Ok, we know the truth about Islam—now what?
(Below, we discuss Robert Spencer’s advocacy of U.S. asylum for Muslim women fleeing female genital mutilation.)
Things thought too long can be no longer thought.In his interview last week with Rush Limbaugh, excerpted by Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch, Andrew McCarthy explains how, as the lead federal prosecutor in the Blind Sheikh terrorism case in the 1990s, he started off thinking that the defendant had perverted Islam, then came to realize that the truth was otherwise:
In fact, the whole experience in watching the dynamic of him and other people in the Muslim community throughout the trial was a real eye-opener for me. I wanted to believe in 1993 the stuff that we were putting out, you know, that he basically perverted what was otherwise a peaceful doctrine. But what I found going through all of his thousands of pages of transcripts and statements, was that when he cited scripture to justify acts of terrorism, to the extent he was quoting scripture or referring to it, he did it accurately, which shouldn’t be a surprise…As recounted in the first paragraph quoted above, McCarthy had the single most important insight that anyone can have about Islam in its relationship with non-Muslims. It is that jihad against non-believers is a 1,400 year old continuum, that Muslim jihadists and terrorists in the late 20th and early 21st century are following the original holy war commands of the Koran, Hadiths, and Islamic law—the same commands that their forebear jihadists were following 300 and 600 and 1,200 years ago. Which means that jihad is not some accidental offshoot or neurotic distortion of “good, peaceful, tolerant” Islam. Jihad is intrinsic to Islam, and will remain so as long as Islam exists. It is remarkable that McCarthy had this insight in the early 1990s, years before the legacy of jihad was a twinkle in Andy Bostom’s eye.
At the same time, despite the validity and importance of McCarthy’s and other Islam critics’ insights, I have to say that I’m so tired of this. I know that Islam is our adversary. I don’t need to read more articles persuading me of that fact. I don’t want to wade through endless further discussions arguing for and against the idea that Islam is a program aimed at our subjugation and destruction. We say we’re in a war, and we keep grandiloquently comparing this war to World War II. After Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, after Germany conquered Norway, the Low Countries, and France in May and June of 1940, after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, after Germany declared war on the U.S. on December 9, 1941, did it take five, ten, fifteen years of endless chatter by intellectuals for the U.S. to realize that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were—duh—its enemies? So I’m not interested in more talk making the case that Islam is our enemy. I want us to start defending ourselves from this enemy.
I’m also not interested in reading Robert Spencer say for the ten thousandth time, “I’m still waiting for a moderate Muslim with real authority in the Islamic community to oppose jihadist teachings and thus prove the existence of a genuine moderate Islam, I’m still waiting, still waiting … gosh, they’ve disappointed me again …”
Enough suggesting, hinting, dancing around, even proving the ineluctable centrality of jihad in Islam. Things said too long can be no longer said. It is time for the Islam critics, the Spencers, the Bawers, the Bostoms, the Bill Warners, the Bat Ye’ors, the Phillipses, the McCarthys, to go beyond establishing the fact that Islam is a danger to us, and instead focus their intellectual energies on what we should do about this danger.
I have a great deal of respect for the work Robert Spencer has done. But just when he seems to be coming to his senses regarding immigration he comes up with the following. This refers to a woman student from Mali, who underwent FGM and facing an arranged marriage, is now seeking asylum.LA replies:
Exactly. Spencer has just enunciated a principle by which every girl and woman in the Islamic world who is facing FGM and doesn’t want it would have a free ticket to the U.S., plus the instant welfare, housing, and everything else that comes with refugee/asylee status, plus the door open to all of her relatives. How many females in the world face FGM? Multiply that times all their relatives, and you have tens of millions of Muslims that Spencer would like to give instant access to the United States. Oh, and what about all the girls and women in the Muslim world facing forced marriages they don’t want? By Spencer’s logic, shouldn’t they be given asylum? And what about all the girls and women in the Muslim world facing honor killing because they attach themselves to a man not acceptable to her family? Given our devotion to the equal dignity of all human beings, an ideal Spencer continually invokes, musn’t we also give them all asylum?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 04, 2008 11:42 PM | Send