Islam vs. the West
by Robert W. Tracinski

Editor, THE INTELLECTUAL ACTIVIST
Reprinted from the November, 1998, issue, Volume 12, No.11.
Reproduced by permission
COPYRIGHT @ 1998 by TIA Publications, Inc.
PO Box 262, Lincroft NJ 07738, USA.
Telephone: 732-842-6610; Fax: 732-842-6381
e-mail: tia@osg.com; Web site: www.IntellectualActivist.com
All rights reserved. Reproductions in whole or in
part without written permission is prohibited.
Abstract - U.S. political and intellectual leaders are leading an
ideological campaign of exonerating the religion of Islam as the primary
motivation of Islamist terrorism, and thereby seeking to conciliate the
terrorists. The wrong-thinking of this approach is examined from the
perspective of comparing secularism with religious fundamentalism, pointing
out the inevitable clash that must result. The affront that America's
freedom poses to religious fundamentalism as believed and practiced in the
religion of Islam is described in terms of secular values that are
successful and powerful. It is suggested that the policy of appeasement and
conciliation toward our enemies is basically self-destructive.


IN RESPONSE TO THE BOMBING OF TWO US EMBASSIES by Islamic terrorists, our
political and intellectual leaders have pursued an ideological campaign to
exonerate the religion of Islam--the primary motivation of the
terrorists--from any responsibility for terrorism. Just as the US policy in
the realm of action has been one of conciliation toward our enemies (such as
Iran), so the US policy in the realm of ideas has been to assert, in
President Clinton's words, that there is no "inevitable clash between
Western civilization and Western values and Islamic civilization and
values."

The primary terrorist threat to the United States comes from Islamic
fundamentalists
The facts belie this view. The primary terrorist threat to the United States
comes from Islamic fundamentalists--and the more fervent a country's or
organization's Islamic beliefs, the more venomous are its denunciations of
the West. This is not a coincidence. It stems directly from a fundamental
ideological conflict between Islam and the West--an ideological conflict
that can be seen, not only in the attacks by Islamic terrorists, but also in
the near-civil-wars in countries like Turkey, Egypt, and Algeria between
Islamic factions and their more-Westernized governments.

This central issue is the conflict between secularism and religious
fundamentalism.

The Webster's New World Dictionary defines "secular" as: "of or relating to
worldly things as distinguished from things relating to church and
religion." "Secularism" is a cultural and intellectual doctrine, defined as
"a worldly spirit, views, or the like; esp., a system of doctrines and
practices that disregards or rejects any form of religious faith and
worship," as well as a political doctrine: "the belief that religion and
ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the functions of the state."
Defined in philosophic terms, secularism is the rejection of faith in favor
of reason, the rejection of the supernatural in favor of pursuit of values
in this world, and the rejection of theocracy in favor of separation of
church and state. While Europe experienced a Renaissance, the Islamic world
lapsed back into primitive religious fanaticism.

This approach is embraced throughout the West and is even tolerated by the
predominant Western religion, Christianity. Consider, for example, the
recently published papal encyclical, Fides et Ratio, which appeals to the
Thomist doctrine of a harmony between faith and reason. This view is an
unstable compromise. Faith and reason are opposite methods--one consists of
the rejection of evidence, while the other demands unwavering adherence to
the evidence; ultimately, they cannot coexist in the same mind or in the
same culture. But the papal encyclical is a timely reminder of the
fundamental root of the West's secularism: Thomas Aquinas established the
idea that reason is valid on its own terms, that is does not have to be
subordinated to faith. His view laid the groundwork for the explosion of
scientific and philosophic inquiry in the Renaissance and Enlightenment and
made possible the increasing atrophy of religion in the West.

America stands as a blatant affront to this fundamentalist outlook.
The Islamic world, by contrast, never had an Aquinas. Throughout the Middle
Ages, the study of Greek and Roman science and philosophy had been more
widespread in the Islamic world than in Europe. By the time of Aquinas,
however, these philosophers were largely ignored and their works banned.
While Europe experienced a Renaissance, the Islamic world rejected reason
and science and lapsed back into primitive religious fanaticism. Hence, the
present-day Islamic prohibitions on the education of women and of the free
expression of ideas, as well as the strict Islamic code requiring women to
keep their bodies covered (lest they should excite men's sexual desire), the
prohibitions on alcohol, on music and art, and even (in some areas) on
shaving or trimming one's beard--which is considered a worldly luxury. These
religious prohibitions outlaw every manifestation of man's survival and
happiness in this world. America represents a dangerous example of secular
values -- all the more dangerous because it is successful and powerful

America stands as a blatant affront to this fundamentalist outlook. Except
for a few radical fundamentalists, Americans are secular; religion is not
central to their lives. Predominantly, Americans embrace this-worldly
values--wealth, physical beauty, sexual pleasure--and they base their
intellectual and political institutions on rational debate and discussion.
In the intellectual realm, even those who attack reason (such as Kant and
his present-day followers in academia) usually do so, not by citing
religious texts or the pronouncements of prophets, but by constructing
pseudo-rational arguments for their positions. In the political realm,
America has enshrined free speech as a centerpiece of its political system,
allowing decisions to be determined, not by the decrees of religious
leaders, but by the persuasion of voters and politicians through the public
debate.

Our leaders now refuse to recognize the vicious nature of Islam and its
irreconciliable conflict with the West.
This is why America is the target of Islamic fundamentalists' venomous
hatred. America represents a dangerous example of secular values--all the
more dangerous because it is successful and powerful, and because it exerts
that power over the Islamic world. America broadcasts television programs
like "Baywatch" to the illegal satellite dishes of Iran; it harbors
"blasphemous" writers like Salman Rushdie; and it uses its advanced
technology to crush Iraqi soldiers in battle. Menachem Klein, an expert on
Islam at BarIlan University in Jerusalem, explains the conflict this way:
"Islam puts God at its center. The Western world, on the other hand, is
concerned with liberalism, freedom, and democracy. It's absolute heresy. And
worst of all, from the Islamists' point of view, this culture is
increasingly successful."

Americans must reject both the politically correct dogma of respecting all
cultures and the timid fear of offending anyone of any religion.
It is natural that the Islamic fundamentalist would choose terrorism as
their means of striking back. Consistent with their rejection of reason and
secular philosophy, they have no arguments to offer. They do not regard
religious ideas as a matter of rational discussion, but as a matter of pure
faith. Thus, they have no other alternative but to choose force and terror
as a means to punish the "infidels"--literally those "without faith."

There can be no compromise or friendly relations with those who hold this
ideology in any form. But just as they refused to recognize the vicious
nature of Communism and sought a policy of detente, so our leaders now
refuse to recognize the vicious nature of Islam and its irreconcilable
conflict with the West. To see what our leaders do not, Americans must
reject both the "politically correct" dogma of "respecting all cultures" and
the timid fear of offending anyone of any religion. Otherwise we will be
doomed to continue our self-destructive policy of appeasement and
conciliation toward those who wish to destroy us.


http://www.hinduunity.org