Blankley calls bin Laden an orthodox Muslim

In August of last year when Tony Blankley endorsed the term “Islamofascism” as the correct description of our enemies, I questioned whether a 20th century European ideology, fascism, could really describe the 1,400 year old religion and political ideology of Islam. I asked Blankley, among other things, whether the religion that Muhammad founded was “Islamofascism,” or just Islam. If he founded Islam, with its commandment to jihad, sharia, and all the rest of it, then, I said, what is the difference between Islam and Islamofascism? And if there is no difference, why make up this new, artificial word for our enemy, “Islamofascism,” when there is a perfectly good word already in existence, namely “Islam”?

Blankley didn’t reply. I was surprised and disappointed, since we had had a courteous occasional correspondence for the last three or so years and he had previously praised some of my comments on Islam.

But now Blankley has published a column in which he adopts the view of his moderate Muslim friend Akbar Ahmed who has just done a study of attitudes throughout the whole Muslim world. Describing Ahmed’s views, Blankley writes:

Deoband represents non-fatalistic, practical, action-oriented orthodox Islam…. The Deobands are the Bin Ladens and all the other Muslims we fear today.

If bin Ladin represents a type of orthodox Islam, as Blankley now writes, then our enemies are not “Islamo-fascists,” are they? They are Muslims. Blankley has undercut his rationale for calling radical Muslims Islamo-fascists.

Blankley continues:

Although I dissent from several of Dr. Ahmed’s characterizations of the Bush Administration, Washington policymakers and journalists should read this book because it delivers a terrible message of warning both to those who say things aren’t as bad as Bush says, and we can rely on the moderate voices of Islam—with a little assist from the West—winning; and for those who argue for aggressive American action to show our strength to the Muslims (because, in Bin Laden’s words, they follow the strong horse).

To the first group he says that the “moderate” voice is in near hopeless retreat across the Muslim world. Don’t count on them. To the second group he says, whatever Bush’s intentions, our aggression only strengthens our enemies.

Now, if there is no hope in “moderate” Islam, and if aggressive interference in Islamic countries only feeds bin Ladin-type extremism, what is left?

The answer is the answer I have been proposing for a few years now: separation. Since we cannot democratize Islam, and we cannot destroy Islam, and we cannot assimilate Islam, we must isolate Islam from the rest of the world. This means rolling back the Muslim presence from the West, and containing Muslims within the Muslim world. It means that we stop trying to reform and democratize Muslims, and instead take away their ability and opportunity to Islamize us. I sum up these ideas in my article, “Separationism.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 02, 2007 10:28 PM | Send