THE UNREALIZED CONSEQUENCES OF TOLERATING ISLAM

By Willam J. Federer

The word "Islam" means submission to the will of Allah, and a "Muslim" is someone who has submitted.
A "dhimmi" is an inferior non-Muslim who is coerced to submit.

Muhammad divided the world into two parts: those who have submitted and those who have not YET submitted.
He called these two parts the House of Islam and the House of War, pronounced in Arabic "dar al-Islam" and "dar al-harb."

Whereas "world peace" in the West means peaceful coexistence,
"world peace" in Islam means the world submitting to the will of Allah.

Since there is no one theological body governing all of Islam, faithful Muslims have developed differing views.

Moderate Muslims think the remaining area of the world WILL submit to Allah in the DISTANT future, maybe not until Hour of Judgment.
Therefore, since it is so far off, it is acceptable to get along with
non-Muslims in the present.

Fundamental violent Muslims think the rest of the world IS submitting to Allah NOW and feel it is Islam's "manifest destiny" to make it happen, and they would just as soon fight moderate Muslims, because they consider them to have backslidden from following the example of Muhammad and the caliphs.

Therefore moderate Muslims are hesitant to speak out against fundamental violent Muslims, as occasionally one does and they are threatened, intimidated, forced to change their names for protection, have fatwas put on them and even killed.

So there could, in a sense, be three groups of Muslims: a minority of fundamental violent ones; a majority of moderate ones who are afraid of the fundamental violent ones; and the courageous dead ones who were not afraid of the fundamental violent ones.

The West may be inadvertently fueling the problem by not understanding that fundamental Muslims interpret their "politeness" as weakness or submission.

For example: This is from an 11th grade school text book...
"Do not yield to Christians and Jews on a narrow road out of honor and respect."
You may have to read that last line again:
"DO NOT YIELD to Christians and Jews on a narrow road out of honor and respect."

In other words, when a Christian or Jew thinks they are being polite by letting a Muslim go first, the fundamental student is taught that they are simply acknowledging Islam's superiority.
Thus the dilemma!

If the West naively promotes tolerance of a belief system that does not promote tolerance, it is effectively promoting intolerance.
If the West refuses to promote an intolerant belief system, it is accused of being intolerant.

Muslims still sees the West, and particularly America, as a predominately Judeo-Christian,
So the question is: What goes through the mind of a MODERATE Muslim, who thinks the world will submit to Allah in the distant future, when he sees this predominately Judeo-Christian nation going to great lengths to tolerate Islam NOW?

Although America's actions are done in hopes that tolerance of Islam will result in Muslims being more tolerant of non-Muslims,
an unintended consequence is emerging, namely, that these actions are actually radicalizing some moderate Muslims by providing proof that the world IS submitting to Allah – not in the distant future – but RIGHT NOW before their eyes!

They become persuaded that their long-awaited desire of the non-Muslim world "dar al-harb" (House of War) becoming "dar al-Islam" (House of Islam) is imminent.

Could it be that the more the West exhibits hyper-tolerance, the more it turns some moderate Muslims, who believe the world will submit to Allah in the distant future, into fundamental violent Muslims, who view this tolerance as evidence that the world IS submitting to Allah NOW?

"Personal" tolerance in the West is rooted in Judeo-Christian concepts like "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek," but Franklin D. Roosevelt warned regarding "national" tolerance in a Fireside Chat, Dec. 29, 1940:

"No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it."