I am going to be right up front with you and say that I don't know what the intention of Geert Wilders was in making the short film, Fitna. UN Secretary Ban-Ki Moon has weighed in on it, saying it's only purpose was to offend, and that you can't have freedom of speech without social responsibility. Another freedom-hater. Clearly, Richard Warman should go get a job at the UN. But that's besides the point.
I found this interesting little bite:
As for the response of the Muslim world to “Fitna,” scholars have stressed that Muslims bear in mind the second meaning of the word and regard this event as a test case that they should pass through patience and educational activities. Yeprem recalled that Islam’s prophet never responded in enmity to the kinds of attacks the Muslim world is facing today. “We should be clever and base our struggle on knowledge. Our responses should be acknowledging, not violent. We should convey the correct Islam, and if the film is using the Internet, we should use it [the Internet] for our own means as well,” Yeprem said.
I hope sincerely that there is not violence in response to this film. I fear there will be. There's been violence in the recent past, over similar events. So it's certainly not unlikely.
The fact of the matter is, the anti-Islamophobia movement is seemingly bereft of the understanding for why people fear Muslims. They blame the media, ignorance, Ezra Levant, and on.
Basically, they blame non-Muslims for the fear of Muslims. They say, the fear of Muslims is completely irrational. But how can so many people be completely irrational? Certainly we have more faith in people than that.
Here's the reasons why people fear Muslims. It's not rocket science. I don't have a liberal arts degree. I'm not a sociologist. I don't need to be. The reason is so self-evident, it's absurd. In fact, everyone knows the reason, they just don't want to admit it to themselves.
Terrorism. Yes, terrorism.
Terrorist activity, linked to Islamic extremism has carried out nearly every major terrorist attack against the West in the past twenty years. Couple this fact, with the realities of religious laws in Islamic states like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Syria, etc. States where women are second-class citizens, and in some cases, cannot even leave their home without a male escort.
Then there is this...
We're reminded that all of these incidents are isolated, they don't represent Muslims, you can't stereotype the religion for the actions of a few. And on, and on, and on...
The problem is, these pictures are real. The terrorist attacks in Dar es Salaam, Nairobi, the Gulf of Oman, New York, Washington DC, London, Bali, Madrid, and plots that have been foiled—are real. There are real dead innocent civilians who were intentionally targeted, in the name of Islam.
Whether you find the proclamations of the men who carried out these acts, a legitimate association with Islam or not, the connection remains.
The human brain works through pattern recognition. It's the fundamental way we understand the world. It's why we see faces in clouds. It's why we have the scientific method, to counter for these inherent biases caused by this automated pattern recognition process, that is so fundamental to human cognition.
Whether or not every Muslim is a terrorist or not, is not what the mind is evaluating. It's looking for a pattern, and it's seeing a pattern. It's drawing it's prejudices, it's risk assessments and it's worldview based on that pattern. This process is as much an flaw as it is an advantage.
The death threats against employees of LiveLeak.com, which hosted the movie, only add to the pattern that the average person stakes out in their mind. It is a pattern that continues to repeat itself in Islam.
We know most people are good. We know most Muslims are good. Hell, Oskar Schindler demonstrated to us, that even some Nazis were good. This is not the point.
The point is that perception is reality. Whether or not it's someone dressed like a gang member, standing on the street corner, or a woman in a burqa, the patterns we see cause fear. It's actually a survival instinct.
There is only one solution to this problem. Only one. The only solution that will bring an end to this clash of civilizations.
It is for Islamic extremism against the West to abate. For it to end. No amount of cultural fairs, or one of the left's exciting awareness campaigns will turn the tides of prejudice.
Every violent protest, every sign that says "Kill the Jews" or "Freedom of Speech Go to Hell" in the streets of London or Copenhagen, takes Muslims one more step away from acceptance and one step towards confirming that they are—in fact—a lurking enemy.
The reform cannot happen externally, because the problem of Islamic radicalism didn't start externally. It started internally, and that is where is must be solved.
Indeed, Muslims like Tarek Fatah or Amina Wadud, are calling for this internal reformation. But we have seen the effects of that too. We've heard of the death threats against Irshad Manjii, and Wadud. We've heard fatwas issued against these reformers. And then the reformers become yet another example of why to fear Islam.
When Muslims take us to court because we "offend" them and demand us to apologize for being "offensive" we question them more. We ask ourselves: do they not accept our liberal values? Do they not accept our basic right to free speech?
And why wouldn't we ask these questions. They are completely appropriate questions, given what we have seen. The problem is, we often hear the answer: "the right to freedom of speech does not include the right to offend". And what does this answer mean? It means some of these people do not accept the liberal value of free speech. They wish to abridge it. It is an affront to our society, our culture, or democracy.
This comment I'm writing now, will be dismissed as Islamaphobic. Why? Because it's easier than actually addressing my points. It's easier than acknowledging the, oh-so-upsetting truth: that Islam must internally reform. They prefer the strategy of appeasement, on the backs of the long bankrupt ideal of multiculturalism. That, sociologists with their contemporary theories of oppression and social justice, can educate us out of this quandary.
They're delusional. They are far removed from the stark realities of daily life in Saudi Arabia or Syria. They are not part of the solution.
Islam fostered the problem internally, and it is internally, that is must solve it. Welcome to reality, boys and girls.
Because it's easier than actually addressing my points.
You have no points to address. You do nothing more than distort reality to justify what can only be described as bigotry porn.
"Pattern recognition"
Exactly, Mike. And that's exactly why Robert and Co. are so frustrated. Leftists deny human nature. They are utopians who believe in social engineering, supervised by an elite priesthood of "educated" right thinking folks (who just happen to be... themselves!)
See Sowell's Visions of the Annointed.
In other words, they live in a fantasy world where there are no differences between male and female, gay and straight, black and white (except when those differences fit this week's bunk theories). Where I'm supposed to believe them rather than my own lying (blinded by false consciousness) eyes.
I don't begrudge them their fantasies. But their insistence on trying to make their fantasies of human perfection tangible, using my extorted tax dollars, brainwashing our children without our knowledge or consent, is more than irritating. As you've said, it is literally dangerous.
Mike-
A phobia is an irrational fear. To be against an irrational fear seems, well, rational. On that basis you can count me one of the "anti-Islamophobia movement". It is possible to against irrational fears and not be an apologist.
The human brain is excellent at pattern recognition. When you walk down a path there is a part of you brain that makes you jump before you're even consciously aware that the thing which made you jump was a stick not a snake. Very old structures in the brain are responsible for this. Fortunately, evolution provided upgrades and we come equipped with a fully functional neocortex and are capable determining that it is winter and snakes aren't about in winter or that it really is just a cloud and not an armadillo.
I was glad to see you write: "We know most people are good. We know most Muslims are good." But, it is not beside the point: it is the point. I count several Muslim families as friends. My daughters play with their daughters. They are, in almost all respects, indistinguishable from my friends from other religions or atheists. This is at the root of my own "anti-Islamophobia" -- when you generalize to the entire group characteristics that are only found in a small subset, you are no longer acting rationally.
There are some grisly things perpetrated daily by Muslim radicals. Gruesome things. There are things done everyday by non-radicals muslims that, to my mind are nasty. If I lived in Iran I would be afraid of the small men policing the cities for transgressions against Islam. If I was a woman I'd have extra reason to be afraid. But, that would be a rational fear I think. There is a world of difference between the power held by radicals in Iran and radicals in Canada. There is a world of difference between the number of people we might call radical in Iran and Canada. Canada is not Iran or Saudi Arabia or any place else that is beset by illiberal assholes.
I think you're right that many people see multiculturalism as a solution and not a noun. The risk is small in Canada. It's larger in places like Britain or Holland or France though. Not because, like oil and water, Islam and the West can't mix but because a culture can only absorb new cultures at a finite rate. People who are emigrating from Islamic countries arrive with a set of values and not all of them are going to be a frictionless fit here. The same could be said of Sikhs or Buddhists ( although they'd probably not be very dangerous ).
The last point I wanted to pick up is that when you say the problem is internal not external ( and you say it in proximity to the atrocious rights records of places like Saudi Arabia ) you treat the Islamic community as a monolithic thing. It isn't. The descendants of white settlers in North Dakota do not owe the descendants of slaves any apology or any reparations because they are members of a group. For the same reason, muslims who don't hold radical views and who don't act on radical views have no special obligation to me or to change people they have nothing in common with except a religion. They should be as active as anyone else in protecting the liberal democracy that we all enjoy.
You're not necessarily wrong though. I had dinner at a wedding reception a few weeks ago and on of the fellows seated at the table proclaimed: "You know what I think of when I see a muslim pushing a baby carriage? A bomb." Hopefully there are enough people willing to exercise their critical facilities.
McClelland, the porn is the thousands killed in New York,Washington,London,Madrid. Tell those victims that the reality is distorted.
And that's exactly why Robert and Co. are so frustrated.
Why should I and my Co. be frustrated when history has shown that bigots always end up on the losing side.
was glad to see you write: "We know most people are good. We know most Muslims are good." But, it is not beside the point: it is the point. I count several Muslim families as friends.
Well, with all due respect, it is besides the point I was trying to make. I too, have friends and acquaintances of Muslim decent. It wasn't too long ago, I had a heated debate over Israel-Palestine with one of them, and we've agreed to disagree in perpetuity.
One of my previous clients, who I also consider a friend, who's name I won't use... but is a doctor who lives in Etobicoke, ON.. of Egyptian decent, reads this blog. He emails me privately from time to time to comment on some of the things I write here.
There isn't a single person, or Muslim who knows me personally that would characterize me as a hateful person. And I can wear that proudly, despite what the Ti-Guys and the McClellands of the world want to say.
My point was sound. It's a point that many Muslims agree with. Muslims like Fatah, Manjii, Wadud, my doctor friend, that the fear of Muslims is promulgated by the extremism. The fear will not subside until this internal reformation happens. There are many Muslims that agree with this. It's not bigotry. It's honesty.
There is a problem with Islam. People within Islam are afraid to speak out against radicals within their midst. We know this. As I've said, we've heard of the death threats made against reformists within the movement. We've heard of the marginalization of the young Kadhr for collaborating with the American's against al-Qaeda.
Things like that make us suspicious.
As far as I know, Tarek Fatah was one of the only prominent Muslims in Canada to speak out against the 9/11 attacks, after it became clear they were perpetrated by Islamic radicals. Why is this? Tarek will tell you. He'll tell you the same thing I'll tell you. Will you call him a self-hating Muslim, for the same reason you call me a bigot?
for the same reason you call me a bigot?
Who called you a bigot? See, this is why I said you have no points to argue against. You live in a demented fantasy world.
Moderate and secular muslims are the victims of Islamic extremism, yet the Left in their wisdom always come down on the side of the extremists.Just ask Tarek Fatah, or Irshad Manji, or Rushdie and the many others.
"Who called you a bigot? See, this is why I said you have no points to argue against. You live in a demented fantasy world."
Robert you rarely make a point but sure love to suck up that link juice. I have question for you - I read about you joining in with your fellow masked criminals to fight the handfull of neo nazis and you claimed you were stabbed with a screw driver over your eye.
Would you and your merry band of communists have had the guts to stand up to the 1000 muslim extremists shouting "death to jews" in calgary http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/death-to-the-jews-shouted-at-c.html
I have my doubts you would have done anything. You and your brainwashed sheeple love the PR of being "anti racist" When there's a real threat you are nowhere to be found.
I find the "fear of Muslims" quite pathetic, and people who claim that they "fear Muslims" equally so.
It is no more reasonable to fear my Muslim neighbours (or indeed any Muslim) because the actions of extremists and fundamentalists than it is to fear the guy down the hall who shaves his head, wears a leather vest, sports tattoos, and has a bunch of chains dangling from his belt loops, because some of ye 'ole Nazi skin heads and pretend anarchists do the same.
You can wrap your words up in all sorts of different blankets but as soon as you say something like
"Every violent protest, every sign that says "Kill the Jews" or "Freedom of Speech Go to Hell" in the streets of London or Copenhagen, takes Muslims one more step away from acceptance and one step towards confirming that they are—in fact—a lurking enemy."
-- and include "all Muslims" in the actions of "some Muslims" people like me have to ask why you have made the conscious choice to demonize an entire culture based on that?
There is a reason it is called Islamo"phobia" Mike, you might want to think about that a bit.
stageleft,
I think you've completely glazed over the issue at hand. In my words, I've already conceded to you that it's irrational to think all Muslims are terrorists. The point is, that it doesn't matter how rational or irrational it is, because I laid out an argument suggesting that, human nature alone is your enemy. The human nature to see those patterns and fear them.
I'll also counter, that while I think running around and spreading bigotry towards Muslims is dangerous, I often find it equally dangerous that people on the left spend all their time running around criticizing the bigotry, principally. As opposed to at least spending some time attacking what is clearly at the heart of the bigotry: terrorism.
This statement might offend you, or it might not: As a religion, Islam does not deserve automatic respect. The fact it's practiced by 1.5 billion does not convince me of this. What convinces me to respect a religion is when it is self-critical, when it challenges itself, to evolve with society.
I'm not a religious man, stageleft. I think you know this. And I have lost plenty of respect for the Catholic church, as many have, for it's failure to be self-critical over the years, resulting in the outright abuse of children being covered up. People have left the church for these reasons.
Islam as a religion is made up of many sects, as it Christianity. And this is often a vehicle to deflect criticism away from Islam. ie. You can't criticize Islam as a whole, for what Wahhabists do. I think in someways, Islam undermines this defense by the widespread belief in pan-Islamic nationhood, but I'll save that for another day.
I'll say this, and you can take it for what you will. The almost all-encompassing majority Muslims are not terrorists, most are not extremist, etc. But almost every Muslim that I've had a civil argument with over September 11th has presented me two things: 1. That they're against terrorism, but the second is more ominous to me: 2. That they understood where al-Qaeda was coming from and/or America brought it on itself, with it's foreign policy.
I've said to their faces that it sounds to me, like you're a little half-pregnant in your views against Islamic terrorism.
This view doesn't satisfy me at all. It implies that America shares at least some of the blame for the deaths of three-thousand Americans on September 11th. I don't know about you, but my system of ethics dictates to my conscience, that the perpetrators bear all of the blame for carrying them out, regardless of their reason.
And to be clear, I don't fear my friend for thinking this. But his words and thoughts tell me something. They tell me that he's hesitant to push for reform in his own religion, because while he would never condone or commit an act, he understands why others might. It's being against it, without outright condemning it.
I've told him this clearly: As long as Islam focuses on criticizing the Islamophobia, there will be fear. Look how quickly people take to people like Tarek Fatah when he speaks out against the terrorists and extremists. People don't fear him. The fear goes away. They say, hey there is a jolly Muslim fellow that I could invite over to my house. The Islamophobia dissapears.
This is something that Muslims like Irshad Manjii have pushed home too. It's the "silence" over Islamic terrorism from Muslims that spreads the fear. Not even, the terrorism itself.
I disagree, I think it's both. But her point is still valid.
I know there is a counterpoint to this, which I don't buy which is: Muslims don't criticize the terrorists, because it plays into the hands of right-wing commentators.
This is ridiculous. I don't believe that for a second. It's the exact same argument that some feminist made to me over the Asqa Parvez issue, in regards to their silence. Ti-Guy made the same argument, I think.
So essentially the existence of right-wing commentators are outright prevented open dialog from moderate Muslims and feminists. This is probably the biggest excuse and cop-out I've ever heard. Because, if these people fear that they can't speak publicly because someone who they disagree with will benefit, will twist it to their own advantage... then guess what: you've already lost the debate, because you've conceded it by not having it.
This isn't to you SL, but don't give me that whiny excuse, because it's pathetic.
No, I have not "completely glazed over the issue at hand". Go back and take a look at what you wrote from the outside - you might find that what you may have been trying to say was covered up by what you did say.
Over that last few years we have all seen a number of bloggers, politicians, media columnists, talk show hosts, bigots and fear mongers, and the generally uninformed (simply because they choose to remain in that state), essentially holding "generic Islam" and "generic Muslims" responsible for any number of different events and actions perpetrated by extremists.
You conclude your post by doing exactly that.
"Islam fostered the problem internally, and it is internally, that is must solve it.
You may well not have been going down the road I thought you were but when you describe this as a Islam and/or Muslim problem to resolve, as opposed to an issue that society must resolve, you do appear to be.
You may well not have been going down the road I thought you were but when you describe this as a Islam and/or Muslim problem to resolve, as opposed to an issue that society must resolve, you do appear to be.
My question to you is, what do you say to Muslims that say what I'm saying? What is your opinion of Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manjii, Amina Wadud, etc? Are they self-hating Muslim bigots?
He'll tell you the same thing I'll tell you. Will you call him a self-hating Muslim, for the same reason you call me a bigot?
I haven't, to my knowledge, called you a bigot.
Well, with all due respect, it is besides the point I was trying to make.
True. My point is that it is an irrational fear; that it is irrational to attach extremism to Islam as a whole. Your point is that rational or not, it's real. I'm not sure we disagree at all.
Mankind has been excercising the sterotyping of others since we crawled out of the caves.
No matter if it is racist, bigoted, or otherwise, it is still factual that you will be safer on a plane with no muslims on board. Period.
And I think that's where you are coming from.
Okay its like this: you make some t-shirts that say "I am a moderate muslim" or "I am muslim and do not support death to infidels". Let's say for the sake of saying that you could actually sell(or give whatever them to muslims without threats of getting your head chopped off. What do you think would happen to the muslims that wore them?
I'm trying to figure out why when I say that I don't like Islam people automatically assume that I am anti-Muslim. My dislike is not toward individuals or groups but toward thoughts, world views and practices. I don't fear Islam any more than I fear post-modernism. I don't agree with it at its core and recognize that, left unchecked, Islam like post-modernism will bring about the destruction of our society. We need to realize that ideas play a much greater role in our society than most of us care to think about.
Before I continue, Mike - excellent post.
Now take the words "Muslims" and "Islam" out of your post and replace them with "evangelicals" and "fundamentalist protestantism". Guess how many times you'll be called a "bigot". Approximately zero? yes, about that.
Now take the words "Muslims" and "Islam" out of your post and replace them with "evangelicals" and "fundamentalist protestantism". Guess how many times you'll be called a "bigot". Approximately zero? yes, about that.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the left is just suffering from internal defense mechanisms. At some level they understand that Islamic radicalism is a serious threat, they just can't cope with it at a conscious level. They need to believe it's simply an over-exaggerated threat. Otherwise it would undermine their fundamental belief that all human's are fundamentally good and want the same things from life.
It's erroneous logic. All humans don't want the same things from life. Human beings want other people to confirm their self-conception. The miracle of liberal thinking, was that respect for other opinions became part of the self-conception.
Islamic radicals completely lack this conception, as Christian radicals, and other religious radicals do. They believe themselves morally superior. They believe God to be on their side. It becomes easy to justify horrendous acts. Primarily because they don't view the acts as horrendous, but rather as virtuous.
"it would undermine their fundamental belief that all human's are fundamentally good and want the same things from life."
You need to clarify what you mean by "left" (if you can - I haven't had much success figuring it out as it's used now. Seems to be a catch all term for "everything I disagree with")
"Left" as I believe it was originally used indicated socialist leanings. Socialists and collectivists and other such myopic organisms don't see humans as fundamentally good. They see themselves as fundamentally good and everybody else as in dire need of control and paternalistic "protection" to curb the worst excesses of our base and stupid natures.
The term that might be more appropriate than "left" here could be "relativist" or "nihilist" or "morally delayed".