Clash of Stupidities, Part I

According to popular rhetoric these days, we're fighting a War on Terror, not a War on Islam. Many people distrust Muslims (perhaps subconsciously), but there are not so many who would say that they are all the enemy. Most of them peacefully practicing their [objectionable and archaic] religion. No, they are not the enemy...just backward, confused, or in general in need of a good dose of Western liberal values.

Even the U.S. has attempted to make a point of separating Islam and Islamists. Some governments have even attempted to forgo using religious terminology, like jihad, that insinuates that Islam condones terror. We don't want to isolate the moderate Muslims, we are often told, because they are the ones who will insure religion is eventually reformed into something tolerable.

But while many well-intentioned Westerners are trying to win the hearts and minds of the good savages moderate Muslims, there are others who say it is exactly these supposed moderates who are the enemy. According to Daniel Pipes and groups like Campus Watch, the moderates are the most dangerous, because they don't understand how to question authority and will eventually be led into terror. In fact, even a non-religious Arabic language public school in New York is a threat, because...well it teaches Arabic. But more importantly, according to Mr. Pipes, it is through these channels that "lawful Islamists" will carry out their soft jihad to stage a radical Islamic coup, establishing such dangerous things as responsible shar'ia compliant lending.

While many of us might dismiss Mr. Pipes, he may only be the extreme incarnation of a deeper fear about Muslims who don't carry bombs, but degrees and American citizenship. These are the ones who want women's only hours. They want to pray during the middle of the day. They want to challenge Western secular views of religion as something that happens inside your mind, and need not be manifested externally. And what if they were to lead our society?

An article in the Economist talks about historical works on Islam and secularism, but a question that reveals much more about problems today. After reaching the conclusion that modern governments in the Muslim world will not survive without a basis in Islam, the article then asks about the possible fate of religious minorities under an Islamic government. At best, it concludes, they would be second-class citizens.

And that's the core of the Western view: secularism is a neutral space, where everyone can be free to believe whatever they like, so long as they don't act on it. But anything else- even in moderation - is a threat.