The standard fallback position for the Jihad apologist is two-fold. The foxhole of evasion has been dug by Ed Husain. Husain is a former member of the Jihad terrorist group
Hizb ut-Tahrir who has since made a name for himself by claiming that people such as Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are unintentionally playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.
According to Husain, the few in the West who recognize the current Jihad threat and speak out about it are creating an atmosphere of “Islamophobia” that helps fuels Al Qaeda’s rhetoric:
[Hirsi Ali] plays into the hands of extremists and allows their discourse to dominate one of the great faiths of our world. Worse, it creates a public space in which attacking all Muslims and Islam becomes acceptable, even fashionable.
This quote is from Husain’s response to Hirsi Ali after their live debate, which is available
here.
The barb wire in front of Husain’s foxhole of evasion is the contention that Al Qaeda is the only Jihad threat aimed at the West. This view is manifest nonsense. To cite just a few examples from a very long list one should start with the Muslim Brotherhood’s The Project. The Project refers to a captured document that was dated 1 December 1982 that defines the Brotherhood’s strategy for creating a global caliphate. The full text of The Project is
online here and is well worth reading. There is also the Moslem campaign to impose censorship upon the West that is an aspect of Sharia Law. The Iranian murder contract that is still out on Salmon Rushdie and the Cartoon Jihad are two notable examples. Prof. John Lewis has a lengthy, but still just partial,
list of Moslem attacks upon the West at his website.
Whether Al Qaeda, in the long term, is more dangerous to the West than the Muslim Brotherhood is a debatable point. This is due to the increasing violence in France and the Moslem use of “urban guerrillas” for the creation of Islamic zones of control throughout Western Europe. It is clear that this campaign is being directed using the concepts defined in The Project.
In America Ed Husain has many supporters, for example Dinesh D’Souza. D’Souza has
accused Robert Spencer for “letting Bin Laden define Islam.” Today, 30 November 2007, Spencer has posted a
trenchant rebuttal on the claims of Husain and those who support his thesis. Spencer notes that Husain’s thesis is based on a mendacious reading of Islamic history and doctrine:
Husain (and D'Souza) implies that jihadism is a clear Islamic heresy, and that there is a broad tradition within Islam that rejects violence against non-Muslims and Islamic supremacism -- and that Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq and I are ignoring or downplaying it out of some base motives. Bin Laden or someone like him invented jihadism and grafted it onto a religion that has otherwise peaceful teachings.
Spencer can add
Inside Higher Education’s “intellectual affairs” columnist Scott McLemee to the list of those who evade the history of Jihad and the nature of its current manifestation. McLemee’s latest contribution to the discussion is witlessly titled,
“Beyond Islamophobofascism.” The subject of McLemee’s graceless neologism is
Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week sponsored by David Horowitz. (The event should have been called “Jihad Awareness Week” in order to place the emphasis where it belongs.) McLemee begins his article with a smear by stating:
David Horowitz’s young supporters at Michigan State University celebrated Islamofascism Awareness Week by hosting a speaker from the British National Party – one of those groups that, until recently, held that the Holocaust did not happen….
Of course Horowitz weeks ago repudiated this group and made clear that it had nothing to do with his events as noted on a link that McLemee himself supplies from a
report posted at Inside Higher Education on 29 October. McLemee ignores this and instead commits the logical fallacy of
Reductio ad Hitlerum by suggesting that future events should include torchlight parades and “end with a rally calling for Muslims to be put in special camps.” McLemee has a nasty habit of attacking those who disagree with him on this issue as fascists or Nazis. He titled his “review” for the movie
300, which he admits to never have watched,
“A Fresh Triumph of the Will” in reference to a famous Nazi propaganda film. Those who actually saw the film and enjoyed it are characterized as “young, impressionable, historically clueless viewers,” which I suppose is better than being a “special camp” building Nazi.
At this point in McLemee’s article one could just invoke
Godwin’s Law and walk away victorious. One can also leave aside that Columbia University has recently hosted a Holocaust denying mass-murderer or that the Bush Administration at the Annapolis Conference has negotiated with Holocaust denying terrorists
on their own anti-Semitic terms. Or one could note the frenzied efforts of many in academia in attempting to provide a position and visa for Muslim Brotherhood leader
Tariq Ramadan. While perhaps not a Holocaust denier, Ramadan has supported the ongoing genocide in Sudan: “He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the ‘future of Islam.’" Then there is the University of California Irvine’s annual Islamic
hate-fest directed at Jews and Kaffirs sans the standard “liberal” outrage that accompanies every planted noose on campus. Academia’s and McLemee’s fastidiousness about “fascism” is very selective. However, there are some points that McLemee raises that should be dealt with.
McLemee’s views on what to do about terrorism and its cause are most instructive on the typical “liberal” mindset. In a massive exercise of projection, McLemee states that “organizers of stunts like Islamofascism Awareness Week are the ‘useful idiots’ of jihadism.” He contends that Horowitz is “stirring up the nativism and xenophobia of your fellow citizens” that will increase the likelihood of Jihadist attacks upon America. We can leave aside McLemee’s standard contempt for the American people and note that Moslem attacks on the West pre-date David Horowitz by over 1300 years. The purpose of the “Islamophobia is stirring them up” argument is to make the issue entirely one of alleged Western provocations that cause “rage within the Muslim world.” McLemee cites Husain’s contention that there is a long range Al Qaeda plot known as “Opening Eyes” to convince Moslems that America and Europe are “fundamentally hostile to Islam itself.” McLemee’s, and those like him, plan for fighting Al Qaeda is to appease the countless other Jihad groups around the world.
One wonders what America could do to appease Islamic rage. The Bush Administration has already disgraced the country with the abandonment of
Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The Administration has now also disgraced the site of the Annapolis Conference which was the U.S. Naval Academy. The United States has endured countless acts of war inflicted by the Islamic Republic of Iran with nary a response. The first Bush Administration allowed that government to threaten American publishers, such as Viking, with its medieval death fatwas without
lifting a finger to defend Americans' right to free speech. American publications now engage in self-censorship as a result of the Cartoon Jihad. American universities bend over backwards to welcome Moslems including those who support Jihad. UC Berkeley professor
Hatem Bazian is allowed to spew sedition in time of war on campus at taxpayer expense without suffering any consequences. However, any criticism of this is “Islamophobia” that plays into the hands of terrorists. As is any mention of the ongoing Jihads in Sudan, Thailand, The Philippines, Russia, Nigeria, Somalia, Algeria, the already cited campaigns in Europe, or the policies of “moderate” Islam in Malaysia and Indonesia. The most active exporters of Jihad are, of course, The Saudi Entity and Iran. Not at issue is how Westerners are “welcomed” in Moslem nations, for example the
persecution of Gillian Gibbons the object of Sudan’s ongoing Teddy Bear Jihad where thousands in the streets call for her murder for “insulting Islam.” Apparently there is no outrage heinous enough commited by Moslems that will demonstrate who is making whom “unwelcome” for the likes of McLemee.
The Netherlands has made great efforts to welcome its Moslem immigrants. The problem is that the values the immigrants have brought with them are antithetical to the liberal values that animate Dutch society. These values of reason, individualism, the separation of church and state, and maximum individual freedom are far superior to those of the newcomers. Anyone who makes note of this in Holland and speaks out against Moslem oppression of women and “infidels” faces death threats and intimidation. Theo Van Gogh was
murdered on an Amsterdam street in broad daylight for daring to make a film critical of Islam. In other words, it is the most basic values of Western Civilization that make the Islamist feel unwelcome, whether in Amsterdam or an American college campus.
Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders is working on a T.V. movie about the Koran. Wilders has refused to
comment on the film’s content that appears to be a sequel to Van Gogh’s
Submission. Wilders does not like Islam and he makes no bones about it comparing the Koran to
Mein Kampf. Thanks to a lengthy series of bloody wars and an almost as bloody war of words Westerners have the absolute right to criticize religion, any religion. This makes many Moslems feel unwelcome. Some have displayed their hurt feelings with murder and threats of more to come. While the Dutch government generously acknowledges Wilders right to free speech, some have said he should not inflame you know who:
It is not the first time that right wing populist Wilders has been warned about the dangers of his outspoken comments. The National Co-ordinator for the Prevention of Terrorism, Tjibbe Joustra, warned the MP in September that his statements could lead to radicalisation. Such statements, said Joustra, could tip people harbouring violent plans over into action.
The Head of the Dutch security services, Sybrand van Hulst, is playing down Joustra's words in today's de Volkskrant newspaper. He says the Netherlands is getting used to inflamatory comments from right wing politicians.
"Inflammatory comments" are the problem, not the death threats and throat cutting that follow. One could ask Mr. van Hulst and terrorism preventer Joustra how freedom of speech and inquiry on different belief systems are to be defended and implemented without hurting someone’s feelings. Obviously, they can’t. Some of the commenters on the
Radio Netherlands website are forthright on their motives of appeasement. As Vera Gottlieb stated:
He'll be the next dead Dutch citizen! Is this baiting really necessary? What purpose, other than inflame hatred, does it serve?
“Inflame hatred.” Gottlieb is correct that the Jihadists already hate us; they always have and always will. Her prescription is to evade this unpleasant reality, end discussion on the nature of Islam, and hope they will refrain from cutting one’s throat. To her credit, Gottlieb does not attempt to sugar coat such cowardice with a saccharine layer of pseudo strategy courtesy of Al Qaeda.
McLemee states that Horowitz, and those like him, are working to make Al Qaeda’s “Open Eyes” strategy a success. If Washington D.C. is nuked by Moslem terrorists it will be the fault of “Islamophobia” making them feel unwelcome. Actually, the fault will lay with those in the West who have closed their eyes and their minds to a clear and present danger and who spend their time trying to close the minds and eyes of the American people.
Crossposted at
The Dougout
rights, and does not presume to grant or define those rights. It merely notes that the right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."So where did that right come from? This is what another of our founding documents has to say about that:
rights, and does not presume to grant or define those rights. It merely notes that the right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."So where did that right come from? This is what another of our founding documents has to say about that:
William Russell is running for Congress against John Murtha as a Republican in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania in the November 2008 election.
