A reader discovers Steyn’s flagrant contradictions on Islam
Robert in Nashville writes:
I continue to learn from your site and also enjoy the exchanges you post. I have read your numerous observations [see this and this] about Mark Steyn’s baffling refusal to conclude the obvious about the Islam problem. It was not until I read his book America Alone that this jumped out to me and I thought, this is exactly what Lawrence Auster has been pointing out.
For example. on page 173, he notes that it is not enough that we give freedom to Iraq; they have to want it badly enough to stick with it. “If they don’t want it, that’s their problem, not America’s.” So, I think he is saying that we, the West, cannot give anyone freedom, each people has to win it on their own. But no. For he then says, “while this idea may be philosophically admirable [and he never says it is not true], nature abhors a vacuum.” Therefore, we have to export our values after all. But why, if the Iraqi’s must first want it enough to fight for it themselves?
And then there is his closed box of three choices only, which you have pointed out: (1). Submit to Islam; (2) Destroy Islam; (3) Reform Islam. After dismissing no. 1 and no. 2, he says this leaves only no. 3. But then he says. “which is not ours to do. Ultimately, only Muslims can reform Islam.” But then, wait, he goes on to present a plan that we must do anyway, not to reform Islam, but what? To “Create conditions that increase the likelihood of Muslim reform.” This plan consists of the ten things the West must do so that the Muslims cannot/will not do themselves and which we cannot do for them! Never fear, his ten point plan will reform Islam. Yet, this is not us reforming Islam…?
And to your point, his entire focus of options is on the reform of Islam, NOT on the West protecting itself from Islam, which would be actually doable and does not depend upon Moslems deciding on whether might ever want to reform, i.e. reject the concept of jihad, dhimmi, jiza poll tax, etc. “There are three possible resolutions to the present struggle.” (p. 205.) Because “we” cannot reform Islam, Only Moslems can. Therefore: We must try and change Islam anyway! Am I missing something or is this a contradiction? Finally, so we must try to increase the likelihood. And in the meantime? And if we can’t? Or if there are still some fellows not interested out there? Zero discussion. Why this refusal to allow the West the choice to protect itself? I want to note that he cites Melanie Philips on page 199. She does a fair job or restating an aspect of your long noted law of minority-majority relations. She calls it the minority rights doctrine of moral inversion. She must read you also.
LA replies:
The thing that jumps out at me the most from what Robert has said is that Steyn says that reform is the only option, but that he then adds, “which is not ours to do. Ultimately, only Muslims can reform Islam.”
So there you have it. This leading “war” supporter admitting that his policy leaves the West helpless to protect itself, because the only option he gives us—the adoption of freedom by Muslims—is not something that is within our power to make happen. It is the same with Bernard Lewis’s statement to AEI that we must spread freedom to the Muslims, or they will destroy us. It is the same with Melanie Phillips’s uncritical endorsement of Lewis’s speech.
And no one notices this spectacular emptiness and fraudulence of the “war” supporters except us at VFR.
People should write to Steyn at his website and ask him about this. Politely but firmly point out the contradiction and see how he responds. Ask him how he expects the West to save itself from Islam if the only option he gives us is a plan that leaves our safety in the hands of the Muslims. And don’t let him get away with evasive replies, which come to him as easily as breathing.. Write back to him saying that he has not answered your question.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 02, 2007 10:22 AM | Send