Three Narratives

There are three different views of what is happening between Islam and the West.

The official view of most Western and Islamic governments (Iran, Turkey, Hamas, Hizballah and Sudan excepted) is that Islam and the West are integrating, but some Muslim criminals are causing problems.

The majority of Muslims who live in the West believe that they have integrated but are being persecuted by non-Muslim bigots for no good reason.

The third view is held by Muslims and Westerners who believe that what is happening is a clash of incompatible civilizations which will result in one of two possible futures. Either (a) One of those civilizations will change fundamentally or (b) They will both agree to drop the effort to integrate.

Since 9/11, I have slowly abandoned the first view and adopted the third. This change in my attitude was brought about by learning the basics of Islamic theology and law and correlating that information with the daily news.

Daniel Pipes articulates one version of the third view:

To borrow a computer term, if Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a U.S. congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization.

http://www.danielpipes.org/7967/keith-ellison-where-are-you


Ellison replies with the second view:

I think that it is a paranoid and conspiratorial point of view and that it is absolutely devoid of any factual support. And that it should not be considered a serious observation.

Here is the thing: I believe in democracy. I believe conflict in society should be resolved through election. I believe in the rights of women and minorities. I believe in equality in front of the law for all people. These are not the views of an extremist. I believe in religious tolerance. I support interfaith dialogue everywhere. I support Israel. I support the Palestinian people and I support their aspiration for a state. I support Israel's aspiration to live in peace and security but side-by-side with that state. So Daniel Pipes's point of view is simply not accurate.

http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/jan10_ellison

Here is the rub. If Ellison believes in equality in front of the law for all people, he opposes Islamic law which has many restrictions on the rights of non-Muslims. Many who call themselves Muslim say they do not want to live under Islamic law. In what sense are such people Muslims? Are their personal opinions relevant when discussing Islam?

As for the other beliefs Rep. Ellison espouses, he does not explain which version of these beliefs he supports—the Islamic one or the Western one. They are quite different. For example, women have one list of rights in Islam, a different list in liberal democracies. Which list is he supporting?

Another quote from Ellison:

“There is nothing un-American about Islam. The best ideals of America are the best ideals of Islam," said Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, who in 2006 became the first Muslim to be elected to Congress.

The Guardian, 8/26/08, reporting on the Muslim Caucus at the Democratic National Convention.

This is the official view of the American government, as articulated by President Obama in Cairo, and I have come to believe it is factually wrong mainly for denying Islamic attitudes and laws regarding non-Muslims throughout history and presently. However, if I were a Muslim living in a non-Muslim country, this is exactly what I would want non-Muslims to believe—Islam is not a competitor civilization, just another component of liberal democracy. Muslims are immigrants, not colonizers. I would also label anyone who disagreed as paranoid--Islamophobic and racist too.

The view that there is nothing un-American about Islam, a fundamental tenet of cultural relativism, is obviously untrue. It is illegal, according to Islamic law, for Americans to immigrate to Saudi Arabia and exercise the civil rights they enjoy in America. It is equally illegal for Muslims to immigrate to America and exercise the legal rights they have under Islamic law. The establishment of Islamic law has been the goal of every Islamic immigrant community in history, and the American Muslim community is no exception.

Allen West, a candidate for U.S. Congress from Florida’s 22nd District, frames the issue this way when answering those who say that violent jihadists are twisting or distorting Islam:

You want to dig up Charles Martel and ask him why him why he was fighting the Muslim army at the Battle of Tours in 732? You want to ask the Venetian fleet at Lepanto why they were fighting a Muslim fleet in 1571? You want to ask ... the Germanic and Austrian knights why they were fighting at the gates of Vienna in 1683? You want to ask people what happened at Constantinople and why today it is called Istanbul because they lost that fight in 1453? ...

Until you get principled leadership in the United States of America that is willing to say that, we will continue to chase our tail, because we will never clearly define who this enemy is, and then understand their goals and objectives--which (are) on any jihadist website--and then come up with the right (and) proper objectives to not only secure our Republic but secure Western civilization.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkGQmCZjJ0k&feature=player_embedded

There are very good strategic reasons why a political leader in the West might not want to endorse the third view, even if he believes it. But the time is coming when the denial of this view will no longer be politically viable. Florida’s 22nd District voters may choose to point out the Emperor’s lack of clothing--there is abviously something very un-American about Islam.