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:
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?
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.
9/11 proved that we are not and cannot prtoect ourselves fro outside attack.
ReplyDeleteour vulnerability can only increase as wmd proliferate. and missiles.
the only answer is defeating the enemy; breaking the enemy.
relegating it to ther dustbin of history.
that will not require we kill every Msulim. just every militant one.
and close dopwn forever all the militant madrassas and mosques and kill or imprison all the radical imams/mullahs.
overthrowing iran and stira are necessary - BUT ONLY THE START.
as there are perhaps 200 MILLION radical militant jihadists and jihadoterror sympathizers this is obviously a longterm/multi-generational project.
separation/expulsion/"ethnic cleansing" may be a small part in some select areas.
but we can and should be more targeted/focused in our counter-attack.
and we mist tolerate shia-sunni violence along the way: it's good -- like the iran-iraq war: they kill each other like a self-cleaning overn.
as i posted many weeks ago...
Pastorius,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting the link to Rod Dreher's blog -- you beat me to it!
His description of the meeting with local Dallas Muslim leaders at the Dallas Morning news was very concerning. Here are three more paragraphs from his account:
"At the Dallas Morning News the other day, our editorial board received a delegation from the local Muslim community. They came in large part to complain about editorial coverage of the community, which is to say they came mostly to complain about me. Which is fine: they accurately recognize that I don't believe their claims that they are completely innocent of radicalism, and are wholly victims of irrational fear of Muslims. Once again, I came away from a meeting with them even more convinced of my views in this regard. I recorded the entire meeting, and hope to have the time in the next week or so to post lengthy excerpts. In summation, though, the group was defensive, evasive, and wouldn't give a straight answer to simple questions.
"I asked the delegation's leader to clarify something he'd said to me and some colleagues last time we met, about his belief that homosexuals should be killed, adulterous women stoned, etc. He launched an elaborate defense of this position, saying that Judaism and Christianity are against homosexuality. Yes, I said, but they don't require that gays be killed for being gay. Do you believe that they should? An imam jumped in to explain why the sharia is right to require hand-chopping of thieves. Later, the delegation's leader said that if I'm asking him to apologize for what his religion requires, he's not going to do it.
"Trying to get at the heart of the matter, I asked if they thought sharia should be the law of the land in our secular pluralistic democracy. Another round of long-winded answers, amounting to, "It would never happen here." That's not what I'm asking, I said; should it happen here. Someone explained that Muslim community would never be big enough in this country to make that happen. Which is, of course, entirely beside the point, but we moved on. I had my answer."
Did you get that? "An imam jumped in to explain why the sharia is right to require hand-chopping of thieves."
This is a big problem.
You should post on that here, Punditarian. That's important to note. I didn't want my post to get too long, so I left that part out.
ReplyDelete