Naser Khader, a Muslim and member of the Danish Parliament, tries to make the case. I think the term “racism” is oft misapplied, especially when Islamists accuse their opponents of it. In part of the article it seems that Khader is making a metaphorical case:
Islamism is the racism of our time. It can be said no more clearly than this. And as such, a united democratic world must turn against Islamism — not seeking ‘dialogue’ or ‘understanding’, but in rejection and concrete resistance.
That seems to say that Islamism should be fought the way racism is fought. But here he really calls it racism:
I believe that the Danish government should use Durban II to propose a condemnation of political Islam as a racist ideology. We owe it to ourselves and to our soldiers, who set their lives on the line fighting terrorism on the battlefield, that we at the lofty conferences in the international society act equally firmly and with principle against Islamism.
As much as I relish the idea of hijacing a UN conference this way, it’s not my race that Jihadists hate: It’s my unwillingness to submit. This part, though, is hard to argue with:
It is time that we discard the velvet gloves and make this clear: There exist religious practices that are not compatible with fundamental human rights. Islamism is one of those, and must therefore be fought.
It is not sufficient to keep killing Taliban warriors on the battlefields of Afghanistan, if we do not simultaneously put our fullest efforts into the other battle. If our souls are lost to the Islamists, we will eventually lose the War on Terror. Democracy must learn to strike hard.
