While perhaps most Muslims occupying East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza celebrated 9/11, we can all agree that not all Muslims jumped for joy at 9/11.

But what does a "peaceful" Muslim prove? What did a peaceful Nazi prove? That Nazism was a doctrine of peace?

To the Left, peaceful Muslims mean that Islam is the religion of peace and terrorist Muslims, who yell "Allahu Akbar" as they "slay them whoever you find them" (Koran 9:5) are evidence of "lone wolves" totally divorced from true Islam.

Doctrine vs Demographics

In order to test a doctrine, one needs to look at the doctrine. Adjudicating a doctrine via demographics is problematic. One needs to take care that one does not confuse the palliative effect of a Muslim's God-given conscience for his Allah–given terror commands (Koran 2:216).

Moreover testing a doctrine is hard work. It involves thinking, listening to both sides and especially listening to arguments that you might wish were not made. There is a reason why the per capita GDP in Islamic lands is so low. In Islamic lands, they don't debate much. They yell and then they beat and then they kill. This is how arguments are won. The first victims of Islam are Muslims. Whereas the noble man forces himself to listen to arguments on both sides, Islam is a doctrine for savages, for those who are not troubled with sex slaves (called "right hand possessions" in e.g., Koran 4:3, 24…), death penalty for apostasy (Koran 2:217 and 4:89) and religious apartheid taxation (Koran 9:29).

But speaking of demographics, wouldn't the most telling demographics be those of the more Islamically educated Muslims? Wouldn't it be telling then that the premiere Sunni institution of learning, Al–Azhar University, has refused to call ISIS "apostate."

The West's Multicultural Malaise

Perhaps a work that is harder than the intellectual work of understanding both sides in a debate is the psychological work of allowing ourselves to violate the dark doctrine of Multiculturalism. Unless you are a Muslim, we in the West generally don't like to say that other people's religion is evil.

But Multiculturalism is so pathetic, that it is conspicuous proof of its own falsity. Surely there are religions superior to the Multicultural religion, the religion that declares all religions to be morally equal. Multiculturalism's golden non-sequitur—that all religions are morally equal—is patently stupid.

Multiculturalists will object to my declaration that Multiculturalism is a religion. But Roy Clouser proved them wrong a long time ago.

George W. Bush's Tomfoolery

In 2001, on the basis of either an undisclosed argument, or an undisclosed projection, George Bush declared that "Islam is a religion of peace."

But since 2001, a thinking individual, a certain Ali Sina, has offered a cash reward for anyone who can prove Mohammad was not a terrorist.

While Sina has extensively debated Muslim scholars the world over, and has published these debates, no one has been able to claim Sina's reward.

The prize money is now $50,000.

Before going global with his "Islam is a religion of peace" tomfoolery, President Bush could have vetted this hypothesis with Sina. Bush could have thus identified the ideology behind 9/11 and have avoided giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

Because Bush called something evil "good," Bush has:

  • allowed peaceful Muslims to continue in their terror-religion with their consciences unchallenged.
  • allowed critically thinking Muslims to not give a second thought to supporting their jihadist brethren
  • failed to give our troops a clear moral description of our enemy which leads to moral confusion, a loss of morale and a suicide rate that is more than double the national average and not related to combat
  • failed to expose the truth about the nature of our actual global conflict
  • failed to define the metrics for success and failure in this war
  • spent blood and treasure for naught

Because Bush failed to identify Islam as the enemy, 9/11 launched America into a clueless 9/10 mentality. There is not a single nationally elected politician who is openly asking, "Was Mohammad a terrorist?" Yet without even asking such a question, how can the "hallowed" oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic" have meaning? Obama refuses to entertain the possibility that a certain terror–religion could be less than perfect. And when Trump puts Islam under the microscope, the Republican leadership paints Trump with a scarlet "R" for RACISM!

The DoD's terrorist self–identification policy

And apparently not many politicians are curious as to why we are at war with some Islamic terror organizations, but not with others. Even though all these terror organizations share the same Mohammad, the same Koran and the same canonical ahadith, we accept the tribal divisions as presented by the terrorists to be an indication of whether or not the group is a terror group.

If the same terrorist mid–management and lower personnel from al Qaeda or ISIS join an Islamic terror group like "Islamic Jihad" that we are not at war with, then by the dictates of the differences in semantics between "al Qaeda" and "ISIS" on one hand, and "Islamic Jihad" on the other, we are not at war with "Islamic Jihad." In other words, the US Department of Defense enemy identification headquarters lies more with Islamic Jihad operatives than with thinking people on the DoD payroll.

And it takes another 9/11 for us to put the next Islamic terror group on the list of people against whom we are at war. Even though the dots connect from the terrorist straight to Mohammad, the Mohammadian terrorist is called a "lone wolf."

Multiculturalism insures that we can learn precious little from history, and that we remain in perpetual 9/10 blissful ignorance.

The Significance of Peaceful Muslims

As Bridget Gabriel has noted, peaceful Nazis did little to stop Nazism. They were largely irrelevant to the war against Nazism and they certainly were not proof that Nazism is benign. Ditto for Japanese who were peacefully mum about the rape of Nanjing. Ditto for the peaceful Leninists, Stalinists and Maoists. Ditto for the peaceful Islamic Turks who watched the Armenian genocide.

As Mosab Hasan Yousef, the first born son of the Hamas founding sheik, poetically put it, Mohammad is unskinning Muslims of their humanity. Mohammad, and not peaceful Muslims, define Islam.

But all this is not the kind of history that a Multiculturalist can learn.

But peaceful Muslims who have their beloved Islam celebrated by Multiculturalists are not totally irrelevant. They are lethal for two reasons.

  1. Since the terror–prophet Mohammad is the ideal example for all, this makes all Mohammadians doctrinal terrorists. And we have witnessed the peculiar demographics of such peaceful doctrinal terrorists a thousand times. You remember Mohammad Atta, the peaceful Muslim who was merely a peaceful doctrinal terrorist? He couldn't hurt a fly. But that was then, before 9/11.
  2. The moral cover that the Multiculturalism marketing campaign in conjunction with the peaceful doctrinal terrorist creates an inverted moral narrative that has the devastating consequences listed in the above bullets.

Multiculturalism adjudicates a doctrinal question with demographic irrelevancy and ignores demographic relevancy. Multiculturalism then doubles down on stupid by hand–holding with this same peaceful Muslim demographic, not knowing that these hand–holders are doctrinal terrorists and the recruitment grounds for the next Mohammad.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.