More on Separationism

Lawrence Auster notes this blog's discussion of his idea that the West must separate itself from Islam, for its own self-defense. Earlier, I'd written that I more or less accept his first four premises:

1. Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.

2. But we cannot destroy Islam.

3. Nor can we democratize Islam.

4. Nor can we assimilate Islam.

...but I can't get to the conclusion:

Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.

I acknowledged in my earlier post that I can't reach that conclusion in part because I don't want it to be true -- and that if that's my prime reason, it's intellectually indefensible. Wanting something to be true, or untrue, doesn't make it so. I'm still thinking about it, because the premise of Auster's that I wrestle with is No. 4, which holds that Islam cannot be assimilated. I doubt it can, but I hope it can, because if not, I see no reason why Auster's conclusion is wrong.

At the Dallas Morning News the other day, our editorial board received a delegation from the local Muslim community. They came in large part to complain about editorial coverage of the community, which is to say they came mostly to complain about me. Which is fine: they accurately recognize that I don't believe their claims that they are completely innocent of radicalism, and are wholly victims of irrational fear of Muslims. Once again, I came away from a meeting with them even more convinced of my views in this regard. I recorded the entire meeting, and hope to have the time in the next week or so to post lengthy excerpts. In summation, though, the group was defensive, evasive, and wouldn't give a straight answer to simple questions.

I asked the delegation's leader to clarify something he'd said to me and some colleagues last time we met, about his belief that homosexuals should be killed, adulterous women stoned, etc. He launched an elaborate defense of this position, saying that Judaism and Christianity are against homosexuality. Yes, I said, but they don't require that gays be killed for being gay. Do you believe that they should? An imam jumped in to explain why the sharia is right to require hand-chopping of thieves. Later, the delegation's leader said that if I'm asking him to apologize for what his religion requires, he's not going to do it.

Trying to get at the heart of the matter, I asked if they thought sharia should be the law of the land in our secular pluralistic democracy. Another round of long-winded answers, amounting to, "It would never happen here." That's not what I'm asking, I said; should it happen here. Someone explained that Muslim community would never be big enough in this country to make that happen. Which is, of course, entirely beside the point, but we moved on. I had my answer.

The group complained that the DMN editorial page picked out small faults in the Muslim community locally, and highlighted them. Among their complaints: our editorial criticizing the Dallas Central Mosque for stocking anti-Jewish, anti-Christian hate literature in its library. And the Dallas Central Mosque's teaching the violent, revolutionary, jihad-promoting writing of Sayyid Qutb to its teenagers. Members of the group said Qutb was an "obscure" writer who had some good ideas for improving Islam, but had some fringe ideas. They tried to portray him as a marginal oddball. Which is b.s. -- Osama bin Laden has cited Qutb as his spiritual godfather, and his work is at the intellectual center of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is no small thing that the largest mosque in Texas is having its teenagers read Qutb's work. One of my colleagues, a reporter who covered the British subway bombings when he was stationed in London, said to the group that he'd visited Islamic bookstores, and discovered Qutb's books and other Islamic extremist literature there on the shelves -- and this was where the subway bombers and radicalized Islamist youth in Britain were getting their ideas.

The group rejected the implications of this, with someone even suggesting that it was the West's fault that these youth were becoming radicalized.

And so forth. The conclusion I drew from this meeting is that the Muslim community's leaders here will not accept any criticism, no matter how legitimate, considering it to be bigoted. They will not admit to any radicalism going on in their community, and try to minimize it, even as it goes on. They said we were wrong to criticize the DCM's imam for turning up at a "Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary, The Ayatollah Khomeini." Which is just nuts.

I don't want to think ill of the Muslim community in Dallas, or anywhere. But like I said, wanting to believe something does not make it true. Oh, and it was instructive to hear from this group that the adulteresses in the Prophet's time asked to be stoned to death. The Prophet was apparently doing them a favor. Wonderful.

What I keep seeing from these meetings is an attempt -- a sincere attempt -- to mau-mau the media into ignoring disturbing things going on in the American Muslim community. By all means we should cover the good stuff. The group the other day kept making the point, "You focus on the few bad things, and ignore all the good things." But charitable works don't somehow make it okay to include hate literature against Christians and Jews in your mosque, and certainly don't make it un-newsworthy. Being kind to others doesn't obviate concerns over what kind of fanatical jihad literature you're teaching to your teenagers. I do believe that most of the American media are unwilling to give this kind of thing the scrutiny it deserves. I'm pleased that my editorial board does not give them a free pass, and is not willing to turn a blind eye to this sort of thing -- even though it does cast into doubt the idea that Islam can be assimilated into American life.

It would help the case made by men and women like those of the delegation if instead of engaging in denial and trying to make journalists feel like heels for even raising questions, they would deal with them straight on. But to do that, I suspect, would amount to conceding that Islam, as they understand it, is incommensurate with basic American values.