Better safe than sorry

Submitted by Octavio Johanson (Italy), Oct 15, 2006 at 05:22

When I said "I don't like Muslims", I knew that someone, especially Muslims, would find that racist and offensive. In London, the Anti-Nazi League would beat me up for saying that. But it had to be said. If you go back to one of the items on this web-site "Intimidating the West, from Rushdie to Benedict", you will see how criticism of Muslims has become almost impossible. Well, of course, you should say "I don't like radical Muslims", or I don't like "Muslim extremists", as opposed to generalizing about such a large group of people. But we live in a time where we have no time for hair-splitting about moderates and radicals. Of course, it is the radicals I have a problem with. It is not the moderates. But how do you distinguish between the former and the latter? Is it always possible? Moderate Muslims will know that I am not talking about them. Nobody has declared war, but we are de facto at war with Militant Islam. Under the circumstances, we have got to talk about Muslims as a monolithic body. Either that, or hide behind the word "terror". Londonistan is at fault, because it allowed people like Abu Hamza to prosper. Is it racist to criticize Abu Hamza?

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".