Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to NewsvineWe separationists affirm the following:
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.
5. Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.
Other writers who might be called separationists include Serge Trifkovic, Diana West, Randall Parker, the Norwegian blogger Fjordman, and Hugh Fitzgerald. Of course, each of these writers has his or her own emphases, and I don’t wish to impose an unwanted label on anyone. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is a common core of ideas among the writers mentioned, and “separationism” would be as good a way to describe it as any.
Hmm. I believe 1, 2, 3 and 4, with caveats. First, Islam is only a mortal threat to our civilization in its current form. It has been a mortal threat in centuries past, whenever Islam has been powerful in relation to the West. It was not a mortal threat for most of the 20th century. But technological advancements (e.g., the development and dissemination of WMD technologies) and economic realities (e.g., the rise of Mideast petroleum states), Islam appears to be waxing once again as a threat to the West. Second, we cannot democratize Islam, that only Islam can democratize itself, and I see no reason to believe that Muslim nations seeking democracy mean democracy in a form unthreatening to the West. Third, I believe that we can only assimilate Islam to the extent that assimilated Muslims become significantly less devoted to the core doctrines of their faith. If I were a practicing Muslim, I would not be willing to trade the core truths of my faith for the sake of being a "tame" Westerner.
Of course there certainly are many Muslims who live here and are absolutely no threat at all, and it's awful that they face suspicion and ostracization because of the actions of the radicals. They don't worry me a bit; what worries me is that I have not seen within Islam anything within its theological structure that says the Islamic fundamentalists -- are essentially wrong in what they say Islam requires of believers. I am therefore, to restate, concerned that Muslims can only substantially assimilate if they become less essentially Muslim. A hundred, three hundred years from now, perhaps worldwide Islam will have evolved and figured a way to reconcile liberal democracy with Islam. But we don't live in that world now, and I do wonder if Britain, seeing how radicalized so many younger native-born Muslims there are now, would have been so quick to open the doors to their parents' generation, which worked reasonably well, I think, within the existing system. I'd feel a lot better about prospects if leading American Muslim organizations weren't so radical.
But I can't affirm No. 5, though I freely admit that I don't know whether the premises don't support the conclusion, or whether it's because I don't want it to be true. Which, if it's the latter, is pathetic. Anyway, how does a civilization that is so utterly dependent on a substance that comes primarily from Islamic countries decide that it's not going to have anything to do with those countries, beyond the barest minimum?
Thoughts? If premises one through four are more or less correct, is five therefore true?
Subscribe
Comments
Too many frame the problem as an either/or construction. Either we begin deporting all muslims, cut off oil purchases from islamic states and bunker down for war, or we accept the inevitable, permanent growing presence of Islam and muslims in the west. Why is this so? Why are there only either/or alternatives? Assuming we agree that premises 1 through 4 do hold, at least to a large extent, can't we take some common sense, palliative measures in the short term that don't necessarily include the extremes (deportations, war, cessation of energy purchases from muslim states - an impossible and absurd proposition, being that oil is a fungible commodity- etc.). For instance, their is no recognized universal human right to emmigrate to whatever country one wishes. Sorry, this is just a fact of law and established morality. If the west completely shut down immigration from muslim countries for, say, the next 50 years we would go a good way towards solivng most of the problems we have with Islam. AFter 50 years we could sit back and then determine if Islam has managed to moderate itself to some degree in its posture towards the west. The presence of muslims in the west is not now so large that the west's future is stricty determined by this islamic presence, but if current immigration trends continue, within 50 years it will be so.
It seems to me that those who frame the problem in either/or scenarios are not serious about solving the problem. They, in fact, don't want it solved. They fear commonsensical, moderate resolve, because they know it will succeed, so they always propose these drastic, extreme scenarios, as a spur to inaction. Are we foolish to take the bait that they lay out for us? Our Islam problem is actually quite simple to solve: just cut off the source from whence the problem arises. Islam will wither and palliate itself for no other reason than that it must in order to survive as a minority creed in a western society. Simple solutions, why can't it be acted upon?>
Posted by: Daniel | December 13, 2006 6:04 PM
Number me among the separationists. There is no other solution. And it will be bitter medicine to effect it.>
Posted by: Caedmon | December 13, 2006 11:32 PM
At this time, espousing a separation seems so radical, and rather inhumane. Mr. Dreher and others shrink back from the concluding point #5 because it seems a terrible, and inhumane, thing to do. It seems radical, almost like a global apartheit. But if Mr. Dreher and those other humane people were to talk to the young women in Oslo who dye their hair dark in an attempt to avoid rape, or to the Swedes of Malmo who are moving out of their own city because they are tired of being robbed and of the "no-go" zone, or to many, many others who have found they simply can not live in peace when the number of Moslems in their midst crosses some threshold...perhaps they would reconsider. There already exists in Europe two cultures, one embracing the Enlightenment, the other clinging to Sharia. This pattern is emerging in the US, too. Why Islam is what it is fills many books, some of them over a century old. But it is, indeed, what it is, and all the Rumi-poetry will not change the unpleasant reality of Koran, Hadith, and Suna. Yes, there are humane Moslems; I know some of them. But to the degree that a Moslem becomes humane, he or she becomes less and less of a Moslem. The reverse is also true; one who clings to the Koran in its literal, never-to-be-altered way, and to the Hadith, and to the life of Mohammed, becomes less and less humane to those that are not fellow Moslems. The history is there, for those who choose to look at it.
Looking at the demographic trends, and the cultural trends, reading what the Jihad supporters believe and why they believe it, I come to the conclusion that in 25 years or less, either there will be separation, or there will be a war without mercy fought on every continent except Antarctica. At that point, separationism will be seen as the lukewark, "squishy" and humane alternative, I fear.>
Posted by: AntiDhimmi | December 14, 2006 4:27 AM
It is not only political correctness and multiculturalism that prevent open discussion of separation of the West from Islam. The West is plagued by altruism - behaviour that promotes the survival chances of others at a cost to ones own. We are so concerned about the plight of Muslims - Muslims dominate the poorest and most backward countries on Earth - that we will sacrifice our identity, our culture, our freedoms to accomodate them. This fits perfectly with the Islamic dictate that the infidels feeled subdued and humiliated and forced to pay a special poll tax for protection from harm. Altruists fit the dhimmi profile of submission perfectly. What do we owe the Muslim world? The mythical Andalusia of tolerance and enlightenment. Queen Isabella ended the reign of the Sultans, and banned Islam in Spain completely in 1492, giving the Muslims the choice, leave or convert. Most left. But now it's different. The philosophy has changed. For 1300 years, Muslims were told not to live as minorities in infidel lands, then the 20th century religious scholars of Jihad changed strategy. They promoted Muslim immigration to dar al harb as long as the Muslims were true to Islam in their hearts, taqiyya and kitman were the methods. It is impossible to be a good Muslim and have allegiance to the infidel state. Sure you have bad Muslims who pick and choose what they want of Islam (and the pickings get slim except for all that ritual crap) ignoring jihad and hatred of the nonbeliever. The problem is that a bad Muslim, apple pie and all that, can quickly become a pious Muslim who wants to act upon Mohammad's command to war against the infidel until they are subdued and humiliated, converted or are killed. All those earlier verses about 'to each his own religion', etc, they are all naskh, abrogated. Look it up. You may want to point that out to one of those All American Muslims who points out one of those 3 or 4 verses that seem amenable, nask, abrogated by verses like 48.9, 9.5, etc.
Probably the best compilation of scholarly work by Muslim scholars on jihad, and what it means to Muslims and the infidels (dhimmitude), read Andrew Bostom's Legacy of Jihad. Most major libraries have the book.>
Posted by: John Sobieski | December 14, 2006 6:28 AM
The comment above pretty much sums up my opinion. I only half-jokingly suggest that we trade Israel for peace -- let all of the Israel Jews immigrate here and give up Israel and, in return, force all of the Muslims currently in this country to emmigrate to the new "Palestine." Then disengage from the Middle East and Muslim world (except to the extent that either of us wishes to be trading partners) with the parting warning that any "mischief-making" on the part of Islamic radicals will be met with the swiftest and ugliest of punishment.>
Posted by: TTSSYF | December 14, 2006 11:52 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?