So is it wrong, then, to shrink from the conclusion that the real problem is Islam?...Hair-splitting between "Islamism" and "Islam" runs the risk of doing exactly what we must avoid doing: minimizing the challenge confronting us and suggesting that there is a vibrant, preponderant "Islam," markedly different from purportedly aberrant "Islamism," that somehow does not see sharia-imposition as obligatory. In my heart of hearts, I don't believe this is true.Yet, that is exactly what McCarthy immediately goes on to do:
The stubborn fact remains that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who either do not wish to live under the tyranny of sharia or are so indifferent that, even if they would abide by sharia in a Muslim country where it applies, they do not support converting non-Muslim societies into sharia enclaves. What are we to do about them? Are we to tell them they are wrong, that their only alternative is to renounce Islam--even those who live in fundamentalist societies where the penalty for apostasy is death? Are we to give those people no place to go?McCarthy acknowledges that what he labels Islamists, "may substantially outnumber our potential allies in the umma." And he goes on:
We should reserve the designation "Islam" in the hope that tolerant voices can redeem it, but our defense must never be hostage to that hope, which may, after all, be futile.As he seems to acknowledge, this is purely wishful thinking. So why does he insist on making the distinction? Well, I think to incentivize or encourage or allow for some type of Islamic reformation. Which perhaps, he views as more likely if the adherents can continue to think of themselves as Muslims.
While I think I understand his rational, I find it unrealistically optimistic and even counterproductive. We will never defeat that which we are afraid to name. Let's be clear, while there may well be moderate Muslims, there is certainly no moderate Islam. We cannot wish it into existence. So to answer McCarthy's question: Are we to give those people no place to go?
Well, word games will not suffice. The problem is not Islamism. The problem is Islam. Of course those people should renounce Islam.
By not rejecting Islam, so-called moderate Muslims give tacit approval to Islamic doctrine and to their co-religionists who are less reticent to follow it. With his semantic construct, McCarthy lets them off the hook for this. It is a mistake. If we do not imbue Islam with the negative connotation it so richly deserves, Muslims will have no incentive to decamp. The problem, of course, is that there are 1.4 billion Muslims of varying stripes and the overwhelming majority of them will never abandon their ideology. It is a problem without a recognized solution. (I advocate containment a la George Kennan) But in any case, it does us no good whatsoever to sweep it under Orwell's rug.
For much more sober views on moderate Islam, see Bruce Bawer, Hugh Fitzgerald, and Sam Harris.
I'm eleven chapters into The Grand Jihad, and other than the semantic confusion, I have found it quite illuminating. But I would be far more sympathetic to his above premise if McCarthy drew distinctions between his two degrees of Islam. So far, he does not. He talks exclusively about Islamism and Islamists. But to my ear, it sure sounds like just plain Islam. So every time McCarthy uses the terms Islamism or Islamist, I have to replace them with Islam or Muslim. It's annoying.
~~~
Finally, at the end of chapter twelve, on page 212, McCarthy, for the first time, does make a distinction between the views of (moderate) Muslims and Islamists. He contrasts their attitudes on Obama's Muslim heritage: Moderates "figure being born a Muslim should be irrelevant if one never makes an adult choice to embrace the religion." As opposed to Islamists who "believe that all humans, regardless of parentage, are called to Islam at birth." While statistics or polling on the prevailing Muslim attitude on this question would be appreciated, I will welcome more such distinctions reading forward.
At the end of chapter fifteen, McCarthy finally addresses what is to my mind the real problem, mainstream Islam:
First, while Obama is living proof that it is possible to ignore Islamic doctrine's causative connection to terrorism, it is not possible credibly to deny that connection. Therefore, the need to deal with Islam is unavoidable--not because it is an asset, but because it's a liability that can't be written off.But the question is: Do vast majorities of Muslims have the will, or even the inclination, to accept such "counter-constructions" or reform? Again, this is ignoring reality. This is holding ourselves hostage to hope.
Second, there can be no peace unless Islam reforms. For there to be peace, Islam must purge its savage elements...and it must compellingly condemn the violence committed in its name. This cannot be done, as Obama and others would like to do it, by telling Muslims everything is fine, that their religion is just peachy as is....This approach does nothing to discredit Islamists and Islamist terrorists in the eyes of other Muslims. In fact, it enhances their credibility because it ignores their doctrinal justifications of terror rather than offering a credible counter-construction.
Worse, as we've observed, it may well be that there is no credible counter-construction of Islam. In that case, there is a gargantuan amount of reform to be done by Muslims. They are the ones who believe that there is something in Islam so worth preserving that it's better to fight than switch. We cannot rouse them to the task by telling them, as American presidents have been wont to tell them, that we think Islam, as it currently exists, is promoting peace.
