It is impossible that the human race should ever live in permanent peace. It is impossible that we should eliminate poverty, inequality, drug abuse, crime or stupidity. And yet, one side of the political spectrum talks and acts as though it is a scandal that we have not established permanent peace. Fools think that evil can be done away with. But fools rarely think of doing themselves in. To make the world "safe for democracy" was the stupidity of 89 years ago. To democratize Islam is the stupidity of today.
President Bush has attempted to refashion Iraq into a democracy, but he cannot even control the city of Baghdad. The reason for Bush's failure may be chalked up to simple ignorance. As someone should have explained to him two years ago, democracy is unworkable where free speech is not respected. Democracy has no chance when a violent cult has the upper hand. Last year Robert Redeker, a French high-school philosophy teacher, wrote an article in Le Figaro in which he described the Prophet Mohammed as a "pillager" and "butcher of Jews." According to Redeker, "Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites reject and delegitimize violence. Islam is a religion that, in its own sacred text, as well as in its everyday rites, exalts violence and hatred." The vindication of Redeker's analysis was soon to follow. As Redeker's friend, Christian Delacampagne, wrote in the January edition of Commentary magazine, "In Egypt and Tunisia, the offending issue of Le Figaro was banned." Worse yet, Redeker soon "received a large number of threats by letter and e-mail." A Muslim website sentenced him to death, publishing Redeker's home address for the convenience of any would-be assassins. Along with his wife and three children, Redeker was forced to leave his home and live secretly "under police protection."
If a citizen of France cannot, in safety, write his opinion regarding the Prophet Mohammed, how can there be any freedom of speech whatsoever in the Muslim world? How can there be anything resembling democracy in Iraq? Democracy is impossible where violence and threats reign supreme. And in the Arab world, violence and extremism have clearly put freedom out of reach. If there is no tolerance for dissent, then there cannot be freedom of speech. If there cannot be freedom of speech, there cannot be a free or fair election. The clergy in Muslim countries does not maintain its position through open discussion and debate. It maintains its position through intimidation and violence. It is understood, as a practical matter, that freedom of speech would signify the end of Islam's dominance in one country after another.
Please keep this in mind: "freedom of speech" signifies "protected speech." And the problem in Iraq is a problem of protection. No mechanism exists for protected speech in Iraq. Even if President Bush sent 500,000 troops to Iraq, the Baghdad resident who criticized the founder of Islam would have to leave town or feel the assassin's dagger. And even now, as Islam spreads throughout the world, freedom of speech is compelled to retreat. If Europe's freedom is compromised by the presence of 50 or 60 million Muslims, then Baghdad's case is hopeless. The sectarian differences between Sunni and Shiite have the following tendency. One cannot allow one side to publish its opinion, since any such publication would constitute a gross insult to the other side; and the response would be the pronouncement of a death sentence on the offender.
In this context, try and imagine Iranian Shiite fanatics mass-producing nuclear warheads. What does an atomic bomb signify to people who believe they will go to heaven for being martyred in a war against infidels? If the leaders of the West are afraid to criticize Islam now, imagine the fear that will grip Europe in the future. And fear, as Oriana Fallaci wrote, "is a deadly plague.... A disease which, fed by opportunism and conformism, hence cowardice, leads to more deaths than cancer. It is a disease which unlike cancer strikes all those who are along its road."
British Prime Minister Tony Blair says that we are engaged in a war, "but of a completely unconventional kind." He says that we "will not win the battle against global extremism unless we win it at the level of values as much as that of force." This sounds very good, of course. We should all prefer a victory "at the level of values." But how does this translate into effective action? The answer for Blair is simple - and goes directly to Fallaci's point. In the pages of the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs, Blair explains: "To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is."
I must return to Fallaci's commentary:
"I have seen terrible things, in the nowadays Eurabia, caused by fear. Things much uglier than those I've seen in war where in fear we live and we die. I've seen leaders who used to pose as braggarts and who out of fear hoisted (and hoist) the white flag. I've seen liberals who called themselves champions of secularism and who out of fear sang (and sing) the glory of the Koran."
As if to punctuate Fallaci's point, British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote: "As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance." Blair then describes Islam's conquest of Christian territory as "breathtaking" because Islam "founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture."
Returning to Fallaci:
"From Spain , in 721 AD, they passed into ... France. Led by Abd al-Rahman, the Governor of Andalusia, they crossed the Pyrenees and took Narbonne. There they massacred the entire male population, enslaved all the women and children, then proceeded toward Carcassonne. From Carcassonne they went to Nimes where they slaughtered nuns and friars. From Nimes they went to Lyons and Dijon where they pillaged every single church...."
The British Prime Minister has forgotten who he is. He has forgotten Britain, and what Britain signifies. He has forgotten the horrible fate of Narbonne. He forgets, as we all forget, the definition of the word "enemy," as if the word were an aberration - just as religious fanatics are thought to be an "aberration." Instead, Mr. Blair appeals to our "values," as if he might bridge the gulf that separates his world from the Muslim world. Either the British Prime Minister is pulling our leg, or he is very foolish indeed.
Let us not misunderstand. The West must be careful in respecting Islam. But we are not compelled to live in the same political space, and therefore we should defend our institutions against colonization (just as we should abandon the crazy scheme of democratizing Islam). The Muslims need not become democrats and we need not embrace the Koran. Europe and the Muslims may enjoy periods of peace and periods of conflict. If the Muslims use atomic weapons there will be an atomic war, and there probably will be such a war in the long run. It should be understood that there is no solution, no permanent peace, and no easy answers.
Some things are impossible, and some things are inevitable.
