In a symposium published yesterday on the pages of FrontPage Magazine, an assembled group of scholars discussed the challenges of confronting Islamization of western society, the daily jihad that's going on in our courts and MSM.
One participant, Abul Kasem, is an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including,
Women in Islam and a contributor to the books
Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out and
Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam. He outlines what some would view as dramatic measures to curtail the growth of Islam in the west:
Surprisingly, it will not be that difficult to defeat the agenda of Islamists to plant the root of Islamic Multiculturalism in a free and democratic society. All that is needed is a good (or working) knowledge of Islam, its history of propagation through violence and terror, and its adoption of taqiyya and kitman when the going is tough.
Once non-Islamic the policy makers comprehend what Islam is about, it is quite straight forward to defeat it in its own game. In our interview, as well as in many of my other interviews, I have indicated a few methods to contain the rapid ingress of Islamic Multiculturalism.
Here are a few specific steps that the un-Islamic world might adopt to stop this menace:
[1] Adopt tough policies on the entry of Islamists to non-Islamic countries. However, we must make a distinction between the large number of in-name-only Muslims and the diehard, jihad-infused, conniving, pan-Islamists.
[2] Enforce strict restrictions on the construction of mosques and Islamic seminaries. If this sounds unethical/ and or infringing on the religious rights, please note
the non-existence and disallowance of construction of non-Islamic worshipping centres in Islamic Paradises. We must call spade a spade.
[3] Stop paying jizya to the Islamists. Do not accede to any unreasonable demands solely by the Islamists. Keep other religious people in mind. Why must Islam be treated more favourably than other religions? Ask the Islamists this simple question.
[4] Halt the interfaith dialogue with Islam. Remember, Islam is uncompromising. There is no way Islam will accommodate un-Islam. Please read this sentence one more time and memorize. You will save a lot of time and money wasted to please Islam. We do not have to please Islam.
[5] Assert the un-Islamic (non-Islamic) cultures, traditions, customs and ethos. We must let the Islamic world learn a bit that the world is not prepared to accept its 7th century Arab Bedouin customs and laws.
[6] Reject any demand to impose Sharia in a non-Islamic society; even if it is in the pretence for Muslims only. Remember, Muslims are the first victims of Islam.
[7] Muslims migrating to non-Islamic countries must sign a declaration that they do not believe in pan-Islamism. If found contravening their signed declaration they should be stripped of their citizenship and promptly deported to the Islamic Paradise they had migrated from.
[8] Proselytizing by Islamic dawa must be strictly controlled, and if necessary, banned. If you think I am being unreasonable. Please look at the laws of Islamic Paradises (such as Malaysia, Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria…) with regard to the propagation of other faith among the Muslims.
Once the civilized world adopts the above measures, we shall see how quickly Islamic Multiculturalism vanishes from the non-Islamic world.
I can't realistically see this happening in our PC society, especially with the likes of McCain or the Obamessiah running the country. Another participant, Rohan Gunaratna, demonstrates the current PC thinking by mainstream politicians, the military and the media: the problem is caused by a small group of people that are perverting Islam for their own use:
The challenge is the contemporary radical interpretation of Islam by a small groups of self appointed, taught or half baked clerics. Such a reinterpretation and misinterpretation seeks to create hatred against non-Muslims and Muslims who oppose the extremist views of al Qaeda and like minded groups.
Islamic scholar/terrorism expert (are the two mutually exclusive? Nope.)
Steve Emerson chimed in with his take on the situation:
Emerson: Here we have the classic debate that surrounds the western conundrum in dealing with radical Islam. The solutions above range from an enforced abridgement of free speech (justified presumably by the comparable dangers of yelling fire in a crowded theatre) to the notion that the relatively small allure of Al Qaeda is the problem rather than the larger problem of militant Islam (justification of violence, belief in the imposition of the Sharia, support for radical Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah or plain old cultural jihadists) to the idea (fanciful in my opinion) that somehow the US model of how Muslims have assimilated should serve as the paradigm for how Muslims in Europe should also be treated and finally to the rather absurd notion (offered by Islamists in the West themselves) that radical Muslims in the West are merely acting out their “frustrations” out of “grievances.”
Let’s step back for a second and analyze the fundamental issues at hand without getting mired in the quicksand of sentimentality or the rhetorical bromides that make us feel good but are about as effective in fighting the Islamists as kumbaya sessions were in fighting the Ku Klux Klan.
Firstly, there are three types of jihadists or Islamists (a term that the Washington Post apparently feels might hurt the sensitivities of the jihadists): the military type (which we all recognize by the violence they inflict); the cultural jihadists—the ones that don’t pull the trigger but applaud those who do; and the political jihadists, who seek to change the balance of power by using Dawa, the ballot box and the tools of democracy. There is no one size fits all: Each one requires a nuanced response that ultimately seeks the same goal: defeating and delegitimizing the jihadists, first in the West, and then in the Middle East and Asia. Finally, there must be a recognition that virtually all Islamist movements in the world including the West originate in the Muslim Brotherhood, parent of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and virtually every Sunni terrorist group in the world. The permutations of groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, and the Islamic Society of North America all originate in the Muslim Brotherhood, a fact recently proven by the release of internal MB documents in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a non profit shut down in December 2001 for serving as a front for Hamas.
Emerson goes on to say the problem of 'militant' Islam is much larger than al-quaeda and has much more influence on the muslim community than our policymakers believe.
Robert Spencer, author of several books about Islam who runs the website
Jihad Watch, discussed the 'blind eye' our current government, military and society are taking to the real Islam:
Spencer: The difficulty we’re having in this Symposium stems from sharply differing assumptions about the nature of Islam and the sentiments of the great majority of Muslims. Abul Kasem wants “Muslims migrating to non-Islamic countries” to “sign a declaration that they do not believe in pan-Islamism,” and calls upon Western governments to “reject any demand to impose Sharia in a non-Islamic society.” Rohan Gunaratna, however, apparently disagrees, saying that “Islamization, a form of religiosity (being religious)” is not the problem, but merely “the contemporary radical interpretation of Islam by a small groups of self appointed, taught or half baked clerics.”
Spencer goes on to say:
Dr. Gunaratna seems to have missed entirely the traditionalist character of the jihadist appeal among Muslims: jihadists present themselves as the true and pure Muslims, reviving the authentic practice of Islam where it has fallen by the wayside. By means of this appeal, they have gained recruits among peaceful Muslims, nominal Muslims, new converts to Islam, and others. And no significant movement has arisen among peaceful Muslims opposing in any serious way this use of Islam.
Spencer's conclusions:
In light of all this, I’d say that the first thing we have to do is stop kidding ourselves. {emphasis mine - CTD} We have to stop soothing ourselves with comforting half-truths. Is the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism a recent invention by heretical clerics? No. Are all Muslims jihadists, or even anything close to a majority? No. But is this fact any reason to assume that the peaceful majority opposes the contemporary global jihad? No. Undoubtedly many do, but the moderates on which Dr. Gunaratna and Dr. Kruglanski and Ayla Iqbal have placed such hopes have not organized themselves, have not acted decisively against the jihadists, and have not delineated an Islamic theological position that rejects jihadism.
Consequently, I believe that depending on them is to lean on a weak reed, and that we need to take strong and decisive steps, such as Abul Kasem outlines, to protect ourselves. Those who have criticized his plan have failed to note that he does not include all Muslims as jihadists within it, but leaves room, in point 7, for Muslims to practice their faith in the West shorn of the political and social elements that would have them attempting ultimately to impose it upon non-Muslims and subjugate them.
Stop kidding ourselves. Riiigghhtt... Let's just leave Iraq, abandon Israel, and gather in a circle with our 'moderate' muslim friends and sing 'Kumbaya' and it'll all go away.
Read the details of the symposium here.
