AHMED AKKARI, a former Muslim imam who was a major figure seven years ago in stoking violent protests over a Danish newspaper cartoon of Mohammed, is now full of love for his adopted country and publicly announced three weeks ago that he was wrong to oppose freedom of speech. See this report by Ingrid Carlqvist in Dispatch International on Akkari’s appearance last week before the Free Press Society of Denmark. Akkari is still a Muslim, which gives reason to suspect his sincerity. He also argues for tolerance of Islam in Denmark, which is further reason to suspect his sincerity. Nevertheless, he made this statement:

The truth is that there is not a single mosque or Muslim organization in Denmark that is not run by Islamists. As soon as you enter the house of the believers, you are met with Islamism whether you want it or not. As soon as you become a devoted Muslim, you are infected by extremism.

Akkari has apologized to cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.

— Comments —

Dave P. writes:

Case 1. Let us consider the situation that moderate Muslims prove that the correct interpretation of Islam was the moderate one (whatever that is). They even go further and make the changes in their teachings of the Koran and the Jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a great relief to all. But I counter that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West (Taqqiya rules). Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes and return to the traditions of the Koran. They will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.

 The larger the number of Muslims, moderate or radical, the greater will be the demands for Sharia, and politicians will rush to accommodate that demographic. The distinction between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims is therefore meaningless; it is of no help to us.

 Case 2. Let us suppose that moderate Muslims came out of hiding and utterly trounce their Jihadi cousins on what constitutes “true” Islam i.e., the moderate, non-violent one. Having got rid of “radical” Islam’s main reasons for waging Jihad would not be the end of the matter. Moderate Muslims will demand their price for having kept Jihad, the fundamental directive of Islam, at bay. That price will again be the implementation of Sharia, initially for Muslims anyway. This will come about since moderate Muslims have not abandoned Islam, but are still dutiful Muslims (we will end up with a kind of permanent social coalition government of non-Muslims and moderate Muslims). Even if we agree to this, the “radicals” will still be out there, and amongst us. To keep them at bay, moderate Muslims will be forced to make ever-increasing demands for greater Islamisation. “Good cop, bad cop” scenarios come to mind. It will never end.

In effect moderate and radical Muslims work together. There is no actual treaty as such; it is simply understood.

Laura writes:

Excellent.

A moderate Muslim ignores certain aspects of Islamic teachings. But he does not change them. He cannot change them. He cannot change what Mohammed said and did. The moderate Muslim, by his very stance of moderation, furthers the aims of the so-called extremists.

As I said, however, I am suspicious of Akkari’s conversion to moderation.

Daniel S. writes:

You wrote:

Akkari is still a Muslim, which gives reason to suspect his sincerity. He also argues for tolerance of Islam in Denmark, which is further reason to suspect his sincerity.

While true, we should remember that in coming out in this way Akkari has set himself up to be a target for violence. He will be accused of being an apostate and traitor and have fatwas issued against him, like Salman Rushdie and Farag Foda (who was assassinated). He will have to spend the near future in hiding or flee to a place like America (as Hirsi Ali did).

Laura writes:

As far as I know that hasn’t happened. Here he is at a public gathering, smiling and holding a mug with the Mohammed cartoon on it. He does not seem afraid. It’s very strange. Remember, he was a well-connected imam.

Linda writes:

Or perhaps he’s simply engaging in a bit of taqiyya, which Wikipedia defines as: “. . . a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are at risk of significant persecution.”

 Laura writes:

Yes, that is mentioned in the article.

Please follow and like us: