Gentle reader Danny Joe points us to an essay by the always stimulating Dinesh D'Souza, who argues that, despite the reaction to the Pope's comments, most Muslims belong not to the "radical" category but the "traditional" category. The former D'Souza characterizes as violently opposed to Christianity, Judaism and the West, whereas the latter tends toward accommodation and toleration.
Hence, it must be the goal of Western policy not to drive people from the traditional camp to the radical one.
We agree. However, we're not sure that it's as simple a matter as merely avoiding inflammatory statements. The most egregious or foolhardy provocations should be eschewed. But radicals can find almost anything inflammatory, it seems.
With D'Souza we note that traditional Muslims have been reluctant to voice their dismay at the radicals' intolerance and violence. But from that we do not conclude that the traditionals have become radicals. Rather, we conclude that they are even more afraid of the bully of radicalism than is the West.
And for good reason. Traditionals who speak up will be the first targets. Just ask Salmon Rushdie.
We still conclude, therefore, that the only effective and humane response to radical Islamic intimidation is a robust assertion of human rights and the expansion of liberal democracy backed by the threat of military power. Only those Muslims who have the freedom from fear of reprisal can speak up for the containment of Islamic radicalism.
From another source we are reminded that not all Muslims are anti-American. Kosovar Muslims, liberated from the Serbs by American and Western European military force, recently held solemn public observances of the anniversary of 9/11. What makes them love America, and even William Jefferson Clinton? Liberty, and the nation that helped secure it for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment