Here’s the thing everyone seems trained not to ask: What if the real issue isn’t poverty, colonial hangovers, or fringe extremists? What if the problem is that the West just refuses to take Islam seriously on its own terms?
Despite the Bondi Beach catastrophe, this idea feels like a forbidden question, not because it’s disproved, but because admitting it would topple the moral worldview that the modern West has built.
Our entire system of institutions, careers, and ideologies all rests on the belief that no ideology beyond liberal democracy could be truly incompatible with our values. Tear that down, and the whole story of constant progress crumbles.
Islam isn’t just another religion quietly coexisting in people’s private lives, ticking off rituals. It demands more. It is a full package of theology, law, politics, identity, and ambition all wrapped into one.
It doesn’t ask politely to coexist; it demands submission. That’s not spin; it’s literally how it defines itself.
Western liberalism lives by the opposite code – truth is up for debate, law is human-made, speech can offend, and belief doesn’t rule. Our fragile social order depends on compromise, ambiguity, and restraint.
Two worldviews, one non-negotiable collision
Islam offers rigid clarity, certainty, hierarchy, and divine authority. When these two worldviews collide, they don’t blend. They can’t. They clash!
Every time we face this clash, the West reacts the same way: first denial, then giving in. Apostasy laws? Dismissed as old customs. Blasphemy? Recast as “hate speech.” Gender disparities? Brushed off as “cultural differences.”
Parallel legal systems? Tolerated in the name of sensitivity. Each concession is dressed up as empathy. Step by step, it’s surrender.
The big lie keeping this going? That Islam can endlessly morph to fit liberal democracy and that texts don’t matter, doctrines are irrelevant, and context can explain away everything. But doctrines do matter. Texts matter.
A system claiming divine origin isn’t endlessly flexible. Push it, and it snaps back to its essence. And Islam’s essence has never been liberal, pluralistic, or neutral.
Violence justified? Theologically justified. Dissent punished? Punished by religious law. Power imposed? Framed as obedience to God.
These aren't distortions by extremists; they come straight from Islamic tradition, defended by scholars and embraced by loyal movements. The problem isn’t extremist misuse; it’s that Islam arms them with powerful tools.
When denial becomes policy
Western elites won’t say this out loud because it demands boundaries. It means putting civilization above comfort, choosing clarity over guilt, and survival over signaling virtue. It means admitting not all cultures fit under one roof, and tolerance without limits is just giving up.
Instead, we’re fed that the threat is imaginary even while schools censor themselves, police hesitate, courts bend, and citizens whisper what they won’t say aloud.
We are told to trust the process while parallel societies solidify, fear of offense stifles free speech, and violence is endlessly explained but never confronted at its roots.
Islam doesn’t need to win through the ballot box. It just needs liberal societies to doubt themselves. It needs hesitation, guilt, division, and silence.
It needs a host culture that won’t assert its non-negotiable laws and values. This is not about numbers. It’s about confidence. And that’s exactly what the modern West has spent decades eroding.
Islam isn’t the villain because Muslims are evil. Islam is the outlaw because it rejects the foundational deal of pluralism: no faith, ideology, or revelation stands above laws made by free people.
Two supreme authorities can’t coexist. One demands submission to God’s law. The other submits to none. Pretending otherwise is not tolerance; it’s self-delusion.
History doesn’t care what we intend. It is judged by what happens. Civilizations that won’t defend their principles aren’t neutral hosts.
They become terrain reshaped by the strongest system inside them. If Islam demands submission, and liberalism refuses it, the result isn’t coexistence. It’s a replacement.
The real question: Will the West find the courage to say “no” while it still can? Or will it confuse silence with virtue until all that’s left is silence itself?
Dr. Michael J. Salamon is a psychologist specializing in trauma and abuse and director of ADC Psychological Services in Netanya and Hewlett, NY.
Louis Libin is an expert in military strategies, wireless innovation, emergency communications, and cybersecurity.