Well and pithily stated

Submitted by Ron Thompson (United States), Nov 21, 2009 at 12:12

I agree with Mr Vishvas. If Jihadist Islam of the last 30 years, from Shiite Khomeni to Sunni bin Laden to the latest suicide bombings in Afghanistan, is really a reflection of essential teachings of Islam, then when we retaliate against completed or planned and promised Jihadist attacks, we ARE attacking Islam, whether we admit it to ourselves or not.

If non-Jihadist Muslims want to stop our "attacks on Islam" as just logically defined, then they must either convincingly denounce and move against Jihadism in their religion, or they must renounce Islam itself as an incurably violent and intolerant religion incompatible with the peace and prosperity of the World (including their portion of the world).

Now it must be granted, if this view is right, it poses a terrible existential dilemma for the many millions of peaceful and decent human beings born into the religion. But this is not our existential dilemma. Even allowing for the imperialist chapters in the history of the West, we are not responsible for the nihilist ideology and unspeakable violence of Jihadist Islam, which is as terrible for the Muslims among whom it is living as it would like to be for us and the rest of the world.

And this painful existential dilemma for peaceful Muslims is in no ways relieved by all those who would deny or misidentify it, whether this denial comes from Liberals or from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military.

Ron Thompson

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".