Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture
Submitted by Kyrel Zantonavitch on Thu, 2017-07-27 05:11

There are basically only two types of Muslims in the world today: active and passive. Or else: loudly-and-openly Islamic and quietly-and-discretely Islamic.Or else: honestly-and-sincerely Islamic and cowardly-and-hypocritically Islamic.

Categorizing or grouping Muslims into"active" and "passive" is genuinely the best way to publicly describe and privately understand them. However common these days, it's a serious intellectual error –- it's incredibly morally and practically wrong -– to divide Muslims up into "radical" and "moderate". Or into extremist and normal. Or into Islamist and Islamic. Such a mistake constitutes nothing less than the philosophical approval and moral sanction of virtually all Muslims.

It's important to remember that Islamic Barbarism has been at war with Western Civilization for over 1300 years now, and especially since the Iranian Revolution (1979). And as is almost always the case in philosophy, getting the words right is half the battle. Incorrect, misleading, or openly deceptive terminology here means Westerners are going to have a far harder time defeating their Muslim enemies in the current, long-term, worldwide war.

Essentially all Muslims –- active and passive -– emphatically believe in jihad (i.e. war against all non-Muslims) and sharia (i.e. legal slavery for all). To a lesser extent, but still quite powerfully, essentially all Muslims believe in shahada (i.e. martyrdom for Islam) and takiya (i.e. lying about Islam to non-Muslims).

Some Muslims are activist regarding these core four beliefs and some are passivist. But Muslims frequently and easily move back and forth between these two states, or else practice some combination of them. Fundamentally, however, virtually all Islamics are devotedly loyal to these four ultra-important social ideals and standards of personal behavior. Their holy books -– the Koran and Hadith -– absolutely command them to be.

It's worth noting that even when Muslims are at their most passive ("moderate"), they almost all verbally and morally support the activists. And they almost all heavily give to charities which support the activists. When it comes to waging war upon the planet, and inflicting tyranny upon us all, Muslims put their money where their mouth is. Thus the jihadis which perpetrate mass-murder worldwide, and the shariaists which seek to enslave every last one of us, enjoy almost universal verbal, moral, and financial support from the passivists.

Passive Muslims -– which necessarily make up the vast majority at any given time -– also promote, and ally themselves with, their active Muslim brothers by making the latter seem publicly respectable and civilized. Passive Muslims, with mostly deliberate calculation, put a good public face on the remarkably evil philosophy and personages of Islam.They sneakily make Westerners think that most Islamics are good people -– or at least are people which Westerners can work and deal with.

In many respects Muslim "moderates" or passivists are the worst Muslims of all. Not only do they quickly and unpredictably convert themselves to jihadi activists, and perpetrate atrocities, but when in passive mode they deliberately lie about the activists, and generally cause naive Westerners to forget just how maniacal and monstrous the Muslim belief-system and people really are.

I Told You So

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I'm glad I wrote the essay above three weeks ago at a time of Muslim mass-murdering relative quietude. It lets us all be more calmly analytical and rational about these atrocities. But I think the idea articulated above accurately describes the current reality: Muslims should be thought of, and described, as active or passive -- not radical or moderate. And virtually all Muslims are evil and a threat -- not just the currently activist ones.

(In the news, of course, 14 more innocents were brutally slaughtered two days ago in Barcelona by the usual Muslim activists.)

Islamic Culture Thru the Ages

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Ed -- Good points! The Jewish and Christian holy books, as I read them, are only moderately worse than the Islamic ones. But Muslim philosophy as practiced is still far more horrific.

I think Judaism was a dreadful, deviant product of the relatively rational, liberal, and civilized Greeks; and Christianity was a dreadful, deviant product of the relatively rational, liberal, and civilized Romans. But Islam was a product of the Dark Ages and a backward, savage society in Arabia. Over many centuries all three beliefs seem to have maintained their original culture and nature.

Shariah Law

edpowell's picture

To be fair, there are plenty of Jews who don't agree with or follow the Jewish Law too and they're still Jews. The differences are 1) there is a strong intellectual tradition in Judaism of heterodoxy and 2) the really bad murderous parts of Jewish Law have been ignored for over 2000 years, having been explained away in a duplicitous but convincing enough fashion.

One can imagine a strand of Islam that does the same for Shariah Law. One can imagine it, but that doesn't mean such a strand exists, except on an individual-by-individual basis, on behavior but without intellectual support. So you can be a peaceful Muslim, but only because on a personal level, something is more important to you than Shariah Law, like common sense. However, common sense can't win when enough Muslims live in the same area, since Shariah is enforced by the more consistent elements. If one could distinguish between the fundamentally peaceful Muslims, one can imagine them living in your country, as long as there are very, very few of them, so there's no effect of combining enough of them to make common sense literally deadly for them. Limiting the numbers of Muslims in a country to extremely low levels--much lower than exist in the West already, combined with preventing foreign governments from funding US mosques (or any religious institutions, frankly) is the only hope.

Islam Calmly Considered

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Andrew -- Exactly. Sharia varies from place to place and from time to time. But it's virtually always highly tyrannical. Muslims almost always ban even such harmless and beneficial stuff as singing, dancing, team sports, miniskirts, beer, unchaperoned women, comedy, criticizing the gov't, atheism, etc. Muslim legal ideals are appalling.

Incidentally...I think now is an unusual, but possibly good, time to discuss Islam: to consider it highly rationally and with great judicious balance. No new Muslim atrocities to inflame us have taken place in the West over the past few weeks or even months. This will obviously not last.

But even viewed very calmly I think the philosophy of Islam is dreadful. It seems to be down there with Nazism and communism.

The thing that pisses me off

Andrew Atkin's picture

The thing that pisses me off is the way some Muslims claim to not believe in Sharia law. If so - they are not Muslims! That's the bottom line. So in this sense there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim because Sharia law is NOT moderate. Here's my soundbite for the day:

If you love Islam - you hate human rights.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.