Three questions about jihadism

After the Ft. Hood attack, President Barack Obama voiced the concerns of the mustn’t-tar-all-Muslims-with-the-terrorist-brush-and-we-need-to-reach-out-to-moderate-Muslims, etc, etc, crowd.

“I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations, but that those organizations aren’t representative of a broader Arab community, Muslim community.

“I believe we can win over moderate Muslims to recognize that that kind of destruction and nihilism ultimately leads to a dead end.” –President Barack Obama

I agree.

I am going to point out again that I have lived in Saudi Arabia and in general liked the people. I’ve have quite a few Muslim friends, among whom I have the reputation of being a pretty well-informed amateur Arabist.

And furthermore, in those infrequent moments I wonder about my soul, the spiritual tradition that I find most interesting is Sufism.

(By the way, it’s illegal to call yourself a Sufi in Saudi Arabia. Islamic jihadists hate it with the passion otherwise reserved for Jews. And I should add that most of my knowledge of Sufism comes from the writings of author Idris Shah, and I have no idea if he’s a typical Sufi.)

So here is my question Mr. President, and all those who remind us after every jihadist attack that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists:

If that Muslim “silent majority” would rather not be involved in a war with the West, why do you imagine they are overwhelmingly silent on the issue, with the exception of a few incredible courageous ones such as Wafa Sultan and Irshad Manji?

(That is, when they’re not dancing in the streets for joy at the news the Great Satan has been attacked again.)

Could it be that they’re terrified to speak out? Terrified if they do, they and their families will be killed?

(Which could also be a charitable explanation for why they dance in the streets too. Or maybe they just hate our guts.)

Now here’s the Final Jeopardy question: if that is in fact the case, what do you imagine is going to bring the moderate majority over to our side? Conciliation, denial of the threat, offers to meet the jihadist half-way?

Or: implacable hatred, refusal to negotiate on any other basis than “F*** with us and you’re dead,” and resolute will to hunt our enemy down, kill them, and expell all their sympathizers from our countries?

If you were a moderate Muslim who just wanted to live a normal life, what would you think was more dangerous to you and your family; siding against the jihadists, or siding against the reasonable, conciliatory, president of the United States who believes all enmities can be talked out?

Now here, consider Jonah Goldberg’s take on those who deny the reality of jihadist war against the West. I have enormous respect for Jonah Goldberg’s opinions, and cannot repeat too many times that you need to read, “Liberal Fascism.”

“I am more sympathetic toward this reluctance to state the truth of the matter than are some of my colleagues on the right. There is a powerful case to be made that Islamic extremism is not some fringe phenomenon but part of the mainstream of Islamic life around the world. And yet, to work from that assumption might make the assumption all the more self-fulfilling. If we act as if “Islam is the problem,” as some say, we will guarantee that Islam will become the problem. But outright denial, like we are seeing today, is surely not the beginning of wisdom either.”–Jonah Goldberg

Jonah, this is a very reasonable concern, but I wonder if anyone has considered the other end of this.

Is it possible that what most maddens the Islamists is the militant refusal to take them seriously?

When they say, “We are at war with you,” and the left commentariat responds by ignoring, or figuratively patting them on the head and saying, “Oh you don’t really mean that,” can you imagine how insulting and patronizing that is?

Few things are more insulting than discounting and militantly refusing to take you and your opinions seriously.

When they tell us how much they hate us and want to destroy us, a genuine respect for their dignity and ours (and I am not being facetious) requires us to take them seriously – i.e. treat them as adults and enemies, not children throwing a tantrum.

And which attitude is most likely to open the possibility of negotiation? Respect enough to take them seriously, or condescention and patronizing?

Third question, for the moral equivalence, Christianity-has-its-fanatics-too crowd.

Among liberals it is an article of faith, that people of faith in America suffer from neuroses and mental illness due to sexual repression.

Though that’s been overstated, I’ve met enough Catholics (largely Irish I hate to say) and fundamentalist Protestants who show it’s not a totally invalid stereotype.

(I’ve also met lots of Catholics from the admirable scholastic tradition and many warm and joyful rural Protestants who aren’t the least hung-up.)

So how come this analysis is never applied to fundamentalist Wahabists?

You want to talk sexual repression? These guys are raised never even seeing an unveiled woman who is not their mother or sister.

And, if their mother or sister refuses to keep her place, as chattel only a little above domestic animals, they are obligated by strong social pressure to murder her.*

It’s called “honor killing.”

So how come it has never occured to the liberal crowd that fundamentalist Islam has created a society that drives a critical number of its young men murderiously insane from sexual frustration?

Just asking.

*This is not a long-standing tradition throughout the Arab world though. My friend Ali Alyami, Executive Director, The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, once told me when he was growing up in the Ismaili region of the Kingdom, boys and girls used to associate together. He said there were dances, women went unveiled (as Bedouin women do today) and if a young bride had a baby six or seven months after marriage, nobody got bent out of shape.