The Peaceful Muslim Majority Is "Irrelevant," Says Brigitte Gabriel
Brigitte Gabriel gives a great answer to Muslim woman claiming Muslims are portrayed badly.
An estimated 15 to 20 percent (a huge number) of all Muslims are "radical" -- compared with the non-violent 80 percent.
"The peaceful majority is irrelevant," notes Gabriel -- as it has been in Nazi Germany and elsewhere.
David Harsanyi writes at The Federalist:
The vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists, but in the contemporary world nearly all movements and ideas that produce political terrorism are birthed in Islamic communities that house mostly peaceful people. Mass immigration bolsters those communities with millions of new, unassimilated adherents in the middle of secular nations with belief systems that grate against Islamic worldview. How can Europe not expect some of them will embrace the radicalism and fundamentalism adopted to some extent in nearly every other major Islamic community?It doesn't only manifest in terrorism, but in the medievalism of whippings, mass hangings, stoning, and violent misogyny and bigotry -- not just mean words.
The tragedy of Syria should make us sympathetic to the plight of refugees fleeing murderers, but that doesn't change the fact that -- according to a Pew poll and every other reputable polling that's been done on the topic -- "overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land." The losers of civil war are victims, but that doesn't mean they have liberal values. When the Arab world has been granted the right to vote, it almost always backs religious extremism. It votes for Hamas and for the Muslim Brotherhood. ISIS and Shia terror groups aren't funded by Kickstarter; they are partly funded by forces in Gulf States, Iran, and throughout the Islamic world.
..."This is an attack not just on Paris, it's an attack not just on the people [of] France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share," Barack Obama explained after the attacks. All of humanity? No, it was an attack by fundamental Islam against Europeans. Just like 9/11 was an attack against the United States, stabbing civilians in the streets of Israel was an attack against Jews, and the Charlie Hebdo massacre was an attack against free expression.
When there is a deadly bombing in Beirut or horrifying assaults on civilian populations in Iraq or Syria, it is part of an ongoing factional religious war. This is not some ideology disconnected from all others that visits from outer space every few days to kill humans randomly. Yet, many of the same people who argue that ISIS was created by George Bush and climate change will also tell you that the group has nothing to do with Islam. It's about economics. It's about blowback. It's about poverty. It's about anything and everything but the theological war that's actually going on.
None of this is to say Muslims can never assimilate in the West. The U.S., for the most part, proves the opposite. But there is nothing bigoted about being vigilant when embracing millions of new people who bring all kinds of illiberal baggage with them. If, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali says, we keep pretending this has nothing to do with Islam, we will never actually talk about the problem. There are many good Muslims, but if that's the only criteria, no one will be able to be critical of any theology or ideology ever again.
Gabriel video via @instapundit
The numbers in the US are much lower, and many US Muslims are African-Americans. They have their own integration issues, but identify as American, and no one would disagree.
The problem with opening the gates is the integration thing will not be able to happen.
NicoleK at November 17, 2015 12:11 AM
NicoleK:
The problem with opening the gates is the integration thing will not be able to happen.
-------------------------------
Integration is NOT DESIRED by those Muslims wishing to come to America. In this they are qualitatively different from previous immigrant groups. A certain percent of Latin American immigrants are also economic opportunists - but at least they share Judeo-Christian cultural roots with Americans.
Islam speaks clearly about expanding "Dar Es Salaam" - the "utopian" region of the world in which Islam rules.
(This is also a major part of the far-flung Muslim world's problem with Israel - the tiny Pali population is a sideshow).
History clearly shows Muslims using immigration as a form of conquest - look at the Balkans and Central Europe, the Indonesian archepelago, and at the currently bleeding border between Arab North Africa and Central African states like Kenya and Nigeria.
Coupled with the PC politics of victimhood and Western guilt - this is immigration as an act of aggression.
Ben David at November 17, 2015 12:59 AM
History clearly shows Muslims using immigration as a form of conquest -
Yes. Also, I've seen a chart showing that when percentages of Muslims are high enough, there is violence. Don't know where that chart is at the moment, and it's my deadline day, so forgive me for not finding it.
Supposedly, when there is a 100 percent Islamic population Dar el Islam -- House of Islam or House of Peace (as opposed to Dar el Harab, house of war, or Dar el Kuffar, when we infidels reign) -- there will be peace.
But there isn't. Muslims fight and kill each other for being the wrong sect and are slaughtered by the state for being gay, for being a woman who has had sex out of marriage, or for being an apostate.
I am no fan of religion and was kicked around by Christians growing up, but I believe that Islam is an ideology that is pernicious like no other religion (and it really is not a religion but a totalitarian system masquerading as a religion but about the overthrow of all who believe otherwise).
Amy Alkon at November 17, 2015 5:28 AM
PS If anyone does find that, please run it through Snopes, but though the language with it was pretty inflammatory, it seemed correct, per the populations listed.
Amy Alkon at November 17, 2015 5:30 AM
And note that with a Christian majority in this country, we have not seen a similar situation -- with violence and forced conversions and paying of the jiyza, the humiliation tax for not being Muslim in a Muslim country (if you are one of the "People of the Book."
Amy Alkon at November 17, 2015 5:31 AM
There are three kinds of Muslims:
Jihadi Joe
Apostate John
Moderate Achmed
Achmed hasn't studied his religion enough to either catch the jihadi fever or be so repulsed by it to renounce Islam and become an apostate. This religion calls upon the true believer to:
kill the Jew
kill the apostate
kill those guilty of great sin
to convert the infidel
if that's not possible, to impose the jiyza on them
if that's not possible to wage war on them
I R A Darth Aggie at November 17, 2015 7:19 AM
I'm surprised at the number of people who have, say, passionate opinions as to the merits of particular coffee shops saying in this case, "Well, all religions have their crazies."
Kevin at November 17, 2015 8:44 AM
Here's how islam works:
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious rights.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious rights, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works.
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.
This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.
Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.
Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
bjr at November 17, 2015 8:47 AM
An estimated 15 to 20 percent (a huge number) of all Muslims are "radical" -- compared with the non-violent 80 percent.
__________________________________
As one might say, it's like pointing out the parts of a boat that aren't leaking.
lenona at November 17, 2015 10:27 AM
The Peaceful Muslim Majority is a myth. True, many muslims are not active terrorists but muslims support and agree with those who are bombing and beheading infidels. One need look no further than the cheering "Peaceful" Palestinian muslims after the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC.
Muslims are against killings when it is their particular sect. Anybody else being killed, tortured, it's have at it jihadists.
Jay at November 17, 2015 1:30 PM
Great point lenona!
That one is going in my bag of tricks 'cause even pirates need a lift now and then.
Bob in Texas at November 17, 2015 1:43 PM
One might also say:
You don't have to be a American liberal to understand the need for separation of church and state, and you don't have to be an American conservative to understand the need for separation of mosque and state either. Trouble is, as I understand it, there IS no room for the latter in the Koran.
(Of course, re the Bible, plenty of American conservatives are still unwilling to interpret "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" as possibly approving such a separation - or to see such a separation as good in any way.)
lenona at November 17, 2015 3:39 PM
A lot of people here have a pretty good (or really good) overview (at the very least) of Islam. The problem is that many people who know nothing about Islam (those coffee-passionate types) will tell you what it's all about based on what they hope it's about or would like it to be about. Wanting to believe it's a religion of peace -- not being willing to believe differently -- they passionately proclaim that. They are the 21st Century version of the "useful idiots" of communism.
Amy Alkon at November 17, 2015 7:07 PM
"None of this is to say Muslims can never assimilate in the West. The U.S., for the most part, proves the opposite."
Agreed with "bjr" (above) that this is false.
The Ismailis excepted, there are only two kinds of Muslims: (a) the kind that have the power to kill, enslave, and forcibly convert the infidel, and (b) the kind that are laying low because they do not yet have that power.
Lastango at November 17, 2015 9:16 PM
Good comment (emphasis mine) by CJM/New York in response to this column by David Brooks in the NYT.
JD at November 17, 2015 9:22 PM
The trouble JD is secularism certainly doesn't lead out of darkness. If you look at the genocides and mass oppression of the 20th century all were committed by secular nations.
Ben at November 18, 2015 6:03 AM
Uhhhh - the point is that G-d intervenes - G-d admires the devotion, but clearly rejects this form of service, in language far stronger than the "now I know you fear G-d" which comes at the end of the interaction.
As typically happens when "enlightened" folk try to pass off Bible quotes, there is no context.
So:
Literary Context:
Abraham is the patriarch who first turns away from the pagan world surrounding him - he isn't Moses, bringing a fully-formed moral code to a world roused to attention by a chain of miracles. Abraham and Sarah wend their way through the pagan world, a small clan of oddballs.
This story comes directly after Abraham - despite his own experience of Canaanite immorality, despite G-d's mpromises to him, and despite the miraculous birth of Isaac - enters into a pact with the Canaanites, who practice ritual infanticide - passing children over bonfires to please Moloch.
Several traditional Jewish readings interpret this whole story as a thinly veiled rebuke of Abraham - "you want to be like them? Here it is!"
Historical Context:
Child sacrifice is unknown in Judaism and Christianity - as mentioned above, this episode is s clear rejection of pagan ways.
Human life is of little value in Islam, but this is not traceable to the Abrahamic tradition, since the other Abrahamic religious reach different conclusions.
So much for "the foundational event of all three Abrahamic religions"... Yet another example of how know-nothing criticism by modern "experts" tends to backfire, revealing their *own* ignorance of the Western tradition.
Ben David at November 18, 2015 6:12 AM
If you look at the genocides and mass oppression of the 20th century all were committed by secular nations.
Posted by: Ben at November 18, 2015 6:03 AM
As Sam Harris patiently keeps trying to point out, there's a big difference between being secular and being dogmatic. Anyone can find any excuse to be horribly dogmatic, with or without using an official religion as the excuse. Aside from the likelihood that Hitler wasn't really an atheist, it's hard to think of any bloody tyrant, offhand, who didn't encourage his followers to think of him and treat him as a god.
From Harris' "Ten Myths and Ten Truths About Atheism":
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.
"People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."
3) Atheism is dogmatic.
"Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: 'I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.'"
Here's a link to his post-Paris podcast and more:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/16/sam-harris-responds-to-paris-attacks-there-are-no-surprises-anymore/
lenona at November 18, 2015 6:54 AM
Lenona,
I didn't say religion keeps people from violence and conflict. The history of Europe clearly shows otherwise (100 years war and all). But I do reject JD's claim that secularism is the one true good religion. History clearly shows otherwise.
Dogmatism is a part of the organized human condition. In this atheism, secularism, and humanism are no different from any other faith. Dogmatism comes with bureaucracy. To have organization you must have rules and those rules will not perfectly apply to every situation. But without them you no longer have an organization. The complaint "The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions." is the same as complaining that governments have citizens or that human societies are made up of humans.
The real difference between atheism/secularism and the older faiths is a unifying code. To be a religious (not ethnic) Jew you must have a certain set of values. Those values are written down so they change very slowly over time. Same with Christian and Muslim and all the other major faiths. This is not true for secularism. One secularist may have one set of values while another has a completely different set of values. But they are all still secularists. Atheism has one unifying value, the rejection of god (as the name implies). All other values are up to the individual.
There is a good reason that atheist nations have a short shelf life. It ends up being the same reason multi-religious secular nations dominate in empire building.
Ben at November 18, 2015 8:39 AM
Miguelitosd at November 18, 2015 4:57 PM
But I do reject JD's claim that secularism is the one true good religion. History clearly shows otherwise.
Ben, that was a claim made by "CJM", in the comments on David Brooks' column.
JD at November 18, 2015 8:09 PM
Ben David: Uhhhh - the point is that G-d intervenes - G-d admires the devotion, but clearly rejects this form of service, in language far stronger than the "now I know you fear G-d" which comes at the end of the interaction.
I have to agree with CJM, who wrote: "That Abraham did not actually kill Isaac does not lessen his moral culpability. It was his willingness to kill based on the command of God alone that earned him God's favor."
Regardless of the fact God -- via the angel -- intervened at the last moment, Abraham was willing to kill his son, based on God's command. And, throughout history, countless religious people have done horrific things to others because they sincerely believe that God has commanded them to do it. As Blaise Pascal famously said: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
JD at November 18, 2015 8:21 PM
Sam Harris (via Lenona): "The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."
Precisely!
JD at November 18, 2015 8:25 PM
JD:
Culpable in our (Judeo-Christian!!) eyes. But this is a story of how that moral code formed... Abraham is a "proto-Jew": he is explicitly described as not following the kosher laws, for example.
He is beloved for turning away from the norm with which he was raised, and which surrounded him. Thus setting in motion the moral developments that cause *us* to recoil from such an act.
Ben:
snip
Indeed. In particular:
Jews and Christians are "dogmatic" about the transcendent worth of the individual human. This "dogma" finds its political expression in the "self-evident truths" and "inalienable rights" of the US Constitution.
It also ended the slave trade. In Christendom, oppressed groups could point to the Jewish principles underlying the society and show that it was not living up to its own beliefs.
No such appeal was even possible in pagan society - the Greco-Roman classics regularly refer to other groups as "barbarians" and "sub-humans" - and most modern secular political movements have not long preserved the humanism they inherited from the Judeo Christian West. Without Jewish "dogma" the untalented, unconnected, and weak eventually wind up oppressed and sub-human.
This is worth remembering as the various "progressives" try to replace Jewish "dogma" about humans with heartless utalitarian materialism, or a pecking order of sacred victim groups who are "more equal" than others.
And as Ben points out, the lack of fixed secular dogma is what makes such developments so scary - and allowed millions to be killed by secular movements.
Ben David at November 19, 2015 1:34 AM
To Ben:
So you're saying that atheist world leaders (whether or not they make a point of being atheist) can't help but become dangerously dogmatic? I'd like to see proof of that.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wasn't a world leader, but he WAS an atheist Republican, for what that's worth. Not that he talked about that a lot - if at all.
lenona at November 19, 2015 8:34 AM
Leave a comment