In responding to the article Robert Spencer and I wrote about the Center American Progress report smearing critics of Islamo-fascism in the United States and abroad as an “Islamophobic” bigots who needed to be stigmatized and read out of polite society, Matthew Duss merely repeats the slander comparing us to nutcases like Robert Welch, who believed in wild conspiracy theories and thought Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist.
Duss — who obviously has never read (or never understood) an article or book by Spencer or myself — begins his character assassination by accusing us of spreading “hateful anti-Muslim ideas” with not a shred of evidence presented that would back up the slander, and then denies with a straight face that he or the authors of the CAP report “use the term ‘Islamophobia’ lightly.” Indeed. According to Duss’s definition of Islamophobia, anyone criticizing pedophilia among some Catholic priests or using the term “clerical fascism” to describe the Church’s support for Franco during the Spanish Civil War would be judged to be anti-Catholic or a “Catholic-phobe.”
Every individual demonized by the CAP report and Duss — including, by the way, a devout Muslim, Zuhdi Jasser — is on record repeatedly observing that there are good Muslims and peace-loving Muslims, and the problem is not Muslims or even a majority of Muslims. The problem lies in the fact that Islam’s prophet has called for war against infidels, the subjection of women, and the genocide of the Jews, a people referred to in the Koran and by armed Islamic parties like Hezbollah and Hamas, and even “secular” organizations like Fatah, as apes and pigs. Are women oppressed in the Islamic world? It is Islamophobic to say so — and there are “anti-Islamophobia” resolutions already in place at universities like UCLA that define Islamophobia in exactly this way. The sponsor of the UCLA resolution is the Muslim Students Association, a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.
The problem we face is that the leading organizations of the Muslim community in America, like the MSA, are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and have shown no uneasiness — to put it mildly — with the calls of Ahmadinejad and other Muslim fanatics to wipe the Jews and America from the face of the earth. Worse, the Muslim Students Association sponsors supporters of terrorist organizations like Hamas and promotes a “solution” for the Middle East in which the Jews disappear from the map.
Instead of concern about these facts, Duss and the Center for American Progress have focused their money and attention on carrying out what Spencer and I have shown to be a Muslim Brotherhood campaign to demonize all its critics as “anti-Muslim.” This strategy takes advantage of America’s culture of tolerance to provide a shield for forces that have set out to destroy our democracy, and have declared their objective to be just that and in so many words. CAIR — an organization that Duss defends — is in fact a spinoff of Hamas. Four of its top executives have been convicted and jailed for terrorist activities. CAIR responds to its critics by calling them “anti-Muslim” and “Islamophobes.” How convenient to have a brain trust of the Democratic party operating on a budget of $38 million a year to do their work for them.
Duss attacks Spencer for writing that Sharia requires death for apostates by saying in effect that no one is being executed in Virginia. Has he really thought through the implications of that? Yet on this flimsy basis he wants National Review to shun Robert as an untouchable.
Duss’s methodology in conducting his slander is self-indicting. He also cites the following statement by Robert Spencer about Islam as proof of Spencer’s Islamophobia: “It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers.” But this statement is true and Duss does not even attempt to refute it. Instead of asking what this reflects about current Islam in a world where Islamic militants are engaged in holy wars against unbelievers in Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda, Gaza, and the West Bank — and this is only a partial list — he attacks Spencer for identifying an obvious source of these many conflicts.
Duss cites a scurrilous ADL attack on Spencer — equally innocent of facts — as though Abe Foxman, who runs the ADL as his personal fiefdom, were not a notorious panderer to left-wing causes. The fact is that the American Left has joined in what I have elsewhere referred to as an “unholy alliance,” making itself a valuable ally of the Muslim Brotherhood and its agents like Hamas, both in America and the Middle East. Anyone interested in the facts Spencer and I presented — which are still unanswered — can read our longer essay, Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future, which is available on Kindle for less than a dollar.
— David Horowitz is the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and author, most recently, of A Point in Time: The Search for Redemption in This Life and the Next.
"The problem lies in the fact that Islam’s prophet has called for war against infidels, the subjection of women, and the genocide of the Jews, a people referred to in the Koran and by armed Islamic parties like Hezbollah and Hamas, and even 'secular' organizations like Fatah, as apes and pigs."
And the problem is, the same can be said of virtually any major world religion, by applying the same process Horowitz and others have applied to Islam - selective citations of scripture out of context, selective reliance on self-appointed interpreters of scripture in deliberate ignorance of what the people of the faith actually believe, etc.
Subjection of women? Read the Book of Genesis or the First Epistle to the Corinthians. War against the unbelievers? Read the Book of Joshua.
So why would Judaism and Christianity not qualify as religions of violence, despite what is in their holy writings? Because what Jews and Christians believe is based on their own, personal interpretations of God's word, not on narrow and out-of-context interpretations by self-appointed authorities, and certainly not on inflammatory interpretations made by enemies of their faith.
The arguments presented by Horowitz here are virtually identical with those presented by broad-based enemies of religion, who oppose not just Islam, but all faith that could pose any threat to secular progressivism. They are virtual word-for-word reiterations of the arguments of Christopher Hitchens and company. That should give us pause.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's the answer to your "why" question.
External Link
You're making a false analogy between religious scriptures.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOther religions long ago evolved beyond narrow interpretations, attacks on different religions, and mass murder. Islam has not. Your point was?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChris, my point was that any religion needs to be assessed in light of what its believers believe, not in light of what self-appointed authorities or strident critics believe. When the views of actual rank-and-file Muslims - not Sayyid Qutb, not David Horowitz - are assessed, they are found to be much more moderate than they are frequently portrayed; the same as for Christianity and Judaism, which are routinely (and unjustly) demonized.
I would argue that Islam has, in fact, seen dramatic shifts over the years, some of them positive and some of them negative; and that, overall, it is far too diverse to characterize with so broad of a brush. Even as extremism has risen, the moderate Islam of the Ottoman era persists in many areas, as do a number of unorthodox Islamic sects, as does progressive Islam.
The problem is, the more Islam is represented as being one and the same as the Wahhabis and the Taqfiris, the more they win the argument that they represent the one and only true manifestation of Islam, when they absolutely do not. This is identity politics moved into the realm of religion, wherein self-appointed extremists present themselves as representing their people and are obliged in that usurpation of power by their critics who find them to be convenient enemies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately it would appear that the "extremists" are the ones with the power and the guns and they are the ones using them in a religious and cultural war against Christianity, Judaism and the West in general.
I believe that is the point.
We're all happy that there are moderate Muslims and non-violent ones.
They need to speak out more and we'd be happy to get their six.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePV, my huge problem with your point is--what's your point?
There is an aggressive, world-wide movement called Jihad, with hundred of thousands violent adherents who gleefully act out (daily!) their Koranic-based philosophy. I'm talking now, in 2011--and for the last 20 years and for the foreseeable future. And Islam--and the Koran--is what all these otherwise disparate people have in common. This is a fact.
Am I supposed to draw any consolation from the fact that not every Muslim is a Jihadist? Honestly, PV, who in the name of God cares? Am I supposed to shrug it off because the Old Testament is not a Dr.-Phil-like Chicken Soup for the Soul? Or because 1000 years ago we burned a few witches or went on a few botched Crusades?
I honestly don't get this "logic." If there is a daily, present danger, which repeats with monotonous consistency both its credo and its actions--who but a relativist fool would cavillate about reasons to ignore it or "shrink" it into meaninglessness?
This nihilism comes from not caring about life--yours or others. We are all pimples on the great ass of Gaia, so who cares who gets to stay and who goes, right? We are all guilty, all human and all meaningless. Sorry, but your values are really far from mine, and although I honestly try to put myself in your shoes and understand your point of view, I can't help thinking you have no moorings in logic or common sense.
I know that's harsh, but I'm sick of having to defend the obvious before the sophistry of moral relativism.
If I'm wrong, go build a church in Ryiad, and I'll personally apologize to you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately, PV, the problem is with Mohammed himself. According to the Koran and the other holy books of Islam he murdered people, raped women, started many wars, tortured people, killed apostates, enslaved women and children and did many other acts that make you think, "How can he be the leader of a major world religion?" And, "What kind of religion must it be that has him as its founder?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe truth about Mohammed, what he did and said, should be discussed openly and often. Because of multiculturalism and the cowardice of the media and academia in the West, it's not.
I agree that most Muslims are like most Christians, they really don't think much or deeply about their religion and are on the whole good people. But as someone once said, Christianity went back to the teachings of Christ in the 16th century, and that resulted in the Reformation; Islam went back to the teachings of its founder, and out of that came Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood et al.
How will Muslims ever get around the fact of the Prophet's evil acts and vile sayings?
PV - I can't speak for Christianity but I can for Judaism. First of all, Genesis is not the basis of women's rights in Judaism. Those rights are found in other places of the Pentateuch and ultimately in the Talmud.
As for violence, there is a direction to extirpate the Canaanites, but only the Canaanites. The reality was quite different, as evidenced by the Book of Judges. If anything, it seems the Canaanites were ultimately assimilated into the Israelite state. The bottom line is that the path taken by (or directed to) Judaism was a path of non-violence and respecting the rights of women and of non-Jews. Neither of statements is applicable to the Islam.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe claims by various posters here that imply Muslims "aren't doing enough" to speak out fails the 10 min Google test.
External Link
www.muslimsforpeace.org
External Link
None of this, of course, excuses, minimizes, justifies or otherwise ameliorates murder committed by terrorists. Hopefully what it does is somewhat temper our willingness to post knee-jerk, reactionary bile (Voltaire) on a public website that can easily be misinterpreted as hatred for all Muslims, peaceful or not.
Peace. I mean it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe definition of phobia is irrational fear. Given the facts it is silly to label those opposing radical Islam as "phobes". The irony is that if the Islamo-fascists ever take control Duss and his ilk at CAP will be the first to go, as they will be useful idiots no more.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy do we have to wait for Mohammedans to eliminate our blood-enemies? Doesn't say much for us, or maybe it just reinforces the Mohammedans' opinion of our pathetic civilization and their expectations of victory.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> So why would Judaism and Christianity not qualify as religions of violence, despite what is in their holy writings?
There have been almost 18,000 Islamic terrorist attacks carried out world-Wide since 9/11. How many Christian terrorist attacks have been committed in the same time period? That should be your first clue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe Christianity is less violent than Mohammedanism. Maybe not. It doesn't matter. The religion of Europe was/is Christianity, and the fact that it is my religion is all that matters. I defend my religion against all alien religions, and I expect the adherents of those religions to defend them. The Crusades were fought against Mohammedans who converted the Christian Middle East to Islam by the sword, persecuted Christians who did not convert, and closed access to the Holy Places to Christians. We wanted to make pilgimage to Jerusalem, and they said "no". Okay, Abdullah, let's do it! You don't want us there; we're coming, and we're gonna make you like it. All existential disputes in human history have been, are now, and will be, settled by the use of violence, or the reasonable threat thereof.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI oppose terrorist attacks, but I also understand that, in the case of Islam, every faithful follower is my enemy, because the Koran is explicit in commanding Mohammedans to make war on all infidels (definitely including me). If I could level every mosque and kill every imam, maybe not every Mohammedan would have to die, but it would be for each to prove his non-enemy status to me. But the religion of Islam is the problem and it must be erased from the earth. Pick another example than Spain, please. From minute one, the Republicans' number one enemy was the Catholic Church, Catholic clergy, and faithful Catholics (just as the Communists attacked the Catholic Church in Poland). This was in aid of their determination to destroy Spanish culture and civilization. Why wouldn't a Catholic, clergy or communicant, ally themselves with Franco. Franco was a Rightist, not a 'conservative'. Conservatives are just moderates under another name. Rightists support/defend their nation (race), their culture, their language, their religion, and their history. Leftists want to eliminate all of this. They are the blood-enemies of every existing natural society and to be treated (i.e., killed) accordingly. Or, of course, you can surrender and die.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePV, where do you get, "the moderate Islam of the Ottoman era" from? Read some history. It's strange but I never see "moderate muslims" just like us anytime I see TV reports from any Islamic countries.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you cannot hear your opponent out before you shout him down, you are no better than governments arresting citizens for participating in peaceful protest.
If you assume “you know” what your opponent’s position is before he explains it, you tend to show how little you know.
If you cannot allow your opponent to attack your position, you admit how weak your position is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Duss report says, as if dubious, that Horowitz and Spencer call Cair and the Southern Poverty Law Center mouthpieces for radical Islam. Well, they are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlso, Duss says millions of American Muslims live decent, peaceful lives though they are Sharia-influenced. That's very different from living under Sharia Law. Should that every eventuate in a sovereign American entity, city, county or state, Muslim extremism would surely emerge, as it has wherever it is the operative legal system. Non-Muslims would have no rights and, in fact, be forced to move , out of fear for their very lives.
While apologists for the rigid intolerance of Muslims towards ''infidels'' cite an intolerant remark here or there in the Old and New Testaments, they refuse to admit the Koran is filled with imprecations to violence, or that Mohammed was first a blood-thirsty warrior, before he was a philosopher.