Another useless, overheated, escapist effusion on the Islam problem

Mark Tapson writing at FrontPage Magazine has a long, pointless article, entitled, “How to Make Islam Respectable.” As the title suggests, the piece comes right from the Robert Spencer School of Islam Criticism. Tapson lists a ten-point set of demands that Muslims must do this and must do that in order to moderate their religion, none of which Muslims will do. So what’s the purpose of the exercise? Instead of stating conclusions about the nature of Islam, he posits a situation in which Islam could possibly change, and in the meantime we sit back and wait for them to change, and if they don’t change, well, guess what, we won’t “respect” them. Big smoking deal. We won’t “respect” them. That’s his bottom line. Meanwhile the Islamic war against the West continues unabated, and the Western openness and surrender to Islam continues unabated. Tapson hasn’t noticed that, far from “not respecting” Islam, the West has been falling at its feet. And nothing he says challenges that situation or offers a way out of it.

So his article is worse than useless, because it encourages readers to abide in the illusion that the West already has a tough position on Islam, namely that we “don’t respect” it, and that we’re staying with that tough position no matter what. It’s analogous to the illusion that we are “at war” with terrorism, or “at war” with extremist Islam. No, we’re not. If we were at war with terrorism or extremist Islam, would we be allowing the the followers of that religion to settle in the West and spread their religion among us?

Conservatism, as represented by Tapson’s article and the entire mainstream conservative “anti-jihad” movement, is not about defending our society from its enemies. It is about persuading us that we are already defending our society from its enemies (“We won’t respect Islam,” “We are in a war with terrorism”), so that we will sit back and relax while our enemies continue to gain numbers and power among us.

- end of initial entry -

Steward W. writes:

In much of the world, respect is a result of fear. For nice, modern, civilized liberals, respect is closer to love. Saying that you don’t “respect” someone is effectively saying you DO fear them. Mr. Tapson has given Moslems a convenient list of what to avoid in order to continue instilling fear in the West (not that they didn’t already know all of this).

I wonder if liberals are even capable of understanding such a fundamental distinction?

Doug H. writes:

In Tapson’s defense, after I made the comment that I thought this was written in jest, he did say it was partly so recognizing the futility of islam to be reformed. Most commenters on the site realize islam must be banned.

On another Frontpage note. A recent article criticized a couple of conservative groups who are boycotting CPAC due to GOProud’s attendance and acceptance. The commenters are mostly in support of the article. A few do recognize the stupidity of trying to state GOProud is a conservative organization. As I have commenter there before, Frontpage is mostly libertarian but do not recognize this. GOProud is against the basic core values of a true conservative. A true conservative recognizes the family is the bedrock of civil society. GOProud’s agend will only further destroy that bedrock.

LA replies:

I don’t buy it. Spencer says the same. Yet, year after year, he also keeps saying, “I’m still waiting for Islam to be reformed, still waiting … ”

Instead of saying definitively and once and for all that Islam can’t be reformed, he keeps acting as though it can, while sending out the between the line messages that he doesn’t think it can.

I don’t believe writers who say they’re sending a hidden message. If you have something to say, say it. If you’re not willing to say it, then you’re not saying it. What counts politically is what you take a stand on, not what you hint that you think privately.

Posted January 1

Doug H. replies:

You are correct. They should just say it. I guess they just don’t have the backbone to standup to the PC crowd. Their commenters for the most part do say to get rid of Islam. There was a recent article on Frontpage from a Canadian Muslim lady wishing everyone a merry Christmas. She said a lot of good things. The commenters were kind, but they all pretty much said the same thing. “Leave Islam.”

A few months ago, I read a report from the Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney’s organization. It was very telling of the so-called conservatives if you paid close attention. It mentioned the fact that Islam teaches deception. Its overall conclusion was we must enlist “moderate Muslims” to help us fight the “radical Muslims.” It said this after having a whole chapter on taqiyya.

As long as I am not banned from the site, I will continue to comment to get stop Muslim immigration and stop supporting the gay agenda.

LA replies:

That’s a perfect story about Center for Security Policy and Gaffney. After warning us about Muslim deception, the essence of which is that Muslims conceal their jihad intent under a cloak of moderation, they urge us to look for moderate Muslim allies!

It seems that, just as deception is key to Islam, self-deception is key to the West.

(See my article, “Islam and the Liberal West: The Fatal Complementarity,” where I wrote: “They are predators, we are prey.”)

Karl D. writes:

If Islam ever is to “reform” (and that is a big if ), it will only come from force. It will have had to have been completely kicked out of all non-Muslim lands (along with Israel) to its ancestral Muslim lands. Even then, only after a hundred years of isolation and constant internal and external warfare can any hope of reformation ever take place. A tall order for some of the so called “counter jihadists” even to contemplate. And sadly a very improbable solution to be undertaken. I fear that even if some country had the courage to attempt this solution the rest of the “civilized world” would come down on them like a ton of bricks. Think Kosovo and Serbia times ten. For some countries it seems well past tea time to do anything. And the horrible outcome that El Ingles wrote about might happen sooner then we think. I wonder? How would some of these committed yet non-committed anti-jihadists square that in their minds? Would they look back in retrospect and think their wishful thinking or protection of their public reputations was worth the price of admission?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 31, 2010 09:54 AM | Send