The itsy-bitsy minority of extremists

 

Climbed up the water spout 

Down came the rain 

And washed the minority of extremists out 

Out came the sun 

And dried up all the rain 

And the itsy-bitsy minority of extremists 

Climbed up the spout again. 

If only it stuck in the craw as unreadily as it trips off the tongue. 

At any rate, an interesting datum uncovered by the great David Littman helps to refute that titular dogmatic mantra which our mainstream media and politicians and academics routinely spoonfeed us. 

In one of his many reports presented boldly just within the ambit of smelly teeth of the lion's maw, the United Nations, back in February of 2004, Littman adverted to:  

... the declaration adopted at the 18th meeting of foreign ministers of the OIC held in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) on 13-16 March 1989, which "had proclaimed, in unambiguous terms, the apostasy of Salman Rushdie".  

The OIC, of course, is not the Mohammedan version of the OC, but is rather the the Organization of International Cooperation -- the international body of all Muslims countries on Earth, represented by both the political and the religious leaders of every one of those countries. There is no way even a sophistical Muslim or Leftist could possibly spin the OIC as representing anything other than the solid majority of Muslims around the world. 

Littman continues:  

Indeed, the 44 foreign ministers present at that meeting did promulgate a ban on [Salman Rushdie's book] The Satanic Verses, but they did not comment on the fatwa that sentenced its author and publishers to death. However, they did pronounce Salman Rushdie to be an apostate. 

They did this one month after Iran's Grand Ayatollah pronounced the death sentence which immediately became world news. Obviously, the OIC was making a pointed show of official support for that fatwa (if cleverly fit with plausible deniability). 

And, as Littman points out what we should all know by now:  

...the traditional interpretation of shari'a law requires that the punishment (hadd) for an apostate (ridda) should be death – one of the three cases where a Muslim's blood may be legally shed... 

Where Littman erred, unfortunately, was in his conclusion: 

...we maintain that it is the OIC that should declare the fatwa contrary to all the human rights norms which UN Member States have ratified. 

If Littman meant this rhetorically, as a way merely to shine a light on the reason why the world should condemn Islam and all Islamic nations as roundly and doggedly as they condemned Apartheid South Africa, then his conclusion is fine. But one senses a lurking Wildersianism there, somehow; an expectation that Muslims can, and will, really change to comport themselves to our principles of justice. 

Really, we should know by now, that any stern rebuke of Muslims that reserves its teeth in the expectation that Muslims should be given the chance to reform serves pretty much the function of a briefly adverse splash of water on the spider which will temporarily shrink out of sight, only to return when conditions are propitious again -- as they will continue to be for the aggrandisement of Islamic infiltration into the West, as long as the West persists in the pleasant delusion that oil and water can mix.