Why Westerners must believe that democracy is the solution to Islam’s problems

An American who is a long-time resident of England has grasped very well the nature of the West’s false position regarding Islam. He writes:

Here’s the core of the problem regarding Islam and democracy: Until the Judaic-Christian West (what remains of it) realises and admits we are at war with Islam and not just jihadist Islam (or secularised, Sadaamist, Islam) we are going to get the b—-s—- spouted about democracy being the solution for the problems of Muslim countries. Algeria clearly proved that democracy was not the solution. Islam won a democratic election there and would have destroyed any vestiges of democracy in the name of Islamic democracy. But even that example supports the idea that jihadist Islam is the problem not Islam itself. The Rushdie affair should have shown to the world that all Muslims can be a danger. [See discussion below on what he means by this.] And the London bombings (as you’ve said) and attempted bombings should have shown the world that democracy will not stop Islamic terrorism.

But the post-Judaic-Christian West is not remotely ready to identify the real problem. It is so stuck in its self-hating apologetic (if you’ve got a better word please fill it in) mindset that even when the problem of Islam stares the West in the face, it has to “buffer” it by first calling its response a “war on terror,” then, when confronted by constant Islamic violence, a war on jihadist Islam. But the truth is far from that. The truth is that we are at war with a religion called Islam. Most Western non-Muslim people know that but few can admit it. And that step of declaring war on Islam, just as we did on Communism and Fascism before it, is absolutely necessary if we are going to deal truly with the problem. Like a junkie admitting he takes heroin, the West can’t bring itself to identify Islam itself as the problem. Not remotely. And until it does, the muddle will continue, with false solutions like “democratisation” or “wars on terror” (which produce jihadist-style and anti-Western regimes in most cases where Muslims are the majority) to patch up the wounds.

Meanwhile the “moderate” Muslim leaders going to White House and Downing Street dinners are laughing in their plates as the West thinks it is pacifying the problem. This problem is going to go on endlessly until the West looks Islam in the eye and says: YOU ARE THE PROBLEM AND WE WILL DEAL WITH YOU BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

If I may add to this excellent statement, our dilemma comes down to the core Western liberal belief in amelioration. As long as we believe that there is some solution, such as democracy, to Islam’s problems, then we can go on believing that Islam itself is not the problem. But to believe that Islam itself is the problem would be to reject the core axioms of liberalism, that all people are essentially alike and can get along, that there are no enemies, and that there is, ultimately, no evil. It would mean that we must regard a fifth of the human race as a danger to ourselves for all future time (or for as long as they continue to be Muslims), and deal with them accordingly. And this would mean nothing less than the death of liberalism. Which is why I say that since 9/11 we are in the apocalypse of liberalism.

I asked the reader what he meant by the Rushdie affair showing all Muslims could be a danger. He answered:

Polls showed that a huge percentage of Muslim males around the world from East to West thought Rushdie should die for his “offense.” The most “moderate” and “tolerant” of Muslims here in the West suddenly showed their cards when push came to shove. Just because of an author (a Muslim!) exercising free speech in imagining Muhammed’s life in a book. All sorts of Muslims were prepared to execute this author: Young and old, educated and not educated, practicing believers and non-practicing secular, rich and poor, male and female supported the execution of Rushdie and many were prepared to do the act themselves. I have two moderate progressive Muslim friends and both thought Rushdie must die (one has since changed his views).

So as opposed to other recent scenarios where jihadist Muslims acted violently but many “moderate” Muslims condemned that behaviour (9/11 and 7/7 spring to mind), the Rushdie affair involved almost all Muslims (around the world) behaving savagely (or prepared to behave savagely) by Western standards. The irony that Muslims who had come to the West for the rights to “free speech” (among other reasons) were now prepared to not only deny that same free speech to one of their own but execute him seemed not to faze them. Incredible! And though Rushdie wasn’t killed he had to go into hiding and his books were burned as well as many bookshops being threatened if they didn’t withdraw “Satanic Verses.” Many western chattering class liberals were shocked. The same seemingly progressive Muslims with whom they had sided with in condemning Western Imperialism and U.S. foreign policy while sitting in cafes and sitting rooms were all of a sudden exposed as slaves to an intolerant ideology, prepared to kill a well known intellectual author. And this barbaric view was supported by the most progressive of Muslims. Because in the end most supported Islamic ideology in a very literal way and were prepared to commit barbaric acts in the name of it.

This affair showed the danger of Islam and Muslims very clearly. The barbaric demand of the Islamic religion (kill anyone who might be seen to insult the Prophet Muhammed) coupled with its Muslim followers’ (from every part of life West and East) willingness to defend the Prophet in the most violent of ways came together in a lethal cocktail in this affair. Muslims were shown to think and act as savages in the name of Islam. All because an author said something they didn’t like about Muhammed.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 20, 2005 09:14 AM | Send