Let us call a spade a spade

Submitted by Lorthog (United States), May 22, 2013 at 22:42

There are several dangerous lines of illogic one must buy into in accepting the argument that Dr. Pipes and other like-minded intellectuals proffer in assessing the West its stance with regard to Islam. First and foremost, worded variously, there goes the argument that it is unwise to make enemies of more than two billion Muslims, i.e. the Islamic population in the world today.

A close corollary posits the argument that most Muslims are "just like us" modern and moderate, placid and not really a protagonistic part of the Islamic conflagration spreading across the globe. The unifying theme in such arguments leads to the inevitable conclusion that moderate Islam is a thing separate and contradistinct from Islamism. That this is a grievous error has been pointed out successfully and compellingly by numerous experts on the subject, including Robert Spencer, David Wood, Geert Wilders and others. Islamism arises from Koran as Judaism arises from the Torah. One faith is benevolent and self-contained, the other aggressive and homicidally violent.

The other difficulty that occurs in taking too seriously the potential hurt feelings of two billion Muslims is the fact that we are five billion Christians, Hindu, Buddhist Jews and Atheists. Perhaps then, it should be the Muslims walking on eggshells and cringing in fear of offending the five billion of us, not the other way round. This is not a minor matter. By cowering in fear every time a representative of the Relgion of Peace commits an act of terror, we send out an incredibly dangerous message. The message says "please don't hurt us, we're weak and afraid and we don't have anywhere near the passion or fortitude that Muslims possess".

Even a six year old child knows that the very worst thing you can do in the face of a bully is cower in fear. The only thing a schoolyard bully understands is a swift and devastating punch in the nose. Let me frame this point in practical terms. Hypothetically, if every time a Muslim committed a terrorist act, the West responded with a substantive punative response, we would very quickly change the dynamic. We would "demotivate" the terrorists waiting in the wings from striking us with impunity.

It would not be difficult to put togehter a short list of substantive punitive responses. I am not particularly smart and I can think of three right off the top of my head.

1) Turn off the immigration spigot

2) Freeze all assets of countries harboring terrorists

3) Close mosques. Deport Muslims.

I fully realize that each of these proposed responses would engender a great deal of noise from the Islamic world in the short term. This is fine. It is better than fine. Because suddenly we would be on a level playing field able to proactively and responsively protect ourselves by measured and substantive means, as opposed to the pathetic dhimmi role we've been playing up to now. We would demonstrate to the "moderate" Islamic world that Islam is not the only strong horse in this race. Most importantly, we would put the responsibility for Islamic terror back where it belongs, in the hands of the Islamic community.

There is no reason five billion citizens should cower in fear of what two billion "might" do. That way leads only to complete pathetic abject surrender. I hold Dr. Pipes in the greatest respect. However, on this matter, I would invite a response from him that explains why the approach he has long advocated is preferable to mine.

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".