One of the most succinctly put
conundrums facing “moderate,” passive, non-violent Muslims was cogently put by Saba E. Demian in his Gatestone article of January 25th, “Europe’s
Civil War: The Politics of Separateness
.” In it he states:
One unanswered question is whether Islam is a
religion of peace. First, the Arabic word Islam does not mean
“peace” but an act of subjugation to God (Allah) and His will.
Second, the basis and teaching of Islam is understood universally to consider
non-Muslims as infidels. Third, infidels have to be wiped out [or compelled to
submit to Islam and pay jizya or the
protection tax] There is no gainsaying the word of Allah in the Koran, the hadith
of the Prophet Muhammad and the shari’a. Thus, Muslims by birth or
conversion, regardless of whether they are ultraconservative, moderates or
secularists, are trapped in this vise-grip of enforcing the will of Allah on
everyone, non-Muslim or Muslim, if they veer away from the straight and narrow.
[Brackets mine]
Or attempt to veer away from the contentious, violence-sanctioning
elements of Islam, or to renounce Islam, or to repudiate it.
And there you have it: Muslims of whatever stripe are stuck between a
rock and a hard place – between the totalitarian nature of Islam, and its
absolute, non-negotiable imperatives of Islamic dogma. Demian is one of the
very few analysts and critics of Islam who clearly, correctly, and honestly
dissects Islam’s comprehensive character without reservations or qualifications
about “benign,” non-violent Muslims.  There is nothing in Demian’s statement that
suggests: “Oh, not all Muslims are bad people. Many wouldn’t harm a fly,” or,
“There are nice Muslims who want to reform Islam to make it compatible with
Western culture.”
Except that Islam can’t be reformed without killing it. The violent verses in the Koran
are the principal sources of any power it might have. Remove them, or concoct
pretzel-like explanations of what they don’t mean, and what you’d have left is
an unstructured mishmash of banal homilies and exhortations to be a “good” Muslim,
whatever that might mean. “Kill
the Jew hiding behind a tree
” doesn’t mean “kill him with Seinfeld jokes,” and
by your right hand
possess
” doesn’t mean embracing a woman’s waist during a ballroom dance.
And your friendly Muslim next door may regard you as less
than a fly
and eminently swatable.
As Saudi Imam Issa
Assiri recently lectured his congregation in Jeddah earlier this month about
the Charlie Hebdo massacre by devout Muslims on January 7th:
“When someone
curses or mocks the Prophet Muhammad – what should be his punishment? Cursing
or mocking the Prophet is an act of apostasy, as all scholars concur, whether
it is done seriously or in jest. Anyone who does this, Muslim or infidel, must
be killed, even if he repents.”
                     
The violent verses in Islam’s sacred texts, whether they’re read in
Arabic or in English or any other translation, are quite clear and unambiguous.
 Because they are supposedly Allah’s own
words, one must take those verses literally, and not attempt to “interpret”
them or quote them out of the context, as Allah’s words as supposedly whispered
into Mohammad’s ear are unalterable and exempt from correction, emendation, and
line-editing. They mean what they mean. Period. For example, in the Shi’ite
view of the rape of women capture by jihadists,
Koran 4.24 says:
“And all married women (are forbidden unto
you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of
Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek
them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye
seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And
there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath
been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.”
This applies especially if the captured spouse of the married woman has
been beheaded or otherwise slain. Married one moment, widowed the next. And
then the Muslim warrior can do with her what he wishes.      
The verse does not imply that the jihadist
(or Muslim) will set up house with his captive and live in permanent marital
bliss. “Temporary” means a one-night stand for both the Muslim, who may already
be married, and the woman. Or it can mean the immediate or eventual rape of a
captured woman. The Religion of
Peace
site focuses on this aspect of sex slavery or “temporary” marriages
or permanent and involuntary concubinage. To wit:
Qur’an
(33:50)
“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom
thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses
out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”
 This
is one of several personal-sounding verses “from Allah” narrated by
Muhammad – in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex
partners.  Other Muslims are restrained to four wives, but, following the
example of their prophet, may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the
following verse make clear:
Qur’an
(23:5-6)
“..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to
them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands
possess…”
   This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex
with his slaves.  See also Qur’an
(70:29-30)
.  The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable
space to repeat the same point four times, then sex slavery must be very
important to him.
Qur’an
(4:24)
“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those
(captives) whom your right hands possess.”
  Even sex with married
slaves is permissible.
Qur’an
(8:69)
“But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and
good”
  A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a
part.  The Muslim slave master may enjoy his “catch” because
(according to verse 71)
“Allah gave you mastery over them.”
It’s not an issue of having your cake and eating it, too. It’s an issue
that Muslims must eat the whole cake, and not what is convenient
for them to consume, or of what is palatable from individual Muslim to
individual Muslim, for otherwise they will have no authentic Islamic identity.
They must wage jihad (internally as a chronic
anxiety, or externally by violence
against infidels or Muslims of another sect). If it is only by internally
wracking one’s brains about whether or not one’s submission to Allah is
sincere, with no visible actions taken against the infidel or to advance the
conquest of the West, and developing a neurosis about it, only then can one be
called a conscientious Muslim. Otherwise, he is a MINO, or a Muslim in name
only.
The alternative is to wage violent jihad
against everyone and everything that is not by definition or is not perceived
by Muslims as Islamic. This requires the jihadist
to prefer death and “martyrdom” to life.
Reading the Koran and the Hadith, both of which were
works-in-progress for centuries, one naturally gets the sense that they were
being made up as the interpreters and scholars went along.
What’s to stop them from realizing their desire for death? What stops conscientious
Muslims from jumping off Brooklyn Bridge or slitting their wrists in bathtub? The
knowledge that they can’t take everyone who loves life with them; they want to
hear us scream before we die. They won’t be satisfied until they know that no one is left alive who loves life. On
one hand, Muslims are the meek who want to inherit the earth. On the other
hand, if the meek can’t inherit the earth, if they are arrested in a kind of
Islamic stasis, then they want to
ensure that the living who love life won’t inherit it, either.
An earth cleansed of all infidels and Jews would be an Islamic earth:
desolate and inhabitable except for the Muslim manqués and the semi-zombies of
the faithful. That is the Islamic vision of existence. Heads, it’s death.
Tails, it’s death.  Islam is not a “religion
of peace,” but a death cult that worships and preaches a living death, or
literal death.
That is nihilism
with a capital N. This is what more Americans and Westerners must grasp, and
ignore the blandishments and excuses and evasions of our corrupted,
ostrich-like political, academic, and media establishment, which is more a
peril to the West than is Islam itself.  
If the establishment will not countenance or tolerate any words or images
that might “offend” Muslims, then there is no defense against the stealthy and
incremental Islamic incursions into Western culture, and the jihadists will be free to say or do what
they please. The jihadists near and
far – from London to Dearborn to Stockholm to Mosul to Karachi – know this, and
say and do what they please.
This is not a conundrum or conflict we Westerners need to wrestle with. The
problem is wholly the Muslim’s own.