The 800 pound Gorillia cannot be contained by "Moderate" Islam

Submitted by Andrew (Germany), Jan 29, 2005 at 06:54

Dear Mr. Pipes,

I notice that some Islamic researchers probing the intricacies of Islam often all fall back behind the safety of the slogan "we can't hate or have a grudge against a billion people", or some permutation of that idea. That does not mean that we should foolishly allow immigration of Moslems to the West to continue unabated as it can only spell disaster for us in the long run.

Obviously, reasonable people are not suggesting that we wage war upon a quarter of the earth's population, yet it seems clear that the Islamic civilization has been in a state of perpetual war with the rest of the world, a continuation of the eternal jihad which has seen the conquest of one civilization after another to Islam.

Perhaps now, in light of modern analysis of emigration patterns and historic concepts of tolerance, currently referred to as multiculturalism, we can see that the military aspects of jihad are not the only way Islam is spread through the world. Often, it seems in modern times, Islam remains somewhat dormant to the casual observer in a non-Moslem society, who views it as relatively benign and even sympathized with its adherents in what today we would call political correctness, while it gathers strength and numbers.

This eventual development always results in separatist movements within non-Moslem societies or terrorism, currently blurred as a legitimate form of societal transformation to Islam, thought few understand that. The historic record bears witness to the 50 or more Islamic nations on earth that were wrested away from the original culture and civilization since Islam's beginnings fourteen centuries ago These nations fell to the confusion, deception and warfare of Islamic jihad, all clearly outlined in the Koran. What Auster calls a "parasite civilization", is not in dispute because that is certainly what Al -Andalus represented, a civilization conquered by an invading army that profited from the labor of the enslaved population.

Your response to Lawrence Auster implies that for the time, Islamic achievements were impressive and represented a real civilization. Yes, perhaps but don't forget the methodology of achieving their civilization, which Moslems themselves call the ummah. It should indicate to you that they are in fact imperial, biding their time until sufficiently strong and ultimately suffocating to the host society until the emergence of Islamic hegemony and law reign over the former good-hearted, tolerant dhimmis. That certainly fits the average person's definition of parasitic or conquering, whatever you chose to call it.

We should not make it our responsibility to show them the many shortcomings of their religion either. That approach is always met with resistance. You responded to Lawrence Auster that Islam is whatever Moslems want it to be. That is a surprisingly western sentiment you project to the core of the Islamic belief system and cannot ever satisfy the scrutiny of even a casual analysis of the Islamic world, or Moslems in Western societies today.

The evidence all indicates that they believe they have the perfect revelation of Allah's will as espoused by Mohammad, to be spread (obligated to do so) throughout the world via Islam. It is inconsequential that some individual Moslems are "moderate', while others are Koran literalists and still others may be non-practicing. That obvious platitude gets us nowhere because the vast majority of Moslems know that only the so called "radicals ", who are more representative of the nature of Islam, wield the authority of the Koran because the Koran itself justifies their every act of violence, no matter how depraved it may seem to other Moslems and non-Moslems alike.

If the moderates exist, where are they effecting change? Isn't it understandable that our insanely liberal immigration policies have flooded the US with Third Worlders and Moslems who are in fact radical to begin with and spread their views in virtually every Mosque in the West? All I hear are crickets from any voices of supposedly peace lovin' Islam. And those moderates that do exist are afraid of the overwhelming superiority in numbers the real Moslems, those who as members of the nation of Islam would rather see an Islamic nation forced upon the people of the non-Moslem countries of the world where they freely operate, intimidate and control everyone else who might not agree with them.

To place hope in a movement prodded and guided and pushed whenever possible by infidels, towards the objective of creating an moderate Islam, assumes that Moslems themselves would embrace that overly optimistic notion and reject the very substance and texts and teachings and example of their perfect prophet.

It could happen, but not within the time constraints that have seen Europe's Moslem population nearly double from 10 to 20 million in a decade and cases of 'Islamic extremism" go from hundreds per year to thousands as reported by the UK news yesterday.

Now Mr. Pipes, your article in 1990, "The Muslims Were Coming..." predicted the rise of everything we are now seeing. Oriana Fallaci, described it in less politically correct terms, the esteemed Bat Ye'or identified the origins of the Islamification of Europe and researchers l like Robert Spencer are doing all they can to report what the media and intellectually elites simply are not doing, telling the truth.

Lawrence Auster's position is brutally logical and clearly identifies the danger we as a nation, a civilization are facing at the hands of an ideology that will not rest until the world entire, is under the black banner of Islam. Therefore it is our duty to defend our nation and not confuse people by pointing out such notions that place the fate of our country in the hands of "moderate" Moslems, many of which would not rather mind that the US come under Shari'a law anyway.

The time constraints clearly indicate, that at the current rate of expansion, we will have a large, parallel civilization within our midst's that will eventually be sufficiently poised to enter our political process, influence or Middle East politics and hoping to enforce Shari'a as seems to be the case in Jersey City. We do not have the luxury of time to wait for the emergence for a movement that is heretical to Islam to appear.

Realistically, we face the gloomy prospect of possible Islamification or smoldering cities long before that ever becomes a reality. I think as Auster says, the liberal West has met its match with resurgent Islamism because our current philosophy of "all peoples and cultures are essentially the same" demands we welcome with open arms a determined stubborn foe, yes a foe, whose core religious obligation demand conversion, submission or death to all opposition. That is why it is vitally important that you stress, that despite your optimism, we must, absolutely must keep Islam from becoming even stronger in the US until they reform themselves wherever they currently are. And that is what you and we all owe to posterity. The alternative is a dead, conquered Western civilization, fallen by the hands of a seemingly uncontainable ideological juggernaut.

---

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".