"What percentage of a culture’s population can hold views that are completely at odds with the culture’s foundational reference points before said culture is irretrievably lost? 15%? 21%? 32%?" ... "Before it’s too late, Western nations should be asking themselves: with moderates like these, who needs extremists?"
When observing the cultural existential struggle of the age, it’s hard not to be reminded of the story of the emperor who had no clothes: the citizens were all afraid to be the first to speak up and say something wasn’t right, so they all agreed that the emperor’s clothes were the finest they’d ever seen when he was, in fact, quite obviously, naked. It’s clear our society is in a bit of trouble, but people can’t even talk about it without the same sort of fear felt by the naked emperor’s subjects.
We all know that dangerous jihadists have been found in Brampton and Birmingham, Dallas and Dearborn. This is indisputably factual. We are told, however, that instead of viewing this as a serious problem as common sense would suggest, these are insignificant ‘isolated incidents,’ far less worthy of concern than, for example, the global temperature increasing by 0.7 degrees Celsius over the next half-century. To go against the conventional wisdom on this is to be called an alarmist, or, better still, a ‘bigot’ or a ‘racist.’ ‘Every bushel has a few bad apples. The vast majority of Muslims are actually quite moderate,’ is what we’re told by way of consolation. This leaves us with the question: who are these moderate Muslims, and how much cause for comfort do they really provide us?
In the first place, I’m sure there were plenty of ‘moderates’ in, say, Japan, Italy and Germany in the 1930’s, but they don’t seem to have done themselves or anybody else much good. And remember the 9-11 widows who protested the Bush Doctrine with signs that read NOT IN OUR NAME? Good for them. But the next time Christians are harassed, jailed or murdered by Islamic mobs and/or governments in Egypt, Afghanistan, Thailand, Sudan, Nigeria etc., would it be too much to ask a few ‘moderate Muslims’ to walk down Main Street holding signs that read NOT IN OUR NAME? If so, Why? No, it is only possible to see the Western world as brimming with ‘moderate Muslims’ if we first profoundly lower the bar when it comes to our definition of moderation, to the point where anyone who’s not a card-carrying al-Qaeda member is a ‘moderate.’
I used to work in a warehouse that was, coincidentally, a half hour drive from the place where Aqsa Parvez was murdered by her father for refusing to wear a hijab. Some of my co-workers were friendly moderate Muslims, so I engaged them in a debate. It didn’t take too long to hit a brick wall; the tone became a little ‘edgy,’ and the conversation started going in circles. To save time I said, “Let’s cut to the chase: do you think the Holocaust actually happened?” The moderate fellow shrugged and said, “Who can say? The Jew says six million, but other experts say 30 000, so who knows? And anyhow, isn’t the ‘Occupied Territories’ situation a far worse crime etc. etc.” A few follow-up questions revealed more dismaying sentiments. My anecdotal evidence is backed up by statistics and numerous opinion polls: significant and growing numbers of Canadian and British ‘moderate Muslims’ think:
- The Holocaust is a myth/exaggeration,
- ‘The Jew’ is the real culprit behind 9-11, and
- Sharia is at least as valid as British common law.
What percentage of a culture’s population can hold views that are completely at odds with the culture’s foundational reference points before said culture is irretrievably lost? 15%? 21%? 32%? Anybody? Once released, genies are notoriously reluctant to go back into their bottles. Before it’s too late, Western nations should be asking themselves: with moderates like these, who needs extremists?
Comments always appreciated
Post written and submitted by Darrell Epp
Darrell Epp blogs here