In the Politically Correct vision of modern American liberalism, and in the public face of Islamic- American diplomacy, there is an often advanced notion that “moderate Islam “ has no relation to the more virulent strain of Radical Muslim groups that claim responsibility for the acts of terror worldwide and the anti-western rhetoric that continues to emanate from the east. “We should be tolerant of all religions and Islam is no exception” they tell us.
The evidence suggests that Islam is the exception.
What about the incremental encroachment of Islam that becomes malignant to the host culture as we have seen in countries around the world?
It is easy for even a casual observer to see that Islam becomes more and more demanding and radicalized as their numbers in their host cultures increase.
How far do we as a culture allow them to inculcate their demands into our willingness to “tolerate” all religions?
If a religion promotes anti homosexuality ….and denigration and dominance toward women….do we even allow such a religion a foot into our cultural door before demanding that they denounce and openly reject the offending portions of their own religious historical culture?
The Important questions need to be asked of “moderate Islam” to ensure the veracity of their claims that they are a benign strain of Islam wholly different from the harsh and belligerent radicals that terrorize and dominate regions worldwide and persecute “infidels” and spread hatred toward Christians and Jews in many places around the globe, while waging war across the continents.
As a moderate Muslim….do you openly denounce and reject Hamas? and Hezbollah?(Two radical factions responsible for violent destruction and dismissed by “moderates” without the examination reserved for cartoonists and other critics of Islamic aggressors).
As a moderate Muslim….do you reject the insertion of Sharia law into unwilling cultures?
As a moderate Muslim….do you openly call for the other moderate Muslims in your sphere of influence to publicly expose and reject radical Islamists who speak of domination of the west or the elimination of Jews?
When the so called “moderate Muslims ” begin the process of public reaction to the violent actions and rhetoric of Radicals who call for the elimination of Jews and the Islamization /destruction of the west; as quickly to denounce these elements of their own religion as they are to denounce anti-Muslim rhetoric………..only then will the American people believe the “moderate ” label.
Until then, the evidence exists that “moderates” are only the front face to the radical elements of Islam to be infused into our own culture (as they have in Europe and elsewhere).
Without open and automatic denunciation of the radicals (and actions to back it up) , the “moderates” are not to be trusted with an equal level of cultural amalgamation by American people, jaded (and educated) by the actions of “moderate Islam” in England, France and other western nations who now face an ever increasing transformation and elimination of their cultures (visibly and demonstrably so) by so-called “moderate Islam”.
Where does the line begin and end that divides the protection of one’s own unique culture while tolerating the cultures of others.
Is it truly “intolerant” to demand the continuance of the culture in America that has delivered the most enduring example of individual liberty and prosperity that the world has ever witnessed?
Must America be so “tolerant “of Islam that we allow our own culture to be shoved aside to include the Islamic demands which are the beginnings of incremental replacement of all that is “not Islam”?
Where do we delineate the distinction between “tolerance” and appeasement?
Some tolerance is good and acceptable: We should be tolerant of other cultures, but not to the point of being forced to propitiate the infusion of the demands of others that have the effect of destroying our own culture in favor of the encroaching culture.
Islam has the unique distinction of being simultaneously a religious movement, a political movement, and a cultural movement. Its aggressiveness has been demonstrated over centuries and around the world as having a negative effect on the host cultures who have been “tolerant “ enough to allow the Islamic sandal in the door.
No right thinking person would want to deny anyone their right to worship as they please, but as fascist Germany , Italy and the axis powers of Europe have shown us at the adolescence of the 20th century, appeasement can be disastrous when the incremental growth of one culture poses a malignant threat to those naïve enough to refuse self-protection.
When drug dealers or gangs take over a neighborhood and fear prevents those peaceful residents from exposing themselves to the retribution of violent elements of the aggressors by pointing out the criminals in action, what solution is applicable? Should society capitulate to the terror of the gang for the sake of the fearful neighbor? How far should the gang be allowed to spread before the entire neighborhood is forced to marshal law to prevent its encroachment on other nearby citizens?
When an aggressor is identified as such, it is the duty of citizens who live under the rule of law and in the scope of Liberty to act in self protection and to defend their homes and their way of life from such malevolence as would destroy the culture established to retain a peaceful existence among like minded people.
We must now accept the identification of Islam; the culture, the religion, and the political entity, as an aggressive and malignant growth that usurps the sovereignty of its host cultures and refuses others the “tolerance “which Islam demands for its own expansion and Dominance of neighboring cultures.
Due to the historical record and the recent repeated refusal of “moderate Islam” to” first reject the radical/violent factions” within their own culture/religion before attacking the detractors of Islamic radicalism The designation as “moderate” should be held in high suspicion.