The real moral of Pipes's article: Islam and the West must separate

Submitted by Lawrence Auster (United States), Sep 23, 2003 at 20:56

In his article on the plight of moderate or secular Muslims in the West who find themselves under the thumb (or rather under the gun) of Islamists, Mr. Pipes tries to find grounds for hope. But the full implications of his article are anything but hopeful. If violent Islamists, as he writes, always intimidate non-Islamists, and if, as he says, the only thing that can help the non-Islamists find a voice and gain influence is outside institutions, i.e., Western institutions, then the inescapable conclusion is that the Islamic community, left to its own devices, is destined always to be controlled by Islamists. It is obviously beyond the power of non-Muslims to take the responsibility for permanently managing the Muslim community for the Muslims.

Given the threat that Islamism presents to the Western societies where large numbers of Muslims have settled in recent decades, there would seem to be only one logical option: disengagement between Islam and the West. All mass immigration of Muslims into the West must cease, and the Muslims already in the West must be encouraged to return to their ancestral countries where they and their community would pose no immediate danger to non-Muslims. Commercial and diplomatic contacts would continue, but the idea of a diverse pluralistic West embracing all the peoples and cultures of the world would be rejected. Good fences make good neighbors. I see no other way. Does Mr. Pipes?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".