Green Energy

Salon: The left has Islam all wrong: Bill Maher, Pamela Geller and the reality progressives must face

Yes, amazingly enough, the leftist periodical published an important article.

Jeffrey Tayler at Salon:

Whatever her views on other matters are, Pamela Geller is right about one thing: last week’s Islamist assault on the “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest she hosted in Texas proves the jihad against freedom of expression has opened a front in the United States. “There is,” she said, “a war on free speech and this violent attack is a harbinger of things to come.”

Apparently undaunted, Geller promises to continue with such “freedom of speech” events. ISIS is now threatening to assassinate her. She and her cohorts came close to becoming victims, yet some in the media on the right and the center-right have essentially blamed her for the gunmen’s attack, just as far too many, last January, surreptitiously pardoned the Kouachi brothers and, with consummate perfidy to human decency, inculpated the satirical cartoonists they slaughtered, saying “Charlie Hebdo asked for it.” No. But first, allow me a brief yet illustrative digression.

No one can deny the nobility of the sentiment that prompted Ben Affleck, on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” last autumn, to rush to the defense of what he sees as an unjustly maligned Muslim population with his outburst, as heartfelt as it was misguided, that it was “gross” and “racist” of Maher and Sam Harris to denounce Islam as “the mother lode of bad ideas.”

It seemed par for the course that Affleck followed the lead of so many progressives and conflated race and religion regarding Muslims. The semantically unsound rubbish concept of “Islamophobia” disorients well-meaning people and incites them to spout illogicalities with a preacher’s righteousness.

One must, though, call out New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof for backing up Affleck on the same show, and, later, in an editorial. Kristof, after all, should know better. He trades in words and ideas, and his acceptance of the fraudulent term “Islamophobia” contributes to the generalized befuddlement on the left about the faith in question and whether negative talk about it constitutes some sort of racism, or proxy for it. It patently does not.

Unlike skin color, faith is not inherited and is susceptible to change. As with any other ideology, it should be subject to unfettered discussion, which may include satire, ridicule and even derision.

The First Amendment protects both our right to practice the religion of our choosing (or no religion at all) as well as our right to speak freely, even offensively, about it. One must, however, recoil in stupefaction and disgust at the consortium of prominent writers who just signaled de facto capitulation to the Enforcers of Shariah.

I’m referring, of course, to the recent decision of 204 authors to sign a letter dissociating themselves from PEN’s granting the Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the brave, talented surviving artists of Charlie Hebdo. (Disclosure: I have friends among Charlie Hebdo’s staff.) The authors objecting did so out of concern, according to their statement, for “the section of the French population” – its Muslims – “that is already marginalized, embattled, and victimized, a population that is shaped by the legacy of France’s various colonial enterprises.” A “large percentage” of these Muslims are “devout,” contend the writers, and should thus be spared the “humiliation and suffering” Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons allegedly caused them. Europe’s colonial past and the United States’ current (endless) military campaigns in the Islamic world, as well as prejudice against nonwhites in Europe, have predisposed many to see, with some justification, Muslims as victims.

But apart from the blundering wrongheadedness of the PEN writers’ dissent (Charlie Hebdo’s undeniable courage won them the award, not their artwork) and putting aside the question of whether France’s Muslims are necessarily “devout” (French law prohibits religion-based polling, so who could know?), or uniformly “humiliated” by Charlie Hebdo, or necessarily “embattled,” one thing transpires with arresting clarity from the authors’ declaration: Among the left, the confusion surrounding Islam and how we should relate to it imperils the free speech rights without which no secular republic can survive. We have to clear this up, and fast.

There is no legitimate controversy over why the Kouachi brothers targeted Charlie Hebdo. They murdered not to redress the social grievances or right the historical wrongs the PEN authors named. They explicitly told us why they murdered — for Islam, to avenge the Prophet Muhammad. Progressives who think otherwise need to face that reality. Put another way, the Kouachi brothers may have suffered racial discrimination and even “marginalization,” yet had they not been Muslims, they would not have attacked Charlie Hebdo. They would have had no motive.

What is it about Islam that simultaneously both motivates jihadis to kill and so many progressives to exculpate the religion, even when the killers leave no doubt about why they act? The second part of the question is easier to dispense with than the first. Progressives by nature seek common ground and believe people to be mostly rational actors – hence the desire to blame crime on social ills.

Unfamiliarity with Islam’s tenets also plays a role, plus, I believe, the frightening future we would seem to be facing as more and more Muslims immigrate to the West, and the world becomes increasingly integrated. Best just to talk of poverty and the like, or a few “bad apples.”

But to respond to the question’s first part, we need to put aside our p.c. reading glasses and examine Islam’s basic elements from a rationalist’s perspective. Islam as a faith would not concern progressives, except that some of its adherents choose to act as parts of its dogma ordain, which, to put it mildly, violates the social contract underpinning the lives of the rest of us.

GO READ THE WHOLE THING.

- Kareem Abdul Jabbar Said, "sharia Is For Muslims, So If There Is A Muslim Majority State, It Has To Be Run By Sharia"
From Jihad Watch: “Sharia law is for Muslims. So if there is a Muslim majority state then it has to be run by Sharia,” stated basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with surprisingly little public controversy in a September 23 interview. This statement...

- Members Of The Freedom Of The Press Advocacy Group, Pen Cancel Their Attendance At A Fund Raiser Because Pen Chose To Honour The Victims Of The Charlie Hebdo Massacre
Members of the Freedom of the Press advocacy group, PEN cancel their attendance at a fund raiser because PEN chose to honour the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacreSix prominent novelists are boycotting a New York literary gala next week to protest...

- Dead Charlie Hebdo Journalists Named “islamophobes Of The Year” By Muslim Rights Group
The editor and cartoonist of Charlie Hebdo, Stephane Charbonnier, known as Charb, was slaughtered by Muslims in January. From Breitbart:Charlie Hebdo has been named 2015 International Islamophobe of the year, despite many of its staff having been killed...

-
French paper Charlie Hebdo to publish comic book life of Prophet Mohammed From Will at THE OTHER NEWS:Charlie Hebdo Cartoon "God Doesn't Excist"(AA). A French weekly known for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed to the ire of conservative...

- France Surrenders!
FRANCE TO CLOSE 20 EMBASSIES IN FEAR OF CARTOON BACKLASH FRANCE PREPARES FOR A VIGOROUS DISCUSSION OF FREE SPEECH WITH ISLAM The government of France announced on Wednesday that it will shut down 20 of its embassies in the Muslim world (which arguably...

Green Energy