Here is a remarkable analysis of the phenomenon I discussed here: the increasingly thuggish and anti-free speech alliance between Leftists and Islamic supremacists. "The Leftist-Islamic Alliance against Freedom of Speech," by Edward Cline in Accuracy In Media, July 16:
Robert Spencer, a tireless defender of freedom and the freedom of speech against Islam, was attacked recently in the New York Daily News and charged with having “inspired” Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik to go on his killing spree in July 2011. The writer, Nathan Lean, in his July 9th column, “Expose the Islamophobia industry,” connects several other counter-jihadist writers with Breivik’s actions, and lumps them all together as “untouchables” who ought to be ostracized.The Islamophobia industry insists that it is not just a fringe minority who distort an otherwise peaceful faith. Instead, they point to the Koran and suggest that terrorists derive their world views from its messages. If that is so, these anti-Muslim agitators are guilty based on the logic of their own argument. After all, Breivik read and interpreted the writings of people like Spencer and [Pamela] Geller. He deciphered their diatribes much like Osama Bin Laden interpreted the Koran. Both men were compelled to act on the messages they digested.It is doubtful that Lean has cracked open a Koran, or has heard of the Hadith, or The Reliance of the Traveler. For if he had any solid knowledge of Islam and its principal texts, he would grasp that these works do indeed sanction the violence of Muslim terrorists. He would understand that Spencer has every right to be an “Islamophobe,” that is, someone who is fearful of Islam and especially of Sharia law. It is interesting to note that while Lean inveighs against Breivik, who murdered dozens of people, he does not mention the thousands of people killed by jihadists in virtually every country on earth. Moreover, he does not suggest that Breivik also was inspired by al-Qaida, in addition to a potpourri of other “Islamophobic” writers. About Spencer and his outspoken co-counter-jihadists, Lean concludes:
Society has a responsibility to counter these individuals with overwhelming overtures of pluralism – and to systematically push the fear-mongers out of public discourse.Spencer replies:
The claim that I “inspired” the Norway mass murderer Breivik because he cited me in his “manifesto” has become a staple of Leftist and Islamic supremacist polemic against people who are trying to defend freedom against Sharia. But it founders on the facts: never mentioned is the fact that Breivik cited many, many people, including Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Jefferson — who are just three of the many who are never blamed for his murders.Also swept under the rug is the fact that whether he is sane or not, Breivik’s manifesto is actually quite ideologically incoherent — so far was he from being a doctrinaire counter-jihadist that he wanted to aid Hamas and ally with jihad groups.
It probably has not escaped the notice of the more observant readers that the alliance of the Left and Islam reflects the same agitprop strategies, chief among is that when the Left’s or Islam’s policies fail, or produce disasters, or cause deaths, or provoke hostility among the electorate, blame for the failure is shifted elsewhere. When Obama’s policies produce the opposite of his alleged goals, he blames Bush, when in fact Obama’s policies are a continuation of Bush’s soft-pedaled socialism. The difference between Bush’s socialism and Obama’s is that Bush’s policies were founded on an ignorance of economics, or of reality; Obama’s policies are intended to negate economics and remake reality.
When Muslims murder, torture, rape, go on rampages, or otherwise resort to violence anywhere in the world to enforce conformity to their ideology, their spokesmen in the West blame ”extremists.” But they never say that the “extremists” are wrong. The ideology is never at fault, only its finger-pointing “misunderstanders.”
Thus, as Spencer points out in his Jihad Watch column, anyone who criticizes Islam is a “misunderstander” who spreads “lies” and “fabrications” and so on about the perils of Islam and can be quick-marched to the same camp with actual jihadists. Then a leap of logic is performed and Muslim violence can be blamed on criticism of Islam. The Left and Islamists “abhor” violence, express “regret” when violence occurs, and do not blame the perpetrators, but instead the “instigators” of the violence, that is, those who exercise their freedom of speech by pointing out the evils and fraud of Islam and the consistent violence its ideology encourages and promulgates. They cluck their tongues in public over the violence sanctioned by their ideology, but chastise anyone who says the violence is part and parcel of their ideology.
They must be “pushed out of public discourse.” That is, shamed, humiliated, boycotted, mocked, picketed, and ultimately censored. The irony is that there is no “public discourse” about the nature of Islam and the crimes committed in its name. Nor does the Left and Islam wish there to be.
It is six of one, half a dozen of another. The Left and Islam both promote collectivism and universal submission and subjugation to them. Of course they are allies. With the help of its Muslim occupiers, France recently elected a blatant socialist. Has anyone in this country heard a single Muslim speak out against Obamacare? Has any British Muslim spoken out against Britain’s welfare state? No? Why not? Because to oppose collectivism one must advocate individual rights. It is individual rights that the Left and Islam wish to extinguish. They say: Control private property, or expropriate it, and it is extinguished.
In the fantasy universe of collectivists, violence is never the fault of the ideology, it is always the fault of anyone who resists submission to the ideology or criticizes it. For secular collectivists (or the Left), as with Islamists, the fundamental means to the end is force.
RSS Feed
22 Comments
| Leave a commentHow rediculous it is to blame others. Like the proverbial words of Flip Wilson, "The Devil Made Me Do It" If you ascribe to this kind of logic, you can say that Brevik aspired to make headlines in the Daily News, therefore making the Daily News the motivating "inspiration" for Breveik's heinous crimes.
I seem to remember Nicolai Sennels reported on the growing enmity between Salafis and the German extreme left a while ago under the header "Extreme Left in Germany ‘confused that they are not attacked by Nazis, but by immigrants’".
A bit later, it was also reported on certain blogs that German "antifascists" had been beaten to a pulp by Salafis when they tried to stage a joined protest against the anti-Islam movement PRO NRW (Pro North Rhine Westpahlia).
I had reacted on this issue on tundratabloids as follows:
"Salafi militants can have no use for infidels fighting alongside them in order to further the cause of Islam. It is un-Islamic, haram by default in the mind of Salafis: the prototype of the “genuine” or “authentic” Muslim can be none other than the Muslim that takes his guidance from the one and only source that can be considered incorruptible by Salafis: the Quran."
"What PC socialist movements don’t realise is that Salafi militants in general are a self-proclaimed moral elite within Islam, that elevates itself well above all other Muslims, even those that take their guidance from Sunni clergy. Clerical guidance can be considered by Salafis as a potential corruption of the Quran’s content. In fact, all Muslims who adhere to such a thing can be considered kafir by a Salafi militant, according to takfir, which refers to the practice of one Muslim declaring another Muslim an unbeliever."
"Therefore, Salafism is the most puritanical strain of Sunni Islam. It doesn’t recognise Muslims who stray from the Salafi path as genuine Muslims. Which means that all Muslims who display Munafiq (hypocrite) attitudes in their religious zeal can be declared unbelievers or apostates by default. The biggest problem anti-fascists have is a type of blind spot, the very inability to make a clear distinction between those Islamic supremacist groups, that will deliberately display taqqiyya by incorporating Western antifa groups in what they’re doing (like Hamas) on the one hand, and those Islamic supremacist groups who consider Muslim Brotherhood affiliate groups as equally kafir and immoral (because they integrate Western leftists in their cause) from their own puritanical perspective, on the other hand. *"
"Hence, Salafism will increasingly operate independently from gullible left-leaning PC “world solidarity” views in its struggle to counter criticism of Islam. Salafis will not tolerate infidels (either Muslim or Westerner) corrupting the purity of the Salafi moral stance with regards to Jihad. In other words, any act to incorporate some alliance with Westerners in Jihadism can be considered as a de facto defilement of Quranic standards, a moral corruption of the Quran’s content, plus a hindrance and a threat to the purity of the Salafi view on what Jihad should be."
"Although the puerile vision of antifa anarchists is probably akin to the idea that “all Islamic groups could do with our support, since basically they’re all the same”, they can’t be more wrong in their ill-conceived PC naivety, because realistically speaking, both groups can’t possibly go hand in hand. Salafis will never tolerate PC antifa movements usurping their ‘moral stance’ on Jihad. Simply put, useful PC idiots will increasingly feel how Salafism will slam down on them like a ton of bricks."
"As long as PC idiots find themselves wondering “Why are these people against us and not WITH us, as expected ?”, then I suppose they’ll have to live with being bludgeoned, beaten to a pulp, stabbed or even decapitated in the long run. Remaining stupid, contrary to the evidence presented, is not good for your health, to put it like that. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say."
"If however, some of them will turn their attention to actual knowledge of the subject, then they might even enlighten themselves and find out that:
when
1) Islamism = moral supremacism
then
2) Salafism = ultra- Islamic moral supremacism
and thus
3) Salafism won’t ever mix or mingle with secular-oriented ideology. Both of them are de facto polar opposites !"
"In that case, they might just learn a thing or two…Don’t hold your breath however, it’s anyone’s guess how many of those wankers will have their physical integrity harmed before they’ll start getting real !"
* Which is the main reason why Vittorio Arrigoni got killed, for instance. Being a foreign Hamas militant was of no use to him in the long run."
I tend to believe somehow that this issue relates to the population density of Muslim minorities within Europe, which will make it much harder in the long run for the left to keep this idiotic alliance going. In Europe, there are too many Salafis around at this stage also to make it viable and it will rapidly start turning against the Left.
The US has not evolved to this point yet. Luckily so, I would say !! The problem however seems to be that American Leftwing idiots can still keep this lunacy going as long as they don't suffer the consequences themselves. Maybe you should should point this out (what happens in Germany) in order to make some of them see sense. They'll probably won't get the point of their own accord.
Nathan Lean is a gutter thug who is making his own bed of thorns in which to lie. I sincerely hope that he gets what he deserves and I believe that in time he will.
I concur with everything in this article, with the exception that Nathan Lean has no idea about the Islamic texts.
His book, with critical acclaim by Armstrong and the foreword by Esposito is so predictable, it's laughable. It seems those two Islam apologists have found a new stable-boy.
Has he declared himself a Muslim yet?
"(3) Salafism won’t ever mix or mingle with secular-oriented ideology. Both of them are de facto polar opposites !"
"In that case, they might just learn a thing or two…Don’t hold your breath however..."
Anushirvan, if we still had "Like" buttons on this forum, I would give yours strong Like.
This is a hard analysis of the West-Sunni-Salafi divide... Watch Egypt, and France.
The Left PC can hold their breath all they want, but in the end they will only asphyxiate.
About 'watching Egypt':
Egyptian revolution 'failing to deliver for women'
Bravo for (Left PC leaning) BBC for printing this revealing article. It is not good for women in post "Arab Spring" Egypt, and about to get worse.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3974320.html
Osama BinLaden quoted favorably Noam Chomsky, William Blum, Robert Fisk, the Royal Institute for International Affairs.
Is Chomsky to blame for 911?
I'm a little confused. I distinctly remember much of the article above being posted on this site by "skeen66" some days ago.
Does this mean that skeen66 is Edward Cline? If so, why the need to adopt an anonymous screen name here at JWatch?
_________________________________________________________
Can somebody help me out here?
David Dowse: My "screen name" is something I adopted ages ago and which I use to comment on a variety of blog sites and I saw no reason to depart from the habit. JW happens to be one of them. I saw no reason to change it. And my apologies to Mr. Spencer for not quickly acknowledging the Leftist-Islamic Alliance article, which originally appeared on Rule of Reason. The AIM reprint was a surprise to me, as well, although AIM for some reason did not use the indentations I use to emphasize lengthy quotations, e.g., from Lean and Bloodworth. The absence of such formatting would otherwise lead to reader confusion about who is saying what.
Awake: My oversight about Lean not having cracked open a single Islamic text. While composing the piece, I had no reason to suspect, judging by Lean's totalitarian remarks, that he'd written about how fine and benevolent a creed and ideology Islam is. There are just too many "hostiles" out there to keep track of. Among those "hostiles" I include President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The Cline article is okay insofar as it defends RS and free speech, especially the right to openly criticize Islam, however Cline's thesis that the left and Islam are somehow synonymous is laughable. He provides no cogent argument to support his crackpot political theorizing. None.
Because he is so often wrongly criticiized, even vilified, in the media, I can sympathize with RS for touting the Cline piece which properly lauds RS; however, to the extent the republication of Cline's article is meant to support Cline's incoherent political analysis, I'm afraid RS continues to perpetuate a self-defeating divide between left and right.
The struggle against repressive Islamic ideology is not a left vs right political struggle. It is not a struggle between socialism and capitalism or the degree to which the government of a civilized society should provide entitlements or structure tax policy. Nor is it a struggle between competing religious faiths. The struggle against Islamic ideology/sharia law wherever it exists and is sought to be implemented is undertaken because of Islamic ideology's clear cut violations of basic human and civil rights.
I have written comments about this superficial left vs right positioning before and will continue to do so because I believe RS and other freedom fighters' efforts to expose the repression, supremacism and inhmanity of Islamic are hindered by that strategy.
p.s. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/world/africa/jidhadists-fierce-justice-drives-thousands-to-flee-mali.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120718
An article published today that condemns Islamic ways from that leftist rag, the NYT.
Darmand:
Quite the contrary, socialist and Islamic ideologies require a suppression of freedom of speech. Think in fundamentals, will you? The common ingredient is force. There's nothing "superficial" about it. To the Left, the state is Allah. To the Islamists, Allah is the state. Freedom of speech is made possible by private property rights. If the state obviates property rights, then there's no freedom of speech. If Sharia law obviates property rights, there's no freedom of speech. If activist Muslims threaten violence against private venues that propose to allow advocates of freedom of speech to speak, or if they own the property (and the Saudis own lots in this country, -- hotels, vacation spots, office buildings, etc.), then there's no freedom of speech.
Or are you suggesting that socialism isn't as "repressive"? Also, I'm not aware that Mr. Spencer has been "perpetuating" the practical and theoretical symbiosis between the Left and Islam. He has focused on Islam, not the Left, because Islam has been hogging the headlines (through no fault of the MSM). He has not said much about Obama or Pelosi or other lefties, although I'm sure he'd agree publically with my "crackpot" political position. My article accomplishes its task. I'm not obligated to write a book just to convince you of its truthfulness. And stop the name-calling. I've been called worse.
Hi Skeen66 -
"The AIM reprint was a surprise to me, as well, although AIM for some reason did not use the indentations I use to emphasize lengthy quotations, e.g., from Lean and Bloodworth. The absence of such formatting would otherwise lead to reader confusion about who is saying what."
_________________________________________________
Yes. And thanks for the explanation. The article you wrote is outstanding, by the way. It states things absolutely clearly, and there is not a flaw in the writing or the thought. Bravo!
______________
But did you notice, also, that somehow, at least one of the comments above from that previous thread (where your piece first appeared)by "naczo" show up on this thread?
Strange, but explainable, I guess, what with the vagaries of the Internet.
@Skeen66
Duh? Are you Cline? If so, why not identify yourself directly? And what is the point about name calling? I attacked the lack of coherence in the Cline piece. I didn't engage in ad hoc name calling.
In any event, could you please try to be a bit clearer in the point you wish to make. I have trouble understanding your criticism of my comment. Are you saying that all who are demonized here as being on the left or liberal or with socialistic tendencies are, ipso facto, in favor of abolishing private property? That's simply untrue and it's a preposterous position to assert, though it seems necessary to maintain your specious argument about the lack of freedom of speech in leftist or liberal politics.
I agree you are not obligated to convince me, or any reader, of the truthfulness of your "book" (which I haven't read or referred to), but I find it odd you are so blase, even dismissive, towards what your readers think about what you have written. Frankly, you sound as incoherent and unconvincing in this comment as you did in the piece RS reprinted (if you are Cline, that is).
David Dowse: We've crossed swords before, and I see no profit in further exchanges. You called my thesis a "crackpot" one and also "incoherent," thus implying that I'm a crackpot and incoherent. Call it the ad holmium indirect (I've never heard of "ad hoc" name-calling, by the way). Also, I don't know what other readers' positions are on private property and its connection with freedom of speech, and I certainly didn’t insinuate that they did or did not know it. I'm satisfied that Mr. Spencer thought well enough of the piece to feature it. And now that everyone knows that "skeen66" is the comment name for Edward Cline, I see no reason to change it.
Here is FSM's version of the article, for those interested,
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-leftist-islamic-alliance-against-freedom-of-speech
And, to highlight my versatility,
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/thomas-ricks-wants-your-kids
Skeen - did you write this, or are there bugs on this thread?
"David Dowse: We've crossed swords before, and I see no profit in further exchanges. You called my thesis a "crackpot" one and also "incoherent," thus implying that I'm a crackpot and incoherent."
______________________________
Skeen, that was "darmanad", not me.
In fact, as I said above, I think your piece is excellent.
I really have no idea what's going on here, but I assure you, in no way do I think you're a "crackpot" or "incoherent". Quite the contrary, in fact.
David Dowse: My apologies. My remarks were meant for the "darmanad" person. Case of mistaken identity.
David Dowse: My apologies. My remarks were meant for the "darmanad" person. Case of mistaken identity.
Darmanad: See my last remarks to David Dowse. They are self-explanatory. This is what happens when one looks at a computer screen for too long.
No problem, Skeen. Happens to all of us.
Hope all is well with you and your loved ones.
DMD
Leave a comment
NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.