The Litmus Test for the “Moderate Muslim”

First of all, I think we should scrap the term “moderate Muslim” altogether. The term is not precise enough, and admits of too much wiggle room for the clever Muslims trying to insinuate into our mainstream acceptance of Islam beliefs and actions that are actually illiberal, intolerant, regressive and dangerous. Now, of course, the intelligent Infidel is usually able to sift through, and see through, such taqiyya tactics. But the point is that this too often becomes, for us, a needlessly complicated and time-consuming process when evaluating any given Muslim’s words or actions, or any given Muslim group’s words or actions.

My proposal, therefore, is to replace that term with the far more suitable and useful term, the harmless Muslim. The advantage of this term is that it immediately focuses our attention on the primary point too often obscured by the complex debates about the “moderate Muslim”—and that primary point is the dangers posed by Islam, and our safety and security in the face of those dangers. Why should we Infidels waste our time learning all the theological and historical minutiae that could possibly establish the parameters of a “moderate Muslim”, when most of this minutiae is only indirectly related, or often not related at all, to our primary concern—our safety and security?

Therefore, as the reader will quickly see, my essay title is slightly but importantly modified, to present the litmus test for the harmless Muslim.

This litmus test will have several points, but it is important to note that any one of these points is sufficient to rule in the harmless Muslim, and therefore, to rule out the dangerous Muslim. The latter is a status that should have many flavors, or many gradations along a spectrum—eliciting from us an appropriately flexible set of responses, ranging from suspicious surveillance on the low end, all the way to arrest, interrogation, deportation, economic sanctions or neutralization at the high end.

Another thing about our litmus test to note is that we do not wish to exaggerate the relevance of this animal called the harmless Muslim. We labor under no delusion that the harmless Muslim will help to save us from the global danger of an Islam Redivivus.

Finally, we should note that any litmus test for this will remain worthless if it does not become definitive and universal. Before it would become so, we Infidels must, of course, have a conversation about it so we can construct the best possible litmus test. Today’s essay is my attempt to begin that conversation.

The Litmus Test

1) Reject Certain Koranic Passages: The Muslim must admit the meaning of certain Koranic passages we will compile in a list (e.g., the divine blessing of wife-beating in 4:34) then abjure those passages. If a Muslim is unable to admit and abjure any single passage among our list, he or she has failed the litmus test.

2) Abandon the Idea of “Self-Defense”: The Muslim must abandon the idea of “self-defense” for Muslims in the following sense: physically violent self-defense related to the concept of jihad and tied to the defense of anything Islamic (whether that be Islam itself, the Umma of all Muslims, Mohammed, the Koran, the Sunnah, Allah, etc.). The only physical self-defense permissible will be the self-defense all other individuals and groups in secular states enjoy: defense against immediate physical attack by others against their own person or against relatives, friends, loved ones, or innocent strangers—a defense in the vast majority of cases entrusted to secular authorities of police and the army. Beyond that, the Muslim will leave all needs for defense to secular authorities in law enforcement and their government’s military. If a Muslim is unable to agree to this without any hemming and hawing and grasping after loopholes, he or she has failed the litmus test.

3) Restrict Jihad: The Muslim must walk the talk of the “interior jihad” and agree that jihad can only function in three places: in the heart, in the mosque and inside the home. If the Muslim cannot agree to restrict jihad to these three places and completely outlaw it anywhere else—including the spheres of Law, Politics and the Military—then that Muslim has failed the litmus test.

4) Accept Church-State Separation: This is another way of expressing our #3 point, as well as our #2 point. The Muslim must agree that Islam belongs only in the heart, the mosque and in the home, and nowhere else in the world. It may be allowed to influence outside areas only in the form of non-violent discourse in the marketplace of ideas, which would include things like peaceful demonstrations, the writing of articles and books, writing letters to the editors of newspapers, the making of movies, non-violent boycotting of products, etc. None of these expressions of discourse may include any incitements to physical violence or any threats. If a Muslim cannot agree to all of this unequivocally and enthusiastically, that Muslim has failed the litmus test.

5) Complete Support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Muslim must express complete and unequivocal support for the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Muslim must at the same time reject the Islamic response to it that was adopted in Cairo in 1990. If the Muslim cannot do this, he or she has failed the litmus test.

Conclusion:

These five points should be sufficient to weed out the harmless Muslims from the dangerous Muslims. A Muslim only has to fail any one of these points to be appropriately considered a dangerous Muslim.