Searching in the light

Islam critics who warn that the growth of Islam in this country is a mortal danger to our entire way of life, but who at the same time decline to call for a reduction (let alone a cessation or reversal) of Islamic immigration, are obviously contradicting themselves. Indeed, not only do these Islam critics not urge Muslim immigration reduction, most of the time they never even refer to it as a possibility; worse, most of the time they never even mention the fact that it is only because of immigration that millions of Muslims are living among us in the first place. On the rare occasions when these Usual Suspects, as we call them at VFR, discuss their refusal to address the issue of Muslim immigration reduction, they justify their refusal on the ground that society is not “ready” to hear this message, that there is no political consensus for such a step, and that for a person to advocate such a thing would marginalize him and end his effective participation in mainstream discussion of the Islam problem. Of course this begs the question, how does any point of view gain support, other than by people arguing for it and standing for it?

Instead of pushing the only solution that can actually protect us from Islamization, the Suspects push transparent palliatives, such as a screening system that would keep jihad supporters out of America while letting all other Muslims in (Robert Spencer), or the forming of small discussion groups of concerned citizens to talk about how really bad Islam is (Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam), or getting in the jihadists’ faces wherever we see them (Michelle Malkin, in her “John Doe Manifesto,” in which she provides a long list of mostly rhetorical, chest-pounding postures we should take against the Muslims among us, except for the obvious measure of preventing more Muslims from coming here, and she doesn’t even mention the possibility of deporting non-citizen jihadists). In brief, the Suspects are telling us that we must do these OTHER things, which will NOT solve the problem, because advocating the one thing that WILL solve the problem seems too difficult or unpleasant.

The Suspects’ flawed logic is illustrated by the following famous story about Mulla Nasrudin:

One evening a friend of Nasrudin’s came to visit him. He saw Nasrudin crawling on the ground looking for something. Nasrudin said that he had lost a valuable coin. The friend knelt down to help Nasrudin look for the money. After they had crawled all over the yard, Nasrudin’s friend asked, “Exactly where did you drop the money?” I dropped it in the house,” answered Nasrudin, “But we cannot look for the money in there. It’s much too dark.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 30, 2007 02:04 PM | Send