Don't give Islamists the Islamophobia they want - and more

My column neighbor and ex-sparring partner (if I may?) Mustafa Akyol was perfectly right in his piece "Don't give ISIL the Islamophobia it wants," when he wrote that the French "should not give the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) what it wants, which is an irrational and disproportionate response." He was also right when he wrote that "in a nutshell, this would mean 'total war' against ISIL, which would kill many civilians, and thus only embolden the zeal for jihad, deepening an already vicious cycle," and that "it would also mean more Islamophobia in the West, which will make more Muslims believe that the West is their enemy." No doubt.

The Western media is full of opinions rightly advising restraint and abstinence from the extreme, both in terms of the military response to the Paris attacks and in political choices: The free world should not go right-wing. No doubt. 

These are sensible suggestions. But they are incomplete. Trying to prevent negative discrimination against Muslims, the "let's-not-go-down-to-their-level" kind of calls for restraint ironically reflect a sense of negative discrimination against Muslims. 

Mr. Akyol's column, though prudent, sparks some questions.

What is a "rational and proportionate" response to the terrorists? Do Muslims not tend to be radicalized "with or without being bombed?" Was ISIL born only because the infidels bombed innocent Muslims? Was al-Qaeda born only because Muslim immigrants who live in Christian lands were being persecuted? Did Muslims start to believe that the "West is their enemy" because of Islamophobia? Did they view the "infidels" as their best friends before the concept of Islamophobia burst onto the international political scene?

Why do we advise the...