- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
Moderate Muslims turning radical?
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 02/15/2008 @ 12:00 am In Commentary | Comments Disabled
By Willam J. Federer
Britain’s Daily Mail, Jan. 29, 2007, reported in the article “Multiculturalism drives young Muslims to shun British values”:
Multiculturalism has alienated an entire generation of young Muslims and made them increasingly radical, a report has found. In stark contrast with their parents, growing numbers sympathize with extreme teachings of Islam, with almost four in 10 wanting to live under Sharia law in Britain. The study identifies significant support for wearing the veil in public … and even punishment by death for Muslims who convert to another religion. Most alarmingly, 13 percent of young Muslims said they “admired” organizations such as al-Qaida which are prepared to “fight the West.”
Germany’s Spiegel, Dec. 20, 2007, reported in the article “Interior Ministry warns of radicalization of Muslims”:
A new study released by Germany’s Interior Ministry has added new fuel to the debate about integration of Muslims in Germany, with the report warning about the danger of radicalization of Muslims. According to the study … 40 percent of Muslims surveyed had a “fundamentalist orientation” … 6 percent of those surveyed were classified as having “violent tendencies,” while 14 percent of respondents had “anti-democratic” tendencies. … The report also concluded that religious beliefs are becoming increasingly important for young people.
Europe is wondering why fundamental Islam is not assimilating; history may reveal the reason.
The word “Islam” means submission to the will of Allah, and a “Muslim” is someone who has submitted. A “dhimmi” is an inferior non-Muslim coerced to submit.
Muhammad divided the world into two parts: those who have submitted and those yet to submit. He called these two parts the House of Islam and the House of War, pronounced in Arabic “dar al-Islam” and “dar al-harb.”
Within 100 years of Muhammad’s death in A.D. 632, fundamental Islamic caliphs, with cavalry armed with scimitar swords, subjugated vast areas of the world: Arabia, Persia, the Holy Land, North Africa, Spain, Southern France, Sicily, Central Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.
Egypt was conquered by Muslim Gen. Amr ibn al-As. Gen. Khalid ibn al-Walid was called the “Drawn Sword of Allah” for being undefeated in nearly 100 battles.
In the next 1,000 years, Sultans subdued Indonesia, Java, Borneo, Sumatra, the Byzantine Empire, the Balkans, Armenia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Wallachia, Moldova, Serbia and regions of China, Tibet, Bengal, Mongolia, India, Russia, Hungary and Poland.
In 1529 and 1683, over 100,000 Turkish Muslims attack Vienna, Austria.
Whereas “world peace” in the West means peaceful coexistence, “world peace” in Islam means the world submitting to the will of Allah.
Since there is no one theological body governing all of Islam, faithful Muslims have developed differing views.
Moderate Muslims think the remaining area of the world will submit to Allah in the distant future, maybe at the Hour of Judgment. Therefore, since it is so far off, it is acceptable to get along with non-Muslims in the present.
Fundamental violent Muslims think the rest of the world is submitting to Allah now and feel it is Islam’s “manifest destiny” to make it happen. They would just as soon fight moderate Muslims, considering them backslidden from following the example of Muhammad and the caliphs.
Moderate Muslims are hesitant to speak out against fundamental violent Muslims, as occasionally one does and they are threatened, intimidated, forced to change their names for protection, have fatwas put on them and even killed.
So there could, in a sense, be three groups of Muslims: a minority of fundamental violent ones; a majority of moderate ones who are afraid of the fundamental violent ones; and the courageous dead ones who were not afraid of the fundamental violent ones.
The West may be inadvertently fueling the problem by not understanding that fundamental Muslims interpret their “politeness” as weakness or submission.
Saudi Arabia was pressured to revise its fundamental textbooks supplied to Muslim schools around the world, including the U.S., because they contained intolerance.
The Washington Post, May 21, 2006, published excerpts of these textbooks in an article “This is a Saudi textbook (after the intolerance was removed)”:
4TH GRADE: “True belief means … that you hate the polytheists and infidels.”
5TH GRADE: “It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in Allah and His Prophet.”
8TH GRADE: “The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus.”
9TH GRADE: “It is part of Allah’s wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the Hour [of Judgment].”
11TH GRADE: “Do not yield to Christians and Jews on a narrow road out of honor and respect.”
One may have to read that last line again:
“DO NOT YIELD to Christians and Jews on a narrow road out of honor and respect.”
In other words, when a Christian or Jew thinks they are being polite by letting a Muslim go first, the fundamental student is taught that they are simply acknowledging Islam’s superiority.
Thus the dilemma:
If the West naively promotes tolerance of a belief system that does not promote tolerance, it is effectively promoting intolerance.
If the West refuses to promote an intolerant belief system, it is accused of being intolerant.
Muslims still sees the West, and particularly America, as a predominately Judeo-Christian.
Newsweek Magazine (September 2005) reported America as 85 percent Christian (58 percent Protestant, 22 percent Catholic, 5 percent other Christian); 2 percent Jewish; 1 percent atheist; 0.5 percent Buddhist; 0.5 percent Hindu; 10 percent other/non-reporting; and 1 percent Muslim.
So the question is: What goes through the mind of a moderate Muslim, who thinks the world will submit to Allah in the distant future, when he sees this predominately Judeo-Christian nation going to great lengths to tolerate Islam now?
Let’s look at the history of Islam’s influence in the United States:
1991 – Imam Siraj Wahhaj was the first Muslim to offer prayer in the U.S. House of Representatives.
1992 – Imam Warith Deen Muhammad was the first Muslim to offer prayer in the U.S. Senate.
1993 – Abdul Rasheed Muhammad became the first Muslim U.S. Army chaplin (imam), spiritually instructing about 5,000 Muslim soldiers.
1996 – Monje Malak Abd Al-Muta”Ali ibn Noel Jr. became the First Muslim U.S. Naval chaplain (imam).
1996 – First lady Hillary Clinton hosted a White House reception for Muslims on Id al-Fitr, the end of Ramadan.
1999 – New York City Police Department appointed its first Muslim chaplain, Imam Izak-El M. Pasha.
1999 – U.S. Postal Service published its first stamp honoring a Muslim leader, Malcolm X.
2001, Aug. 1 – U.S. Postal Service issued the Islamic postage stamp, “Eid Mubarak.”
2001, Sept. 11 – Fundamental Muslim terrorist attacks.
2001, Nov. 16 – Muslim chaplain of Georgetown University prayed in the U.S. House of Representatives, followed by a dinner hosted by President Bush to honor the occasion.
2001, Nov. 19 – President Bush was the first president to invite 50 ambassadors from Islamic countries to celebrate Ramadan, where, for the first time in the White House, Muslims knelt and touched the floor with their foreheads in a formal ceremony.
2002, Dec. 5 – President Bush was the first president to take off his shoes to visit an Islamic Center.
2005, Jan. 20 – President Bush was the first president to mention the Quran in an Inaugural Address.
2007, Jan. 4 – Nancy Pelosi stood next to Keith Ellison as he swore upon a Quran to become the first Muslim U.S. congressman.
2007, April 5 – Highest member of the U.S. Congress, speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, went to Syria and submitted to Islamic law by covering her head with a Muslim Hijab (veil).
2007, April 17 – President Bush was the first president to appoint a Muslim U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad.
2007, June – First Muslim prayer meeting began in the U.S. Capitol building, bowing toward Mecca.
2008, Jan. 9 – President Bush was the first president to call for fulfilling the Muslim dream of pressuring Israel to give up sole sovereignty of Jerusalem.
2008 – Barack Hussein Obama, the first presidential candidate whose middle name is that of Muhammad’s grandson, told the French magazine Paris Match, Jan. 31, 2008: “Once I’m elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world.”
So the question again is: What goes through the mind of a moderate Muslim, who thinks the world will submit to Allah in the distant future, when they see this predominately Judeo-Christian nation going to great lengths to tolerate Islam now?
Though America’s actions are done in hopes that tolerance of Islam will result in Muslims being more tolerant of non-Muslims, an unintended consequence is emerging, namely, that these actions are actually radicalizing some moderate Muslims by providing proof that the world is submitting to Allah – not in the distant future – but right now before their eyes!
They become persuaded that that their long-awaited desire of the non-Muslim world “dar al-harb” (House of War) becoming “dar al-Islam” (House of Islam) is imminent.
The excitement many Muslims feel is akin to what Christians and Jews felt in 1948.
For centuries, Old Testament verses about Israel being gathered from the nations to their homeland (i.e., Ezekiel 36:24, Isaiah 66:8) were taken figuratively or thought to occur in the distant future. When Israel suddenly became a nation again in 1948, there was great excitement in Jewish and Christian circles at the possibility these Old Testament scriptures were literally being fulfilled.
Islamic excitement can be understood in the context of honor or pride.
In a football analogy, if a team is dishonored by many seasons of poor performance, fans are humiliated, embarrassed and become passive. But if the team suddenly has a winning streak and is headed toward the playoffs, fans are filled with pride. They come out of the woodwork, put on the team’s jerseys, fill stadiums, paint their bodies, mascots are lifted high, and when the opposing team fumbles, the cheering mob roars with enthusiasm. They become radicalized.
In nature, when a fleeing antelope becomes exhausted, the pursing lion charges harder.
This is similar to a presidential candidate no one takes seriously suddenly winning a few primaries. The increased media coverage energizes supporters to work harder, thus catapulting the candidate to be a front-runner.
Islam’s rapid growth is exhilarating to fundamental Muslims. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (October 2005) reported:
Islam is already the fastest-growing religion in Europe. Driven by immigration and high birthrates, the number of Muslims on the continent has tripled in the last 30 years. Most demographers forecast a similar or even higher rate of growth in the coming decades.
Could it be the more the West exhibits hyper-tolerance, the more it turns some moderate Muslims, who believe the world will submit to Allah in the distant future, into fundamental violent Muslims, who view this tolerance as evidence the world is submitting to Allah now?
“Personal” tolerance in the West is rooted in Judeo-Christian concepts like “love your enemies” and “turn the other cheek,” but Franklin D. Roosevelt warned regarding “national” tolerance in a Fireside Chat, Dec. 29, 1940:
“No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it.”
Related special offer:
William J. Federer is a best-selling author. His latest book is “What Every American Needs to Know about the Quran: A History of Islam and the United States.” Federer is available for speaking engagements.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/56286/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.