Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Peace-loving Muslims
By Walter E. Williams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you personally know a young voter who has been sucked into Obamamania?


All of us should give some serious thought to some of the ideas contained in an article circulating the blogsphere titled "Why a Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant." So often our political leaders, "experts" and talking heads tell us that Islam is a peaceful religion and most Muslims are not out to destroy the West. We're told it's only that 1 percent, out of 1.2 billion Muslims, who are fanatical jihadists who believe America is the Great Satan, cause of all evil, and should be attacked and destroyed. In terms of national policy, it's irrelevant whether Islam is a peaceful religion and most Muslims are peaceful.

Think back to the 1930s when the Japanese murdered an estimated 3 million to 10 million people in China, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines and Indochina; and on December 7, 1941 when they attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2,400 Americans. I'm betting that most of Japan's at-the-time 60 million population were peace-loving people and would have wanted nothing to do with the brutal slaughter in China and the attack on the U.S. In formulating our response to the attack, should President Roosevelt have taken into account the fact that most Japanese are peace-loving people ruled by fanatics? Should our military have only gone after the Japanese pilots and their naval armada? I'd also wager that most Germans were peace-loving people and not part of the Nazi sadists wanting to wage war on their neighbors and exterminate the Jews. Again, should Roosevelt and Churchill have taken that into account in their response to German militarism? My answer is no and thank God it was their answer as well. Whether most Germans, Italians or Japanese were peace-loving or not was entirely irrelevant in formulating the Allied response to their militarism.

Horrible acts can be committed in countries where most of the people are peace-loving and simply want to be left alone to attend to their affairs. I imagine that described most of the people in the former Soviet Union; however, that did not stop the killing of an estimated 62 million people between 1917 and 1987. The same can be said of the Chinese people, but it didn't stop the killing of 35 million of their countrymen during Mao Zedong's reign. Whether most people of a country are peace-loving or not is not nearly as important as who's calling the shots.

At this particular time, fanatical jihadists are calling the terrorism shots in many Muslim countries. Their success in committing terrorist acts is in no small part the result of the actions by the millions of peace-loving fellow Muslims. First, there is not enough condemnation of their terrorist acts by the Muslim community. More important is the direct or indirect assistance terrorists receive through the silence of their fellow Muslims. There is no way terrorists can carry on their operations, obtain explosive materials, run terrorist training camps, raise money without the knowledge of other Muslims, whether they're government officials, bankers, family members, friends or neighbors. Because those millions of peace-loving Muslims do not speak out and expose terrorists and don't more fully cooperate with domestic and international authorities trying to stop terrorists, they become enemies of the West just as the peace-loving people in Germany, Italy and Japan became enemies of the Allied powers during World War II. Like them, Muslims should be prepared to suffer the full might of the West in its efforts to fight terrorism. I'm hoping that the millions of peaceful Muslims take the proper action to avoid such an outcome. I'm not that optimistic. We're involved in a clash with a culture that has little regard for the Western values that hold the sanctity of human life and liberty dear.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Walter Williams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: Fed Up: Alby is correct
Dr. Williams does not run the TH website, and, therefore cannot be in a position to censor the posts on this talk string in any way.
Actually TH is pretty lenient about not censoring so-called "offensive" remarks. Many other websites, especially the so-called "liberal" ones (e.g. some of the UK websites such as Daily Mail, etc.), are far, FAR worse. In fact they are so control-freakish it's surprising they don't just make up their own posts instead of allowing the public to post at all. Opinions opposed to globalism will generally not be posted there.
It should embarrass you to speak so incompetently to issues about which you obviously know nothing. It tends to undermine the credibility of your self-proclaimed constitutional bona fides.
Actually, instead of appearing "nitpicky", it's not a bad idea to "take what you can get" out of the talking heads.
For example, Neal Boortz is an arrogant and abrasive numbnuts (he's a lawyer for crying out loud), but he's a big time promoter of the Fair Tax, which, in my book, tends to forgive his other sins. At least he means well.
Limbaugh is an incurable blowhard, but he's has an interesting style, and he's world class at ridiculing "liberals", and that forgives a lot of sins. He, too, at least means well.
Hannity is so repetitive as to be painfully boring, but the women think he's "cute", and so they listen to him, which is vastly preferable to them listening to touchy-feely socialists like Al Franken, Garrison Keillor, Bill Maher, or other lib talking heads.
None of the abovementioned media "stars" give a fat rat's a$s about the U.S. Constitution, but copping an attitude isn't going to teach them anything. Furthermore, I'll be more blunt than Alby: Dr. Williams doesn't deserve "attitude" from the likes of you, because he's one of the good guys. So why not give him the common courtesy which is his due?

reply to Viruddh
Of course there are disagreements within Islam, and I've never said there were not. However, I can't think of any segment of Islamic opnion that can be content with and ultimately accepting of a world in which all people do not eventually become Muslim. Muslims may differe about how devoted they are with regard to that goal, and what means they are or are not willing to use to reach it. The basic logic of the distinction between the dar-al-Harb and the dar-al-Islam seems to be accepted by virtually all Muslims; those who choose to take violent action based on this concept are our enemies, and there are a lot of them. Furthermore, many Muslims who are not themselves willing to fight admire those who are willing.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.