No moderate Islam, and not many moderate Muslims

How many Muslims are moderate? In the recent Iraq election, moderates gained, just barely, a plurality. Not a majority, a plurality. To govern, they will need the support of some violently immoderate people. They have a plurality because the various different kinds of extremist hate each other, splitting the extremist vote.

It is often said that there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. If a Muslim is not at war with us, he does not truly believe. The Koran and the personal example set by the Prophet tells Muslims they should seek to dominate by robbing, raping, and murdering infidels, that they should force infidels to submit.

Despite seven years of civil war, near civil war, and sectarian terror, with no victory or defeat in sight for either side, with an occupying US force that will not permit one religious sect to militarily defeat another, a majority of Iraqis will not accept peace with coexistence. They want peace by the submission of all those of the incorrect religion. They merely disagree over who is of the incorrect religion.

Defeating Saddam did no good. We were better off with him terrorizing his people than with democracy, for his people are our enemies. If he was too dangerous to allow to live, should have killed him, and allowed one of his equally brutal, but less ambitious, sons, to replace him.

Theoretically, Jihad is for defense – but it is for the “defense” of Muslim supremacy.

Those resisting that demand for supremacy, are, according to Islam, not innocents. Thus according to Islam, none of us are innocent. So Muslims never kill innocents.

In Nigeria, in Egypt, in Indonesia, we see broad popular support in the Muslim community for violence against non- Muslims. The only Muslim country where the clear majority of Muslims clearly oppose war without end is Albania.

Thus the Palestinian Authority makes heroes of those who murder innocents. When, in a prisoner exchange, Israel released a man who murdered children he was greeted as a hero throughout the Muslim world. Not one moderate was in sight in all of Dar al Islam. If any existed, they kept their mouths shut to ensure that their heads remained attached to their necks.

Different Muslims will disagree to what extent this necessitates and justifies killing and robbing members of the subjugated and humiliated minority. But if they do disagree, and the “moderate” Muslims arrest the “immoderate” Muslim and charge him with murder, they are apt to try him by Islamic standards, even if Sharia law is not formally in effect, apt to demand unreasonable or impossible proof of guilt, and if proven guilty anyway, apply a trivially light punishment, as we see in Indonesia and Egypt.

Shari’a law requires the dhimmi to know their place, and does not permit their testimony to be heard where it contradicts that of a believer but those Muslims who abuse that system are not being good Muslims in doing so. Islam only requires Muslims to be enablers of abuse of minorities, but when enabling, conflict will arise, which requires them to “defend” Dar al Islam. Enabling, misconduct, in practice, necessarily leads to a duty to do the same themselves. It creates a situation in which was was misconduct, is now a divinely mandated duty.

Islamic aggression is analogous to the Islamic position on honor killing. Islam theoretically forbids honor killing, except it does not, and it also commands families to exercise control over female sexual choices in ways that are apt to require extremely drastic coercion. Similarly, Islam theoretically forbids aggression, murder of innocents, and raping children, but …

As individuals, most of the world’s Muslims really aren’t all that anxious to find out if 72 houris await them for martyrdom, but while people act selfishly, they are apt to vote virtuously, which means, Muslims are apt to vote for war.

We cannot, therefore, tolerate Muslims voting. We cannot tolerate Muslims voting anywhere in the world. They are dangerous.

If there were free and fair elections, the likes of Hamas, the Muslim brotherhood, and the Islamic Salvation front would win in most places. Look what happened in Turkey when the army let a breath of real democracy in to their managed democracy. The majority, though not eager to check out the 72 houris, do hate us and think us enemies. The only place that the peace faction gets a comfortably large majority is Albania. In many places, for example Palestine, the peace faction gets votes down in the asterisks.

We have had this problem from 722 to the present, with a pause from 1830 to 1960.

To solve the problem, do what we did in 1830: Colonialism, with the most troublesome Muslims losing their land, and often their lives, to settlers, thereby encouraging a more pacific attitude among the remaining Muslims, and keep right on doing it. We would have to institutionalize it – set up independent organizations in the colonized territory that could credibly commit to colonialism forever and irreversibly, no matter how the political winds might blow in the mother country.

The Westphalian solution is to contain Muslim intolerance inside a system of states: If they can’t behave reasonably to Christians and Jews in their midst, then partition – and well-defended borders and disarmament,

The Westphalian solution never quite worked, for the boundaries were always porous and apt to bend under pressure.

So the Westphalia solution (wherein everyone supposedly follows, or at least gives lip service to, the King’s religion) was gradually adjusted towards the American solution – separation of Church and State. But the American solution never quite worked for non christian religions and quasi religions, since separation of Church and State is a Christian principle. (The Jews have a principle whose effect, outside Israel, is similar, but the rest do not)

Most of these competing movements are far more deadly and destructive than Christianity, because of their greater tendency to theocracy, the big problems being earth worship and Islam. Earth Worship is pacific, unlike Islam, but on the other hand tends to be fans of human sacrifice, unlike Islam. I really cannot imagine a Muslim society declaring a species that eats people to be protected in populated regions, nor a species that spreads deadly diseases. They would recognize this sort of nonsense as the religious practices of a competing, and extremely nasty, religion, and cut off the greenies’ heads for preaching apostasy.

The majority of Muslims support violence against us – and any Muslim that does not is insincere in his commitment to Islam.

Our program in Afghanistan is to win by “development and use of indigenous narratives to tap into the wider cultural pulse of Afghanistan” – in other words, save Islam from a supposedly tiny minority of fundamentalists and male chauvinists, and given Islam its rightful place as one more thread in the glorious multicultural rainbow.

In the unlikely event that we succeed, I will think we have destroyed Islam in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden will think we have destroyed Islam in Afghanistan, and the vast majority of voters in Muslim lands, who vote for parties like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, will think we have destroyed Islam in Afghanistan, just as much as if we had successfully followed the program of killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity.

The environmentalist transnational multiculturalist progressive crowd that hates Christianity does not want to exterminate Islam. They are after all multiculturalists. They want to replace Islam with an animatronic imitation of Islam, something that is feminist and progressive and fits nicely into the glorious multicultural rainbow. They already have a animatronic imitation of Christianity – the Christian left, whose main concerns are gay bishops, saving the earth, and gay Bishops. The progressives envisage an Islam whose main concerns are gay imams, saving the earth, and gay imams.

This program has had partial success in destroying Christianity, but is unlikely to work against an enemy that meets words with bullets.