A Critical Analysis of 'Real Islam'. Its People ... - Bukti dan Saksi

Chapter 29
The Path Ahead
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, so that my children may have peace." - Thomas Paine,
American patriot
Because of its asymmetrical nature, most people don't appreciate that the War on Terrorism is
actually a World War. In this conflict Nation states are pitted against a myriad of terrorist organizations
without borders and the Islamic theology pushing them, and not against other states like in previous
World Wars and the Cold War. Although the theoretical battle is similar in the fight between Democratic
freedom and Islamic subjugation, the contest is much less familiar, yet still physical in nature, and fatal.
This is also unlike the Cold War where the free world fought repressive communists who wanted to live
and could be deterred by nuclear Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). But the similarity with earlier
World Wars is that it has an ideological component, with both sides thinking that they are the good guys.
On the one side are the people who believe that democracy with all its accompanying civil liberties is the
best way for human beings to organize their societies, whereas the other side spits at democracy and
fights for the world to be ruled in accordance with the medieval laws of Allah, the "oft-forgiving, most
merciful" Muslim God who, unfortunately, does not love non-believers. In many ways, this asymmetrical
warfare is more dangerous because the enemy (men eager to die so as to be rewarded with carnal
Paradise) could be living amongst us, and most probably are.
The war on the ideological front, which should be so clear in its boundaries, unfortunately is not
going very well at all. Western concepts of civil rights, along with legal, political, and cultural constraints
currently preclude government intervention of organized religions, and make it difficult to prohibit or
punish inflammatory sermons of imams in mosques, or to punish clerics for issuing fatwas justifying
terrorism. Myopic organizations like the ACLU, with support from activist judges, claim no boundary or
limits can be placed on speech. Even without such opposition, within politics it is problematic to
differentiate where free speech ends and incitement begins. As long as it so restricts itself the West
remains at a severe disadvantage in the War of Ideas. Guilt related to colonial legacy also deters some
Western governments from taking steps that may be construed as either anti-Muslim, or as signs of
lingering colonialist ideology. Although statues are in force in many European countries to cope with
destructive and dangerous political and racial crimes (anti-Nazi and anti-racism laws), in democratic
countries no statute has ever been considered to date against religious ideologies deemed a threat to
existing governments and citizens. Most of the new terrorism prevention legislation enacted in some
counties depends on surveillance and subpoena powers but does not empower agencies to deal with
religion-based "ideological crimes". This mindset and approach needs to be reconsidered if the West
hopes to counter the unquestioned fatwas being issued calling to Muslims to take up the sword and kill
infidels. As long as we are only dealing with the brainwashed Islamic soldier, and not the teacher who
sent him, we will never stop the flow of terrorists planning and carrying out more attacks against us.
The conflict and struggle between competing ideologies had always been a component of total war,
but in this war the US has somewhat abandoned ideological warfare, restricting its criticism to terrorists
who ‘got their religion wrong’. Even Bush tells us that Islam means peace, recognizing that most
Muslims are not terrorists and some even disapprove (quietly) of the terrorist tactics pursued by militants.
But the teachings of Islam make it quite difficult, if not impossible, for more moderate Muslims to openly
wage war against the terrorists. It should be clear to any casual observer that the vast majority of Muslims
instinctively rally to support fellow Muslims when they come under attack. It seems that no matter how
unworthy or how violent and repressive a regime is, Muslims always prefer a bad Muslim to a good
Infidel. Thus when the US attacked Afghanistan (ruled by the brutal Taliban), or Iraq (ruled by a
murderous regime) Muslims all over the world protested. Saddam Hussein killed many more fellow
Muslims than arch-enemy Israel ever did, yet many Muslims from all over the world volunteered to fight
for him against the Coalition forces entering to liberate Muslims from the despot. What this means for
America is that the war will not be effectively enjoined by any Muslim state, as even moderates cannot be
counted on to support the forces of democracy against other Muslims. All we can reasonably hope for is a