Why has Islam been able to grow at such an unprecedented
pace in Europe, and why has it been allowed to do so practically unchallenged?
There are many reasons for this, but one contributing factor that has
facilitated this rapid growth has been the decision to artificially divide the
religion into two opposing philosophies with completely different goals and
values, which has transformed it into an ideological version of Dr Jekyll and
Mr Hyde. By firmly dividing its adherents (Muslims) into two distinct camps —
the extremists who are alleged to be misusing their religion and who only
constitute a tiny minority, and the moderates who ostensibly represent the
majority and who strongly opposes the extremists — Islam has managed to
establish a defence that is almost impenetrable, and that has fostered an
environment in which meaningless terms such as Islamophobia are actually given
credence.
This clever distinction, which has in effect divided Islam
into a moderate and an extreme form, has ensured that it can continue to grow
unabated and without being properly challenged, as any terrorist attack
committed by its members can be blamed on the extremists and thus also used as
an argument to exonerate the moderates. It’s a form of classification or
“branding taqiyya” that has served the religion well, and given it a solid
argument that it can rely upon no matter what type of hurdle or obstacle that
is being thrown in its way.
The mainstream media and the political classes have
deliberately failed to call Islam by its proper name and actively undermined
any serious attempts to scrutinize and expose the ideology for what it really
is. As a result, the majority of the blame for the very precarious situation
that Europe finds itself in these days has to be put squarely on their
shoulders. These two powerful groups have been able to control public discourse
and sway public opinion through the extensive use of lies and propaganda.
Crucial facts that could have altered the course have been deliberately
downplayed, and in many cases outright ignored. Unpalatable events have been
omitted. The job responsibilities of the MSM and the politicians have largely
been transformed into those of campaigners who pay lip service to such things
as truth and accuracy — values that actually used to matter in the past. The
absence of an in-depth analysis of Islam’s doctrines, its history and its
stated goals for the future have left ordinary people blissfully unaware of the
dangers that this ideology represents, and only now when Islam has seriously
started to flex its muscles are they beginning to wake up from their
political-correctness-induced slumber.
This essay will focus on the rebranding of Islam that has
turned it into something unrecognizable and innocuous — namely a predominantly
moderate and peaceful religion — and offer a valid and thorough explanation as
to why this is not the case. It will show that this artificial rebranding is
false, that it is unscientific and utterly dishonest, and demonstrate by the
use of critical analysis that the opposite is true. This assignment has not
been undertaken to further cement the convictions of those who have already
reached this conclusion of their own accord, but rather to serve as a wakeup
call to those who are still in the dark and have failed to grasp what should
have been obvious all along.
The first step in this process is to demonstrate that one
cannot logically divide Islam into two distinct camps; one that preaches war
and hatred, and the other that preaches love and tolerance. It is an absurd
claim to make, given that both camps are reading from the same script. This is
made obvious by the fact that a large portion of Islamic doctrine is dedicated
to the advocacy of hatred and animosity against non-Muslims. However, before we
can start to immerse ourselves in the subject at hand and initiate our
investigation, we have to obtain some definitions that will allow us to
describe the religion and the points that we are trying to make. The words that
we are interested in here are “Islam”, “Muslim”, “moderate”, “extreme” and
“extremist”.
A quick Google search gives us the Merriam-Webster’s English
dictionary’s classification of the word “extremist”:
“Advocacy of extreme measures or views.”
The word “extreme” is defined by the same dictionary as:
“Very far from agreeing with the opinions of most people:
not moderate”.
The word “moderate” is glossed as:
“Professing or characterized by political or social beliefs
that are not extreme.”
Furthermore, it is important to correctly identify the term
“Muslim”, as the purpose of this essay is to establish whether a Muslim should
be classified as an extremist or as a moderate based on the choice of his or
her religious convictions. According to the same source a “Muslim” is defined
as:
“A person whose religion is Islam: a follower of Islam”
Islam is defined as:
“The religion which teaches that there is only one God and that
Muhammad is God’s prophet : the religion of Muslims”
These are basic definitions which could be elaborated upon
in great detail, but which will have to do for the purposes of this essay. The
only thing that we are going to add is that a Muslim is a person who embraces
Islamic doctrine, i.e. the teachings of the Quran, the Hadith and the Sira (the
official Islamic doctrine). The Quran being the word of Allah as recited to
Muhammad, Islam’s first and last prophet, by the angel Gabriel. The hadith,
which encompasses the traditions of Muhammad (a supplement to the Quran). The
Sira, which is the official biography of Muhammad. The Sunnah (doctrine) is a
term that encompasses the Hadith and the Sira.
Now that we have sorted out the correct definitions we can move
on to the next step in the process, which is to place practitioners of Islam on
either the moderate end of the scale, the extremist end of it, or somewhere in
between. A prerequisite in order to achieve this task is to be equipped with a
basic knowledge of Islam. It should be evident that it is impossible to refute
the claim on a purely scientific basis without having a basic understanding of
the ideology. As with anything in life, in order to make an informed decision
one has to be in possession of the relevant facts. It is also imperative that
we clarify what constitutes moderate behaviour in order to prevent undue
confusion. We have already offered a definition of this word, but we still have
not assigned what type of behaviour falls into this category. Normal behaviour
is also to a certain degree a relative concept, as different countries and
different cultures operate with different definitions of what constitutes
normal behaviour. What is considered normal behaviour in Saudi Arabia is not
necessarily normal behaviour in a country such as Canada, and vice versa. The
best way to overcome this issue is to use the UN’s declaration of human rights
as a template and gauge various behaviours and ideologies against this document
in order to ascertain on which side of the scale they belong.[1]
It should also be pointed out that normal behaviour could
quite easily be classified as extreme if it occurs in a society that has
descended into anarchy or chosen to adopt fascism or any other anti-democratic
forms of governing. In order for any ideology or political system to be
classified as moderate, in this context, it is thus imperative that it does not
violate the basic principles of the UN’s declaration of human rights, and by no
means can it be found to be in gross violation of this declaration. Hence in
order for Islam to be classified as a moderate religion, it is essential that
it can be categorically established that it accepts and respects the overall
principles found in this document.
We are now going to take a closer look at certain aspects of
Islamic doctrine and bring attention to some of the more disturbing incidents
of Muhammad’s life, which will put the claim that Islam is a moderate religion
into serious question. We are not going to detail every single event or analyse
every single passage of its holy books with a magnifying glass, but rather take
a closer look at some of the characteristics that makes it impossible to
classify it as a moderate religion.
The first hurdle that anyone who wishes to exonerate Islam
and label it as a moderate ideology encounters is the existence of a unique
judicial system (Shariah) which is a 7th century justice system based upon the
Quran and various instructions and commandments made by Muhammad throughout his
life.[2] To say that it conforms with the UN declaration on human rights would
be a gross misrepresentation of the truth, as it quite clearly violates both
the spirit of this document and pretty much every single paragraph listed
within it. The most egregious example is probably the Sharia’s view on
apostasy, i.e. members who wish to leave the religion, a transgression which
according to the Sharia is punishable by death. Similar punishments are meted
out for blasphemy, homosexuality and marital infidelity, which according to the
Sharia stipulates that the offending individual be stoned to death, just to
name a few examples.
The fact that these laws have been practiced since the
inception of Islam and that they are still being practiced in various Muslim
nations today makes Islam come across as a rather extreme ideology straight off
the bat, and it certainly makes it very difficult to see why anyone would
choose to classify the Sharia or any system that resembles it as moderate, or
claim that it has undeservedly been awarded the classification “extreme” To
justify killing individuals who don’t share your personal religious or
political views is an extreme act, and it certainly runs counter to the UN’s
declaration of human rights, as do the other issues highlighted in this
paragraph. The only logical conclusion that can be deduced from this
information is that the Sharia is extreme.
The second hurdle that the proponents of Islam encounter
when they wish to classify Islam as a moderate religion is the Quran, the holy
book of the Muslims. It’s a book that Muslims cherish and treat with the utmost
respect, and which they believe was dictated to their prophet Muhammad verbatim
by their God, Allah. The book is an integral part of Islam, and its content
gives us a good indication to the exact nature of the religion. The proponents
of the “moderate Islam” theory will be swift to point out that the Quran
contains many peaceful passages, and consequently cannot in good faith be
viewed as extreme. However, that does not change the fact that the Quran also
contains a staggering 109 verses that actively advocates violence against
non-believers, verses that condone violence against women, the subjugation of
non-Muslims and verses that justifies slavery.[3] Any of these acts can in
their own right justifiably be referred to as extreme by anyone’s definition,
and most certainly by pitting it against the UN’s declaration on human rights.
Some may interject that the Quran should be viewed in a historical context, and
maintain that the practices advocated in this book were commonplace and
accepted when it was written. That may be a valid argument, but is still fails
to explain why people living in the 21st century show so much reverence for a
book that advocates so much hatred and violence, and why they would wish to
live in accordance with the principles found in such a book. Based on the
numerous passages that promote violence against non-Muslims which can be found
in the Quran one is left with no choice but to categorize it as an extreme book
that advocates violence.
The third hurdle that proponents of Islam encounter in their
quest to exonerate their religion is the first prophet of Islam, Muhammad and
his life story, and in particular the later stages of his life which were
dominated by violence and brutal warfare. What sets Muhammad apart from other
significant religious figures such as Jesus and the Buddha, who were known
pacifists and advocated a philosophy of turning the other cheek, is the fact
that Muhammad was a warlord who killed, robbed, raped and had people who
disagreed with him assassinated.[4] According to Islam’s own sources, Muhammad
personally ordered the execution of 600-900 male Jews during the invasion of
Banu Qurayza and took their women and children as slaves.[5] He also had
numerous people who mocked or disagreed with him killed, and even admitted
towards the end of his life that he had been made victorious through a reign of
terror.[6] Furthermore, after his death his followers colonised and spread the
religion of Islam by force to large areas of the known world by following his
personal example. Some estimates indicate that this brutal colonization
resulted in the loss of up to 270 million lives.[7]
The most troubling aspect of Muhammad’s life is, however,
not that he committed all these atrocious acts, but rather the fact that so
many people continue to worship him and show him so much reverence. Even today
Muslims consider Muhammad to be the perfect human being whose behaviour should
be emulated in every aspect of life. So great is the respect for Muhammad that
the overwhelming majority of Muslims are violently opposed to even having
visual representations made of their prophet, such as drawings, paintings etc.
Whenever such visual representations materialise, riots and violence are often
the outcome.
Having looked at the three main aspects of Islamic doctrine,
the Quran, the Sunnah and the Sharia, and highlighted the problematic issues
found within these, it’s not unreasonable to classify the contents as largely
extreme. We have shown that all the three major parts that make up Islam
advocate violence, and reject basic human rights and opinions that are not
consistent with official Islamic doctrine. Such views can obviously not by
categorized as moderate ones; given that moderate is by definition the absence
of extremism, and they certainly cannot be viewed as moderate if we compare them
with the UN’s declaration of human rights. That Islamic doctrine also contains
elements that are moderate does not change the fact that there is an
overabundance of elements that clearly are extreme in nature, and which can be
found throughout its holy texts, giving us no other choice than to label the
religion as a whole as extreme.
This invariably leads us to the last section and the
original goal of this essay, which is to show that Muslims who embrace Islamic
doctrine thus cannot logically be labelled as moderates, given that the
ideology they have embraced is an extreme one.
We have already offered a very basic definition of the term
Muslim, as classified by Merriam-Webster’s English dictionary. For our purpose
in this essay — which is to establish whether it is reasonable to categorize
Muslims as both extremists and moderates — it is important to specify whom we
have chosen to designate as Muslims, given that the term is often loosely
applied, and are on some occasions used to include individuals who are born
Muslims in predominantly Muslim nations, but who don’t necessarily identify as
Muslims. The term Muslim as it has been applied in this case refers to
practicing Muslims; in other words, individuals who identify as Muslims, who
believe in the Quran and who live their lives according to Islamic principles.
It does not include what some would choose to refer to as cultural Muslims,
non-practicing Muslims, reformers or individuals who choose to identify as
Muslims out of concern for their own safety, of whom there are plenty given,
Islam’s highly controversial view on apostasy.
It’s also necessary to make a logical assumption: to accept
that most people who follow a specific ideology, regardless of which one it may
be, have at least a basic understanding of its official doctrines and stated
goals. This means that a devout communist has at least a minimum of knowledge
of official communist literature, and that a fervent Christian has at least a
basic knowledge of Christian principles, etc. Thus we should assume that a
practicing Muslim has a basic knowledge of Islam’s holy texts, and that he is
familiar with its official policies on a wide range of issues. It is therefore
also safe to conclude — if we accept these criteria — that a practicing Muslim
has a basic understanding of Islam’s views on unbelievers, apostates, sharia
law and the life of Muhammad. In other words, a practicing Muslim is familiar
with the undemocratic nature of Islam, but nevertheless still chooses to
identify as a Muslim.
This is a very significant fact, and one that has to be
given the utmost attention when trying to determine on which side of the
“extremist” scale practicing Muslims should be positioned. It is absolutely
crucial to take political or religious views into consideration when
endeavouring to establish whether a person is an extremist or not, and it is
certainly an approach that is being used extensively by the media and the
political classes when it comes to classifying non-Muslims with whom they
disagree politically as “extremists”. The latest people to be labelled as
“extremists” by the use of such methods are US Presidential candidate Donald
Trump and his supporters, who have been given this classification based solely
on their political views and not based on their actions or behaviours. It
should also be noted that the views that have earned them this label are fairly
innocuous, given that they have not called for the extermination of political
opponents, the introduction of a fascist state, or advocacy for an
authoritarian judicial system — concepts that practicing Muslims do embrace
wholeheartedly without being stigmatized as extremists by the same MSM.
Now the question that should present itself when taking
these things into consideration, and in particularly bearing in mind the issues
raised previously pertaining to the undemocratic and violent nature of Islamic
doctrine, is this: can a practicing Muslim’s belief in such concepts be
interpreted as anything but a tacit acceptance of such views? And can such an
individual be classified as anything but an extremist?
Most people would probably agree that it is not a sign of
moderate behaviour to endorse and condone violence and anti-democratic
activities; on the contrary, such behaviour is part and parcel of the mentality
of an extremist. To use a popular saying, if it looks like a duck, quacks like
a duck and walks like a duck, it is more than likely a duck. One could of
course apply this to Muslims and Islam and say that if the Quran advocates
undemocratic values it’s more than likely that a practicing Muslim believes in
and condones these views and the he wishes to live in a society governed by
them. It’s certainly a natural conclusion to make when looking at the facts in
a rational manner.
It’s equally natural to conclude that a moderate individual
would by definition reject Islamic doctrine, or any other violent and
undemocratic ideology based solely on the given ideology’s level of extremism
and its antagonism against those who seek to question and challenge its
authority. From this it follows that a truly moderate Muslim would reject
Islam, based on its general violent message. In effect he would become an
apostate, i.e. a non-Muslim. One could of course attempt to make the case that
a moderate Muslim could discard the violent and extreme parts of Islam and
focus solely on its peaceful verses, and still be a Muslim, but this is an
unrealistic assumption that fails to recognize the dominant position that
violence and jihad enjoy in Islamic doctrine. Moreover, it would render the
teachings of Muhammad completely meaningless, and severely question his
judgment and authority.
We know that the MSM and the political classes base their
definition of extremism — excluding Muslims, that is — exclusively on political
beliefs, and label individuals with whom they disagree as “extremists” on a
much flimsier basis. Why is it then that practicing Muslims with views that are
evidently more extreme are being categorized as moderates? An honest approach
would be to treat Muslims in the same manner that other groups are treated, and
scrutinize and define them in a similar fashion. To have two opposing
classifications systems, and use them selectively for political purposes, can
only be described as intellectual dishonesty at best. The outcome of such an
inquiry is of no real value, as it has been obtained by the use of faulty
methods. Thus the term moderate as it is applied today by the Western elites to
describe the majority of practicing Muslims is a dishonest and erroneous
description of reality.
It should also be obvious that it is unreasonable to classify a practicing Muslim as a moderate or as an extremist based solely on the violent acts that this individual has or has not committed, or on the amount of extreme viewpoints promulgated by said individual, or the lack thereof. Most people would agree that extremism isn’t exclusively synonymous with violence, but that it can also be applied to those who embrace extreme political and ideological ideas, and who disseminate such. Nevertheless, this unreasonable classification system is the one that the MSM and the political classes have chosen to adopt.
If we accept that a truly moderate individual would reject
Islamic doctrine based on its overall violent principles, then the only logical
conclusion to make is that an individual who continues to publicly praise and
Islam and worship Allah and Muhammad, and criticize those who question this
ideology, must be viewed as an extremist, based on this individual’s espousal
of extremist ideas.
The next question to ask, then, is this: Is it reasonable to
assume that a person who condones Islam’s theological message of jihad is
sincere whenever this person’s offers a condemnation of jihadi attacks in the
MSM? It’s a scenario that we are able to witness every time an Islamic
terrorist attacks occur, and whenever the MSM are pretending to do their job by
pretending to confront members of the Islamic community. The answer has to be a
resounding “NO” from a purely logical standpoint. It’s also a conclusion that
is in line with what we have seen on numerous occasions when so-called moderate
Muslims say one thing when interviewed by media people, and express
diametrically different and opposing views when captured on hidden cameras.
All things considered, it’s exceptionally difficult to label
practicing Muslims as anything but “extremists”, given their acceptance of the
overabundance of extreme views that are found within Islamic doctrine, and
their reluctance to distance themselves from these principles.
Looking at it from an honest perspective, the methodology
that has been highlighted in this essay is the only sensible way to ascertain
whether practicing Muslims are extremists or moderates, and the methodology of
this essay is the only truly objective way to make sense of Islam and
practicing Muslims.
The conclusion is that practicing Muslims cannot possibly be
classified as anything but extremists, given the religious and political views
that they espouse. It may not be what people wish to hear, but it is a
conclusion that has been reached by employing a rational and honest method, and
from now on the conclusion should be treated as fact.
Notes:
|
1.
|
| |
|
2.
|
| |
|
3.
|
| |
|
4.
|
| |
|
5.
|
| |
|
6.
|
| |
|
7.
|
|
