Irredentist Islam and Multicultural America

INTRODUCTION


It should now be clear that we are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations—that perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both. It is crucially important that we on our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but also equally irrational reaction against that rival.

Bernard Lewis: The Roots of Muslim Rage, 1990.



The last battle of every war is fought by historians. It’s too soon to think of historical objectivity concerning the war we are in, but not too soon to try to say who we are and who they are and what we each want.

Germans have come to an understanding of why the events of two world wars occurred. Japanese have an explanation of why Pearl Harbor happened.
Someday Arab Muslims will understand why 9/11 happened.

Americans need a better understanding of the ideological forces that produced 9/11.


Immediately after 9/11 a significant debate started that still goes on. The question was on the relationship, if any, between the perpetrators of 9/11 and Islam. It is the pivotal question of our time because we can tolerate ideological competition in the world, but not if representatives of that ideology attack us physically. The question has two parts. Are bin Laden and Al Qaeda acting in accordance with Islamic law? Is Islamic law compatible with liberal democracy?

One side said that the perpetrators were common criminals who were attempting to hijack a peaceful religion for their own purposes. The other side said the perpetrators were following traditional Islamic guidance in carrying out defensive jihad. This book is my attempt to explain the answer I found. Its tone is polemical rather than scholarly and I make no apology for that.

My argument is that the perpetrators are mass murderers in the eyes of Western law, and in the West there is no disagreement on that conclusion. Under Islamic law, the answer is more complicated. There is some Muslim opinion that the perpetrators violated some details of Islamic law. The crucial fact is that, under Islamic law, their actions in killing infidels were legal. The Islamic world is not seeking to prosecute them for 9/11.

America has not always been on the right side of ethical issues, starting with slavery and women’s rights. But in this fight between the ideology of liberal democracy and the ideology of Islamic supremacy, we are on the right side.

I am attempting to make the argument that our foreign and domestic policies regarding Islam need revision. At the very minimum we must understand that war has been declared against us by people who represent a significant part of Islam and that this declaration is supported in Islamic law.

I argue that certain elements of our national character cause us to misperceive the nature of Islam. This misperception can have catastrophic consequences, including global war between Christianity and Islam.

We need to realize that traditional Islam and liberal democracy are incompatible ideologies that are destined to compete. I argue that one cannot be a pious traditional Muslim and be loyal to the liberal democratic tradition of America. I say this to bring full daylight to a fact that has been shoved into shadow. If we must be enemies, let’s at least know why. I am proposing that America should confront the political ideology of traditional Islam as we did the ideologies of communism and national socialism. The fact that this political ideology is embedded in a religion should not deter us. Confrontation now may avoid a conflagration later.

Acknowledging this incompatibility and competition is the first step toward avoiding all-out war. Identifying traditional Islamic theology as the opposite of liberal democracy warns Muslims about the possible ramifications of supporting the global jihad. This warning could possibly light a fire under attempts at Islamic reform that could produce a compatible form of Islam.

I predict the defeat of traditional Islam in the long run because the more exposure traditional Islam has worldwide, the more it will be understood in detail. The world will not accept the doctrine of Islamic supremacy and subjugation through jihad. An Islam without the body of Islamic law that supports those two doctrines is not traditional Islam, and no threat to anyone. The Islamic world and the Western world can agree to disagree about many things but not about supremacy.

My secondary argument is that our response to an Islamic challenge could well result in vastly expanded Christian political dominance in America. Further weakening of the separation between religion and state is the last thing America needs. The most clear-eyed evaluators of Islam come from the conservative segment of Christian America. If secular America fails to step up and recognize the incompatibility of the Islamic ideology, Christian America certainly will.

Neither secular liberal democracy nor Christianity can co-exist with equality in one state with traditional Islam. Some alert Christians know this, most secular liberal democrats do not.

I want to see America emerge from this conflict a tolerant society with a secular government that protects only those religions that accept the terms of liberal democracy.

Trying to incorporate an incompatible ideology into our democracy is not the way to get there.

Jan McDaniel

The book is available at: http://www.lulu.com/content/5242186, and at

Amazon.com http://tinyurl.com/bdlv7y