I am always wary of ex-Muslims or "moderate" Muslims, or even non-Western critiques of Islam, who write about the dangers of Islam.
Salim Mansur, who is a Ismaili Muslim, has written an article on the Wilders trial in the Toronto Sun (not to be confused with the ultra-liberal Toronto Star).
I have written about Mansur previously to discuss his recent book: Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim. He got rave reviews from all the "right" bloggers and columnists in Canada, but I found some serious flaws in it. One of the biggest is where he writes that the "true" Islam was sabotaged by a violent and murdering sect hence sealing its violent nature from then on. I write that it is not a branch of Mohammedans that sealed the fate of Islam, but the Koran itself.
In his Sun article, he correctly identifies part of the problem as:
the Amsterdam Court of Appeal conceded[ing] space to the Islamists by accommodating, in practical terms, their demand for acceptance of Shariah (Islamic law) within secular society.But he goes on to say write a new paragraph headlined as "Abandonment."
This can only mean abandoning those Muslims, especially women, who escaped from Islamic countries seeking freedom. They will become vulnerable once again to Islamists enforcing Shariah rule inside enclaves where Muslims reside within Europe.He focuses the important conclusion of his article on Muslims and Arab-Muslim countries, and not on the West itself.
And a Europe that appeases official Islam, while punishing its critics, will also be uncaring about the struggle for reform inside the Arab-Muslim world as in Iran. Such a Europe, as Fallaci so passionately raged against, will be then sliding into a new dark age.
I don't think Mansur can ever say: "Stop Muslim immigration to Canada, including those women living under sharia in Muslim countries."
He will also probably be less accepting of true military actions (as in using firearms rather than "country-building" missions) to confront virulent Muslim countries like Iran.
In his own way, Mansur is a Muslim appeaser. He is saying that since the majority of Muslims in Canada and around the world are non-violent, then the world should focus on them and try and liberate these Muslims from the violent Muslims who are "inseparable from the power and sweep of the sword."
No, the West's role is to save its own societies, not to act as freedom fighter and social worker for the world's non-violent Muslims. Furthermore, these apparently passive Muslims never denounce the sword-bearing jihadists, since they are clearly following the mandates of the Koran. And the Koran is what the majority of people who call themselves Muslims (unlike Mansur) believe in and follow.
