dec 7th, 2007
i believe they do not actually exist, and are mythological beasts. if you are a mohammedan, you cannot be a moderate -- that is the way the ideology is structured.
this reminds me of musharraf's assertion a while ago about how "mohammedanism is the most tolerant religion". to which a wag responded: "on which planet?" surely not on this one. must be in some mohammedan heaven with 72xhouris + 28xboys aplenty.
words have different meanings in the mohammedan lexicon than in the average dictionary. here's my conjecture as to their real meanings in mohammedan-speak:
"moderate" means a mohammedan who doesn't actually go out and kill kafirs, but just grabs their women and property when the kafirs are murdered by real mohammedans
"tolerant" means "not yet doing mass extinction of other faiths, because not quite powerful yet. waiting for a time when powerful enough"
ayaan hirsi ali has very good reason to wonder about the existence of the mythical "moderates". none of them spoke up when the mullahs were hounding her.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07ali.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
5 comments:
"...if you are a mohammedan, you cannot be a moderate -- that is the way the ideology is structured."
Quite.
Muslims who maintain their humanity and decency do so by compromising with their faith, by deviating from it in some way. As the Koranic scriptures and the Hadiths reveal, being a strict and pure Muslim requires that a person fill his heart with so much concentrated hatred for the “unbeliever” that most people simply don’t have the strength to keep up the daily routine of being an intolerant barbarian. So they quietly tell themselves that they will be good Muslims, but only up to a point. They will honor and revere the Koran, but they will not necessarily take it too literally. Much of what the Koran tells them to do they will silently ignore.
A moderate Muslim is the one who believes in the Jihadi ideology. One who thinks America is the biggest Satan on the planet. One who believes that Western world is out to destroy Islam. One who thinks that Cilaphat should be establieshed but he is currently occupied with other thinks, like earning a living.
And all those satanic verses in the Koran that enjoin upon good and moderate adherents of Mohammedanism to rape, burn, pillage and decapitate the infidels - the great English speaking "moderate" scholars of Islam, such as Dr. Zakir Naik would have you believe that the verses are actually commanding the Mohammedans to destroy the vanity, arrogance etc and other such "bad qualities" of the infidels :-)
Christian,
I believe you are not well liked in this forum and I don't know what is your history here. However I genuinely feel that you are mistaken in this case. To understand why hindus (self included) have no problem with 2002 anti muslim Gujarat riots, you have to understand the options left for hindus in Gujarat after the train massacre. They could have opted to not retaliate against muslims in general and instead focus on those who burned the railcar. Now this is something easier than done because those perpetrators were back in pakistan. The other option was to hit back at muslims in general sending a message to muslims that if you kill 1 hindu, we will kill 4 muslims. It is true that whenever such lessons are taught, it is always innocent people who are killed. But do we have a choice. In the west isn't it euphemistically called Collateral Damage.
I do think muslims did learn their lesson in Gujarat and I don't think they would dare another godhra.
It is sad that many indians in india are so well deep into secularism they find the above reason unpalatable. I was in india few weeks back and this time I decided to come out of closet and admit being a hardcore hindu nationalist. This topic came and I told the same what I wrote above. My folks weren't happy with my ideas. And they are what, profs in IIT.
Rajeev asked - where on earth are the alleged mohammedan "moderates"?
They are not on earth that is for sure.
Post a Comment