A proposal regarding Islamic Supremacism and Islamic Supremacists

ECAW

ECAW is an Englishman who started looking into Islam after the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013....and the more he looked the worse it got. He blogs at ecawblog

3 Responses

  1. ECAW's blog says:

    Jon – Thanks for taking the trouble to engage so fully with my modest proposal. When I told my wife “there’s someone here even more pessimistic than me” she said “Good Grief!”.
    ——————–
    I agree with a lot of the above, ECAW, but whilst there are moderate/quietist/peaceful Muslims (of course there are!) there is no such thing as a moderate/quietist/peacefu (MQP) Islam in an absolute sense.
    I do think that your proposal, which I take to be this:
    “The above are just examples of supremacist attitudes and actions. No doubt an international committee, composed of people who understand the threat, could produce a comprehensive list and Muslims could be asked to sign a declaration rejecting them. Those refusing would save us the trouble of further investigation. As an added benefit, no doubt some useful-idiot SJW types would “convert” and refuse to sign out of solidarity with oppressed Muslims. Excellent – we should take them at their word.”
    Has a place in discussion at least.
    ——————
    No, my proposal is here “Those [European] governments should therefore make it clear which beliefs and actions are acceptable and which are necessarily seditious, with the understanding that offending individuals must be removed one way or another from the host society and offending institutions closed down. That is my Proposal in a nutshell.”
    What you quoted above is just a part of its imagined working out, just the start of negotiations really. I have no faith in the magical efficacy of such an agreement.
    ——————
    Perhaps I am more pessimistic than you, but given that Muslims are permitted, under certain conditions at least, to lie to non-Muslims that getting people to sign (under a form of coercion, don’t forget) might be easier than you think. It would certainly weed out the Anjem Choudherys of this world, but they are not the biggest threat. Loud-mouths who spout off in public at least attract attention, those quietly “radicalising” others behind closed doors do not.
    Mind you, I’m almost inclined to whole-heartedly agree just for the “added benefit” re SJWs!
    The point never to forget is that Islam may be MQP under circumstances in which that gives the greater benefit to the Umma, but supremacism (and sword-Jihad) is always waiting in the wings (or lurking in the shadows) for when conditions change.
    For example: the doctrine of Tayseer (“ease”) states (simply put) that the regulations of Sharia may be set aside if they are un-enforcible; thus Muslims in the West can say they “don’t believe in stoning people” quite honestly (for them to stone people would – hopefully at least – result in arrest and prosecution for murder, clearly not a good thing for the Umma, thus they honestly want to avoid the consequences), but this “moderation” of Sharia is contingent on there being (serious) negative consequences for enforcing it. Were conditions to change such that they could stone without negative consequences then I suspect that many would happily take it up – as we’ve seen in Afghanistan and Syria when orthodox Muslims came to power.
    You will know this as the “Meccan” vs. “Medinan” models of action (to which your article alludes).
    Consider also the recent events in Pakistan: Asia Bibi released as innocent (the supreme court judges said point-blank that the case was “concocted”), yet the Muslim mob knows it can threaten violence and murder without consequence – and it has. And it has also dictated UK foreign policy, which won’t give her asylum for fear of the Muslim mob.
    Again you touch on this in your article, but I can also point to history in which we do see periods of moderate, tolerant and even (in terms of the day) enlightened Muslim rule; but each was followed by an orthodox resurgence when Islam’s supremacism came to the fore again. Thus moderate Islam seems to have little staying power in competition with orthodoxy.
    Thus I question how many Muslims really are “moderates” on several grounds. I would suggest that:
    1. Many moderate Muslims are really apostates or “cultural” Muslims who pay lip-service to Islam and that they (who mostly live in the west) are not representative of truly mainstream Muslim beliefs and practices.
    2. Many other moderate Muslims are quietists in the sense that, at the moment, they keep their heads down. As Jacob Olidort notes: “‘Quietism,’ or abstaining from political involvement or activism, is merely a placeholder rather than a principle for most Salafi groups today.”, thus their “moderation” is due to expediency and is not a product of their beliefs.
    ——————-
    I don’t think we disagree on any of the above but if someone acts moderate then they are not a problem to anyone are they? Until they act immoderately. There are “moderate” satanists and Marxists in the population. I don’t feel inclined to worry about them until they start sacrificing virgins on the village green or storming Buckingham Palace – or show signs of intending to do so.
    ——————-
    3.I genuinely find it hard to see how a faithful Muslim a “mumin” in the language of the Koran can be anything other than supremacist given what the Koran actually says – again something you note yourself.
    You write: “Perhaps, with the coercive [supremacist Muslim] element gone, the remaining Muslims will give up the endless compulsion to dominate, and a truly moderate Islam will emerge, a quietist strain of Islam whose adherents really can get along with everyone else.”
    —————
    And yet a great many manage to avoid the supremacism that, to my mind, runs through Islam like “Brighton” through a stick of rock. People are funny aren’t they? Even Ayaan Hirsi Ali went from being an “infidel” rejecting all of Islam to being a “heretic” trying to salvage the Meccan part (which I personally think isn’t that nice either – it’s just that sura 9 makes it look so).
    —————
    The problem here is that this, whilst a Good Thing in its own right, does not remove supremacism from Islam itself. As you yourself noted when France called for that Al-Azhar replied “not bleeding likely”. Thus whilst the Koran and Islamic canon remain as they are Islam remains the best “radicaliser” of Muslims.
    Again, as you state, Jihad – here meaning sword-Jihad (violence and terror) – is actually part of the five pillars thanks to the Zakat requirements for its support.
    Thus if Jihad is written throughout Islam’s canon and beliefs (as it is) I cannot see how a “moderate Islam” can evolve from that canon – at least not without the wholesale rejection of Islamic beliefs re that canon.
    If that were to happen then would would be left wouldn’t be Islam – it might be a parallel to the most ‘progressive’ elements in the CofE for example (SJW with a hint of religion-but-only-if-it-doesn’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings).
    Thus I suspect that “a [truly] Muslim community with the noxious weed of Islamic supremacism largely removed [would] look like” an MQP community, but that is all. It would LOOK LIKE it, but wouldn’t BE it.
    To pick up on your gardening analogy: I think that all your proposal, if enacted, would do would be the equivalent of pulling the leaves off a dandelion – it might seem that the noxious weed has gone, but the root is still there and the leaves will spring up again.
    All such an action would do would be to drive the Muslim community towards the Meccan model, until such time as it thought it was once again strong enough to undertake a spiritual Hijrah to Medina.
    What it might do, would be to instigate a Hijrah on the model of the first Hijrah, a flight from persecution, in which the Muslim population would leave of its own accord (I won’t say “voluntarily” on the grounds that they at least would believe that their departure was coerced).
    Now there’s a thought ..
    ————————–
    So your counter proposal is the same as Hesperado’s, to deport all Muslims (or squeeze them out)? What about the practicalities which I brought up such as it probably being a shortcut to civil war. And what is going to change the situation such that the political will will appear?
    ————————–

  2. Jon MC says:

    I agree with a lot of the above, ECAW, but whilst there are moderate/quietist/peaceful Muslims (of course there are!) there is no such thing as a moderate/quietist/peacefu (MQP) Islam in an absolute sense.
    I do think that your proposal, which I take to be this:
    “The above are just examples of supremacist attitudes and actions. No doubt an international committee, composed of people who understand the threat, could produce a comprehensive list and Muslims could be asked to sign a declaration rejecting them. Those refusing would save us the trouble of further investigation. As an added benefit, no doubt some useful-idiot SJW types would “convert” and refuse to sign out of solidarity with oppressed Muslims. Excellent – we should take them at their word.”
    Has a place in discussion at least.

    Perhaps I am more pessimistic than you, but given that Muslims are permitted, under certain conditions at least, to lie to non-Muslims that getting people to sign (under a form of coercion, don’t forget) might be easier than you think. It would certainly weed out the Anjem Choudherys of this world, but they are not the biggest threat. Loud-mouths who spout off in public at least attract attention, those quietly “radicalising” others behind closed doors do not.
    Mind you, I’m almost inclined to whole-heartedly agree just for the “added benefit” re SJWs!

    The point never to forget is that Islam may be MQP under circumstances in which that gives the greater benefit to the Umma, but supremacism (and sword-Jihad) is always waiting in the wings (or lurking in the shadows) for when conditions change.

    For example: the doctrine of Tayseer (“ease”) states (simply put) that the regulations of Sharia may be set aside if they are un-enforcible; thus Muslims in the West can say they “don’t believe in stoning people” quite honestly (for them to stone people would – hopefully at least – result in arrest and prosecution for murder, clearly not a good thing for the Umma, thus they honestly want to avoid the consequences), but this “moderation” of Sharia is contingent on there being (serious) negative consequences for enforcing it. Were conditions to change such that they could stone without negative consequences then I suspect that many would happily take it up – as we’ve seen in Afghanistan and Syria when orthodox Muslims came to power.
    You will know this as the “Meccan” vs. “Medinan” models of action (to which your article alludes).

    Consider also the recent events in Pakistan: Asia Bibi released as innocent (the supreme court judges said point-blank that the case was “concocted”), yet the Muslim mob knows it can threaten violence and murder without consequence – and it has. And it has also dictated UK foreign policy, which won’t give her asylum for fear of the Muslim mob.
    Again you touch on this in your article, but I can also point to history in which we do see periods of moderate, tolerant and even (in terms of the day) enlightened Muslim rule; but each was followed by an orthodox resurgence when Islam’s supremacism came to the fore again. Thus moderate Islam seems to have little staying power in competition with orthodoxy.

    Thus I question how many Muslims really are “moderates” on several grounds. I would suggest that:
    1. Many moderate Muslims are really apostates or “cultural” Muslims who pay lip-service to Islam and that they (who mostly live in the west) are not representative of truly mainstream Muslim beliefs and practices.
    2. Many other moderate Muslims are quietists in the sense that, at the moment, they keep their heads down. As Jacob Olidort notes: “‘Quietism,’ or abstaining from political involvement or activism, is merely a placeholder rather than a principle for most Salafi groups today.”, thus their “moderation” is due to expediency and is not a product of their beliefs.
    3.I genuinely find it hard to see how a faithful Muslim a “mumin” in the language of the Koran can be anything other than supremacist given what the Koran actually says – again something you note yourself.

    You write: “Perhaps, with the coercive [supremacist Muslim] element gone, the remaining Muslims will give up the endless compulsion to dominate, and a truly moderate Islam will emerge, a quietist strain of Islam whose adherents really can get along with everyone else.”
    The problem here is that this, whilst a Good Thing in its own right, does not remove supremacism from Islam itself. As you yourself noted when France called for that Al-Azhar replied “not bleeding likely”. Thus whilst the Koran and Islamic canon remain as they are Islam remains the best “radicaliser” of Muslims.
    Again, as you state, Jihad – here meaning sword-Jihad (violence and terror) – is actually part of the five pillars thanks to the Zakat requirements for its support.
    Thus if Jihad is written throughout Islam’s canon and beliefs (as it is) I cannot see how a “moderate Islam” can evolve from that canon – at least not without the wholesale rejection of Islamic beliefs re that canon.
    If that were to happen then would would be left wouldn’t be Islam – it might be a parallel to the most ‘progressive’ elements in the CofE for example (SJW with a hint of religion-but-only-if-it-doesn’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings).

    Thus I suspect that “a [truly] Muslim community with the noxious weed of Islamic supremacism largely removed [would] look like” an MQP community, but that is all. It would LOOK LIKE it, but wouldn’t BE it.
    To pick up on your gardening analogy: I think that all your proposal, if enacted, would do would be the equivalent of pulling the leaves off a dandelion – it might seem that the noxious weed has gone, but the root is still there and the leaves will spring up again.
    All such an action would do would be to drive the Muslim community towards the Meccan model, until such time as it thought it was once again strong enough to undertake a spiritual Hijrah to Medina.

    What it might do, would be to instigate a Hijrah on the model of the first Hijrah, a flight from persecution, in which the Muslim population would leave of its own accord (I won’t say “voluntarily” on the grounds that they at least would believe that their departure was coerced).

    Now there’s a thought ..

  3. Walter Sieruk says:

    A number of Muslims with their Islamic agenda to gain a conquest of of the nations of modern Europe complete control of the European countries for Islam along the establishment of Sharia law is ,indeed, very ambitious of them, in sinister sort of way . They strive to achieve this Islamic goal by different methods, as in “Either by hook or by crook” those jihad-minded Muslims will continue with their Islamic quest for the whole of Europe. Of “crook”‘ means the violent and murderous Islamic terrorism which some call the “militant jihad.” By “hook” may mean the non-violent subtle sly way of gaining Islamic control and power in Europe by what is termed as the “Stealth Jihad.”

    To explain all this is a better ,more detailed and clear way is the following essay

    One of the main goals of many jihad –minded Muslims is the Islamic conquest of the nations of Europe. One of the methods of achieving Muslin object by not necessary by the means of the violent and deadly “militant” jihad but by the subtle, sly, subversive and insidious way of engaging in that which is known as the stealth jihad. This type of jihad for the advancement and control of Islam in the European countries is to infiltrate into, as in gain, access to, the governmental institutions of the nations of Europe .

    This is a large and great part of the grand scheme of stealth jihadist agenda to enhance and gain strong and then stronger influence and then supreme control of Islam over the whole continent of Europe. As on scholar on Islam and the Muslim zeal -filled intentions for Islam had revealed that “Of all the continents of the World, Europe is probably the number one target by Muslim strategists who are seeking world dominance…” [1] of course ,this author means “world dominance. , Not for those specific Muslim themselves but “world dominance for Islam.” Likewise, another scholar r and expert on this subject wrote exposed that “Since the stealth jihad is more advance in Europe then in the United States, the situation there is more dire….Muslims are accomplishing today what they have tried but failed to do for over a millennium : conquer Europe.” [2] Most intelligent people will well understand that “As Europe goes ,so will in time, go North America.

    Further, about this Muslim scheme of the stealth jihad otherwise called the Muslim method of Islamic Gradualism to enact Sharia law in many different countries of Europe is in contrast to the way of the violent jihad or also called the militant jihad .This non-violent form of the jihad for Islam is a very sly, insidious, subtle and deceptive way of working for the advancement of Islam.
    This Muslim scheme for achieving the goal of the Islamic agenda is as, many times, as subtly effective as it is demonically clever. Furthermore, this Islamic gradualism, in some ways, is very similar to the instruction printed in the book entitled THE ART OF WAR by Sun Tzu. Which reads “At first, then, exhibit the coyness of a maiden, until the enemy gives you an opening; afterwards emulate the rapidity of a running hare, and it will be too late for the enemy to opposes you”

    In addition, those scheming stealth jihadist /Muslims who attempt to have Sharia law set up in the countries of Europe do also engage in the doctrine of the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya which is very insidious. Taqyyia is the jihad dogma that deception is a good thing to do as long as it’s done for the advancement of Islam. Nevertheless, the God of the Bible “condemns those who devise wicked schemes…” Proverbs 12:11. [N.I.V.] Likewise, Proverbs 12:20 teaches “Deceit is in the hearts of those who plot evil.”

    [1] HOW ISLAM PLAINS TO CHANGE THE WORLD by William Wagner , page 195.
    [2] STEALTH JIHAD by Robert Spencer , page 270.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: