WHY THE MUSLIM SILENCE ON IRAN'S HOLOCAUST DENIAL?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks, in a Los Angeles Times editorial, could it be that the reason for the Islamic world's silence is because it's leaders have always been the perpetrators of this revisionist history in the first place?

Could the answer be as simple as it is horrifying: For generations, the leaders of these so-called Muslim countries have been spoon-feeding their populations a constant diet of propaganda similarto the one that generations of Germans (and other Europeans) were fed — that Jews are vermin and should be dealt with as such?

Melanie Phillips comments:

The Muslim Council of Britain has not said anything about the Iranian denial of the Holocaust, let alone Ahmadinejad’s declared intention to repeat the exercise.

Good point, Melanie. And, come to think of it, CAIR has not condemned Iran's Holocaust Denial Conference either. In fact, I don't think any Muslim organization of any signifigant size, anywhere in the world, has spoken out against Iran's Jew-hatred. What does this tell you?

There is not a single Muslim political organizations, media outlet, academic institution, or government, of any appreciable size, anywhere in the world, which is moderate. As far as I can tell, this means we have absolutely no partner for peace.

Rod Dreher, the CrunchyCon from the Dallas Morning News, seems to have come to the same conclusion, although he says he is having trouble actually admitting it to himself:

Lawrence Auster notes this blog's discussion of his idea that the West must separate itself from Islam, for its own self-defense. Earlier, I'd written that I more or less accept his first four premises:

1. Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.
2. But we cannot destroy Islam.
3. Nor can we democratize Islam.
4. Nor can we assimilate Islam. ...

but I can't get to the conclusion:

Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

I acknowledged in my earlier post that I can't reach that conclusion in part because I don't want it to be true -- and that if that's my prime reason, it's intellectually indefensible. Wanting something to be true, or untrue, doesn't make it so. I'm still thinking about it, because the premise of Auster's that I wrestle with is No. 4, which holds that Islam cannot be assimilated. I doubt it can, but I hope it can, because if not, I see no reason why Auster's conclusion is wrong.

Thing is, if there are no moderate Muslim organizations of any appreciable size, anywhere in the world, then this means moderate Muslims have no representative political voice anywhere in the world. And, of course, this means, barring a miracle, there is no hope for change.

Does that mean separation is the only answer? Does this mean we are in for a future of internment, and deportation?

Gerard, of American Digest, posits that an even more extreme future lies ahead of us (although he does so in a cutesy, right-hand-doesn't-know-what-the-left-hand-is-doing manner).

Can you say "Genocide"? Gerard can ... kind of.