Islamofacism week off to a roaring start
October 23, 2007
Here’s a good example of why I don’t take “islamofacism” seriously. Whiskeyfire quotes one presenter’s experience with Muslim renegades in the audience who apparently whispered too loudly and didn’t stay in their seats enough.
According to Darwish, the female students in head-scarves did the following: As she spoke, they made exaggerated, “mean girl” faces at her. They rolled their eyes, practiced “disbelieving” facial expressions—did everything but stick out their tongues. And they continued to talk to each other in loud whispers while Darwish spoke: “How can she tell such lies!” “I was never, ever indoctrinated against Jews!” “Can you believe what she is saying?” “We do not call Jews pigs and apes, how can she lie about her own people?”
In addition to the “mean girl” faces and the continual loud whispering, one by one, at least four to five head-scarved girls, got up to leave the room during Darwish’s speech. This meant that each girl took two minutes to move to the end of her row, physically causing the other students to get up or twist aside, causing the entire room to look at the departing student, not at their invited guest—and then each girl did precisely the same thing when she returned two minutes later, presumably from a bathroom break. [ The Heroic Nonie Darwish ]
I don’t doubt that there are Muslim terrorist organizations and maybe even Muslim countries that seek to do us harm, but the “Islamofacism” rant has a lot of people keyed up and expecting to find a bomb under every head scarf. And that’s not good. It’s not good because it’s morally right treat a very large segment of the population as a mortal threat when only a handful actually are. It’s not politically effective to oppress a large segment of the population because of the actions of a small minority. And it’s not realistically effective to give every Muslim special attention.
Some people say we ought to give special attention to Muslims who act suspiciously, but for a lot of people in the grip of anti-muslim Islamofacism hysteria simply being Muslim, or looking Muslim, or having a Muslimish beard (or laughing when someone says “Islamofacism”) is suspicious behavior enough to warrant keeping a plane on the tarmac.
They quadruple-teamed Darwish and did not stop until Darwish ended her lecture. Twenty to thirty minutes of soft-core, well-choreographed, goon squad behavior. “They are Hamas-trained” says Darwish.
“And all the while,” Darwish says, “the Jewish students cringed and cowered, so afraid that they might have hurt Muslim feelings. (Or rather, that the Muslims might physically hurt them afterwards. According to Darwish, one Jewish student told her that “she “was locking her door. I am scared.”) [ The Heroic Nonie Darwish ]
Militant Islam is a problem, but I think we need to address the real threat and not be quite so overwrought about whether or not the pee breaks are real or imagined.
Posted in Speaking Very Slowly
content rss
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 am
[...] Archives « Islamofacism week off to a roaring start [...]
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
The problem is, there are plenty of passages in the Koran that instruct individuals to make war against unbelievers. It’s at the foundation of the religion. And while there are similar passages in the Old Testament, there are not many Christians (or Jews) using that as proof of a divine imperative to kill Others.
Slate has an interesting article on this: http://www.slate.com/id/2176389/nav/tap2/
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
You know, there are certain people who have lost all credibility with me, and Christopher Hitchens is one of them. If he told me the sky was blue, I’d go check first.
In any case, whether or not islamofacism is an appropriate term, I don’t think the kind of fearmongering that makes whispered conversations and bathroom breaks at a meeting seem like mortal threats instead of simple rudeness is particularly constructive.
I also think the question about Christian violence is debatable. It’s clearly not true for at least three quarters of Christian history, and I believe that Bush, some of the military leadership, and probably even some of the soldiers see the current military conflict in religious or even apocalyptic terms.
And since, until recently, bombings of abortion clinics were defended under Christian terms, and Klan lynchings were defended under Christian terms, there’s not that much room to talk. There’s occasionally violent protests in the middle east, but I’m noticing a distinct lack of widespread violence and Muslim unrest here stateside — despite the thousands of Muslims who live here.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
“It’s clearly not true for at least three quarters of Christian history.” Perhaps, but my statement is inapplicable to Islam for ALL it’s history — roughly the same amount of time as that three-quarters you mentioned.
“until recently, bombings of abortion clinics were defended under Christian terms, and Klan lynchings were defended under Christian terms”
Yes, they were defended under Christian terms, but the vast majority of Christians rejected those acts and those methods and made it very clear to non-Christians. In Islam, however, what you find is this kind of mentality being preached in mosques around the world. In every mosque? Certainly not. In the majority? I don’t know. What I do know is that we’ve seen no wholesale effort to have some sort of Islamic Reformation that says, “Look — these things are justified in the Koran, but we reject that portion of the Koran for these reasons. Further, anyone who promotes this kind of violent ideology will be removed from our mosque. Lastly, in an effort to clear the image of our religion, we will work with authorities to let them know where such ideology might be fermenting.”
Further, the scale — the scale is incomparable. There have been thousands of terrorist attacks perpetrated in the name of Allah just since 9/11, with thousands killed. Not to diminish the horror, but the number of Christian acts of violence of the kind you mention pale in comparison.
Consider other religions to get a broader perspective. What happened when the Taliban destroyed ancient Buddhas? Remember how many people Buddhists killed in retaliation? None, that I know of. There were not worldwide protests demanding the blood of those who’d insulted Buddhism. There weren’t calls to impose a Buddhist theocracy on the whole world.
October 24th, 2007 at 5:51 am
I’m not debating whether or not Islam is a peaceful religion, or whether or not there are Islamic terrorists. There clearly are, and they are certainly a problem — not only to us, but also to the Muslims who are part of the reformation that you’re looking for. (I’m kind of surprised that you can’t find it. I was under the impression that many Muslim groups have condemned terrorism and violence.) If that’s the point you’re trying to make, then fine.
But the threat has been overstated and people are being encouraged to treat anyone who’s Muslim (or looks Muslim) with the utmost suspicion, and I don’t think they’re waiting for a papal bull from non-existent caliphate. They’re using fear of Muslims do degrade American commitment to liberty and human rights and encourage American military adventurism overseas.
The people who most often support the “Islamofascist” argument are the people who have most eagerly supported and defended Bush’s military policies — which have done anything but reduce worldwide terrorism, as you’ve noted. The “Left” doesn’t sneer at Hitchens and Malkin’s theories because they don’t take the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously, but because we do take it seriously and the rhetoric and methods these folks have encouraged to treat it — war, internment, political persecution — serve the interests of an authoritarian American state and not international security and the end of terrorism.