http://www.islamicamagazine.com/Online-Analysis/European-Identity-Crisis.html

I dunno, could it be that our lady Pam is having an identity crisis?

[Colin]

Pamela, in the name of free speech... please don't delete comments. Otherwise, what exactly are you fighting for?

http://www.islamicamagazine.com/Online-Analysis/European-Identity-Crisis.html

[NormanF]

Its a pro-Islamist apologia. You want Pam to be understanding towards it? The fact of matter is Muslims don't want to integrate into Europe or to accept its values. They want to change it and make Islam dominant. Any one who doesn't get it will NEVER get it.

[Pamela Geller]

Colin, Nothing was deleted.
Take a breath and back away from the keyboard.

Oh and Mattson is a notorious Islam apologist. The worst.

[Bob]

Interesting responses, and certainly correct assesment about the inability of Islam to undergo a transformation from its violent source, the Koran. To deviate from the Koran is, as has been said, to step into a reprobate state in the estimation of Islam.

I must disagree with the assesment that Christians do not take the Bible literally. It was the Christians who took the Bible literally that historically stepped away from the theocratic structure of both the Roman and Protestant establishments. It was those who took Christ's teachings regarding a love for an enemy (as opposed to romanist/protestant inquisitions leveled at those who happened to dissent)that did much to carve out the notion of freedom of religion in their day.

The first state constitution promising complete freedom of conscience and religion to its citizens, that of and in the Charter of Rhode Island, was both formulated and won by a man, John Clarke, who believed the Bible to be the Word of God, and practiced it literally.

[RISE_UP]

I hope Pamela deletes any post that dresses up evil.
(moderate muslims? Like hens'teeth...hard to come about. )

[sheik yer'mami]

Yasser is blissfully deluded. He is trying to cook his own little Islam, just like Irshad Manji. In an Islamic country he would be killed or imprisoned in a mental institution forever. In the US his coreligionists threw him out of his own mosque.

No. Islam cannot be reformed. No reinterpretation is possible. Spencer, Bostom, Fitzgerald and Raymond Ibrahim got it right. They know their stuff.

Good luck to Zuhdi Yasser, but his chances of getting a movement off the ground are as good as a snowstorm in hell.

[IndieJones]

Today, as I stood in line at the checkout counter, the cover of NewsWEAK had Arabic script written on it
And in parenthesis under it read (RADICAL ISLAM - It’s a Fact:
How To Live With It)

How to live with it ? What planet are these azzsuckers from? There is NO LIVING with it.
The Islamic agenda is to have Islam dominate the world which also entails that every female on this Earth will be in slavery. So, all females will be saying Goodbye to Equal Rights. ..Saying Goodbye to wearing makeup and the latest fashions …And saying Hello to their new found identity: Clipped clit burka babes.
So, excuse me Newsmeak, but this female will be praying to G-D for a few nice sized asteroids to hit the Barbarian Zones because no country appears to have the courage to call for an all out war against these Flintstones.

[jj]

pamela:

brilliant post.

excellent comments. i have to side w/ sheik yer'mami, norman f, rise up, and consider colin's opinion as a delusional search for what isn't there, e.g., a moderate islam. it most certainly isn't there in the form of ingrid mattson, the same as christianity is not to be found w/ rev. wright: no coincidence, that they are tight w/ obama and w/ louis farrakhan. all are muslims.

a.shrugs is the best general information conservative blog in america, and posts as this are a clear reason why.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

[IndieJones]

A Brit was protesting in front of Parliament one day with a sign that read: “ Sir Winston Churchill Was Right About Islam” , when Lord Ahmed approached him and said “ I’m going to insist that you be fined and jailed for Hate Speech”.
The Brit replied, “ My Lord, this is my lunch break and I really must be getting back to work so I don’t have time to wait for you to call Scotland Yard.”
"Oh, really" said Lord Ahmed…“And what job is it that you do?”
“I’m a Rectum Stretcher”, the Brit said proudly.
“ And what exactly does that job entail?” inquired Lord Ahmed.
“Well, when someone needs to be stretched, I’m the person they come to. First I start with a few fingers and then I work my way up to both my hands pulling and stretching the rectum until it’s about 6 feet”, replied the Brit.
“Hmmm“…said Lord Ahmed….“Then what do you do with a big rectum like that?”
“Well…” said the Brit,”First we make him a Lord, and then we place him in Parliament”.

[Dawning]

GOOD islam is BAD islam!!!!!
Truly good islam is islam that is bad for EVERYONE else. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the islam that is being taught by the wild eyed raving fanatics is true islam. DUHHH. Islam doesn't like YOU. If you are not islami you are not acceptable for friendship only for what they can extract from you. A "moderate" islami is a bad islami, a poor example of islam. A good islami is...think bin lauden, khomani, recall the Mumbai "terrorists". There are 40 "camps" of GOOD islamis all over our nation. The SAME KIND as those who brutally tortured and murdered those TOTALLY INNOCENT people in Mumbai. It was exceptionally GOOD islamis who crashed planes into the twin towers and the pentagon and the Iowa corn field. It's GOOD islamis who are blowing up girls schools and enforcing sharia law in the Swat Valley of Packastan and India. GOOD islamis are making great progress in all the U.K. GOOD islamis demand sharia law everywhere they go. BAD islamis are slowly disappearing as the GOOD islamis advance. That is the overall plan and the BAD islamis are simply GOOD islamis in waiting. Remember taqiyya (deceit) is one of their best and most used instruments of jihad.

[las]

Good people are fighting this menace... and unfortunately we even disagree amongst ourselves. I agree Pamela, I have always been struck with Pipe's illusion of a moderate Islam... the same with Irshad Manji, and Tarek Fatah both from Canada.

There are only three options for a Muslim: One, to be a cultural adherent from a religious standpoint, become nominally Muslim, but decry the death cult injunctions. Two, step out of Islam to become an atheist or convert to the next logical faith Christianity, or Three, do what Manji and Fatah do. Hold onto belief in Islam but commit intellectual self immolation trying to expunge the texts of the hate and hope that Islam gets a reformation.

But Let's get something else really clear here --- It has to do with violence and religion.
Jacoby questioned Wilders with :

"Hold on - the New Testament today is the same New Testament as a thousand years ago. What's different is the way that book is read and understood. A thousand years ago, one could have said Christianity was a violent, militant religion; today one wouldn't.

A: Yes, there was a change in Christianity. It was possible because Christians don't believe that the Bible is literally the word of God"

Both Jacoby and Wilders have it somewhat wrong. Christianity has NEVER EVER needed nor had a reformation. Catholicism needed a reformation and it has yet to do so. The so-called Reformation that did in fact occur is simply a bringing back of Christianity to Sola Scriptorum and ripping captive Christianity from the hands of the Papacy. That fight is still being conducted in some fashion.

And yes, the Bible IS seen as the word of God, but not in the same sense as the Koran. Jews even see it the same way as Christians... i.e. God inspired, but not the very word of God like the Koran is seen as the word of God made in a Muslim heaven.

This issue so muddies the understanding of what Christianity and Judaism teaches vis a vis that violence thing. There IS a comparison to be made between the Koran and both Christian and Judaic texts... but it is a comparison of contrasts, not equivalence.

Whew~!

[FalconEye]

I think the logical religion for Muslim converts would be Judaism, not Christianity, the idea of a man being G-d and the son of G-d at the same time is pretty far fetched in comparison to the strict monotheism of Judaism and Islam, even if in Islam it is towards something less than divine.

[Miluimnik]

Excellent piece.

Zuhdi Yasser etc. are not deluded...we are.

[Cyril Lucar]

Pamela,

You rock and Geert is our Winston Churchill. But, Geert is wrong (and right) about Christianity and the Bible. Certainly he is right that Christians (even very conservative ones) read the Bible differently than Muslims read the Koran. But it is not that Christians don't believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God - most Catholics, Orthodox and Evangelicals most assuredly do. There's important theological and interpretive differences between the two religions, however.

First, Christians believe that Jesus is the incarnation of God and Muslims believe that the Koran is the incarnation of God. Everyone would be bored if I fleshed out what this makes a difference, but it's HUGE. This is why they are backward looking tribalists. God speaks 6th century Arabic.

Second, Christians read the Bible morally and Muslims read it culturally. Christians ask, "How did Jesus show and tell us to love our enemies?" Muslims ask, "How did Mohammed wipe his butt?" Christians strive to bring God's kingdom to bear in the 21st century; Muslims strive to destroy the 21st century and return to the 7th.

[snaggletoothie]

I will only begin to believe in the myth of moderate Islam when some Muslims begin acting and talking like moderates. I could not name five such people. And these few represent more than a billion people? Why would a reasonable person believe such a thing?

[Ron Reagan]

I was warming up to this dissertation and then I saw this one sentence: "It was possible because Christians don't believe that the Bible is literally the word of God." I feel this statement is incorrect.

As a Christian I personally believe the Bible is literally the word of God.. I also read @Miluimnik's comment and I feel he summed it up quite well. I agree that most Christians morally read the Bible and Muslims culturally read the Koran. The Bible teaches one how to find God spiritually and to live your life according to God's will. The Bible also makes it abundantly clear the difference between good and evil. I feel the Muslim faith through its blind adherance to the Koran drives more people to the evil side -- love, understanding and compassion for their fellow man does not seem to be part of their God's agenda.

[las]

Falcon Eye

You are correct on this one thing about which I misspoke. Namely that the next logical faith for a Muslim who rejects Islam would be Christianity. Given the sewer Islam comes from, (and retaining an Islamic religious mindset) there would be no logical destination to crawl to after extricating oneself from such a totalitarian "religion". What could occur, however, is an honest examination of Biblical texts (both Christian and Jewish) to ground oneself.

Your statement that, "the idea of a man being G-d and the son of G-d at the same time is pretty far fetched," is basically irrelevant in light of the theological evidence in both texts. And the Tanach is strewn with evidences that fly in the face of the simplistic knee jerk understanding of what monotheism means. These evidences focus on the very nature of the Messiah Jews are expecting... simple things like the fact that God himself is the saviour of Israel. Yet if Israel is expecting a Man to be their saviour how can God be their saviour at the same time. No my friend... it's not so far fetched as you would like to believe. It can't be reduced to simplistic terms because Jewish theologians can't reconcile it intellectually.

Biblical prophecy has always been that delicate balance of God revealing to us on an intellectual level spiritual truths that can only be understood on a spiritual level.

[Spartan]

The issues discussed in this blog I believe are very very important. Thank you Pamela for bringing this up. Much more discussion needs to be done on this issue because there are many different points of view and I hope Pamela brings it up again and again. In my little old view, there can be moderate Muslims who do not like the violence and hatred of the terrorists and others who demonstrate for Islam or against Israel. These Moderates do not actively practice Islam. The terrorists or conservative Muslims actively practice Islam, and therefore are just following the dictates of the Koran, Sira, and Hadith. The conservative Muslims want to convert the entire world to Islam. In their view everyone should be Muslim, a dhimmi, or dead. On the other hand the Moderates may want to assimilate into American culture, may want to get along with everyone, and do not necessarily want to convert everyone to Islam. Not surprisingly though there are not many moderate Muslims. The Koran, Sira, and Hadith cannot be transformed into a peaceful religion because Islam is not just a religion and because about 80% of the text of the three books would have to be removed. It would be better to set aside 100% and let the Muslims select another religion, preferably Christianity or Judism. The way it stands now you should not completely trust even the moderate Muslim, who does not actively practice Islam. This is true because you could never know when that moderate Muslim would begin actively practicing Islam and become a violent radical, all to promote Islam. The intolerance of Islam means there is no room for any other belief system, thus Islam has to go.

[gastou]

Zuhdi Jasser says he is a muslim, well, but the problem is what to be a muslim means. Anybody can say I am a muslim. Can he show a certificate of musulmanity delivered by Islamic University of Al Azhar?
I fear no!
The only question to ask to Zuhdi Jasser is do you recognize American laws as superior to islamic laws(Sharia) and are you ready to sign such a statement? If the reply is yes he may stay and live in the USA otherwise he must leave the USA.

[Muslims Against Sharia]

Tri-Faith Initiative, a partnership of Temple Israel, The Episcopal Diocese of Nebraska and The American Institute of Islamic Studies and Culture, is inviting you to attend Dinner in Abraham's Tent: Conversations on Peace.

The idea of interfaith trialogue is commendable, except, in this case there is one enormous problem. Muslim side is represented by none other than the infamous Ingrid Mattson, the president of ISNA. The same ISNA that was a co-creator of Muslim Brotherhood Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, which, among other things, reads: "Establishment of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic state [caliphate] wherever it is. ... Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: The Process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

Muslims Against Sharia and many other moderate Muslims raised this issue in the past, but our words are falling on deaf ears. Make no mistake about it: conferences like "Dinner in Abraham's Tent" are legitimizing Islamofascism and advance Muslim Brotherhood Strategic Goal described in the aforementioned Memorandum.

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2009/03/legitimizing-islamofascism-dinner-in.html