As I noted earlier today here and here, Salman Rushdie, perhaps because he is a doctrinaire Leftist, makes people who otherwise do not oppose jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women think that it’s acceptable to do so. But while the New York Times and Rod Dreher of The American Conservative blithely ignore their previous Islamophilia and distaste for opposition to jihad terror and Sharia oppression, the execrable Cathy Young had the decency to own up to it, in the process of distancing her self from those people who do opposition to jihad terror and the defense of the freedom of speech all wrong, wrong, wrong, and are grubby evildoers all around. Cathy’s got it right, as she will explain. More below.
“The Salman Rushdie Attack and the Protection of Free Speech,” by Cathy Young, The Bulwark, August 15, 2022:
The horrific attack on British-American novelist and essayist Salman Rushdie, who was repeatedly stabbed and severely injured during an event on Friday at the famed cultural center in Chautauqua, New York, is all the more shocking because it stems from a death sentence issued by a religious fanatic more than thirty years ago and widely assumed to be obsolete. It’s as if a long-forgotten monster in a tale of horror awakened and emerged from its lair to make a deadly strike….
But the fact is that, as the Rushdie stabbing amply demonstrates, violent Islamist militancy hasn’t gone away.
It’s an uncomfortable subject for many people because it can easily lend itself to blanket attacks on Islam and general Muslim-bashing of the kind propagated by far-right figures like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, or David Horowitz, embraced by many mainstream conservatives during the “Ground Zero mosque” controversy in 2010, relentlessly flogged by Breitbart News, and championed by Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election (and beyond). It should be noted, by the way, that it’s a stance Rushdie has never embraced, despite having a far more valid grievance against Islamist extremism than any of the Muslim-bashers.
Here is my rebuttal to her Reason piece linked above at my name, and here is the response of Pamela Geller and me to her Daily Beast piece, linked above at Pamela Geller’s name.
Anyway, the “far-right” business is just a smear. Those who use it want to imply that their targets slip on the jackboots and go goose-stepping in their spare time, but now that the establishment media has decided that virtually everyone to the right of Fidel Castro is “far right,” it has lost a lot of the sting it used to have. So on that, Cathy Young is graded with a big ho-hum, unless she can be the first to prove conclusively that defending a free republic and a pluralistic society with non-establishment of religion is “far right.”
As for “blanket attacks on Islam,” Cathy Young wants to draw a distinction between Islam itself, which she would have us believe is entirely benign, and “Islamist extremism,” which is bad, very bad. But can Cathy Young explain what the difference between the two is, and identify exactly where that difference is found? Can she elucidate for us precisely where I go wrong in ascribing to Islam proper what belongs not to it, but to “Islamist extremism”? Can Cathy Young show us how the Qur’an and Sunnah teach peace, and how the “extremists” have “hijacked” their teachings in order to hoodwink young Muslims into thinking that committing violence against unbelievers is a sacred act?
Of course she can do none of this. Cathy Young doesn’t know the first foggiest thing about Islam or what its core texts teach. She just knows that to find some issue with Islam itself is something that has been declared unacceptable in the circles she runs in, and where would she be if she stops getting invited to the good parties? Cathy Young is by no means alone in this. Virtually all of those who accuse others of “Islamophobia” and affirm that Islam is peaceful, but has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists are not speaking from their own knowledge or conviction. They’re just reflecting the groupthink that will allow them entrée into polite circles. The canniest thing that the purveyors of the Big Lie about Islam being peaceful did was ostracize and demonize those who told the truth; that made all the sheep fall into line, with Cathy Young one of the foremost among them.
So why does anyone take her seriously as an independent thinker, when she is exactly the opposite of one?
One last thing: why does Rushdie have a “far more valid grievance against Islamist extremism than any of the Muslim-bashers”? Iran wants him dead; ISIS tried to kill us. Is Iran more “valid” than ISIS? Must one have had a personal experience of Islamic jihad in order to oppose it? If being attacked by jihadis is required for a “valid grievance,” I have one, and Cathy Young is aware of it, as she attacked me right after the jihadis did. But my work doesn’t depend on that attack. It has been devoted to exposing the contents of Islamic texts and teachings and thereby illuminating the jihadi mindset. Do those texts and teachings change if someone has been attacked? Once again, Cathy Young demonstrates that she is hopelessly muddled.
GreekEmpress says
I’d say anyone who has lost a friend, relative, or ancestor to Muslim terrorism has a valid grievance.
Infidel says
Or even fellow citizens, be it Greeks, Armenians, Hindus, Yazidis, Assyrians, Jews, Zoroastrians and so on
GreekEmpress says
The list is endless, isn’t it—
gravenimage says
Cathy Young and The Bulwark suddenly discover that there is a jihad threat to the freedom of speech
…………………………………………
Better late than never? Of course, Rushdie himself has been under threat now for over 30 years–and this has not been an idle threat, His Italian translator was stabbed, and his Japanese translator stabbed to death, both in 1991.
And note that Cathy Young never says what Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and David Horowitz have gotten wrong–nor of course will she, because she’s got nothing.
Carol the 1st says
A little more sinister than just “muddled”. At best a wishful thinker at the expense of many.
Devasur says
Another leftist doing the damage control without clarifying how RS is wrong about Islam. When you don’t have any valid points you start to smear.
Westman says
Rushdie has two options, stay quiet or go after Islam with a vengeance. I’m hoping he’ll use his brilliance to chop on Iran’s leadership and its false religion; educating the Western world about its intrinsic violence that can erupt anytime.
Education is the frightening enemy of Islam as the cowardly Taliban have demonstrated by shutting down the education of women. Imagine those women demanding equal rights and the end of plural marriage. The family “king” is dethroned. It’s about unequal power more than religion for the lusty, incompetent, Taliban.
Carol the 1st says
If it weren’t for their Flying Monkey Bats they’d be lying out there all exposed for what they’re worth.
Jayell says
Through an authentic ‘religion’, an individual privately seeks an understanding of, and relationship with, a benevolent deity, which should provide a basis for a positive and respectful attitude towards others and (hopefully) all Creation. A ‘political ideology’ concerns itself primarily with the organisation and control of human society, but not necessarily reflecting the benevolence one would expect of an omnipotent creative deity who would logically have no need for totalitarian control. When a ‘religion’ appears to concern itself heavily with social control and not reflect a positive and respectful attitude towards the individual (as in the curtailment of freedom of speech), then it should become obvious that this is not a ‘religion’ at all but a ‘political ideology’, and not a very pleasant one at that. It is amazing that those who set themselves up to influence society often seem to be oblivious to the glaringly obvious fact this is unfortunately exactly what islam is all about, and always has been.
Carol the 1st says
If it weren’t for their Flying Monkey Bats they’d be lying out there all exposed for the snarling oddities they usually most closely depict.
Jamie James says
First, the satanic verses are a novel of fiction. Secondly, a lot of people who comment on it have never read it.
Islam as usual like Hitler wants to burn all books that do not support them. This why I never call Islam a religion, their behaviour and actions are exactly the same as a cult. That is what it is, a barbaric cult.
James Lincoln says
Jamie James says,
“First, the satanic verses are a novel of fiction. Secondly, a lot of people who comment on it have never read it.”
Very true.
And the same thing can be said about the koran…
Carol the 1st says
From summaries I’ve gathered that Rushdie has well-depicted the lack of credibility of a so-called prophet who shifts with self-serving practical winds and can’t tell God from a Devil. I would not classify this as a “novel of fiction” but of depiction. One needn’t be exact or sip the whole glass of poison to “get the point” across. No elaboration needed.
In interviews Rushdie has always seemed a little too soft on Islam (maybe that’s why he and Christopher Hitchens drifted apart), so his tackling the SATANIC VERSES surprisingly shows
he’s actually pretty level-headed for one born a muslim. I hope Rushdie reacts in a constructive way to more thoroughly unveil the ugly basement of Islam. I think it was Dr. Bill Warner who said he’d initially been very interested in mystical Sufism but eventually discovered what an ugly basement lay beneath it.
On the day of Rushdie’s stabbing I got my first big, cheerful hello from a muslima. Today another one did the same. I wonder if this “nicety” has been “coincidental” good spirits or some action “suggested” to the umma (like smacking people over with cars etc.).
rp says
Once the Fatwah is issued , it was just a time, be it one week or 100 years. It is the way of Islam.
Carol the 1st says
Anyone who like humans has a valid grievance.
David M says
Saudi activist gets 34 years jail for displeasing the Saudi authorities, just before she was going to fly back to Britain. What do the Islam apologists have to say about this?
https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/a-shock-female-saudi-activist-gets-record-34-years-in-prison-for-critical-tweets-20220818-p5baqr.html