Indeed, Canada is a conglomerate of separate "nation-states"

Submitted by J.S. (Canada), Aug 16, 2006 at 16:33

Unlike the U.S., Canada does not seem to have an over-arching sense of nationhood or identity. It's as if Canada is caught somewhere in-between the United States and Great Britain -- always leaning towards one or the other.. Being without a positive or strong national identity, ethnicity appears to be taking its place. And, as "Infidel" notes, many in certain ethnic communities have no problem about expressing their sense of superiority (they consider their "home" countries/traditions from whence they immigrated as "superior" to Canada...which leads one to wonder why they immigrated..) Hence, as many commentators have noted, they often tend to act as invaders. (Although, even with-in the native communities, who are not immigrants, they too are expressing their sense of cultural superiority ... many seem to consider themselves "better" than ordinary Canadians.)

A few weeks ago a CBC commentator interviewed a academic (one of those so-called "experts" on the Middle East.) The commentator was asking questions about the origins of Hezbollah (I have no intentions of spreading the lies spread by the media propagandists). But what I found both laughable and tragic at the same time, was the commentator's eagerness to establish that there were TWO items which absolutely COULD NOT explain why Hezbollah came into existence. Those two items? Culture and Religion. The commentator was seeking assurances from the academic that Hezbollah's creation was definitely NOT the result of "culture or relgion." The prof, of course, immediately concurred. Yeah, "culture and religion" were "way down the list". As I laugh. Sometimes the media liars are very helpful.

I now know that the two primary causative agents for the existence of Islamic terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah are religion and culture.

Anyway, Dr. Pipes does state (in the second half of his adage) that "moderate Islam is the solution." I have reservations about such statements. I would also like to know that if this adage is based on a reasoned analysis (not just said as a result of PC pressures), then how can it be refuted? What would it take for Dr. Pipes to say, "moderate Islam is not the solution?" I sometimes have the feeling that this hold-out about "moderate" Islam is what enables our politicians to continue to up the numbers of Muslim immigrants into Canada (even the Conservatives are making promises to immigrants which would not see a reduction in numbers, but an increase...as if what Canada really needs are more Lebanese who support Hezbollah), to provide all sorts of encouragements, entitlements, promises, etc. (If one were to say, I support "secular Islam", then I would tend to be more in agreement...but not this "moderate Islam" formulation.

I can't distinguish "moderate" from "radical." Those who claim to be "moderate" are just as likely to be Islamists (they believe in Sharia law -- they don't want to be governed by "man-made laws" -- but not in violence.) But if one were to say, "secular Islam" -- I believe the Islamists would not be on-board.

I was also going to note a number of factors that seem to me to preclude the development of a civil society in majority Muslim states -- to develop a civil society, you need to feel a sense of autonomy, an independence from paying homage to a local chieftain; lack of corruption; no hierarchical power arrangements (equality); voluntary associations (not associations based on reasons of birth or ascriptive factors); reasoned/rational sets of beliefs, etc., etc. in other words, these factors have a very difficult time of gaining headway given the nature of Islam (top-down authority, ascriptive powers, tribal, closed, zenophobic, corrupt, irrational, superstitious, etc.) Thus, I don't see how "moderate" Islam is a solution to anything...

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".