How to Best Support Moderate Islam

Submitted by Jesse Collins (United States), Jun 19, 2008 at 16:22

This comment made with respect for all non apologists writers,

I wrote a response to this subject last fall when the headline for MEF was " Should we ban Islam?"

My work in the last 30 years has been in psychological trauma and management of and intervention upon perpetrators, frequently acting in cultic management scenarios. Islam survives and advances by using psychological trauma imposing activities, which stun the Umma and its enemies. Hence, my background is pertinent to this comment and why I am making it.

The way out of this problem with Islam is not to keep trying to talk so called moderates into being strong and thinking like you. The answer in my view is not to make our focus the education of Islamic moderates (although that seems like the logical choice). If we are going to educate someone, let it be Dr. Pipes and Mr. Spencer. Make their lessons pertain to the systemic functionings of cult management operations.

You've already identified this group as a cult in your lead sentence. So respond accordingly and treat it like one. You don't just waltz into cults and freely educate people out of there. As the last 1400 years should show you, a little more than education is needed for Islam's cult apparatus. It is the biggest and toughest in the world. You have to respond accordingly. Not the same old weak stuff.

My article to you on this subject in detail is published at the last posting in my blog at http://islamviolentcult.blogspot.com.

Here is my Blog's entry synopsis:

^{"Save Islam: Pass Anti Violent Cult Legislation Now!}

Islam disables its adversaries, that is, all who do not believe in the divinity of Allah via Muhammad, by presenting itself as opposites: a religion of peace on the one hand and a killer of disbelievers on the other. That double entendre splits the minds of, thus allows control over, its umma (practicing Muslims) and all competition. Induce a secular intervention on Islam through establishment of anti violent cult legislation. It will do for Islam what it can't do for itself: end the violence"

The term "split mind" is formerly called in psychological parlance "Double Think." It means that you put a person into your control by stating that two existential identity variables (which are moral values, beliefs, images and etc.) having exactly opposite meanings cannot be assimilated. The contradictions traumatize the decision making system into a state of perpetual shock. It remains until the contradictions are reconciled. A cult maintains its existence by building ongoing operational strictures that reinforce the "Double Think" state, which is a condition of perpetual shock where the individual is incapable of analyzing logically the condition itself or the tenets making up its bonding strictures (operational rules and guidelines).

The remedy for cults and this situation with Islam requires that its antagonists (non believers like me) address of the organization's declarations, charters, and bylaws. In Islam, they are the Sunnah: Koran, hadith, dhimmi implementation guidelines, sharia, and sira. That is where the Double Think precepts are administered, in this cult perpetually. Moderates die out or are killed out, and the declarations continue on.

Anti cult legislation was attempted as an intervention on Islam in France several years ago. Imam's now living in Algeria supported the anticult notion. Their view was that secular requirements for declaration compliance with state government guidelines was the only way to strengthen the moderates' hands permanently. But the government left the legislation open ended such that everyone who had an organization with unique bylaws and missions would become vulnerable to control by the government and thus the population as a whole, in the end assuring that the organization's individuality protected by freedom to think constitutions would be compromised. The government would always be shutting down free thinkers, even though they might be shutting down free thinking within their organizations.

Today in America, which is the only place this could happen, the anticult rules should be administered, but with the constraints divined as prohibiting violence and the violation of civil rights. That means rewriting organizational declarations, in this instance, Islam's, to only preclude the political components. That is where the killing part comes in and can be abolished by legislation - debate. People who argue that Islam is protected by the religious clause know that no religions or anybody else are protected to do violence.

Anticult legislation should be administered here, or at least initiated so that when the next 9/11 occurs, the votes will be there to when the anticult arguments.

In the meantime, those anti arguments must focus on ferreting out violence and civil rights ordained declarations. As stated in my other articles, you can call it "Islam II, The Sequel," or "Non Violent Islam."

Let our legislative and legal mechanisms slug it out in the public arena where witnesses don't testify to one meaning in English and another in Arabic. Focus on the declarations. According to the French Imam, the secular help will give moderates what they need to stand up and be what they thought the religion was supposed to be in the first place.

Please don't tell me how impossible this is, etc. I'm so tired of cowardice and traumatized analysts who can't think straight and refuse to fight these bastards head on. It'll look like a small amount of risk that we could have taken once Islam, precisely following its declarations, start using WMD, which in Muhammad's day were catapults that indiscriminately killed everybody, compromising his first rules of who not to kill, such as non fighting women, children and the old and disabled. I'm sure that the reader can guess what replaces the catapults today.

In my article on the referenced blog, I also recommend as dual front to begin suing every major university in America, like USC in California, that fraudulently represents Islam's documentation.

By the way, please don't fall back on of all things, Islamophobia, which by definition REQUIRES that fears of Islam be irrational. According to Salmon Rushdie, Islamophobia is a non word. That is, it is impossible to exist next to Islam without having fears of it. I don't know anybody who doesn't fear it, excepting maybe some of those moderates hypnotized by double think.

Jesse Collins

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".