I'm in total agreement, Dhimmi No More!

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), May 8, 2007 at 23:47

Dhimmi No More, I agree totally! I have always insisted that a "good Muslim" was in essence a blight on society, and that a "moderate" Muslim was in fact a "bad Muslim". Let me explain. It goes right back to what you pointed out. To be a practicing Muslim in good standing, one must embrace Islam, and Islam is an ideology that worships depravity, death, and destruction. There is simply no escaping that fact. Compare the behavior of Mohammed to the behavior of Jesus or Buddha. When you look at the major religions of the world and play "which one of these things doesn't look like the other", guess which stands out? Like a giant black splotch on a white wall!

So again, being a "good Muslim" means embracing the rules and laws of Islam, which makes all "good Muslims" bad citizens because their goal must be to undermine society in order to institute Islamic law and Islamic supremacy. Being a "moderate" essentially makes a Muslim a heretic because that person would be forced to harshly criticize the actions, beliefs, and teachings of the founder of his own religion, the teachings of his religion, the "holy" book of his religion, and the preachings of all its leading clerics and major practitioners.

So the phrase "moderate muslim" is an oxymoron. If you are Muslim, you cannot be moderate, if you are moderate you cannot be Muslim. It's like trying to be hot and cold at the same time!

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".