cartoon1

cartoon1

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

The vacuum of intellect

Matt Duss of the National Review tries to disassemble the Islamophobia dilemma with little success. He complains about people such as Robert Spencer and David Horowitz and how they supposedly promote anti-Muslim sentiments yet presents nothing to refute what is said. Duss merely repeats the oft-claimed canard that people such as Spencer and Horowitz are Islamophobes by saying Islam is a dangerous ideology, but he cannot point to any teachings by any reputable Islamic scholar or cleric which disprove the assertions. Name-calling, empty comparisons and the usual vacuous inanities prevalent among those who know nothing about Islam are the hallmark of writings such as this by Matt Duss.

The sad thing is, he will never admit that he knows nothing about Islam, and will continue to spew his false ideas to whoever will listen.


From the National Review Online October 19 by Matt Duss

Horowitz and Spencer’s Islamophobia


In a recent article for National Review Online, David Horowitz and Robert Spencer criticized the Center for American Progress’s report “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.” Following a familiar formula, the authors play the victim, accusing CAP of peddling “conspiracy theories” about anti-Muslim activists like themselves.

Even a cursory glance at our report, however, shows we have done no such thing. Quite the contrary, the dissemination of hateful anti-Muslim ideas by Horowitz, Spencer, and others is done right out in the open. CAP’s contribution was to document these efforts, to draw together the various strands in order to properly view them as part of a coherent whole — an organized campaign to spread misinformation about the religious faith of millions of Americans.

The authors first take issue with our use of the term “Islamophobia,” claiming “the purpose of the suffix — phobia — is to identify any concern about troubling Islamic institutions and actions as irrational, or worse as a dangerous bigotry that should itself be feared.” This is false. As my co-authors and I note in our report, we don’t use the term “Islamophobia” lightly. We define it as an exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from America’s social, political, and civic life.

We think that any fair-minded reader of Horowitz and Spencer’s work, which our report extensively documents, would conclude that it qualifies.

Engaging in exactly the sort of careless slander that our report examines, the authors then deride similar reports from what they refer to as “[Muslim] Brotherhood fronts like CAIR [the Council on American-Islamic Relations], and jihadist apologists like the Southern Poverty Law Center.” Interestingly, they spare the Anti-Defamation League, which released a backgrounder earlier this year declaring that Spencer’s group, Stop Islamization of America, “promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam.”

Spencer’s group, the Anti-Defamation League wrote, “seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy ‘American’ values.” Should the Anti-Defamation League also be lumped with the “jihadist apologists”?

Rather than addressing such charges, however, the authors spend the majority of their response listing reasons why Islamic extremist terrorism represents a genuine threat to American security. But they are rebutting an argument we have not made. As evidenced by the considerable amount of work CAP has produced on the subject, we take the issue of national security extremely seriously — far more seriously than Horowitz and Spencer’s selective, inflammatory, and unscholarly rendering of the Islamic peril suggests that they themselves do.

It is enormously revealing that Horowitz and Spencer do not address the actual argument made in “Fear, Inc.,” which is that they, along with a small cadre of self-appointed experts and activists, promote the idea that religiously inspired terrorism represents true Islam. (“Traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful,” wrote Spencer in 2006. “It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers.”) They also promote the idea that Sharia law is incompatible with a modern society (“There is no form of Sharia that does not contain . . . [the] death penalty for apostasy,” wrote Spencer, obviously ignorant of the manner in which Islam is practiced by millions of Sharia-adherent Muslims in the United States).

Read it all

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

If Robert Spencer and David Horowitz are "Islamaphobes" than what do you call men like former Muslim and PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, a man who renounced Islam and its murderous ways?
What would you call Ayan Hirsi Ali, a Somali born Muslim, who after years of abuse, finally escaped Somalia and her male captors?
Some of Islams greatest detractors are former Muslims.
I guess these apostate Muslims suddenly became racist and "Islamaphobic" when they left the religion of peace.

http://formermuslimsunited.org/

http://maldivianapostates.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/hello-maldives/