In the ongoing debate over Islam and its place in the world, a conflict develop between the West’s desire to maintain a politically correct democratic society and our need to pinpoint and succesfully defend ourselves against those who intend to do us harm. And we need to confront a basic but extremely uncomfortable question- why do so many of today’s terrorists have connections with the Islamic world? Mr. Morbi and Ms. Miller both attacked in very non-politically correct terms someone whose views did not meet their p.c. standards. From their acerbic reactions, it is obvious that this is an extremely delicate debate, and their accusations of racism and Islamophobia are slung about far too often. The fact that Mr. Morbi and Ms. Miller quote an isolated phrase form the Koran proves nothing. Anyone who has read the Bible and Koran knows that both texts contain ideas of peaceful coexistence as well as justification for killing. The key is how the text is interpreted- the Church used to take a fundamentalist view of the bible, and used it to incite murder Jews and Muslims under the title ‘ a holy crusade.’ For a number of reasons, the enlightenment did not occur in the Islamic world, and it is a place where the fundamentalist view is predominant far too often- holy wars, oppression of non-believers, and calls for world-wide conversion. This fundamentalist reading of Islam is what the Western World is in conflict with. The view that forces ethnic and religious minorities in Muslim lands to submit to dhimmi status can never be reconciled with Western liberalism. A dhimmi is a non-Muslim who lives under Muslim rule, and if they are willing to be dominated by shariya, or Islamic law, then jihad is suspended against them, and they get to live. The dhimmi laws can include crippling taxes, lack of legal rights, slavery (in the case of black sudanese being sold to Arab Gulf states), or the forced wearing of distinguishing characteristics ( Mr. Morbi, that Yellow Star of David you mention was originally forced on Jews in Arab lands, and only later adopted by the Nazis). This imperialistic view of Islam is disturbingly predominant- the Christian Copts in Egypt, Christian Marronites in Lebanon, Bahai’i in Iran, Hindus in Bagladesh, Christians in Indonesia, and Jews across the Arab world all suffer as dhimmis under it. Western leaders must be clear about the ideology they are fighting. Bush’s assertion that we are fighting a war against terrorism ( a tactic, not an ideology) is as ridiculous as FDR proclaiming a war against sneak attacks after Pearl Harbor. Once the West is able to overcome its liberal impulses not to name an enemy, it must be courageous enough to protect it citizens against that enemy. It is common knowledge that Al-Qaeda racially profiles- they use Muslim men between the ages of 18-45. What airports need to do is simply follow these guidelines . They need to realize that although it is uncomfortable to liberal society, rights of privacy for foreigners at the airport are currently less important than the rights of innocent passengers not to have their plane bounce off of skyscrapers. If ‘racial profiling’ was practised on Sept. 11th, most of the hijackers would have been caught. As un-P.C. it is to admit it, all of them looked exactly like someone who would have been stopped under profiling. And that is Al-Qaeda’s fault for perpetuating that stereotype, not the airports’ for being smart enough to consider it. Clearly defining the enemy could help Muslim Americans feel confident that their country is not attacking Islam as a religion. It will also focus the efforts of the West on what exactly are the ideology( Fundamentalist Islam)and groups (Al -Qaeda, Hizbullah, Hamas) that they are at war with. The freedoms we enjoy in our liberal society are gifts worth fighting for. But we cannot extremist groups hide behind the very liberalism that they intend to destroy. E.S. Berman CAS ’03