If Muslims are not following the rules, then what?

A reader writes:

I’m listening to Melanie Phillips on the Michael Medved radio program and she keeps saying that Muslims are welcome if they obey the rules. She didn’t say what would happen if Muslims didn’t play by the rules…. would she be for mass expulsions. She was asked about the “numbers” but did not respond directly. I wish you or I were interviewing her, Medved is too soft on her. Show may be repeated on Saturday morn repeats at 3 to 6 a.m. Eastern time but not sure.

LA replies:

This is the fallacious argument constantly used by conservative immigration supporters that I have called “the appeal to a non-existent condition.” The typical example is, “I support immigration, on the condition that the immigrants assimilate.” The argument makes it sound as if the speaker’s support for immigration is conditioned on the fulfillment of an objective standard, when in fact the support is subject to no standard at all. Those who employ this argument never say, “The proof that the immigrants are assimilating is such and such. And if that standard is not met by such and such time, I would withdraw my support for immigration.” The question of whether Muslims are assimilating is left forever open.

However, getting back to Phillips, I would go beyond asking her, “If Muslims don’t play by the rules, what would you do?” Instead, I would say, “Are the 24 percent of Muslims in Britain who according to a recent poll support terrorism playing by rules? They’re not, right? So your condition has already been tested and found wanting for at least that 24 percent. There is no “if” about it. According to your criterion, then, 24 percent of Muslims in the UK are not welcome. What do you propose doing about these unwelcome people?” Such a question, cutting through the “ifs” and the conditional states of being to actual reality, would reveal that Melanie didn’t mean what she was saying. She would not call for removing 24 percent of Muslims from the UK. She was just throwing words around to make herself sound stern. And it doesn’t cost her a thing—or rather it doesn’t cost her a thing so long as nobody calls her on it. And in the world of mainstream “conservatism” nobody ever does.

The above comments are not meant to single out Phillips for particular criticism. She is a person of genuine intelligence, courage, and moral passion. But neoconservatives (and as a liberal opponent of multiculturalism she is a kind of neocon) have been using these self-serving, phony arguments for years when it comes to immigration. It’s long past time for them to be called on it. Put up or shut up.

Reader replies:

Well put and your last paragraph adds a touch of class. Melanie’s arguments sound so impressive and unfortunately are so unimpressive upon inspection. Because she like so many other liberal conservatives (even Michael Savage) are obsessed with differentiating the Muslim masses from Radical Fundamentalist Islam no matter how clear it is that the majority of Muslims will act just like those radicals when a “situation” hits. The Rushdie, Cartoons and Pope affairs have clearly shown us that so called “moderate” Muslims will behave in a barbaric oppressive way under the right circumstances.

It is time for Pipes, Melanie, Steyn, Hanson, Savage and all the other star commentators to stop playing their self deluding game that if only this small minority of Muslims known as radical Muslims would disappear all would be well in Kansas. Well, Dorothy, you and Toto are lucky that you’re out of Kansas because all the “moderate” Muslims there want to live under Sharia Law. And Aunt Em has converted to Islam and is wearing a burqua.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 18, 2006 07:22 PM | Send