Home An Evil Too Big to Stop
Home An Evil Too Big to Stop

An Evil Too Big to Stop

The stream of bailouts reintroduced us to the phrase, "Too big to fail", an excuse meaning that America must deny the essential logic of the free market in favor of spending taxpayer money to bail out companies, whose failure is "unacceptable".

However what the phrase "Too big to fail" really meant, was that even politicians who believed in the free market, were unable to risk testing their beliefs when the stakes were too big.

If some major companies have been too big to fail, Islam has been considered the enemy that is too big to fight. That was the point George W. Bush made to some Conservative Christian broadcasters who pressed him over the war on terror. It's the same message I receive from some of my readers from time to time, when I talk about the myth that Islam is generally moderate and state that terrorists represent the true face of Islam. Their argument is the same, "Why alienate all Muslims when all of Islam is too big to fight?"

This essentially presumes that speaking clearly against Islam risks alienating a moderate Muslim demographic. That position is itself Dhimmist or Neo-Dhimmist at best, because it believes that not offending Muslims can win their tolerance or cooperation. Aside from the indignity of tiptoeing around Muslim sensitivities, it equates to ceding your key point in exchange for nothing at all.

Europe currently serves as an ongoing laboratory that is doing its best to test out this position. Like scientists racing against time to find a cure for tuberculosis using bacterial slides, European states have been staring through microscopes desperately trying to cultivate a species of Islam that will co-exist with them. All they have done is define moderate Islam down, until a Muslim Brotherhood spawn like Tariq Ramadan, who is willing to concede that perhaps the timing is bad for stoning women in public, is thought to embody the best of reformist moderate Islam in Europe.

The sad truth of the matter is that there a distinct shortage of moderate Muslims, and that what we generally consider to be moderate Muslims, are actually Muslims who have become secularized. Which is not at all the same thing.

Before the rise of Islamofascism in the 20th and 21st centuries in their mutual lands, Persia and Turkey had wealthy urbanized secular classes who had fairly open worldviews, and did their best to live like Europeans. But of course the same was true for Cairo, and other parts of the Middle East as well, that today are nothing more than breeding grounds for Jihadists and mad muezzins shrieking hate from their towers on a daily basis.

These were not moderate Muslims, so much as they were secularized Muslims who mixed casually with Jews and Christians, and took very little of Islam seriously. They were post-Islamic, in the same way that the occasional misidentified moderate Muslim in Europe and the US tends to be. They were post-Islamic in the same way that the new generation of student activists in Tehran or the teenage girl in Dallas murdered for wearing makeup is.

Post-Islamic is not moderate Islam because it is not a theological revision of Islam, it is a de-emphasis of Islam to accommodate a more Westernized lifestyle, just as modern Communist China has deemphasized Communism in favor of capitalism. While this is a positive step, it does not demonstrate that there is a form of Islam that can co-exist with civilized countries. What it demonstrates is that only diminishing the hold that Islam has over the minds and priorities of its followers, allows us to co-exist with people from the Muslim world.

And this also demonstrates why going soft on Islam is the wrong approach. Constantly repeating the Dhimmist lie that Islam is perfectly fine, but that it has been hijacked by a few guys named Ahmed from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, conveys the message that Islam is fine, that its adherents are fine, and that we are the ones is the wrong for overreacting by bombing entire countries in response to the actions of a few individuals.

America, Europe and Israel have spent far too long repeating, "The fault is not in Islam, but in ourselves" that many of us believe it now. But the fault is not in us, the fault is in Islam. Stating that openly and unambiguously will infuriate some Muslims, but it will also make them think. And it will stop the endless cycle of cringing apologies to Muslims for classing them all with the terrorists.

Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Communists were dedicated to the destruction and enslavement of the free world. But Communism and Islam are both evil ideologies that call for the destruction and enslavement of the free world. And while not all of their adherents might be equally willing to participate in such projects, most did and do, whether actively or with various degrees of passivity, that can be as small as lending their names to the voting projects of Islamist organizations such as CAIR or ISNA.

Stating that Islam is an ideology dedicated to war, conquest and murder; and that there is nothing moderate about mainstream Sunni or Shia beliefs does not mean that we must now fight every single Muslim on earth. This is a panicked Dhimmi reflex that assumes that we dare not offend Muslims for fear that they'll come down on us all at the same time in a great murderous horde. In fact offending Muslims is our best hope for showcasing just how immoderate Islam really is, while rallying our side for the larger struggle to come.

Knowing who your enemy is, is key to any struggle. If you can't openly state who or what the enemy is, then you've already lost. We do not have to fight 1 Billion plus Muslims to do that. No more than we had to fight 1 Billion plus Communists. It means drawing a line that defines what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong, and what we will accept and what we will not accept. And if we can't do that, then all hope really is lost. Because there is no such thing as an evil too big to stop, only an evil too big in the minds of men to be stopped.


  1. Market Man4/6/09

    Not all Rattlesnakes are mean either. So live in peace with them and take one home as a pet :)

  2. Is it not Arab Muslims who are the hate mongers? I don't hear so much from Indonesian Muslims.

    Could the problem be more the Arabs?

    (sorry, I know this is not your position, but I want to understand)

  3. Anonymous4/6/09

    How much do you know about Islam? Have you lived among Muslims?

  4. Arab Muslims are behind many of the problems, but if you look at what Indonesia did in East Timor or the Bali bombings, Islam in Indonesia is a serious problem as well

  5. Pinay4/6/09

    Philippino and Indonesian muslims cut the throats of school girls.

  6. B"H

    The Malbim in his commentary on Zechariah 8:23 iirc, says that the descendants of Ishmael will be the first to recognize Hashem and Israel in the end of days.

  7. As long as Muslims continue to believe that it is their mission to kill or convert infidels (Jews, Christians, anyone not Muslim or not Muslim according to their fanatical standards)there will be trouble in the world.

    That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't fight them. That's like saying we shouldn't have fought the Nazis even though they had overtaken virtually all of Europe.


    Nothing is too big to fight. It's a myth that you can't fight city hall. You can ALWAYS fight city hall. Sometimes you win, sometimes not, but you can always fight.

    Inertia is a quarantee of failure, so why not fight with everything you have?

  8. Arabs are generally not descended from Ishmael

  9. There is no such creature as a "moderate muslim". Anyone who has ever read the koran knows that to be a muslim is to be a radical jihadi.
    The true face of islam is the islamofascist.
    A moderate muslim [an oxymoron to say the least] would be considered an apostate in the muslim world... which is muslim speak for dead man walking.
    In reality "the moderate muslim" is nothing more than a figment of an arrogant man's imagination.The narcissist B.hussein obama...the phony fool that thinks his 'magic' words are going to stop madmen in their tracks.
    After this BS speech I think we can expect an attack on U.S. soil very soon.

  10. "Arabs are generally not descended from Ishmael"

    Wow! If so, then there is alot of miseducation going on.

    Is it a spiritual inheritance and "Muslim" are spiritual inheritors of Ishmael? Who are the Ishmaelites?

    I'll do some research myself.

  11. I told my husband and he showed me a pasuk in the Humash: Bereishit 37:25

    About Joseph being sold to a camp of Ishmaelites. And Onkolos translates "Ishmaelites" as Arabs (Arabae).

  12. Those are Adnanite Arabs, but Adnanite Arabs make up a small percentage of overall Arabs. That is even if we accept the claims of present day Arabs at face value.

    By their own admission, most Arabs today are not descended from Ishmael. The Arabs living in and around Israel are Qahtanite Arabs.

  13. Jane5/6/09

    "Those are Adnanite Arabs, but Adnanite Arabs make up a small percentage of overall Arabs. That is even if we accept the claims of present day Arabs at face value.

    By their own admission, most Arabs today are not descended from Ishmael. The Arabs living in and around Israel are Qahtanite Arabs."

    Ishmael is Islam since they're joined by faith.

    What you said above could be said for Jews as well, remember we have more joining us than they have, cuz we've been inthe diaspora.

    According to their beliefs, converting to Islam is joining Ishmael.

    That said, by saying what you say, you lend credence to those who say the current jews in israel are not decended from Jews. Most are not, but it doesn't matter, cuz when you convert to Judaism your soul becomes Jewish.

  14. Jane5/6/09

    Only a minority of Arabs are Ishmaelites…?

    (Genesis 17:20)

    "As for Ishmael, I have heeded you. I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and exceedingly numerous. He shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make of him a great nation."

    Mohamed descended from Ishmael. Hashem’s blessing above to Avraham and Hagar was promised the same, one of the few women, Hashem spoke to through the angels, read this

    "Hagar, as our Sages picture her, was a woman of humility and piety. Indeed, few others were privileged to have an angel of G-d speak to them twice, and produce miracles for them."

    if Mo is a descendent of Avraham and Hagar, I mean you don’t demonise the islamists you demonise all the religion, by doing that you lend credence to anti-semites who say the same about us.

    Read this?

    Did Sarah Sin Against Hagar?
    by Rabbi Matis Greenblatt
    Nachmanides in his commentary on the passage in Genesis 16:6 "And Sarah sinned in this oppression and so did Abraham in allowing her to do this, and G-d heard her pain and granted her a son who would be a "wild man" to oppress the progeny of Abraham and Sarah in many different ways."
    It is interesting that Nachmanides uses the term "our Mother." I believe he does so because her sin had repercussions which reverberated down through the generations until our own day. Our oppression by the children of Ishmael had continued to cause anguish to every committed Jew. (Similarly in Genesis 12:10 Nachmanidies comments that "Our father Abraham" sinned when trying to conceal his relationship to Sarah and it is to this sin that he attributed the Egyptian exile.)

  15. Sarah,

    Ishmael is not Islam in terms of descent. What Muslims believe has nothing to really do with the issue. That kind of argument would lead you into a universalist fallacy.

    And you're trying to use some odd bits of theology to justify Islamic violence against Jews. Condemning Islam does not mean condemning all religion. Anymore than condemning Baal meant condemning all religion.

    Ishmael was a corruption that G-d commanded Avraham to cut out and remove. Which he did.

    The Jewish people are descended from Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov on down. There are a small number of converts who have joined the Jewish people over the years, but after the fall of Bayit Rishon, the majority of those were descended from Jews anyway, who had been lost and intermarried.

    The blessing of Hagar was fulfilled a good deal earlier than Mohammed when Arab dominance grew in the area.

    Hagar behaved arrogantly, tried to usurp Sarah, raised a son who engaged in murder and idolatry, and turned her face away from him and left him to die on his own in the desert.

    "And Sarah sinned in this oppression and so did Abraham in allowing her to do this, "

    If Sarah sinned, then you have to argue that Hashem sinned, since He told Avraham to do as Sarah says.

    Ishmael received his blessings, as did Esav. Both of them however spawned evil, and the combination produced Amalek. Which reminds us that mixing evil, only produces more evil.

  16. Aaron--I have heard something along those lines on a Chabad audiotape I listened to.

    It won't happen in the end of days but in the messianic era. That is, because Muslims and Christians believe in one god in one form or another and a messianic figure they'll have an easier time accepting the true Moschiach when he comes.

  17. Anonymous5/6/09

    Ishmael was half Egyptian.
    He married an Egyptian.
    His children did also as did their children.
    Ishmaelites are no longer semitic, they are hamitic.

  18. Too many people are under the false teaching and belief that Muslims worship the same G-d as Israel. This is not the truth.

    You cannot ascribe filth to G-d and then call it the same G-d that is represented in Tanakh(bible).
    You have no right to ascribe garbage to him and call him your G-d.

    Islam's god is a god made in their own image. They worship a false image.

    Let's get that straight.


    To say that Sarah sinned, when it was G-d himself who backed her up and called her correct, even to telling Avraham to heed her words, is just plain ROTTEN.
    It is blasphemous to ascribe sin to G-d.

  19. Jane5/6/09

    "Ishmael was a corruption that G-d commanded Avraham to cut out and remove. Which he did. "

    Moslems are under the Noahide covenant, all of whom Noahides are loved by Hashem, true they have extremists, but history doesn't bear out what you say, so i disagree,

    Arabs didn't achieve any prominence or greatness till Mo, what do you mean they achieved they prominence before Mo?

    I'd like to learn more about your beliefs. Rav Maimonides and all our sages consider Moslems to be Ishmaelites, Arabs too. You say neither Arabs nor Moslems are Ishmaeilites, Who is your Rabbi, Sultan? I'd like to learn more

    About your saying Ishmael and Esav spawning evil, after being blessed, the same can be said for us,
    Moshe Rabinu foretold
    "I know that after I die you will become corrupt and turn away from the path that I have told you to follow ..." (Devarim 31:29)

    So it could be argued that Yitzhak spawned evil too after receiving their blessings from Hashem
    How would you respond to people who said Jews were blessed but then spawned evil?

    You justify those Xtians who believe Jews spawned evil by killing their God (Churchill was one of those) after receiving blessings and need to be saved by converting to Xtianity.

    You justify those Moslems who say Jews are descended from pigs and monkeys and want to steal our land.

  20. Muslims are not Noahides. Unless you think that you can murder, cut your children up in pagan rituals, stone "mercurius" and do all the other great things that Muslims do... and be considered a Noahide.

    Islamic history begins with Mohammed, a monster and a mass murderer of Jews. If you want to defend that, be my guest. Just not on my blog.

    Islam is a religion. Yishmael is an ancestor. If you argue that simply believing in a religion causes you to belong to that family and be descended from that ancestor, then all Christians are actually Jews.

    If you really don't know the relative status of Yaakov, Esav and Ishmael and their descendants, and between an Am Nivchar, and and those are destined to be ovei Hashem until the geulah, I have to question if you're actually the orthodox Jew you're claiming to be.

  21. Jane5/6/09

    You didn't address the points Sultan, which weren't about "defending" Muslims?

    My points were to ask you WHO your Rabbi was, so that i can learn more, assuming you're a Jew? as you believe Rav Maimonides was wrong,

    It's odd you accuse me of not being an "orthodox Jew" when i asked you who your Rabbi was, or don't you have one? In that case you should not speak for Jews.

    I want to know how you reconcile your beliefs theologically, that's all.

    Forgive me if i'm wrong, but your post also belies a hatred for all of us who don't share your vision?
    It has crossed my mind that you may be someone posing as a Jew to discredit Jews.

    So, who is your Rabbi?

  22. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that Muslims or Christians worship the same G-d we do:( Not in the least.

    I was just rephrasing what a Chabad rabbi said on an audiotape.

    I'm sorry:(

  23. No need to apologize K.A. :)

  24. "Jane",

    We're through here. You are the one who has not answered my points, and consistently the only direction to your comments has been to defend Islam and in the process attack Jews.

    You've picked up enough to pass this long in the debate, but I'm afraid not quite enough for me not to know what you are. I don't know who you really are or what your agenda is, but you are done distorting Torah here.

  25. Todah rabba, Sultan:)

  26. No apology Keli.. it was not directed at you personally.

  27. Jimmy5/6/09

    Are noahides related to Naugahydes?


Post a Comment

You May Also Like