Redstate

If we must write laws to exclude totalitarian Islam from Equal Protection considerations, let it be done

1) If such an exclusion came into being, who would have the authority to distinguish between totalitarian and non-totalitarian Islamic speech? This is the sort of question people don't usually ask themselves in composing essays like yours. I saw it a day or two ago in that thing about the Christian Constitution where clauses stipulated that people could do this or that as long as it was "in reason" or words to that effect. Without any details on what "in reason" consisted of.

So exactly what would be forbidden?

2) Why should we think that forbidding "Totalitarian Islam" speech would be in any way effective? The specific acts of Islamic Totalitarians that we fear are already illegal and there are plenty of laws in place that the state can use to thwart their scheming. How would adding pamphlets to the mix of forbidden materials make us more safe?

have no intention of being glib about so momentous a topic, but I am afraid that we simply do not, in point of fact, have the time to wait for the Muslim world to answer the question of whether the declaration of that evangelist represents the voice of authentic Islam; from the vantage point of some hypothetical observer of the Wars of Religion in Europe, the world really didn't have time to wait for Protestants and Catholics to answer the questions of which faction represented the True Faith, and of whether the violence was a result of the authentic logic of either creed.  Again, I'm not trying to be flippant, but given the logic of this conflict, we don't have the time to wait for the outcome of an internal conversation of indefinite duration, one that might be interminable by nature.

And the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

The first half of this write-up was excellent in framing the problem.  But the solution can't be to outlaw people from practicing 'totalitarian islam' inside the US.  How do you define it?  

Making a law like that is specifically what the terrorists want.  They want to separate the muslim world from the west through violence.  Our ultimate solution is to create the desire to eliminate this facet of their culture from within their culture.  It's already happened.  If I was an iraqi who just had a cousin get bombed by another iraqi, I'd be getting pretty sick of fundamentalists.

Still, kudos for approaching the problem with intellectual honesty.  Zero partisanship on a philisophical, non-partisan question.

1. Since we live in a republic, the proper authority in questions of legislation, no matter how sensitive or difficult, is the elective assemblies of the people's representatives. Congress, in this case, with the appropriate checks from the executive and judicial branch.
   
2. By making potential terrorists and sympathizers less free to act, to speak, to argue, to propagandize; by making them more uncomfortable and fearful.

Paul -

This is a good post, thoughtful, and provocative in a constructive way.

The first observation I will make is that Muslims have lived here in the US in communities of some size for what is for us quite a while.  The Sunni community in Dearborn, at one time the largest Sunni community outside of the middle east, began I believe in the late 19th C.  Folks there have been productive, proud American Muslims for over a century.  From their experience I think we can say that Islam is not inherently, or necessarily, absolutist, or antagonistic to western democratic civil government.

I think your formulation of "totalitarian Islam" is right on.  The challenge we face is a population of people who insist on imposing their belief and practice, or at least their dominance, on others, by force if necessary.  Perhaps preferably by force, actually, I see little interest in the use of persuasion on the part of modern absolutist Islamists.

Rather than a solution, I have a question.  What provision is there now, already, in American law to address people that live here, but who advocate the overthrow of our civil government by violent means?  Is that provision, whatever it is, an appropriate and sufficient remedy?

I look forward to your thoughts.

Cheers -

. . . which is why we must plunge ahead with Question Three before One and Two have been answered.

But the solution can't be to outlaw people from practicing 'totalitarian islam' inside the US.

Why?

How do you define it?

Well, this is the issue we have to get on with sorting out. Obviously there some beliefs we can identify. The aspiation to overthrow the American government and replace it with an Islamic state. The endorsement of jihad against civilians. The aspiration to enact shari'a law. Etc., etc.

1. Do the terrorists speak for "true" Islam--probably not, but that's beside the point. Our most immediate concern should be to capture or kill them. It seems that most if not all terrorists today are Muslims who speak and then act in a certain way. I think this calls for radical profiling and infiltration of mosques.
   
   
2. Is democracy the solution? I don't know. If democracy means personal freedom and access to personal prosperity, then I think it probably is part of the answer. Islamofascism is a cancer that can grow anywhere, and it has to be eradicated. Liberal democracies (I pray)have the resources and the inclination to eradicate it within their borders, but Middle Eastern dictatorships may have neither. We managed to partially motivate the Saudis to police themselves, but in the long run, it will take a free and prosperous people to finish the job. Terrorism hates freedom and properity. Hence, the free and the prosperous have the most to lose.
   
   
3. Will we allow homegrown Islamofascism to take root? We probably already have. Do we have the will to do what's necessary? I think Americans do, and I think we can do it without sacrificing the Constitution. To do that we need freedom loving Muslim Americans to help. They're in the best position to finger the crazies in their midst. We should not target Islam, but rather radical Islamists who speak and act like terrorists. I don't think such speech is protected under the First Amendment.

The aspiation to overthrow the American government and replace it with an Islamic state. The endorsement of jihad against civilians. The aspiration to enact shari'a law.

These make sense to me as reasonable boundaries for what is and what is not acceptable belief and practice for Muslims here in the US.

What does the law currently say about the right for groups which advocate the overthrow of the US government to operate without interference?  Analogous groups might include Christian Identity and/or racialist groups, etc.

Thanks -

Excellent and challenging post, one that will fuel serious conversations.  Thank you.

Your second question,

If it is demonstrated, as now seems pretty clear, that the perpetrators of the London bombings were British citizens or legal residents, will there be any reflection on what this means for the neoconservative theory that democracy is the cure for Islamic terrorism? If, in other words, the perpetrators of these bombings were citizens or long-time residents of one of the world's most stable and historic democracies, and thus partakers of all liberty and equality that is offered as the panacea for the troubles of the Muslim world, what does it say for the plausibility of said theory that London's first suicide bombers were reared up in the very cradle of Western liberal democracy?

that question is not new.  We in the United States have struggled with it -- though of course without the issue of Islam included -- since Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  McVeigh not only grew up in our free country, he also served in our armed forces.  Ditto for his accomplice(s).  And still he turned to terrorism.

The problem of home-grown terrorists in free societies is a hard one to face, but we must face it.  No simple answers.

but this is where the rubber meets the road and goes flat.  This is simply not a debate that a substantial number of American want to hold, not even among conservatives.  The moment any elected representative proposes legislation calling for what would, in fact, be necessary to ensure that a version of Islam calling for the violent overthrow of the US government and the subjugation of the infidel is not propagated in mosques, Islamic centers, literature and so on, will be the moment half of the American people begin shrieking hysterically about the abolition of the Constitution, the stealth repeal of the FA, Fascism, the Police State, Hitler, Death Camps, the Religious Right, and whatever else they consider a menace to the Open Society.  The shrieks of horror and rage will make the already-hysterical snivelling over the Patriot Act provision concerning library records - as though it was a Really Bad Idea for the government to know whether Ahmed al-Jihadi, who has sojourned in Waziristan, is checking out materials on nuclear physics, pathogens and the blueprints for large public facilities - seem like the halfhearted whimpers of a tired one-year-old fighting sleep.  You will not only hear the usual bleatings of the civil-libertarian set, you may well have the militia set, who already have at least a few contacts with some Islamist groups, attempting to instigate their Armageddon with the Beast of the ZOG.  The leftist-anarchist set will likely get even uglier, and so on - and all this before any legislation is even enacted.  Even much of the religious right will smell the Mark of the Beast, or a prelude to it, or something.

In short, we, as Americans, have overinvested so enormously in the concept of the Open Society as the Society Without Limits that I cannot imagine any such legislation coming to pass absent both external (from Islamists who abjure everything we are) and internal (from dissenting Americans) shocks and ugliness.

Paul, thanks for the slight variation from all Muslims to Totalitarian Islam.  I think it strengthens your arguments in many ways.  What solutions are alreay on the books?  Totalitarian Islam is not the first domestic threat to the country and it is not the first to advocate overthrowing our government from the inside.  What have we done in the past?  What laws already exist?  Do we need more laws, or just to enforce the ones we have - like say, our immigration laws.

will be the moment half of the American people begin shrieking hysterically about the abolition of the Constitution, the stealth repeal of the FA, Fascism, the Police State, Hitler, Death Camps, the Religious Right,

You omitted the number one likely candidate from your list: McCarthyism.

The second question goes to the very heart of the theoretical framework American leaders have sketched as a solution to the problems of the Muslim world. In brief, it calls into question the whole solution itself, and may force us back to the drawing broad, so to speak, if we are serious about facing it. The question is this. If it is demonstrated, as now seems pretty clear, that the perpetrators of the London bombings were British citizens or legal residents, will there be any reflection on what this means for the neoconservative theory that democracy is the cure for Islamic terrorism? If, in other words, the perpetrators of these bombings were citizens or long-time residents of one of the world's most stable and historic democracies, and thus partakers of all liberty and equality that is offered as the panacea for the troubles of the Muslim world, what does it say for the plausibility of said theory that London's first suicide bombers were reared up in the very cradle of Western liberal democracy?

I think the answer to this question is that it does not undermine the greater geopolitical project.

Why? Because there are two sources of Islamofascist terrorists - foreign and domestic.

If the greater projects in Iraq & Afghanistan (& Lebanon, etc.) succeed, it accomplishes two goals - 1) it will eventually cut down on the source of foreign jihadists (it doesn't even need to eliminate it - just substantially reduce it), and 2) it will undercut the entire underpinnings of the expansionist Islamofascist ideology.

And, let's no forget - support from "foreign" jihadists appears to have been important even in the London case.

It seems to me that the underlying "cause" of so-called "domestic" jihadists is two-fold: 1) outrage at what authoritarian governments are doing back home, and 2) resentment at their lot in their country of destination ("outrage at U.S. foreign policy" has always been a smokescreen, IMO). (And, I think the second factor is much less prevalent in the U.S., which is why the jihadists have had such a difficult time operating here.)

In any case, this will not end up being a "one factor solves all" solution. The ultimate "winning" here will involve pursuing multiple goals on multiple tracks at once.

But that means the "geopolitical" track is just as important (if not more so) than any of the other tracks.

Rather than a solution, I have a question.  What provision is there now, already, in American law to address people that live here, but who advocate the overthrow of our civil government by violent means?  Is that provision, whatever it is, an appropriate and sufficient remedy?

The models I have in mind, of course, are from the dreaded and despised McCarthy era. There was the Smith Act, and Hatch Act, even (gasp) the HUAC.

there are people in this country that advocate the replacement of our current constitution with various alternative constitutions (some of which are religious in character) and propose accomplishing this by various means. The important difference between these people and Islamists is that these people don't blow up subways and busses or fly jets into buildings.

The problem with Islamists isn't that they are Islamists. Its that they practice terrorism.

I'm much more pessimistic than you are, I suppose. If I suspected the implementation of Thought Crime laws would work, I could be persuaded that it would be worth a try. But I do not. And I am leary of the creation of government agencies with the responsibility of enforcing them but I'm not going to attempt a Slippery-Slope argument here.

I simply don't beleive the state has the power to prevent the spread of ideas. This isn't a moral or ethical or philosophical point, its a practical one.

thanks for the slight variation from all Muslims to Totalitarian Islam.

Keep in mind that I pointly left open the questin whether the two are one.

I agree with you that we will need to address this problem. It is real and I doubt that it is going to go away by itself. While most Muslims may adapt very well to American democracy, we can already see shades of it in a number of areas.

What we see as a threat to democracy many Muslims see as simply the logical conclusion of Islam; the religion prescribes how man will live in all areas of his life. The only valid civil "laws" in a true Islamic state are simply codifications of Sharia; other laws are simply unnecessary. On the other hand, democracy relies on free will and creates a situation ultimately antithetical to Islam. If man exercises his free will then he is free to make his own laws and disregard the "laws" of various religions. However, in the case of Islam, the famous dictum to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" simply does not apply. I heard it put well recently; democracy creates a situation where man is co-equal with Allah and this is simply forbidden.

I am not a Muslim, but as I understand Islam, anyone who truly believes in Islam must accept the Koran as the immutable, delivered word of Allah. Unlike the Torah or the Bible where the writings are almost universally viewed as man's interpretation of God's will, the Koran is the words of Allah. And on top of that Allah speaks Arabic; there is no such thing as a "translation" of the Koran.

We have our own problems with the truly radical, hate-filled, variety of Islam and these are fairly easy to identify. But there are other, less obvious forms as well. One example, in the past two weeks, when the Gitmo "Koran Desecration" nonsense was so prominent in the press. There was an incident in Knoxville as I recall where local Muslims were "incensed" because the police would not drop everything and respond immediately to a purported incident of "Koran abuse."  In and of itself this is a small, and hopefully isolated one time event, driven by the press coverage of Gitmo. But it may also represent a deeper underlying problem. Time will tell.

So long as we accept Islam as a religion we will have problems dealing with the more radical problem. The extremists and radicals can easily run for cover under the First Amendment, not only on free speech grounds but on freedom of religion. Crafting laws to deal with radical Islam under those circumstances will probably be impossible. In order to deal with this problem it may be necessary to find a way to "re-classify" Islam from the status of religion to one of political ideology. While this will be very difficult, certainly there are openings for this in the nature of Islam and it's views on the relationship between religion and state; that they one in the same.

There seems to be little doubt that the ultimate objective of Islam is not co-existence. But this can be achieved a number of ways. No doubt most Muslims believe that Islam will ultimately triumph because it is the logical way for man to live, and that Allah wills it to be so. So all they have to do is sit back and wait. There are also undoubtedly a large number of Muslims who believe that, since Islam is inevitable, infidels who do not accept Islam must be either forcibly converted, subjugated or if necessary, eliminated.

We've seen the problem in Europe; Muslims have not assimilated well, if at all, into European society. The result is a very large number of disaffected people who do not see themselves as part of the mainstream society. They are not invested in the place where they live and in its value system.

Assimilation has generally not been a problem in America. Usually after one or two generations we find that people have blended well with the society as a whole. They have accepted the general cultural values and the culture has accepted them, and in may cases incorporated some of their culture. This may happen with Islam as well, only time will tell. But the intervening period will no doubt be very difficult.

-------------------

Of course McCarthy never served in the House.

Hyperbole about former leftist fantasies does not help us solve the current problem.

The aspiration to overthrow the american state is already a crime.  Aspirations of enacting shari'a law?  Plenty of people enact law already based on their religious beliefs.  Thou shalt not kill is one which we all happen to agree on, others are more divisive.  It just depends on if you have the votes or not.  Banning music will never have the votes in the US.  It's a democratic system.  I'm afraid your proposal would take us farther away from that ideal.

Of course McCarthy never served in the House.

Which would explain why I spoke of the "McCarthy era" not the Senator himself. Surely you realize that the McCarthy episode was far broader than the man.

What hyperbole are you talking about? The Communist problem was similar in many ways to today's problem of Islam.

On the first question, there needs to be another consideration: even assuming that view is widely held-- that the West should be taken over from within-- is it possible, now or at any time in the forseeable future. The reason for this is because it informs the third question; the action taken in response to a threat depends quite heavily on the severity of that threat.

McCarthy, who was right to go after communism, operated under a set of circumstances somewhat different from what we have today. Communism had already succeeded in taking over various nations, though none were modernized. The potential constituency for marxist doctrine was much larger than that for Islamic radicalism; though unlikely, it is possible a fair number of working-class Americans could be radicalized in particular circumstances.

On the other hand, Muslim radicals have the constituency of... Muslims. Well, there are black Muslims often converted in prison, but that's a tiny minority. So once you establish that they cannot take over in any kind of numerical way, the question is terrorism-- will there be enough Muslims that radicals will be able to continually draw followers in sufficient numbers to do damage.

It's not correct to say democracy may be insufficient to prevent terror. People that believe in democracy will not commit terrorist acts. The problem is that there are people in the US, UK, and obviously the Middle East who do not believe in democracy. Just because a government espouses certain principles does not mean all citizens follow. The problem is not democracy, it's radical Islam. If most Iraqis come to believe in democracy, they can succeed-- though potential terrorists will exist there just as everywhere with significant Muslim populations.

Can you require people in a democracy to believe in democracy? No. But you can try prevent them from actively working to overthrow it, as was done with communism (the Supreme Court gave the government leeway in fighting domestic communist groups for that reason). Of course, limiting speech has its own problems, first and foremost that usually it's used by the left as a tool for their political agenda.

What we understand to mean "civilization" is a product of the West and it's culture. The real problem is not a few terrorists, it is the cultural war ongoing within Western nations over their identity. Many Muslims have a sense of nationalism that influences their attitudes and behaviors. Many Westerners have abandoned nationalism. This is a massive issue in and of itself, but suffice it to say leftists and even many 'conservatives' believe (or purport to believe) democracy renders nationalism obsolete.

Nationalist Muslims thus have no natural opposition. They are enabled by democracy, because it provides so much freedom of action. What has allowed peoples to survive great struggle- wars, plagues, etc.- is cultural identity. Without it, political arrangements are often brittle and chaos is common. Homogeneous states have less crime and are more stable. That is a challenge we face in Iraq just as we do in the US itself. We rely on political institutions to form a notion of what it means to be American, whereas the French are French whatever government is in power.

Sorry for the length of this post, but here is my basic point: people want a cultural identity. Muslim nationalists offer such an identity, violent as it is; the West offers political institutions with no tradition amongst immigrants or within their cultural history. Even so, for self-selecting (and self-interested) reasons most immigrants believe in democracy. But the appeal of the radicals cannot be eliminated unless immigrants are assimilated... and assimilation is a two-way street.

In the long-run, I don't believe a truly multicultural state can survive. Unless Muslim culture can become at least close in nature to classical liberal ideals (within Western states), there is no solution except war. Needless to say, this problem will be resolved either positively or very, very, very negatively. The pro-democracy Muslim community has a lot at stake... I hope they realize it. Because of the nature of our country (and to a lesser extent the UK), we too have much at stake.

Exactly- so McCarthy was at least trying to do the right thing.

. . . but I think I agree with you.

A certainly agree with this: In the long-run, I don't believe a truly multicultural state can survive.

Indeed, multiculturalism is an ideology of suicide.

But I believe they are demonstrably not.

Cheers -

yeah it's pretty bad. The first 5 paragraphs and the last 4 sort of work together, it's such a massive topic I don't even know how to organize my thoughts. Rarely a problem for me.

is how much overlap exists.  I can name individual muslims who are not part of Totalitarian Islam, so they are not equal.  The question is whether Totalitarians are 5%, 15% or 50% of Muslims in certain places (and especially in America).

What does the law currently say about the right for groups which advocate the overthrow of the US government to operate without interference

I don't know, but I'm guessing roughly the same thing British law said back in the 1770's. Probably not this position:

it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

           - some guys on July 4, 1776

Personally, I think you can punish acts...but laws banning advocacy of pretty much anything in the political arena subvert the fundamental political freedom that makes America America.  

Grover Nordquist should be free to say the government is a beast that needs to be killed as often as he likes.  Long as he doesn't act on that belief...        ;)

Who me? A Brit, living here for 12 years became citizen last but like all Brits will inevitably frame, compare and understand the latest outrage in the context of previous outrages - The IRA. Not deliberately trying to take this conversation tangential but bear with me and keep an open mind before you fling the IRA is different rebuttals at me...

First Question: True Spokesman: yes probably, but either for the dreamers of a Islamic Utopia who will never see it come to pass or more sinisterly an organizer, leader or rabble rouser for the Jihadist's. My guess is a leader. But...leaders are nothing without followers, the Islamic rhetoric is not enough to feed real active terrorism. Without something else, it's the spice but not the meat. Interesting for hotheads to listen to, but nothing else. Compare and Contrast: Ireland before the Unionists (Protestants, religion is an important ingredient too in the terrorist meal) started throwing their weight around, bullying and denying civil rights to Nationalists (Catholics). 800 years of admittedly dastardly acts by us the British meant that most Irish already hated us, born hating us - but that's theoretical Nationalistic hatred, like we hate the French, not enough to make people live out the fantasy by planting bombs and buying Armalites. Then along came the meat, Occupation by the British Soldiers to Keep The Peace. Yep, the Brits sent soldiers in to Protect the Nationalists, I remember the TV shots of squadies being cups of tea by Belfast residents. But troops can be heavy handed, they were, occupation led to Atrocities like Bloody Sunday, the IRA regained it's mandate as the true protectors of the Nationalists and 30 years of nastiness from both (all three) sides ensued. It's over, I hope, but nobody won. Over 3000 civilians dead though. Think about this, the Irish always hated the English, in Theory, while drinking and singing ballads of old injuries and triumphs. But nobody tried to kill anyone until Occupation started. Then IRA recruitment swelled, seeing foreigners on your streets is a hell of a recruiting tool, real hatred of some foreigner telling you what to do at the point of a gun is very different from mourning the Easter Uprising. Now you have leaders with a mythology to weave and followers with real grievances to kill for. So key for going from Theory to Practice is Occupation.

Second Question: If democracy is the answer, how come Brits breed home grown terrorists? Well...Democracy is the answer but you can't do it at the point of a gun. Stay home here, lend them money, bring some over and educate them, but Occupy them and they are no longer listening to what you are saying, they are just hating you for waving that gun at them. Nobody likes a gun in the face. Doesn't answer your question does it? I know, here's the thing that's going to get me banned...Joe Mohammed in Leeds isn't exactly a real Iraqi or Pakistani or whatever country he sees himself as defending, in the same way that Joe O'Reilly isn't really Irish. Both have grown up Here, but both think of themselves as the same as the people over there. Don't tell Joe O'Reilly of Brooklyn or Liverpool that he's not Irish, he knows he is, through grandfather or great grandfather he knows he is Irish in his blood to the bone even though he has never traveled to the Isle in is life. So Joe O'Reilly will throw a few bucks in the collecting cup on St Patrick's day to help the widows of the English and NORAID. Does that make him a terrorist? Depends who you ask obviously but the state of mind of Joe Mohammed of Leeds and Joe O'Reilly is not that far apart. If a bit more mythology and propaganda were fed to Joe O he might well decide to take a personal hand in settling the score with the Brits. Like watching nightly news of Foreign Occupiers being heavy handed with locals. Anyone not offended enough to make it this far? My point is Nationalists abroad can often be more rabid than Nationalists locally.

Third Question: Are we going to let them get away with this? You are confusing the aims of the dreamers, the leaders, the ones who don't actually do the fighting themselves with the aims of the followers. The aims of the followers are to end the Occupation, to get that gun out of their faces, when that happens, they won't care about the Jihadist Utopia, the leaders will have no followers, their dreams will evaporate in the final question will be moot.

I wrote this for real, not to outrage or inflame. I realize many Americans sympathize with the vision of the Irish Nationalists and I do too in my way. The IRA however are terrorists, like the Jihadists, when you take up terrorism you soil whatever your vision may have been until you abandon that means to your end.

I think this post and my diary are trying to struggle with the same issue: How do we, as an open society, deal with the problem of Islamofascism?

Dealing with foreign threats is one thing -- the Bush Doctrine is pretty decent for that.

Dealing with domestic Islamofascism is another thing altogether.

A comment above talks about the IRA and writes:

If democracy is the answer, how come Brits breed home grown terrorists? Well...Democracy is the answer but you can't do it at the point of a gun. Stay home here, lend them money, bring some over and educate them, but Occupy them and they are no longer listening to what you are saying, they are just hating you for waving that gun at them.

The Brits breed homegrown terrorists because they have tolerated radical Islamists in their backyard for far too long.  Blair only just now proposed excluding and deporting foreign Islamist preachers who are inciting violence, but propose it he did.  To say that occupation is the reason that homegrown Islamists engage in terror just seems counterfactual, given that terror began long before any occupation did.

In trying to answer my own questions as well as yours, I did notice some troubling thoughts that nonetheless bear examination.  For example, you wrote:

The first difficult question is: Is this the authentic voice of Islam? And it is a question that no non-Muslim can presume to properly answer.... It may be that they have perverted the teachings of this religion; it may be that they have misunderstood some of its ambiguous teachings; but it may also be that they are faithfully applying those teachings. Again a non-Muslim is in no position to judge of this.

One answer to this, however, and a disturbing one as you will see, is that while a non-Muslim is in no position to answer whether Islamofascism is the authentic voice of Islam or not, a non-Muslim is also under no obligation to answer it.  A non-Muslim is only under the obligation to protect himself, his family, his country, and his society, and to act according to his own interests.  It is the Muslim who is under the obligation to answer the question.

This becomes disturbing to me because the logical extension of this idea is to shift the burden of proof from non-Muslims to Muslims.  We as a society, and our leaders as a result, are careful to say, "Most Muslims are not like this".  In light of the London bombings, more members of our society are increasingly likely to say, "You Muslims had better prove you are not like this."

This is one disturbing answer to your third, and pulverizing, question as well.  

By now, every free nation in the world still possessed of its senses knows it must face this self-interrogation: Are we or are not going permit (or perhaps continue to permit) the emergence, within our midst, of totalitarian Islam? Again I deliberately leave open the question of whether "totalitarian Islam" really means "Islam in the modern world" or merely "a perversion of Islam in the modern world."

If the free people of the world start to travel down this path of not permitting the emergence of totalitarian Islam, I do not think that we would attempt to distinguish between the totalitarian variety and the non-totalitarian variety of Islam.  The burden of proof would shift.

I cannot think of an instance where a free society has decided on a course of intolerance for a philosophy/worldview where it has also taken on the burden of distinguishing between the malevolent forms of it vs. the benign forms of it.  For all we know, there may have been peaceful, benign, pro-Soviet Communists who advocated electoral change.  For all we know, there may be "moderate" white supremacists.  We do not ask such questions as a society -- once an ideology or a movement has been stamped with disapproval, a presumption of malign intent attaches as well.

The Japanese-American experience in World War II I think is immensely illustrative of how an open society responds to existential threats.  We have thus far considered Islamofascism as a problem "over there", that has been "exported" here.  If indeed, this is a problem "over here" as well, then I am seized by foreboding of what that means.

I agree that we must answer No to the question of, Will we allow totalitarian Islam to exist in our society.  But I question whether the idea that we can distinguish, and that we will distinguish, between malign Islam and benign Islam is an idealistic hope.

-TS

"The Brits breed homegrown terrorists because they have tolerated radical Islamists in their backyard for far too long.  Blair only just now proposed excluding and deporting foreign Islamist preachers who are inciting violence, but propose it he did.  To say that occupation is the reason that homegrown Islamists engage in terror just seems counterfactual, given that terror began long before any occupation did."

You wouldn't call it occupation, but the Jihadists would. Remember the stated reason Osama gave, he objected to Western Occupation of Arab lands, referring to the Bases in Suadi and elswhere on the Arab penisula. In Terrorism pre-2001 the original, 911 was reprisal for this occupation. Terrorism the sequel, Madrid and London, are reprisals for the more obvious occupation of Iraq. Indeed there was occupation before terror, at least from the POV of the Jihadist, whether we recognize it as such or not.

But I question whether the idea that we can distinguish, and that we will distinguish, between malign Islam and benign Islam is an idealistic hope.

There may not be a benign Islam. Or rather, there may be benign, moderate Muslims, who are apostates. We cannot foreclose this possibility.

If it is true that the very religion of Islam is our enemy, then what is needed is a concerted effort to isolate the Muslim world, to erect a kind of quarantine.

I'm afraid that the burden of proof does indeed rest on Muslims, not on us.

I have written before on this website that since we are in an undeclared war with radical islam, that known radical islamists should be deported.  That they cannot be allowed freedom of movement within the country. This seems kind of basic.

So Paul's latest article is very relevant in raising the kind of issues that need to be discussed.  A couple of other points:

1.  It comes out that the Jamaica-born Jermaine Lindsay, the 4th Islamikaze in the London Bombing, was identified by US intelligence as potential radical islamist. Further, he was on a  watch list, but MI5 failed to monitor him.  I have read that there are thousands of radical islamists on the UK watch list.  We are at a point where monitoring and surveillance are not enough--freedom of movement must be denied to radical islamists.
   
2.  It is also asserted that any policitian who advocates deporting the islamofascists will end his or her policial career.  I don't think so.  If it is presented in the right way, this could be a career enhancer for the right politician.  

Further thoughts on the politics of legally deporting the Islamofascists.

1.  It will create a third position in addition to "pro" or "anti" the Patriot Act.  It would say that the Partriot Act does not go far enough inasmuch as it allows known islamofascist to remain in the country.  So the leftist defenders and apologists of the Islamofascists will find it harder to knock the Partiot Act since worse (from their point of view) is on he way.
   
2. I could see a moderate democrat or republican taking this up as a kind of common sense homeland security issue.  All the video cameras in public places, watch lists, security checks, etc. can only go so far.

It seems to me that over the past four years we have talked too much--or too prematurely--about the relationship between terrorism and democracy.  At this stage we should be worried not about particular models of governance, but about the strength or weakness of national sovereignty.

Terrorist Islamism, like Communism and French revolutionary radicalism before it, is an internationalist movement -- one that places loyalty to an idea above loyalty to neighbors and nation.  So a terrorist can be born in Britain, educated in Pakistan, and trained in Afghanistan.  He can then return "home" and blow up his neighbors without qualms, for to his way of thinking they are merely obstacles to the fulfillment of an ideological imperative.  The scary thing about this latest species of internationalism is that it shows few signs of being moderated by later nationalist impulses (as both Soviet Communism and French radicalism eventually were).  Islamism doesn't seem to care much at all about political or even ethnic boundaries.  It is therefore peculiarly hard to combat.

The Western left is of course phenomenally ill-equipped to deal with this problem, since despite all evidence to the contrary it still believes that sovereign nation-states are a threat to progress.  The right has meanwhile not shown as firm a commitment to the preservation and fostering of national sovereignty as it ought to.  We need to remind ourselves that international stability is most likely to be achieved in a world of sovereign nations, each of which commands and harnesses the primary allegiance of its citizens.  (It is here, as a secondary issue, that matters of good governance and democracy enter in to the equation; democracy may ultimately be the best way to ensure patriotism.)  From time to time such nation-states will engage in war with one another, but most of their disputes can be dealt with diplomatically, and in any case conflict will be contained within well-known parameters.  If we have to be blown up, at least let it be through the decision of an actual foreign government, not at the hands of some ideologue who lives down the street.

In practical terms, then, our long-term strategy must involve a vigorous advocacy of patriotism, community, and national identity, both here and abroad.  I do not favor actual restrictions on speech at this point, but on an individual level we do need to be more critical of those who refuse to acknowledge their duties to this particular polity.

Your first question can only be answered by this simple truth: there is no "THE authentic voice of Islam." Islam (especially the majority Sunni branch) is fundamentally anarchic in structure. Anyone can set himself up as religious authority and there exists no hierarchy or governing council to regulate this.

As for your second question, it perturbs rather little that the bombers may have grown up in the heart of British democracy. We have experience with non-Islamic terrorists who come from such backgrounds too: Timothy McVeigh for example. Or the old Red Brigades and Baader-Meinhof charmers. We did not wring our hands wondering if democracy was "wrong" for America or Germany or Italy because of those human failures so I fail to see why we must do so in the face of an Islamic terrorist. And the fact that non-Islamic terrorists can come out of a middle-class background in a functional democracy suggests there is nothing unqiue about Islam at all. Evil knows no cultural boundaries.

Your third question is where the meat is. But we must frankly and freely acknowledge that we cannot artificially limit its scope. Rather it must be phrased more broadly: To what extent can a liberal (in the original sense of the term) society tolerate the existence of illiberal traditions that wish it ill in its midst?

Re: In the long-run, I don't believe a truly multicult

Well, in the long-enough run nothing survives forever. However let's note here that multiculturalism is nothing new, and the US has had major multi-cultrural elements in place for a very long time. As diaries on this site quoting that rather interesting book "Albion's Seed" have explained, even our Anglo-roots are not in fact culturally homogenous, but represent at least four strains of Brittanic culture. Add to that the Pennsylvania Dutch (really: Pennsylvania Germans) many of whom retain their unique Plattdeutsch dialect and religion to this day; the Cajun French of Louisiana; the long-time Hispanic presence in the Southwest, our African Americans, and the many strains of Native American and we have a country that has successfully embraced a multuitude of cultural strains for a long time. Moreover America's religious diversity is probably greater than that of any other country on Earth (maybe Canada comes close). I think there is far too much hand-wringing on this issue when the real problem is not the variety of cultures, languages, and religions we contain within our borders, but certain numerically trivial but potentially very dangerous people--and that is "people" that I said, not cultures. To paraphrase the NRA, cultures don't kill people, people do.

It is of course true that America has always included people from a variety of cultures, and has usually embraced them; what is not true is that we have always been tyrannized by an ideology which claims that all cultures are equal, that now nation has a right to retain its distinct identity, etc, etc.

It is not the fact of many cultures, but rather the self-loathing ideology of the elites in response to that fact, which exercises us.