Monday, December 18, 2006

The Great Divorce

It looks like Muslims had really better start worrying because I am seeing the idea of Separation being discussed in more and more mainstream circles.

Here, CrunchyCon, Rod Dreher, wrestles with the notion of Separationism:

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.

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.

Go read the whole thing.


Anonymous said...

"2. But we cannot destroy Islam."
Its demographics have been exaggerated. Its birth rates are higher but falling faster than ours. It will destroy itself.

"3. Nor can we democratize Islam."
No, but we can democratize the nations which Islam is in. It just takes time, education and exposure to our corrosive decadent western ways and ideas as well as exposure or the real Islam to the world and to Muslims who are unaware of what the religion really is. Not every Islamic nation can be democratized by regime change but not every one needs to be. Keep the political pressure on, the cameras rolling and the war of ideas can push the front line back one pace at a time.

Both the West and Islam are dieing in the face of global civilization as are other cultures. Islam is reacting with anger and denial to this knowledge while the west simply does not understand. But we will be the winners by dieing more slowly than Islam and leaving more of an impact on the future global civilization.

Pastorius said...

Anonymous has been reading his Spengler.

The one thing Spengler does not take into account (when it comes to this part of his theory) is that while it might be true that Islam is dying, it will take several generations for that descendancy to occur.

But, Islam will be loaded with nuclear weapons long before that.

Snouck said...

I agree Pastorius,

Islam may have its problems, but then again all civilisations have their problems and down turns.

We should not put too much faith in such hopes. Islam will certainly not implode when it is on the verge of taking over societies of historical enemies.

The possession of nuclear weapons gives Islam a new ability to intimidate and destroy. Because the West has gotten used to an easy life without having to make real sacrifices or choices, it would seem seem to many Westerners that giving in is the best option and let the coming generation deal with the suffering and dishonour that goes with it.

What the West needs, is a Western group that shows a path to survival, a path that offers hope.

Clearing Western societies of Muslims would cause great distress to Muslims because they feel they will inherit our lands soon.

Breaking this image of the glorious future they think they see, will have a depressing effect on Muslims in a similar way to how the endless carnage in Iraq has a dampening effect on the spirits of Westerners who were deceived by the idea that there was a possibility of America imposed freedom on the Middle East.