God will judge them, not me.

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Jul 20, 2016 at 17:48

Daniel,

Everything you said is correct; but it falls short of proposing a workable solution. You said that ISIS is on the verge of falling in places like Iraq, Syria and Libya. This is true. You said that ISIS, as a manifestation of the Islamist agenda, is able to inspire acts of incredible violence in places like France, the US, Saudi Arabia, etc. This is also true. You said that destroying ISIS in Syria, etc. will not stop this carnage. This is also true. What we are left with, is ever-increasing terrrorism (by any name), and no end in sight.

You have further posited, elsewhere, that the solution to radical Islam is moderate Islam. As things stand, moderate Islam already exists, and is widespread; yet radical Islam continues unabated and has been perpetrating increasing violence -- in spite of the fact, as you say, that this violence is hurting the "cause" of the Islamist movement. That seems to knock the stuffing out of any hope that "moderation" will somehow carry the day.

What the world (Westerners, Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims such as in Medina and Dhaka, Hindus such as in Mumbai and Bali, Buddhists in Bangkok, Chinese in Xinjiang and Russians in Moscow -- have I left anyone out?) is engaged in, is a war against a violent enemy that wants to destroy it. This enemy raises the flag of Islam, to rally its cause; and Muslims from all over the world are rallying to that flag.

The world's enemy has clearly defined itself, and lifted its banner; yet the world refused to fight against that banner and the ideology it represents. A very similar situation existed, when the world was threatened by another great threat, Naziism. They also had a banner, and an ideology -- a banner and an ideology, I will note, which is banned to this day, nearly 100 years later. This group also had those who rallied to its banner and to its cause: German people; not all German people everywhere, by any means; but German people. In order to defeat that enemy, it was necessarily to destory Germany, Austria, Sudetenland and every place where Nazi doctrine was freely preached. In response to this destruction, Germans in other places such as Switzerland and the US were afraid to declare themselves, and the movement died.

Where are the preachers of Islamist doctrine, akin to the brown shirts of Nazi Germany? Aren't they in mosques across the globe, built and funded by royal-family-connected clergy in Saudi Arabia? Why have we not gone after them? Why haven't we destroyed their mosques -- including, if need be, the Great Mosque in Mecca? Mark my words:

AS LONG AS WE DO NOT EXACT A PRICE UPON ORDINARY MUSLIMS FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE JIHADIS, THOSE ORDINARY MUSLIMS WILL CONTINUE TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO OUR ENEMIES; AND THE VIOLENT ATTACKS AGAINST US WILL CONTINUE.

Could we have defeated Hitler, without destroying Germany? No. Could we have defeated Hirohito and State Shinto, without destroying Japan? No. Likewise, we cannot defeat the Islamist movement without subjugating Saudi Arabia and destroying the mosques of the Wahabbis. Of course, I do not advocate such violence, because I would end up in prison if I did. I am simply saying that if we do NOT do these things, we will have continuing attacks against innocent civilians across the globe. It is up to the people of this world, and their governments, to decide whether or not to do these things. They may prefer to see innocent civilians killed, as they seem to today. If so, it is their right to do so, and I will not tread upon that right. I call God's judgment down upon them for so deciding; but I will not deny them this right. My own family may suffer and be killed because they do this; but I will not deny them this right. Nevertheless, God will judge them.

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".