Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Confessions of an Islamaphobic
Lawrence of Arabia was one of my all-time favorite movies. I took two semesters of Islamic History and Culture at Georgetown from a professor in the Foreign Service School many years ago. I regarded Muslims as natural allies against Soviet Communism. But none of that interest and sentiment changes my understanding that the Islamic political and cultural vision is a stagnant anachronism whose sheer inapplicability can only result in futility and violence. The recent “caliphates” created in chaos are the political and cultural equivalents of Jurrasic Park and unfortunately completely consonant with the essence of Islam.
John Kennedy had to make a strong speech in front of a convention of Protestant ministers to assuage suspicion of
Typical English politician.
Catholic allegiance to papal temporal power. Mormons are scrutinized. Jews are invariably accused of divided loyalties between the US and Israel. Bible-centered Protestants are invariably suspected of trying to “impose” their religion. However, Muslims, whose religion is more openly hostile to the tenets of secular democracy than any other, get a blanket pass under the rubric of avoiding the sin of “Islamaphobia.” Why should Mitt Romney be asked how he can separate LDS teachings from his policy positions, while the equivalent question is never put to Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Rashida Talib or Minn Atty General Keith (“X”) Ellison?
Consider the wording of the oath of office of every federal officer or employee:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
There are over one hundred suras in the Koran that call for the death of non-believers, Jews and Christians in particular. The text also asserts an inferior status for women and the dismissal of female testimony in the absence of male Muslim corroboration. This seems rather “problematic” in the campus vernacular, to put it mildly. Muslims do not get to pick and choose nor devise modern re-interpretations of any part of the Koran. So, can a Muslim take the above oath without mental reservation?
The British equivalent expressly cites “democratic values”:
Oath: “I, [name], swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, Her Heirs and Successors according to law.”
Pledge: “I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.”
Every immigrant and every descendant of immigrants living in the West is a living affirmation of the superiority of the West. (Fifty years ago, I found the rather drab village left behind by a distant emigrant Irish ancestor and entered the sole pub in town to raise a pint in his honor for having left and made me an American.) Every step, every breath taken while living in a secular democracy like ours is an affirmation because one is always free to leave. Multitudes of residents of shariah-ruled nations seek to live in the West, but there is no corresponding horde of Canadians, Australians, Europeans, and/or Americans begging for citizenship in the Islamic world. That is because the West is superior. Period.
It should be acceptable to say to local Muslims when they are acting out, “Thank you for being here and acknowledging the superiority of the West, of secular democracy, and its Judeo-Christian heritage.”
Islam cannot function in a diverse environment. It was designed to be an imperial religion with very centralized authority. Instead of relentless cultural pressure on resident Muslims to deal with the unique deficits of Islam, our elites welcome “authentic” behavior which can only be seen as weakness and an invitation to impose shariah. It does no one any favors and instigation of violence is assured. In that distorted arrangement, Islamaphobia can be our friend.
Published in General
Islamophobia = self-preservation.
Those stupid “Coexist” bumper stickers are carried by people who have no clue what the “C” is all about. Islam’s intention is to use the West’s tradition of tolerance just long enough to be in a position of power, at which point it’s Sharia law and it starts raining Gays for Palestine. Useful idiots, indeed.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines Islamophobia as “an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam”. I think that when the Left talk about Islamophobia on the Right they are referencing the discrimination part. And we should discriminate.
My four years living in Qatar (and to a lesser extent my four years living in Indonesia) showed me that Islam is not so much a religion but a political way of life. We were certainly discriminated against in Qatar – particularly my wife and 2 daughters.
Islam stands for itself unapologetically and will slowly take over Europe. Christianity and the Christian family are dieing while Muslims are breeding like rabbits and still invading due to the ridiculous immigration policies of the West.
Any pushback against Muslims in the USA will automatically get you the Islamophobia curse from the Left. And I’m all for discriminating against Islam – it is not compatible with Western Culture.
Waiting for a contradictory opinion to be expressed in response.
Here is a better version:
This is poorly expressed, but I don’t have time to polish it.
It has been said that poverty is the default condition of mankind.
Islam is poverty of the mind and spirit. It is widespread, like poverty, because it requires exertion and cognitive capability to move beyond it.
No. You said it. Winston Churchill pointed out the paralyzing effects of Islam, the inshallah mentality that leads to stagnation and lazy superstition.
Wise observations. There is nothing irrational about Islamophobia; I regard it as an essential part of situational awareness.
I don’t have your experience of living in the Middle East, but I do have a degree in comparative religion, and even in my days as a (not very smart) college student I could see that Islam came under “one of these things is not like the others.” It seemed to me then that Islam’s main features were tribalism, xenophobia, fear of femaleness, and a huge inferiority complex. The logical result was killing everyone who didn’t agree with you.
(I should say that the Sufi had some redeeming qualities, like a love of knowledge that overcame a lot of their xenophobia. Jewish scholars were welcomed in the better Sufi Muslim caliphates.)
Churchill nailed it. In the West, the nature of God is reason. In Islam, God is chaos and simple will.
What about “Oink, Piggy Piggy, we Love Making Your Lives -hitty” suggests that Islam is anything other than the Religion of Peace?
Islam makes no distinction between politics and religion, and regards any sort of secular law and authority as blasphemous–blasphemous and deserving of eradication.
This raises the question of why the left would be so determined to support and defend Islam.
Requires a small reasoning capability non-existent on the Left except perhaps among those who are only there for the power who likely think they can skirt that conflict.
Indeed, that has been a rhetorical question for many many years. (Why do leftists support communist thugocracies? Terrorists? Islamo-fascist regimes? The silencing and even imprisoning of those who do not toe the party line? These “well-meaning” people do not mean well.)
Sufis, postponers and Ahmadis are usually persecuted by mainstream Islam. So even when some Muslims try to reform the violent parts of their religion they fail. Douglass Murray often makes this point.
They hate us and they want to destroy us.
Muslim Arabs invaded the Iberian Peninsula in 711 and conquered it in 7 years. What was lost in seven years it took 700 years to regain.
The Islamists are joined by the Leftist collectivists who have no misgivings about being enslaved, they actually prefer enslavement by government authority and Islam merges religion and governing.
But islam doesn’t allow so much of what they want the government to enforce.
Do they think they can play Professor John Gill or something?
Maybe conservative Christians can get some converts with that realization.
The Iranian Communists were only going to ally with Ayatollah Khomeini until the Shah was gone. Then they pushed the old man out of the way and took over.
oh, wait…
Fun Iranian trivia quiz: Based on sartorial clues alone, guess which figures from 1979 wound up dead or in exile.
I think this is a good explanation of the left’s motives. They naively think they can use Islam to take down the West, and discard those Islamo-fascists once the revolution has succeeded. Jaw-droppingly naive.