The brilliant Dennis Prager has written an excellent defense of conservatives who demand that “moderate Muslims” take a harder stand against Islamic terrorism. In recent days, liberals have joined with Muslim apologists to decry the idea that Muslims should be asked to stand with us against terrorism and Prager answers these critics well.
For example in a piece for the Washington Post, Rana Elmir writes:
I emphatically refuse…
But these calls for condemnation serve only zealots who will never be satisfied. They thrive and profit off of the fear-mongering, hate and violence generated by othering and silencing an entire community who has lived and contributed to our nation since its founding. The first Muslims in the United States were brought over bound as slaves, not immigrants. Muslims fought in every war starting with the American Revolution and have contributed to every facet of society — law, education, medicine, government, fashion, music, architecture and sports. And while some American Muslims have prospered, many face challenges — poverty, unemployment and undereducation — often overshadowed by foreign policy and compounded by pervasive discrimination in our country.
But I believe in a freedom that is true, that is real and that is unapologetically principled. I will always do my part and fight for justice.
But terrorism is not mine. I will not claim it, not even through an apology.
It is against this simplistic and rather trite perspective that Prager responds showing that, yes, Muslims should be asked to condemn Islamic terror.
Decent people (including many decent Muslims) make this request for three other reasons. The first is to ascertain the moral/religious views of that Muslim. The second is to ascertain how widespread Islamist views are among Muslims. And the third reason is to have as many Muslims as possible condemn Islamist violence in the hope that Muslims considering supporting or engaging in terror will think twice about doing so.
It is the most logical request people of goodwill can make when they ask Muslim spokespeople to react to atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. How else are non-Muslims to assess Islam and Muslims?
Prager then goes on to describe various other events and issues where people who are not responsible for certain crimes still speak out against those crimes because, “That is what civilized and moral people are expected to do – condemn those who murder in their name.” Instead, Ms. Elmir writes that the people calling for these condemnations are the guilty party, and Prager wonders at the gall. Indeed, he calls her (and other liberal and Muslim response to this issue), “one of the more remarkable moral inversions of our time.”
And this gets to the heart of the problem doesn’t it? Liberals have partnered with Islam because both philosophies are fighting to discard the morality and culture of Western Civilization. They have partnered together to destroy Judeo-Christian morality and replace it with a morality of their own making. The Muslim wants to replace it with Islamofascism and the immorality of Sharia. The leftist wants to replace it with the immoral amorality of their godless, self-centered personal anarchism. Neither cares at this moment that their two divergent philosophies are at odds and cannot survive together, they only care about the here and now and bringing an end to Western Civilization.
Do yourself a favor and read all of Dennis Prager’s excellent piece at the National Review Online.