Do We Not Still Hear the Roar of the Falling Towers Waking Us to the Danger?

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Sep 7, 2010 at 17:45

In an irony of the Nth magnitude, this article crystallizes in a summary fashion the whole of the situation regarding the Islamization of the world in a nightmare/dream of a world in the throes of its greatest determination of destiny: whether to submit as the fundamentalist Islamist desires (the nightmare of those intended for subjection) and allow the western institutions to fall to shari'a (the dream of all who insist it is the way of allah). That it comes in a time when resonant echoes of the friend and/or foes have been debating the circumstance of the Islamic influences in western society, the increased debating of the 'Ground Zero' Islamist project may appear finally to many that a situation which should not be tolerated is actually in synchronization to the total Islamist movement faced by the world at large.

It is in actuality a battle that, like a peat fire in Ireland, has started innocuously some time back, surfacing in the western world more frequently only recently. It flared in September 11, 2001; but it also flared in the western world many times before that, only to be thought put out. It never has.

One might suspect that the fellow Richard H. Curtiss did have an insight into just such a thing. Yet who of us knew that in 2001 we would have to seriously review the implications of his 'predictions'so quickly. America's response to the loss of the towers was merely a re-introduction to the problems we would face. In 2008, it flared again on American soil, not necessarily dramatically, but in a way that should have caught the attention of people who could have done something more intelligently about it, but did not. This is directed towards the course of how this country is shifting its attitude towards Israel; do not think that this has nothing to do with it – it has everything to do with it. It is the smoke of the fire not fully seen.

Adopting a tolerant attitude towards 'moderate' Islam for some may not be seen as a 'bad' thing, that 'moderate' practitioners of a 'moderate' Muslim lifestyle are fully functioning and contributing citizens in the western style societies to which they have attempted assimilation. Indeed, many have succeeded; more troubling, some have not. The one distinction that is very troubling is that those who do have trouble making that transition usually look to the fundamentalist ideology for the rationalization of why not; and come invariably to the conclusion that the mores of the western world are the problem and they fall prey to the radicalized mindset which promises their radicalized solution is best to contradict what they see as wrong in the western societies. They are no longer 'moderate;' and the line that separates is invisible. That conclusion can be drawn from the viewpoints found in this very forum. The Ft. Hood assassin is submitted as one of many pieces of evidence to that.

Dr. Pipes' opening statement is as 'prophetic' as is his reference to Mr. Curtiss's observations; that indeed the United States of America is in the vortex of its dilemma. Following the American Administrations' definitively 'Muslim' proclivities towards this and other issues (most importantly, the cold shoulder now shown to Israel) regarding the fate/destiny of Islam in America, the implications are immense. For example, if the 'blessing' of the American Administration's consent to allow the continuation of the 'Ground Zero' Islamist project is miraculously set aside and the obstacles intended for its disapproval by the opposition win the day, what will be the repercussions? Let's be honest, folks, they are not going to go away.

Now the emotionalism referred to in the article is not a new phenomenon for many. Only the numbers deeply affected have been few, and marginalized by a media campaign that has surreptitiously countered any anti-Muslim antipathies held closely by those who have felt the effects of Islamically inspired acts against the American way. Does anyone remember the 'Siege?'

If indeed, there is concession and the 'Ground Zero' Islamist project does fall by the wayside; and as intimated there is a resurgent attitude toward the limiting the establishment of further such institutions, there is the caveat being asserted in the article on how that may infer an anti-Islamic tone. This is indeed correct; and the reason why is already answered in the article. If fully understood, there is no misleading in the potential of 'moderate' Islam being absorbed into the fundamentalist Islamic mainstream. As indicated before, the line is invisible in its transition, the Ft. Hood assassin being poster representative to that very phenomenon. Ask the British about their close encounters (some very deadly), from those who were trusted, only to betray.

Americans have always been alerted to threats, if only by a certain few that are alert to those things which are an affront to and have affected the American way of life. Only when those who are sworn to protect that 'way' in defense of those things which are a detraction to the 'way' are swayed by feigned actions for the common good, such as freedom of religion misapplied, then the implications of the opening statement are not merely true, but will be resoundingly true.

In the final analysis, what would be the better tribute to the sacrifices of those who used to have their lives marked by the towers: what monument should be raised in the shadow of that sacrifice? Maybe a monument is insufficient to commemorate their loss: but it is seriously doubtful that a constructed reminder of the antipathies that led to this situation, or of the antipathies that it may representive of the Islaimc community's connection, is necessary at this point in time.

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".