Moderation within Islam without 'moderating' its texts?

Attached is a video on a reasonably good debate between Jasser an American-Muslim and supposed 'moderate reformer' who believes in the Koran [so how moderate is he?], and Spencer of JihadWatch.org, whose site is indispensable in cataloging the various crimes committed by Muslims in the name of the Allah-thing, around the world on a daily basis. The problem with reform in the Islamic world is that Islam is simply Islam. The Hadiths, the Koran, the Sira or biography of the military-political adventurer Mohammed, who started the cult, are quite clear. Islam rules, the rest will either convert or be humiliated under Muslim domination, or simply killed. That in summary is the Koranic theology. There is no moderation, no Golden Rule [a lie forwarded by many Muslims]; no tolerance for non-Muslims and no regard for other ideas. The Koran and Koranic law are divinely inspired and must totally control society. This is what the 'real' Islam teaches. The question Muslims must ask themselves is this, 'how can I be a moderate in a cult which preaches extreme and immoderate behaviour?' I personally doubt that enough Muslims exist who understand that Islam is the problem and because of that, making a dramatic rewriting of Koranic theology and the associated Hadiths and Sira mandatory. It simply will never happen. Cults don't change endogenously, they only change through exogenous pressures, including war and cultural humiliation.

There are only two ways to 'moderate' an ideology such as Islam, which is undeniably violent, supremacist, racist and imperialist. The first is through cultural and social pressure on the group to forswear what their texts and theological 'laws' compel. The second, is by the group itself admitting that a 7^th century man-created invention, codified and rigidified in a 9^th century of canonical exegesis, is immoderate and needs to be rewritten. The Western states have proven themselves somewhat cowardly and weak on the first option. The second alternative is entirely reliant upon Muslims and their cognitive ability to admit that their 'faith' is in fact immoderate, and prone to Jihadic war and incredible intolerance. How can a Muslim be 'moderate' inside a system which is so immoderate?

Zeyno Baran of the Hudson Institute wrote a book on 'Moderate and Secular Muslims' or the 'Other Muslims' which I reviewed here. I termed her work a 'fantasy novel'. This is not because I believe that all Muslims are demonic followers of Bin Laden, or determined to see a world-wide caliphate established. Cultural pressures in North America for example, in which a superior non-Muslim culture and civilisation imposes itself on the Islamic, has to have a 'moderating' effect on the 10 million or so resident Allah followers. The domination of our culture should and must create a degree of secular intelligence within the Muslim community. Yet we do little to actively promote our obvious superiority. We allow Muslims to 'relativize' and lie about the greatness of Islam as a 'faith', which it isn't, or as a civilisation, which it never created. So we are still beset with vast difficulties in attempting to identify within Western states, what is 'moderate' Islam, or who the 'moderate Muslims' are. As Baran cautions:

“The true divide within Islam is not between violence and nonviolence, but between moderation and extremism. Few Muslims resort to violence-but many more share the thinking of the violent extremism. Unless the ideology of Islamism is understood as the root cause of the violence, I don't believe we'll see an end to the terrorism and radicalism among Muslim communities. Moderation has to start with thought; if we are giving a free pass to those with extremist ideologies as "moderates," then the true moderates will continue to be weakened. ...Western governments, in their desire to "engage with Muslims," have often reached out to well-established Islamist organizations as their "partners". In doing so, these governments did not realize that they were lending legitimacy to these Islamists in the internal struggle against their moderate opponents. With the Islamists being the main "go-to Muslims" for Western governments, it has been much harder for the true moderates to make their voices heard.”

Multi-culturalism as Baran identifies, is thus a failure. By not forcing our superior culture and civilisation on Muslim immigrants we are breeding and enhancing a 5^th column of 'Islamist' activity in our midst and fomenting anti-civilisational values by allowing Islam to become equated with our own civilisation in rank and brilliance. Worse yet, we are not forcing Muslims to rewrite and update their pagan 7^th century dogma which has led to little but destruction, war, and violence over 1400 years. The Islamic world today is a sorry mess for a very good reason. It is called Islamic 'culture'. Western states are not forcing a rational debate and an intelligent analysis of the Koran, the Hadiths, or the main artifacts which compel Muslim behavior. Why did millions of North American Muslims for example, celebrate 9-11 by dancing in the streets and in their living rooms? Why did millions of European Muslims enjoin in the same? Are these the 'moderates' we hear so much about? Just because they themselves are not engaged in Jihad, does not mean that they don't believe in Muslim supremacism, or in the racist rants of the Koran. If moderates within Islam existed in Western states en masse, we should be viewing Muslim demonstrations in major urban centers against the daily Islamic destruction of Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Animist and non-Muslim people, assets, churches and holy sites. Yet nary one single demonstration since 9-11 has been organized in Europe or North America by 'moderate' Muslims who protest Muslim violence across the world in the name of the Allah-thing.

This leads us back to the obvious conclusion that Islam is simply Islam. Brussels Journal writer Fjordman states the obvious:

"All things considered, empirical evidence from different continents strongly suggests a common pattern wherein Muslims create repression where they constitute the majority and violent unrest where they constitute the minority. This happens regardless of the ethnic and racial composition of the local population. The only common factor is Islam and the violent supremacist teachings contained in the central texts of this religion. As long as these texts remain unchanged and in force, so will Muslim violence against non-Muslims everywhere.

This leaves another hypothetical possibility for significant change of Islam: That a major armed confrontation with groups of non-Muslims results in such a crushing defeat that it totally shatters the confidence Muslims have in the supremacy of their Faith and their Umma. A Jewish gentleman once pointed out to me that when Roman forces destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, the earthly center of Judaism, Jewish scriptures didn’t change per se but were reinterpreted to fit a new situation in the diaspora, as Jews were scattered in different corners of the world. An equivalent to this in Islam would be the destruction of the major mosques in Mecca and Medina. This analogy is imperfect because Judaism has never advocated world conquest and does not exist as a vehicle for achieving global military dominance. Islam does.”

The points are well made. Even if we bombed Mecca and Christians created a '9-11' in the home-town of Mohammed, annihilating the shrines of the cult; Islam would still persist. Islam is a mentality. It is a culture. It is a personal delusion. Effacing Islam is not easy. The only way to permanently change Islam is through two methods. Defeat its Ghazi or holy warriors in war. Defeat its rancid, artificial, man-made fascism through the imposition of a superior Western culture and set of values. We can't erase 1400 years of slavery, racism, war, endemic violence and hatred against non-Muslims in the space of a few years or even decades. It will take generations. That is why the war against Islam is rightly called 'The Long War'.