Western societies don't need to worry only about actual terrorists - the people who strap on bombs and blow themselves up. We also need to worry about those who teach the religious doctrines which inspire the terrorists, those who provide the financing for the terrorists networks and those who give the terrorist cause legitimacy by repeating their anti-Western rhetoric and rubbing shoulders with terrorist organizations like Hamas.
But what is a moderate Muslim anyway? Shapiro gets it exactly right.
Liberals simply don't understand the Muslim world. They're under the bizarre misimpression that if a Muslim isn't actively strapping a bomb to his chest, he's a "moderate." By that standard, Imam Rauf -- the man behind the ground zero mosque -- is moderate, despite the fact that he refuses to condemn Hamas, associates with terrorist funders and anti-Semites, and believes that United States foreign policy was responsible for 9/11.
The truth is that there are three groups of Muslims: those who are terrorists; those who agree with terrorists and support them with money, rhetoric or time; and those who are truly moderate. Only group three is worth cultivating. And group three would never have the gall to build a mosque at ground zero, let alone preach to the American public about their supposed racism for opposing such a mosque.
Once we accept that there are three groups of Muslims instead of two and that the second group is in many ways as dangerous as the first, we are ready to have an serious, adult debate about the Ground Zero Mosque. The issue is whether Imam Rauf and his mysterious backers belong to the third group or to the second.
If it turns out (as a great deal of factual evidence seems to indicate) that Rauf is clearly in the second group, it should be a no brainer that he should be ostracized, hounded, opposed and shamed into retreating. In fact, if Rauf really is in the second category, building the mosque (or whatever they are calling it this week) would be a second victory for Islamism at the same site.
Posts
2 comments:
Hi Dr. Carter,
I think that you are in the right direction with the different levels of moderation. I think though that there is a lot more groups than this. I think there are Arabs such as in Saudi Arabia who want to take over the West but in a different way then through terrorism. I think they want control of our economy and desire to build superior mosques in the West. I think they hate America but they also love America's capitalism and even their vices. They do not care to blow up buildings but to own all of America's prize possesions or play such a financial part in the West that the West has to bow before them. They get their kicks out of Bush holding the Prince Saudi's hands or Obama bowing before the princes of the Saudi kingdom rather than gettin their hands dirty with terrorism (which I think they sometimes support just to get the terrorists off of bombing them like they bomb the West!).
There are other examples as well. Islam is simply to pluralistic to confine under a few groups. This is the problem with the West and why they cannot defeat Radicalism. They are not fighting a clear-cut enemy like the Nazi's and the Commies. They cannot tell whose moderate from radical in Afghanistan nor American soil.
The only way for them to be able to do so is by teaming up with clear moderates of Islam and have them spill the beans on the Islamic world in private so they will feel secure and protected by the West. We need to embolden the moderates and give them a platform without threatening their security (and perhaps identity).
Darnell,
You are right in your observations. There are some people doing exactly what you call for: moderate Muslims teaming up with Westerners to shine a light on radicalism. See Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books "Nomad" and "Infidel" and Ibn Warraq's "Defending the West." Also, see this site: http://www.islam-watch.org/IbnWarraq/Fascism.htm
Post a Comment