![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||
|
FrontPage Magazine honors the Jihad Watch Anti-Dhimmi Internationale of the Year 2005, the great Oriana Fallaci (many good links in the original):
After spending most of the last century fighting against fascism, Oriana Fallaci continues to demonstrate the enduring grip of Orwellianism: she is to be tried in Italy for thought-crime. For spending her childhood fighting Hitler and Mussolini, and for dedicating the last four years of her life to rousing the West to the danger posed by Islamofascism, she more than merits designation as FrontPage Magazine’s Woman of the Year.Oriana Fallaci has rebelled against fascism most of her life. She is not an ideologue, bound to implement any given ideology. Hers is a defensive mission. She is, by her own designation, neither a conservative nor a leftist, finding defects with both. Like FrontPage Magazine, her main concern is fighting encroaching totalitarianism, not advancing a narrow partisan agenda ruled by either orthodoxy.
This is, in fact, her second honor from FrontPage Magazine. David Horowitz bestowed the Center for the Study of Popular Culture's prestigious Annie Taylor Award upon Oriana in a special ceremony in New York last month. In his speech, he called the Italian firebrand author and journalist “a warrior in the cause of human freedom.”
How right he was.
Oriana commenced her lifelong insurrection against totalitarianism early, fighting the Axis powers as part of the Resistance. For her actions, the fascists tortured her father, who defiantly refused to collaborate. The lesson stuck. Oriana smuggled weapons to anti-Hitler forces within Germany. After Mussolini received his just deserts, she became a journalist, acting as a war correspondent in Vietnam. In the following decades, she would earn a reputation as one of the world’s most probing interviewers.
Over her career, she met with the world’s leading figures – for good or ill – interviewing everyone from Kissinger to Qaddafi. She examined a rage-filled Yasser Arafat, who revealed to her that he liked little boys. She sat down with the Shah and the Ayatollah Khomeini (separately, of course) – the latter so infuriating her that during one of his rants, she ripped off the headscarf she was forced to wear in his presence. After making an international impact in her chosen field, she retreated into semi-retirement.
Then after a lengthy hiatus, Oriana Fallaci found herself lured from a self-imposed exile by the clarion call of 9/11.
She spoke and wrote forcefully about the peril a free, pluralistic, democratic, and secular society faced at the hands of an Islamic jihad. She condemned terrorism everywhere and called out the Euro-leftists who marched in solidarity with Palestinian terrorists – including some elements of the Vatican. Straining against the vivid memories of a war correspondent and every inclination of her heart, she supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, writing of her anguish:
I hate [war] as the pacifists in bad or good faith never will. I loathe it. Every book I have written overflows with that loathing, and I cannot bear the sight of guns…When peace stands for surrender, fear, loss of dignity and freedom, it is no longer peace. It's suicide.
It was in this period that she committed her unpardonable sin: she published “the trilogy” of books examining the threat of jihad in detail: The Rage and the Pride, The Force of Reason, and The Apocalypse.The cancer-stricken 75-year-old woman was promptly demonized by the Islamic world, by the European Left, and even demonized as a racist by Newsweek.
Her crime? She exposed the threat of Islamic jihad – from without and within. Europe, she wrote, is becoming “an Islamic province, an Islamic colony.” Describing increasingly Muslim Europe, she wrote, “In each of our cities lies a second city: a Muslim city, a city run by the Quran.” When Shari’a rules certain areas of Christendom’s ancient home continent, and French girls cannot go through certain Parisian neighborhoods without wearing a burqa without fear of being raped, few could argue with her insight.
She frankly says she is against Islam, not because she opposes religious freedom, but because she believes in it. As she has said, after 9/11, “they want to come impose it on me, on us.” She calls herself “a Catholic atheist,” and she realizes the world cannot survive half-secular and half-theocratic, anymore than it can survive half-slave and half-free.
Unlike Daniel Pipes, she has written that there is no moderate Islam, that radicalism is ingrained in the religion itself, but that does not mean there aren’t any moderate Muslims. However, she recognizes some Muslims have risen above (or ignored) a literal interpretation of the Koran, as adherents of Judaism and Christianity did before them. In this, she is echoing both Muslim apostates and Muslim fundamentalists, each of whom insist jihad is the truest expression of the religion of Mohammed, and those who shun that path are displaying infidelity to the Prophet. As with Salman Rushdie, a fatwa was soon issued for the septuagenarian.
Her frank truthfulness was also too much for the sensibilities of unfree Europe. In 2002, she faced charges in France that her book The Rage and the Pride promoted “racism,” the plaintiffs apparently unaware “Muslim” is not a racial designation. (Fallaci supported Operation Iraqi Freedom to give Arabs the gift of self-determination.)
Two years later, she learned she would face similar charges in her native Italy, over the same book. In April 2004, an Italian leftist judge allowed the Muslim-instigated lawsuit to go forward on the grounds that her works were “without doubt offensive to Islam and to those who practice that religious faith.” However, FrontPage Magazine columnist Robert Spencer has examined the allegedly “offensive” passages that “defame Islam” – 18 in all – and found each one undeniably rooted in Islamic theology and history.
The plaintiff, Adel Smith, president of the Muslim Union of Italy, could as easily be charged by the loose anti-religious discrimination statute that has snared Fallaci. He calls on fellow believers in the Religion of Peace to “eliminate” and “die with Fallaci.” He also refers to Christianity as a “criminal association” and has demeaned the Crucifix as a “miniature cadaver.”
However, Europe is Europe, and now for refusing to live according to Shari’a law, a woman who helped free Italy from Il Duce is on trial for speaking her conscience about the next impending, Islamofascist threat.
Since the trial, she has taken refuge in Upper Manhattan, during what she openly anticipates will be the final year of her life, estranged from the people she loves and the land she helped free. Yet in her exile, she has rallied another democracy in danger of slouching into pre-9/11 complacency. She tells all the American anti-terror crowds she can that the media are collaborating with America’s enemies. America faces an implacable enemy out to impose an all-encompassing legal code upon the entire infidel world, and the media continue to portray the jihadists as poverty-stricken victims of Yankee imperialism, someone with whom to enter into a dialogue. This is blurring the West’s vision of the true nature of the enemy and obscuring the stakes if we fail.
The media, though, are not the all-important problem. Most importantly in her view, Americans have lost their passion for freedom. They have specifically lost The Rage and the Pride, the patriotism that comes from being a believer in liberty and the burning desire to protect our “Shining city upon a hill” at all costs. That’s what she’s trying to stir, and the world will be safer in 2006 if it catches spark from her flame.
Posted by Robert at December 30, 2005 7:00 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Horowitz strikes again!
Posted by: Cornelius
at December 30, 2005 7:07 AM
Americans have lost their passion for freedomIf I lived in Upper Manhattan I would think the same thing. Posted by: Beagle
at December 30, 2005 7:22 AM
It's really sad she can't go back to Italy, it's a beautiful place. Oriana is one lady that I'd love to meet, kiss her hand, and hug her warmly. Although she can't go back to Italy, she is more than welcome in my country. In my opinion, this country isn't divided along race or religious lines. It's separated into people who exhalt freedom and people who take it for granted. Any fighter for freedom's sake like Oriana is a hero in my book.
Posted by: Constantinople
at December 30, 2005 8:26 AM
Frontpagemag.com along with jihadwatch.org are two above-average sources of info. It took awhile for Horowitz to get beyond the "Wahabi", "islam has been hijacked" line that was promoted by S.Shwartz(and Bush,and leftists), but I think he's generally in line with reality now.
But he needs to be careful to maintain his credibility. I caught him in a Pragmatic "truth"(lie), when he claimed Bin Laden said his and the "socialist's" goals converged against America, as if he(Bin Laden) was talking about Western socialists-- he(Horowitz) linked Bin Laden with the "anti-war" protests.
It may be true "in effect" but it was not true intellectually.
----------
Speaking of freedom, and questions concerning American's "passion" for it. I submit there is a large segment of the population that has a very limited idea of what freedom really entails.
Sample this:
"Freedom, Choice, and Consequences
by Robert L. Kocher
Among the long-term consequences of the borderline-psychotic social revolution of the sixties and seventies are many common misconceptions of the nature of freedom, of what constitutes choice, and what freedom does not confer.
Few people today understand what freedom or is, or could define freedom. They believe freedom allows them unlimited right to do what they want to do. However, that is not a definition of freedom, but of unlimited egocentricism, of license, or of unlimited freedom of action. Far from being the basis of a free society, it's a recipe for tyranny..."
http://members.mountain.net/theanalyticpapers/freecon.htm
at December 30, 2005 8:40 AM
"Half-secular, half-theocratic"? I dislike Islam thoroughly (although I allow plenty of leeway for Muslims), yet I wince at such a phrase, which seems to indicate that the better world to seek should grant people like me liberty only to walk at the end of someone else's leash--no less than Islamic Dhimmitude would.
I would far prefer to live under the rule of a God who becomes man to offer himself in sacrifice for my sins that under "secular" rule that would experiment with my life and those of my heirs to see what some crack-brained social theory might or might not do. Worse, our "secular" leading lights are morally irresponsible, now crowing how 19th century science routed religious obscurantism, and next whimpering how Europe suddenly became pious again in order to stage the Shoah.
However, to return to the topic, I nonetheless admire Ms. Fallacci for her courage in the face of the PeeCee idiocy that is leading our civilization to its death. May she find Christ in these days.
Posted by: Kepha
at December 30, 2005 9:43 AM
Oriana Fallaci has reached what, maybe 1/100th of 1 percent of the public in the West?
Intellectuals and college professors are fun, for a while. But, they --- with all their arcane references and inside baseball --- have all but disappeared from the world stage.
Sounds like applause in an echo chamber to me.
DISLOYAL HARVARD DISLOYAL GEORGETOWN DISLOYAL USC DISLOYAL COLUMBIA
Where's the marketing plan? There's not gonna be one, is there?
We're gonna fiddle and read and intellectualize and seminar and snort with disbelief while freedom burns, ain't we?
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer
at December 30, 2005 10:00 AM
KENTIM: "It may be true "in effect" but it was not true intellectually."
I don't understand your logic. Perhaps the Socialists and Bin Ladin differ on their ultimate aspirations, but their immediate goals - the defeat of America and its retreat from its global responsibilities - most certainly "converge."
Posted by: Cornelius
at December 30, 2005 11:43 AM
"the world will be safer in 2006 if it catches spark from her flame".
This sentence says it all.We should honour Oriana Fallaci for her courage, fearlessness and foresight.
Posted by: faqi
at December 30, 2005 6:13 PM
Cornelius,
I don't think logic enters into the equation, my point was that Horowitz SPECIFICALLY stated that Bin Laden claimed that the "socialists" and jihadis goals "converged", at the same time Horowitz asserted that BinLaden was talking about the "anti-war" protesters.
This was false-- and Horowitz sure as hell should know that.
BinLaden was referring to Saddams political apparatus, the "socialist" Baath party.
That is demagoguery, and it is deception.
---------------
"Why we are in Iraq"
This speech was given at Georgetown University on October 14, 2004 and broadcast on C-Span. It has been edited for inclusion on FrontPagemag.com -- The Editors)http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16103
"Just before American and British troops entered Iraq to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein, a videotape of Osama bin Laden was aired on Al-Jazeera TV. The tape was aired on February 12, 2003, and in it bin Laden said: “The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders.”
Bin Laden was referring to the fact that four weeks earlier, millions of leftists had poured into the streets of European capitals and of Washington, San Francisco and New York to protest the removal of Saddam Hussein..."
-------------------
Now the real deal...
Bin Laden:
"Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition and weapons..."
..."Muslims' doctrine and banner should be clear in fighting for the sake of God. He who fights to raise the word of God will fight for God's sake.
Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists."
-----------------
Don't assume I won't confirm or verify.
at December 30, 2005 6:41 PM
Forgot the other link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm
at December 30, 2005 6:44 PM
We haven't ALL lost our passion for freedom, but
the point is taken.
God bless you Oriana Fallaci, you Catholic
Atheist you! Daughter of the West, your words
shame us and lift us. A million more Fallacis!
at December 30, 2005 8:35 PM
KENTIM: "Don't assume I won't confirm or verify."
No such assumption was made. Just needed some greater specificity...thanks for the quotes.
I'll try to illicite an explanation from David via email.
at December 30, 2005 11:08 PM
Oakie-dokie, Cornelius, you're welcome and good-luck.
My "assume" statement was'nt directed at anyone in particular, sorry about the miscommunication.
Posted by: kentim
at December 31, 2005 12:18 PM


(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)