Why the Peaceful Majority of Muslims Are Not Irrelevant
by Sheldon Richman, March 26, 2008
A few years ago, FrontPageMag.com columnist Paul Marek wrote an article titled “Why the Peaceful Majority Is Irrelevant”. His thesis was that even if the majority of Muslims abhor violence, it doesn’t matter because “the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.... The hard quantifiable fact is, that the ‘peaceful majority’ is the ‘silent majority’ and it is cowed and extraneous.”
For Marek, the upshot is this: “We must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.”
He’s wrong. No, he’s worse than wrong, because his position could be used to justify mass murder.
Marek and those who have applauded his column point out that most Germans and Japanese during World War II were not warmongers, but warmongers controlled policy-making. The implication is that the United States was right to regard the peaceful majority as nonexistent. That’s exactly what the Allies did. Under Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Winston Churchill hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians were targeted and killed in bombings that had no direct relationship to military targets. Most people consider this morally defensible. But why isn’t it mass murder? Marek’s answer would be that, since the peaceful majority did nothing to stop the warmongering minority, the majority — men, women, and children — were fair game.
This dubious principle has been applied to the Middle East: If the majority are peaceful, why don’t its members speak out — and act — against the radical minority? Since they don’t, “we” have the right to ignore them when we devise strategy and tactics to defend “ourselves.”
Rest of Article Here