Whoo-ee! Neocons at war with each other over Islam

Serious ideological and even personal divisions are appearing within the once collegial precincts of mainstream conservatism. First, as I wrote yesterday, there is the unprecedented split between mainstream conservatives who see America as nothing but a universal idea defined by indiscriminate openness to everyone in the world, and mainstream conservatives who, in shocked reaction against the Bush-Kennedy immigration bill, have begun moving toward a more traditionalist view of America as a distinct country and culture which needs to be careful about whom it admits as immigrants. The split has been nasty, with the universalists accusing the nationalists of nativism, rank bigotry, bad faith, and lack of patriotism, and the nationalists finding themselves under an assault from their fellow conservatives for the first time in their lives.

At the same time, a second split within mainstream conservative ranks has opened up with regard to the Islam question, as explained in an articleby Daniel Pipes. . On one side, the left-“conservatives,” represented by Joshua (“Apparachik”) Muravchik, support—or, at least, support having discussions and conferences with—those Muslims who seek the global reign of sharia so long as they don’t use violence to achieve it. On the other side, the liberal-“conservatives,” represented by Daniel Pipes, oppose—and oppose having conferences with—Muslims who seek global sharia even if they pursue it peacefully. The latter group of “conservatives” see themselves as realistic and hard-headed. They deride the first group of “conservatives” as naive and ignorant about Islamic realities, and even as suspiciously leftist; thus Pipes, sounding like an anti-neocon paleocon, sneakily mentions Muravchik’s background as past president of the Young People’s Socialist League—what’s next? Calling Muravchik a Trotskyite? The realists argue that instead of making alliances with “peaceful” radical Muslims, we must cultivate moderate Muslims as the civilized alternative to the radicals. The Pipes group also refers to sharia-believing Muslims as “Islamists” rather than as Muslims.

And there’s the problem. As bad as the sharia-supporting “conservatives” are, can we trust the judgment of “experts” on Islam who use the embarrassingly fake euphemism “Islamism” to describe what is in fact Islam? Will such people ever name a spade a spade, or will they go on forever pretending that Islam is not Islam, in order to avoid any confrontation with Islam? Even Michelle Malkin, a mere columnist not an Islam maven, had the good sense a year ago to see the phoniness of the word “Islamist” and to stop using it. But Pipes, America’s best known supposed scholar on Islam, regularly indulges in such verbal inanities, which are relatively tolerable only because what the Muravchik faction is saying is so much worse.

If Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and all that crew want people to see them as the genuine realist alternative to the pro-sharia Muravchikites, they will have to drop this “Islamist” nonsense and use words that correspond with reality.

What is the meaning of these two ideological splits? I have two observations. First, the fact that they have occurred is very good news. For decades, but especially since the 9/11 attack, the mainstream conservatives and neocons (hereinafter known collectively as the “establicons”) have formed a phalanx on immigration and on President Bush’s Islam policies that has prevented real debate from taking place on these and other crucial issues Therefore the breakup of the establicons into arguing factions promises the opening up of genuine political debate in this country.

Second, the two splits I’ve described are quite different from each other. In the first split, regarding national identity and immigration, the more conservative faction appears to be moving—not totally, but to a significant degree—toward a genuinely conservative (not neocon) position. But in the second split, concerning how to deal with Islam, both factions are still subject to leftist or liberal delusions. The Pipesian group is less deluded, because it recognizes that sharia is a threat to us whether it is imposed by force or peacefully; yet it is still deluded, because it catastrophically imagines that it is not Muslims who believe in sharia, but a fictional type of human being called “Islamists.” The Pipes group is suspicious of “Islamists,” meaning sharia believers, which is good, but is friendly to Islam overall, which is very bad, because, in its belief in the “good,” “moderate” Muslims, it will allow Islam to keep gaining numbers and power in the West, and when Islam gains power, it will not be “moderates” who have gained power, but the sharia believers. Therefore the only real difference that I see between the Muravchik group and the Pipes group is that the former will move the West faster toward Islamization, and the latter will move the West somewhat more slowly toward Islamization. But they are both moving the West toward Islamization.

—end of initial entry—

Maureen C. writes:

Bravo, Lawrence!!

Keep explaining why Islam/Sharia is an affront to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. values. You will prevail.

R. Davis writes:

Could you insert a link to anything by Joshua Muravchik where he discusses what you are referring to? I haven’t heard such a ridiculous proposal expressed anywhere before, least of all from a supposed conservative. He must be nuts, neonuts. I’m curious to see his reasoning. Thanks.

LA replies:

You should read the Pipes article that I linked, where Pipes explains his disagreement with Muravchik as follows:

Muravchik’s assessment of CSID draws on his observations at a conference he attended in 2006, which he found “an interesting mix” because it included liberals, Islamist-sympathizers, and Islamists. He explains:

I share Pipes’s suspicion of Islamists who profess democracy. But I don’t expect genuine Muslim democrats to blackball Islamists who call themselves democrats. I expect them to argue with them. Which is exactly what was going on at the CSID conference. … The CSID looked to me precisely like an arena in which “moderates” were confronting Islamists. What sense does it make to anathematize that as “consorting with the enemy?”

The point is that Muravchik, though he professes himself suspicious of “peaceful” Islamists, that is, people who believe in the lawful and peaceful spread of sharia, sees nothing wrong with having discussions with them. Pipes by contrast thinks any Islamists are our enemies and puts his hopes in the moderates.

Here is Muravchik’s blog entry linked in Pipes’s article.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 06, 2007 05:54 PM | Send