| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Ya'll may have seen this one from Serge Trifkovic in Frontpage Magazine, but it's worth mentioning again.
Nearly two years ago the Jihadist lobby in the United States made a concerted affort to have my book The Sword of the Prophet banned from National Review Online. Jihadi activists gathered around CAIR claimed the book defamed Islam and its "prophet." When it did not get immediate satisfaction from National Review, CAIR instructed its partisans to pressure the Boeing Corporation to withdraw its advertisements from the magazine. Faced with the loss of revenue National Review briefly took down The Sword, but then quickly reposted it, under pressure from mainly conservative quarters.It is now, perhaps inevitably, the turn of a phony conservative to join CAIR's ranks. In his latest book, The Enemy At Home, Dinesh D'Souza writes that,
"In order to build alliances with traditional Muslims, the right must take three critical steps. First, stop attacking Islam. Conservatives have to cease blaming Islam for the behavior of the radical Muslims. Recently the right has produced a spate of Islamophobic tracts with titles like Islam Unveiled, Sword of the Prophet, and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet."
Two of the titles D'Souza finds so offensive that condemning them tops his list of "critical steps" are by my friend Robert Spencer, and "The Sword" is mine. D'Souza wants us, and presumably other similarly minded authors (Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, Andrew Bostom, Walid Shoebat et al), to shut up.
[...]
It is noteworthy that D'Souza is condemning our writings as "Islamophobic" without further elaboration. Like the term "Islamophobia" itself—a classic product of the Hate Crime Industry—his technique is characteristic of the totalitarian Left. I remember reading, as a teenager in Tito's Yugoslavia, similarly worded condemnations of dissident writers and their "tracts" in the communist-controlled press. Once they were defined as "anti- socialist," "reactionary," or "nationalist," no further elaboration was needed and no debate allowed.
Furthermore, D'Souza uses "Islamophobia" with the implicit assumption that the term's meaning is well familiar to his readers. For the uninitiated it is nevertheless necessary to spell out its formal, legally tested definition, however. It is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a lavishly-funded organ of the European Union. Based in Vienna, this body diligently tracks the instances of "Islamophobia" all over the Old Continent and summarizes them in its reports. The Monitoring Center's definition of Islamophobia includes eight salient features:
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change. 2. Islam is seen as separate and "other." 3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist. 4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a clash of civilizations. 5. Islam is seen as a political ideology. 6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand. 7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society. 8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.
This definition is obviously intended to preclude any possibility of meaningful discussion of Islam. The implication that Islamophobia thus defined demands legal sanction is a regular feature of the Race Relations Industry output. It also routinely refers to "institutional Islamophobia" as an inherent social and cultural sickness of most Western societies that needs to be rooted out by education, re- education, and legislation. In reality, of course, all eight proscribed statements are to some extent true.
If you missed it, the whole article is definitely worth reading. Attaboy, Serge.
Posted by Greg at February 18, 2007 12:01 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Re: " There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet."
What a bunch of nonsense!
Dinesh D'Souza wants non-Muslims to walk on eggshells around Muslims and not offend Muslim sensibilities. He doesn't want non-Muslims to make up their own opinions about Islam.
What ever happened to freedom of expression and freedom of speech?
There are no Mosques being torn down to the ground and effigies of Muhammad being burned on the streets in the west.
Islam under attack??
Cartoons of Muhammad and comments by the Pope are hardly the stuff that should turn a moderate Muslim to become a hardened radical Muslim fundamentalist.
In D'Souza's twisted mind, it is the west's decadence and moral decay that causes moderate Muslims to radicalize and become terrorists. The real culprit for Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, according to D'Souza, is the free culture of the west. Forget the many passages from the Quran and other religious sources that directly encourage Muslims to incite violence and bloodshed.
This is called twisted logic and it is based on misperceptions.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 18, 2007 1:05 AM
"There is probably no better way to repel traditional Muslims, and push them into the radical camp, than to attack their religion and their prophet."
Oh, is it that easy? Is it that easy to take a Muslim living in Ohio, who just came here to better himself and his family, and turn him from a peace lovin' pro-family guy to someone who lies to his daughter and sends her to the Middle East for an arranged marriage to some old guy, in the name of a vacation, OR who breaks the freezer with his wife's head when he's not pleased with his dinner, OR who when divorced by an American woman, steals his kids and disappears into the hell hole from whence he came, brings them up with the same demented Muslim beliefs that he, Mr. Duplicity, has and the mom never sees them again? Or maybe he goes to a Hallmark store in Salt Lake City and blows those damned, Valentine loving infidels away and sends them to hell for their own good?
Let's get off of this idea that the devil made me do it, alright? We are all responsible for our own actions and the consequences they produce. You could just as easily say that Christians who've blown up abortion clinics or shot abortion doctors were deeply distraught over the killing of innocent babies and that needs to be taken into consideration before you judge them. Neither concept holds water. The only difference is we don't have the majority of pro-lifers incessantly whining about how the murderer was traumatized. Coming to this country and getting a free education or being able to buy a cab or a gas station to make money and support one's family (and jihad?) or being free to use our laws to undermine our culture, traditions and freedoms does not give one the right to go to the mail and spray people with gunfire. And we are a bunch of idiots if we let anyone get away with saying it is.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 18, 2007 1:11 AM
Johnathan,
D'Souza is not only a useful idiot. He is also a fellow traveler.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 18, 2007 1:13 AM
D'Souza is exactly WRONG. It is PC thinking and the failure to confront Islam that makes us vulnerable in the long term.
Posted by: JSobieski at February 18, 2007 2:09 AM
Has D'Souza joined up with Grover Norquist, that is to say on the payroll of Islamists?
Perhaps he's ventured too far from India to remember his Indian history: lots of Jihad, not too many miniskirts.
Posted by: sonomaca at February 18, 2007 2:16 AM
There seems to be something about experiencing dhimmi status as a people that scars and makes intelligent appraisal of Islam by those people impossible.
We see this with the Israelis in their seemingly suicidal behavior in constantly trusting in each new agreement with the "Palestinians", the writings of Dinesh D'Souza, and India generally in facing up to its own internal problem with Islam.
Not to mention all the indigenous peoples who refuse to see what Islam did to their own ancestors and, indeed, some of these same people such as Ahmadinejad are often the fiercest advocates of Islam.
I've seen the same thing in an otherwise very intelligent Jew who, although avidly following the fortunes of Israel from far away Australia and politically active as a Zioinst, was absolutely appalled when I mentioned that it is a core tenet of Islam that when Muslims are in a position to dominate, infidels must be converted to Islam, killed or if they are Jewish or Christian, subjugated as dhimmis.
By the expression on is face when I said that one would think he was a Muslim.
Also, an Indian Catholic priest, I asked of his opinion of Islam described Islam as a "beautiful religion".
When I mentioned the sufferings of the Hindus and Buddhists under Islam, the upwards of sixty million dead, he fell silent. His black glances in my direction for a month afterwards spoke volumes.
It is extraordinary.
Bukhari:V4B52N220 "Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'"
at February 18, 2007 3:59 AM
Islamophobia:
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist. 4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a clash of civilizations. 5. Islam is seen as a political ideology.
I must be Islamophobic. I refuse to honor a false prophet. I refuse to honor those foolish enough to adhere to this false prophet. I refuse to elevate Islam to equal status with Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and other essentially peaceful, non irredentist faiths
Posted by: dennisw at February 18, 2007 8:01 AM
Mike_W
They become mentally dhimmized because the truth is too awful to digest. That Islam and its Muslims are out to conquer and dominate, not to exist peacefully with people of other faiths. Islam is an aggressive, supremacist, triumphalist religion that will use soft Jihad of propaganda and low level intimidation, will use demographics, will use terror bombings, will use all out war to conquer ever more turf for their Dar Al Islam
Posted by: dennisw at February 18, 2007 8:08 AM
Wouldn't this be a great time for a Hooker or a drug dealer to come for with some photos of D'Souza in a comprimising situation.
It usually turns out that those who shout the loudest have the biggest skeleton in their closet.
at February 18, 2007 10:27 AM
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change. YES
2. Islam is seen as separate and "other." YES
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist. 100% YES
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a clash of civilizations. 100% YES
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology. OF COURSE, THEY DO AS WELL
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand. YES, RAVINGS OF LUNATICS
7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society. DUH! OBVIOUSLY.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal. THERE SHOULD BE MORE OF IT.
I don't see the problem. Islamophobia is as natural as, say, Naziphobia.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at February 18, 2007 11:15 AM
The definition of "islamophobia" provided by the EUMC is clearly islamophobic in its own terms.
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
As if islam is a monolithic bloc with its own opinions.
Posted by: Banjo Golly at February 18, 2007 12:26 PM
I'm looking for my T-Shirt.
It has this on the front:
Islamophobia will keep you alive.
It is certainly beginning to prove very true!
It is not irrational. It works.
Posted by: credit man at February 18, 2007 12:31 PM
"Comedy tomorrow, Islamophobia tonight"
(apologies to Zero Mostel)
"or, if if not the religion, why is it always a cleric?..."
Courtesy the Investigative Project
'On Sunday night, February 18, on Fox's "Hannity's America" show, airing at 9:00pm ET, an exclusive undercover video shot by the Investigative Project on Terrorism over a series of years of a radical Islamic cleric, Sheik Abdul Alim Musa, will be broadcast on the Fox News Channel. The Imam, who presides over two mosques and a popular Islamic organization, has actually been invited to White House Ifthar dinners.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) shot this undercover video of Musa during a period of 7 years. About 5 minutes of incendiary IPT video is expected to be broadcast at around 9:30pm ET during which time Hannity will be confronting Musa live about his violent exhortations. Later this year, the Investigative Project on Terrorism will be releasing the full out-takes of the extremist speeches and rallies led by Musa calling for suicide bombings and his violent anti-Semitic and anti-American speeches. What is most shocking is the degree to which Musa has achieved "mainstream" status in the Muslim community.'
'We're gonna live the American Dream'
>Musa on January 21, 2001: "The people of Afghanistan didn’t have the intellect or historical knowledge to know that they wasn’t supposed to wipe out the Soviet Union, is that right? . . . We saw the fall of one so-called superpower, Old Sam is next."
September 9, 2001:
"When you fight Old Sam, you are fighting someone that is superior in criminality and Nazism. ‘Cause everyone knew the Nazis are criminals. Isn’t that right? They’re murderers. Superior to British colonialism. Out and out groups, huh? But the American criminalizer is the most skillful oppressor that the world has ever known."
"Imam Jamil coined a phrase, and that phrase meant this: ‘If you don’t give us justice. If you don’t give us equality. If you don’t give us our share of America. If you don’t stay out of our way and leave us alone, we’re gonna burn America down."
"We're gonna live the American dream. We're gonna live happily ever after. But I've got news for you brother and sisters, you came to America and America is the most criminal government in the world (Allahu Akhbar) along with the Zionists. And eventually you're gonna to have to struggle here whether you like it or not."
C:\My Documents\islamicjihad3\UCLA Sponsors of Terrorism.htm
Posted by: Nick Danger at February 18, 2007 1:09 PM
ummm, "or if it's not the religion, why is it always a cleric?..."
serves me right for being in a hurry
the real link: http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7098
Posted by: Nick Danger at February 18, 2007 1:14 PM
Of course it'a all the fault of the culture in the USA.
Except for the tiny little fact that when the juhad began there was no USA.
Since Mohammed never left the desert, unless his winged horse was a time machine, he couldn't have been reacting to western culture.
Do as your Koran commands, follow his lead stay out of western countries, please.
at February 18, 2007 2:20 PM
Ah yes, "Islamophobia" again.
What if I were to assume that a prejudiced fear of mohammedans really occurs out there? What would be a reasonable response to an unfounded fear?
Well, how about a reasoned argument that the facts show that there's nothing to be afraid of. That the person is actually safer than they think? How about that? Anybody hear any such argument being made, anywhere by anyone?
Sorry for being so obvious, but really...
Actually the popular response to the jihaddis, as I've observed it, is more along the lines of moral revulsion and anger than fear, among those who actually notice that something is wrong.
Most people are just simply in denial.
Fear is a perfectly rational response when your life is threatened.
If there was a little more fear of mohammedanism and its practicioners, the jihaddis and their stealth-murderers might enjoy fewer opportunities.
Posted by: joeblough at February 18, 2007 3:17 PM
I should have said this.
The thing about the @#$#@'s that go about advertising "islamophobia" is their blatant and obvious dishonesty.
They don't actually believe for a minute that anybody is actually phobic.
Phobic means irrationally frightened.
If they actually thought that anybody were truly irrationally frightened they would be going to great pains to demonstrate how there was really no danger out there.
They aren't making such arguments because they don't believe their own assertions. They dont actually think that people are irrationally frightened.
The term is intended to sow confusion, not to assist the confused and mistaken sufferer.
The danger is real enough, the fears, when they arise, are perfectly appropriate, the propagandists just don't want the problem identified and named.
The psychologists on this site will recognize this immediately from their experience with the abused, who are forbidden by their abuser from recognizing and naming the reality of offenses against them and their painful resulting emotions.
I.e. blame the victim.
Posted by: joeblough at February 18, 2007 3:29 PM
It is now, perhaps inevitably, the turn of a phony conservative to join CAIR's ranks.
I disagree only that DD is a "phony" conservative. Why? On the basis that he's got the source of Jihad wrong? Because you disagree with him on that point? Because, articulate and persuasive as he is, he's promoting stupidity and, ironically dhimmitude? Because he skewers your book (and Roberts, etc.)?
DD has only found a very creative and misguided way of pursuing a very conservative agenda. Evaluating his thesis simply from the point of view of orthodox conservative dogma, it's rock solid: Blame the liberals and the left for all the evil coming our way and offer the only way out -- reestablishing moral standards and right living in society.
This business of trashing fellow conservative antijihad writers is a further turn of idiocy, a non-sequitor that surely follows (in his mind) from complete confidence in this thesis plus his stated agenda of forming alliances with "moderate muslims" against the evil liberals -- and so of course one must refrain from saying things that might make them uncomfortable with conservative bedfellows...
I'll applaud the first bit about cleaning house (at least in general outline) because I too dislike the depravity our society displays, and would like to get our nation's behavior out of the gutter. But that is not the point, it's his very conservative THESIS that's wrong. DD is simply proving the tautology that a conservative can be just as wrong about the nature of Jihad as a liberal. I think Greg is just having trouble accepting this fact.
Not all conservatives are libertarian. DD is a non-libertarian conservative; there's nothing fake about this.
Our job at JW is to correctly name the enemy, and although DD is being very unhelpful by trying to drag the wrong part of the conservative agenda into the wrong part of analysis of Jihad, he is right on many points (which is what is so dang exasperating about his current work). He is therefore not the enemy; he is a friend who needs to be straightened out on an important point. By the way, the liberals (with some exceptions) are not the enemy either -- they just happen to have statistically more golden-tongued idiots in need of education in these matters.
at February 19, 2007 11:27 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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 Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)