What is a Moderate Muslim Really?
On May 22, 2013, a British soldier was murdered on the streets of London – in broad daylight. The perpetrators were Muslim men who yelled "Allahu Akhbar," an Arabic translation for "God is great." Prime Minister David Cameron immediately and unequivocally identified the incident as a terrorist attack.
While in the United States the heinous attack by Nidal Hassan against our soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, is still being referred to as “work place violence” by the Obama Administration. Officials do this even though – like the attack in London – Hassan yelled "Allahu Akhbar" and is known to be a follower of now deceased Muslim cleric and terrorist Anwar al-Aulaqi. There is no doubt this attack was motivated by his Muslim faith and desire to conduct Jihad; however, our current administration refuses to recognize it as terrorism.
Then on April 15, 2013, two brothers set off two improvised explosive devices near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, also in an effort to conduct Jihad. The administration in Washington did refer to this incident as terrorism, but initially tried to stay away from linking it to Islamic terrorism, instead first trying to classify the attack as a lone wolf incident. To be fair, it did take some time to piece the incident together, even though the Russians reportedly already warned the United States of at least one brother’s radical Muslim tendencies.
What we do hear from the Obama Administration is an attempt to claim that these acts of violence are the acts of radical Muslims and not the acts, nor desires, of moderate Muslims. According to the current administration, Islam is a religion of peace. President George W. Bush also referred to radical Islam as something different from moderate Islam and on numerous occasions referred to Islam as a religion of peace.
However, unlike President Bush, President Barack Obama refused to recognize a War on Terrorism and instead liked to refer to an Overseas Contingency Operation almost since the beginning of his first term in office.
In a recent speech before the National Defense University, President Obama stated the Global War on Terror is over. Too bad someone didn’t tell the terrorists as we recently saw in Benghazi, Boston, London and areas throughout the world where Islamic terrorists attack and kill numerous innocent civilians and our military personnel daily. All you have to do is peruse the news to read about these incidents.
However, don’t count on America’s mainstream media to provide this information. You will need to read news from other countries. The mainstream media and certain cable news outlets try to toe the administration line that Islam is a religion of peace and most Muslims are moderate.
So, with all this talk about being a religion of peace and most Muslims being moderate, it begs the question of what exactly is a moderate Muslim. Isn’t it ironic that, while you hear the term used, it is never defined unlike the term radical Muslim? Everyone seems to understand that radical used in this context means the referent is likely to commit violence due to religious beliefs. Experts are always trying to determine where or how someone was radicalized. Based on the context in which politicians and the media use the term moderate, it must mean peaceful people who don’t commit or condone violence and don’t agree with the “radical” view that Sharia is the supreme law we must all follow.
Is this really accurate?
When the twin towers came down in New York, were there protests in the streets of the Muslim world condemning the attack?
When our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked, did we see protests against the violence and murder of our ambassador in the Muslim world?
When the British soldier was hacked to death, where were the protests against this despicable act?
When people live in fear for their lives because of something they said against Islam, where is the Muslim outrage supporting free speech and refuting the use of death warrants in the guise of fatwas?
For a final example, when Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan, attacked and threw rocks at Christians outside an Arab festival, where was the moral indignation from the Muslim community? They may not like what the Christians were saying, but they should at least stand up for the freedom of speech in America, right? After all they are moderate.
Of course the answer to all these questions is there was no outrage or moral indignation against these acts of violence. In some instances in the Muslim world, there were demonstrations of joy over these incidents.
So, maybe a better definition of a moderate Muslim should be something like this: A Muslim person who wants to be left alone to raise his (or her) family and enjoy life while not personally participating in any violent acts. However, they will not condemn these acts or stand up for the victims of these acts. They may even donate funds to support these acts of terror by donating to Islamic organizations. They will not take a stand against these terrorist acts because as long as it is happening to an infidel or apostate, it is okay.
It sounds harsh, and it is. It is also true. It would be nice if it weren’t. However, there is nothing to show a major move within Muslim communities to take a stand against the violence and idea of Jihad.
Are there some Muslims who deplore violence and want peace? Yes, there has to be some, but they are a very small minority at best and you never really hear from them except on very rare occasions.
It is time for America to wake up and understand if we fail to identify the enemy and understand how we are being manipulated into believing a false view of Islam, we will be victims of the violence we see in the Middle East, parts of Asia and beginning to sweep though countries in Europe such as Sweden, France and England.