...Others...have called instead for an outright ban on Islam. I would ask them: how would you propose to enforce such a ban? What penalties would you levy for the continued practice of Islam? Would you prosecute people for evidence that they were ready to commit violence in the name of Islam, or simply for owning a Qur'an and praying Muslim prayers?

The non-Muslim West is in a fight for its very life, although few are willing to admit it. The most important theater of this conflict is not Iraq or Afghanistan, but the domestic ideological conflict in all its permutations. This conflict calls upon us to defend the principles which have made Western civilization great, and unique: equality of dignity and rights for all, due process, etc. If we compromise or discard these principles to fight the jihad, we might as well elect Osama bin Laden President of the United States. Accordingly, I reject solutions to this problem that contravene those principles. But there are no good choices in this conflict: "banning Islam" is a quixotic call with genocidal overtones, trampling upon the freedom of conscience that we should defend (although freedom of conscience must end where violent jihad begins); calling for Islamic reform, however, is essentially just as quixotic, given the dim prospects of such a reform.

What we can do at this point is continue to try to raise awareness of the true nature of this conflict, which is the purpose to which Jihad Watch is dedicated, and advocate in the public sphere measures which take realistic account of the nature of Islam, the implications of virtually unrestricted immigration from Muslim countries, the likelihood of jihadist activity in American mosques, and so on. At the same time, we need to call upon the Muslim world to heed voices like Thomas Haidon's, before the conflict escalates to a point that will make that impossible...

...On a small scale, Muslims are beginning to awaken to the fact that aspects of Islam, whether it be the exegesis of the Qur’an, the validity and application of the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad, or the Muslim tradition, have played a role in the troubles they face today (which include terrorism, relations with non-Muslims, Islam's relationship with the State, the role of women, and human rights in general).

What does the genuine reformist discourse/movement entail? It is difficult to capture a confining definition, as there is much divergence even within reformist circles. However, there appears to be some agreement among actors that traditional Islam, including the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad, is the primary source of the malaise. Several Muslim reformist organizations have used this as a platform, including the Free Muslim Coalition against Terrorism and the opaque Progressive Muslim Union of North America. There is also a small but growing voice within this discourse that genuinely believes that secularism is consistent with Islam. In fact, some Muslim commentators argue that Islam demands secularization. This is perhaps one of the most encouraging aspects of the movement.

To date however, a comprehensive framework for the reformist agenda has not been established by the reformers their organizations, and this is a partial reason for the marginal effect of the discourse. Further compounding the situation is the presence of perceived moderates and reformers who have attempted to divide and destroy this discourse, including such individuals as Tariq Ramadan. These fake reformers and their representative organizations say one thing and mean another...