Every time a Muslim commits murder in the name of Islam, the denial begins again: Western leaders and the mainstream media tie themselves into knots trying to explain what happened without making any reference to its guiding motivation.Secularism, tolerance, pluralism, and relativism are in a pickle here. On one hand, secularism, tolerance, pluralism, and relativism theoretically have no truck with any creed or faith tradition. I say theoretically, because we know that there are some creeds (viz, neo-Nazism) that are rejected in a European pluralist society. But in general, all are fungible and interchangeable.
Last week was no different: Muhammad Merah was a self-styled "Islamic warrior" who killed a rabbi and several children at a Jewish day school in Toulouse, France, in an attack that the international media widely reported initially as having been perpetrated by a neo-Nazi. When it became clear that Merah was actually a jihadist, the predictable denial began: French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the attack had nothing to do with Islam, and the call echoed worldwide not to allow the murders to harm French "pluralism."
In fact, however, Muhammad Merah's murders had everything to do with Islam: he claimed affiliation with al-Qaeda and may have trained with the Taliban, both of which are explicitly and ostentatiously Muslim groups that justify all their actions by reference to the Qur'an and Sunnah. He claimed to be a mujahid, which is a warrior of jihad, which is an Islamic theological and legal concept. He killed Muslim soldiers who fought in the infidel military -- something that only someone who considered one's loyalty to the umma to trump all other loyalties would have done.
Indeed, so grounded is Merah's massacre in Islam that it is virtually inconceivable that he would have carried it out had he not been a Muslim. And so Sarkozy is, like every other leader in the Western world today, whistling in the dark, trying to pretend that there is no problem when there is a huge problem, and basing the future of his nation on the fantasy that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in France do not believe the same things Muhammad Merah believed.
Meanwhile, Sarkozy announced that he is going to make habitually visiting jihadi websites a crime. But as long as Sarkozy and the French establishment continues in denial about the nature, source and magnitude of the threat, monitoring websites may stop a few jihad attacks, but it will do nothing to stop the Islamization of French society by gradual capitulation to Sharia demands. The hijab ban was one step to prevent that, but Sarkozy is going to have to be prepared to be much more "implacable in defending our values," as he declared he would be in the wake of Merah's massacre, than he has been up to now, if he is really serious about doing so.
On the other hand, secularism, tolerance, pluralism, and relativism, since these philosophies do not believe in the objective superiority of any one creed or faith (or in the objective incompatibility and/or inferiority of any one creed or faith), these principles render a tolerant and pluralist culture unable to defend itself against a competing rival culture. Particularly a steeply chauvinistic one that insinuates itself into the host culture (in this case, French, European, and Western) under the rubric of pluralism, and then works feverishly to subvert that tolerant and pluralist culture and transform it into a Sharia-compliant Islamic one.
In other words, post-Christian Western Civilization's values of tolerance and pluralism impede it from acting on the threats posed by invading viral agents from another civilization. For what does it mean to be French? Can--or more saliently, will--an observant Moslem living in France act the same or hold the same values as would a white native-born nominally Catholic Frenchman? Is it realistic to expect a Moslem Algerian-born "Frenchman" to have any commonalities with a secular or nominally Catholic white Frenchman for the essential elements of a culture...shared faith, blood, language, traditions? If one's "identity" is one defined so broadly that all are accepted and few are rejected, on what basis is one French as opposed to German or Algerian? Speaking the French language, and obeying French laws? Or is it something more substantive than that, such as a common faith and shared genetic heritage?