Some moderate Muslims have begun to publicly profess that they do not support radical Islamic terrorists. I believe, they mean to say, they don’t support their violent methods.
It would likely be difficult, to find a Muslim who would not welcome the dominance of the religion of Islam over the religions of most of the worlds people.
A further likelihood, is that it would be equally difficult to find a Muslim who, given the choice, would not welcome the establishment of an Islamic world state and it’s laws of Shari`ah as the predominate way of life for all people.
For a Muslim to not support either scenario would be akin to apostasy.
In Islam, a failing treated with serious consequence.
The real question, isn’t whether the Islamic world community, the ‘Ummah’, views religious dominance and an established world state as desirable, but rather, what methods will they embrace or tolerate in pursuit of that desire.
The Muslim community is monotheistic but not monolithic, it can and does adopt many methods toward advancing the cause of a world state (Khilaafah).
Direct physical terrorist action is one. Indirect support of those actions, financial or otherwise is another and certainly, for the majority, dedicated observance of their faith and extensive support for the proselytizing of the young and the uncommitted, is the way.
There appears to be room in the Ummah for all of these. The terrorist, who may sometimes be condemned but is never excised from the body of Islam. The terrorist supporter, whose actions are justified or denied and consequently, is also, never excised. The moderate majority, who practice their faith with great sincerity, and perhaps, at worst, ascribe to a duality of thought, concerning the means used by others.
These many faces serve to produce an ambiguous understanding, to many in the West, as to what Islam really is, as it relates to them. Which radical Muslims welcome.
All these methods work toward the radical Muslims goal. The conversion, subjugation, or, if necessary, elimination of non-believers and the establishment of the dominance of Islam and Shari`ah law, wherever and whenever possible.
The Islamic ideology, fulfilled, is not compatible with secular democracy or any other purely secular form of government. It holds that the law of the land, must derive from Shari`ah law. Their ideal government, in it’s most moderate form, would likely be a democratic theocracy.
Islam is not compatible with Christianity or Judaism or any other religion that doesn’t ultimately subjugate itself to Islam. Such a relationship is “dhimmitude” or second-class citizenship, either proscribed by law or actualized though culturally accepted dominant practice.
We need, as a society, to recognize these realities. We can’t successfully counter what political correctness demands we must not acknowledge.
Multiculturalism and political correctness are the hands covering our eyes and ears and mouths.
These hive-mind pathologies preclude common sense judgments and rational discourse, demanding blind adherence to the “group-think” party line and the application of a perverse moral equivalency that is the new basis for terrorist apologetics.
Today, in too many public settings, to express an independent non-conforming thought on certain proscribed subjects is a secular sin, punishable by peer exclusion and condemnation.
We face two forces, one from without and one from within, both working, in effect, toward the same end.
The advancement of the ideology of radical Islam.
Post a Comment