From the Mailbag

I think my comment here on that thread more or less says it. (And I was critical to both sides of that argument, which by the way I didn’t even read until it had already degenerated into anger.)

If you don’t believe increasing understanding and helping reformers in the Islamic world matters at all, and if you think we should never stop ourselves from saying things that are offensive and arguably false about large groups of people, then, we just don’t agree.

I’ve never believed–ever–that it is possible to see terrorist Muslim groups defeated without the support of the mainstream Muslim population. In fact, I’ve found that to be blindingly obvious. So blinding, it shocked me when I discovered that others didn’t see it.

And yes, that includes the help of “Islamists,” at least the sort of Islamist who confines himself to activism no worse than what Pat Robertson does for a living. Like that guy Michael Totten interviewed in Kurdistan. Or the one in Lebanon, for that matter.

The terrorists run around saying they’re at war with us because we hate Muslims, we lie about Muslims, we want to force our religious views on Muslims, we murder Muslims, we invade their countries because we’re brutal, and that we think Muslims are evil. When we talk like we agree with all of that–and by the way, President Bush has *always* loudly rejected such talk, and has from the beginning–we hand the terrorists a great public relations tool that’s very helpful to their recruiting and other ends, and doesn’t seem to really accomplish much of anything else. Except to make ordinary Muslim American citizens think that the people in this country hate them.

It’s also pretty weird to have to keep reminding people we’ve got pious, practicing Muslims fighting every damned day alongside our troops, and often in our own military, and that there is a difference between rejecting their religion, or saying rationally critical things, and saying outright awful things and issuing sweeping generalizations about it that can often be easily refuted if you just to some simple research and maybe get to know some people.

I’ve gotten some of grief from Christians about how I’m hypocritical on this but it won’t hunt–I never say Christianity is a terrorist religion (even though there are clearly Christian terrorist organizations), that good Christians can’t be good Americans, etc. I criticize some Christian sects and their beliefs. I’ve also been very critical of some Jewish groups. And many other religious groups. And some non-religious groups. But I don’t just bloviate about the vast Christian threat. (And if someone finds some out-of-context quote where it sounded like I was, please just ask me about it before throwing it in my face like an indicment, because I certainly do not believe things like that just because I think some Christians are wrong about some things, or that some Christians behave badly.)

I take the view that who one can ally with depends on the goal to be accomplished. So, if it is fighting terrorism, we ally with those opposed to terrorism. If it is fighting for gay rights, we ally with those supportive of gay rights. So, an anti-terror ally might believe in gay marriage, and he might not, but it has nothing to do with him being a potential ally against terrorism. Does someone’s wish that his neighbors will one day bow down in the direction of Mecca make him an Islamist? If so, I don’t find “Islamism” too worrisome — after all, I’m sure there are many Republicans on my block who pray to God I’ll never vote Democrat again. Are they therefore “Republicanists”? So, there are Muslims who are adamantly opposed to the war on terrorism who I think we can work with to fight terrorism, even though I might support different political candidates than them. I have no intention of calling someone the enemy just because he thinks people should live according to his understanding of God’s law (Shariah). After all, many think the Shariah is a set of fixed intentions (protection of life, property, intellect, family, and religion), with changing specifics depending on time, culture, and the latest scientific knowledge. That view of Shariah is in accord with many a Christian’s understanding of our own constitution. But if you wish to call Locke a Christianist… (He did, after all, derive his conception of rights from a biblical understanding of humanity.)

I have no intention of calling someone the enemy just because he thinks people should live according to his understanding of God’s law (Shariah).

I tend to base my evaluation of an organization, not on their mission statement or their professed ideology, but on their criminal records and their financial support of terrorist groups. That’s why I can’t support groups like the Muslim Brotherhood or CAIR

From what I’ve seen, I think CAIR is worthy of much criticism, at least at the national level, but some of what they’re attacked for is off-base and too obsessive–as if any connection to the organization in any way marks you as a Mafioso or something.

I was willing after 9/11 myself to say, “Okay, the rules just changed, and we all just had a sobering lesson. We all need to re-evaluate.” I’ve had my own stupid flirtation with supporting terrorism, which I really didn’t get until I had my nose rubbed in the poop. Thus I really don’t care if a month or two after 9/11 CAIR was collecting money some of which went to groups which had an affiliation with other groups that were affiliated with groups like Hezbollah. Nor do I really care that some Saudi Prince somewhere gave them some money, because I don’t believe all Saudi princes are terrorist supporters (I don’t support their illegitimate regime, but I also reject the whole “if it’s a Saudi with money it’s money that came from a terrorist” either, because their bizarre regime is not uniformly our enemy so far as I can see, although some elements within it obviously are).

I had a very “let’s wipe the slate clean right now and start over” attitude. I somehow thought everyone did. My mistake.

In the meantime, I notice that some secularists miss the point that religion is vital to the very core and identity of most people around the world. Therefore, saying you don’t want to ally with Muslims and only want to ally with people who share your values, you’ve already lost countless people. It’s like saying you don’t want to ally with Jews, you just want to ally with people who share your values. Well great, guess what? Orthodox Jews (like Dean’s World regulars Ron Coleman and Naftali) *do not* share all your liberal values or mine, and have very very conservative views on a lot of things that you might not like a bit. I don’t have a problem saying they’re allies. I don’t even have a problem saying that an awful man like Jerry Falwell is our ally so long as he’s anti-terror and anti-violence and supports political freedom. If you’re an American and you’re anti-terrorist that’s good enough for me. We’ll work out these ideological differences on other issues later, at least so far as *this* subject is concerned.

That’s just me. I was dumb. I thought everyone thought all those things. Live and learn.

I can’t deal anymore with the constant “in your face” attitude toward Muslims. With the automatic suspicion of everything they say or do. In that discussion you linked above, Mary, Martin Shoemaker missed an obvious, obvious point:

Ali said, “The left might be isolationist and meek, but they don’t waste your time by questioning your motives,” and Martin argued with him. Martin missed it entirely. The left may be good at attacking motives of those on the right, but if you’re a Muslim, the right attacks your motives no matter what the fuck you say, no matter what the context. They attack your motives constantly because you’re a Muslim. I’ve seen it happen time after time after time to Muslim friends, not just here on Dean’s World but in many other places, and I’ve fucking well had ENOUGH of it. You can’t be a Muslim and have an opinion without it being filtered through your Muslimness and treated with disrespect. It’s sickening and insidious. The Right in this country has done a simply *horrible* job on this, and has alienated countless Muslim-Americans and driven them to the hard left as a result, because at least the hard left doesn’t treat them like fucking lepers.

I’ve had Muslim friends tell me they’re only comfortable at places like Daily Kos because at least there, people don’t *fucking hate them and treat them like lying snakes*.

The right needs to be very ashamed of this shit. Dinesh D’Souza, and to a lesser extent Hugh Hewitt and a few others, seem to be the only ones on the right who’ve woken up to this problem, and just how hard the right has worked to alienate decent, non-violent, law-abiding, freedom-loving Muslims.

I’m still very, very angry about this. I’m about as angry as Muslima Matoko-chan (a former Dean’s World regular who quit in despair) has been all along. I just struggle to be nicer about it than she has.

I am reminded of a visit I had at the zoo once. I watched a big monkey beat up a medium-sized monkey in a fight over food. The medium-sized monkey then stalked away, and found a smaller monkey, and beat the crap out of that smaller monkey. After all, he needed to teach someone a lesson.

I’m tired of watching “conservatives” and “hawks” act like the medium-sized monkey. I refuse to keep enabling that shit.

The editorial policies stand.

The left may be good at attacking motives, but if you’re a Muslim, the right attacks your motives no matter what the fuck you say, no matter what the context, they attack your motives constantly because you’re a Muslim.

I call bull on that, just as I did with Ali. You might just as easily say “If you’re a Christian, the Muslims want to kill you no matter what the fuck you say, no matter what the context, they want to kill you because you’re a Christian.” I can point to so many people on the right who are just exactly the opposite of what you accuse “the right” of being. You, like Ali, tar the whole right with the same brush, while ignoring, minimizing, or dismissing those on the left who do the same or worse. Islamophobes tar the whole right with the same brush, while ignoring, minimizing, or dismissing Christians who do the same or worse. Neither one is acceptable.

I’ve seen it. So have you. So you’re missing the point. He was speaking as a Muslim and not a member of “the left.”

No, you’re missing the point. He was speaking as a Muslim about the right as a monolithic entity. He was lumping me in with Robert Spencer. If he gets to lump me in with Robert Spencer, why shouldn’t I lump him in with Osama bin Laden? I won’t, because it would be wrong; but somehow, I’m supposed to tolerate his wrong behavior.

You say Ali can point to a large number of conservatives who have treated him badly? Well, Robert Spencer points to large numbers of ill-behaved Muslims. That doesn’t make either one of them right in their generalizations. If it’s wrong to judge all Muslims by the crimes of a few — and it is — then it’s wrong to judge all conservatives by the crimes of a few.

I shouldn’t have even started this conversation.

Like “they” aren’t people who can speak for themselves.

What a mess.

Ali said, “The left might be isolationist and meek, but they don’t waste your time by questioning your motives,” and Martin argued with him. Martin missed it entirely. The left may be good at attacking motives of those on the right, but if you’re a Muslim, the right attacks your motives no matter what the fuck you say, no matter what the context. They attack your motives constantly because you’re a Muslim.

If I claimed that people were always in my face because I’m a woman, would you consider that to be a reasonable argument? I should hope not. Anyway, the Left is not our enemy so I’m not clear about the point of it. When I disagree with supporters of CAIR or MB related organizations, I disagree with them because they support these groups – not because they’re Muslims, women, men, etc. I’m disagreeing with you, and you’re not Muslim.

In the meantime, I notice that some secularists miss the point that religion is vital to the very core and identity of most people around the world.

This is a secular country, founded on a very clear division between church and state.

The editorial policies stand

I have no objection to the editorial policies. I just didn’t want my name to be on a blog that refuses to condemn organizations like CAIR.

As one liberal democrat said:

The problem with organizations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, the Muslim Parliament and the Muslim Council of Britain is that they portray themselves as one-stop representatives of Muslims on all religious, political and racial matters. This is enhanced by the fact that the Government and other political entities wish to “consult” with ethnic and religious communities.

I choose to define my community as the people with whom I interact and choose to be represented by the political party for which I vote. Why should I, in community terms, have more in common with a Muslim from Bradford than with a Jew from Tonttenham or a Christian from Ramsgate?

One need only walk down a main street in this part of London to see that there are many Muslims who do not necessarily define themselves primarily by their religion. We do not all subscribe to the same way of being a Muslim, neither do we push our religious beliefs into the civic and political sphere.

Sadly the public does not always get our point of view, because the only Muslims who are consulted are those who choose to drag Islam into the political sphere and relate it to issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Our civic duty, like that of any other Briton, consists of abiding by the law of the land and our civic right is to be represented through the ballot box, not by organizations that are vested with an authority they do not deserve.

Organizations like the MAB, CAIR, the Muslim American Society make an effort to push religious beliefs into the civic and political sphere. They’re also connected to terrorism. When we champion these groups as representative of all Muslims purely on the basis of ‘faith’, we’re giving them an authority and money that they don’t deserve. We’re also weakening the the divisions between church and state that this country was founded on.

When Muslims or anyone else condemns apostates or secular Muslims for departing from the CAIR party line (or from what some call ‘faith’), they’re also dragging religion into the political sphere. Our current focus on the ‘reform’ of a faith as a way of magically guaranteeing our security is a form of faith-based identity politics that isn’t doing Muslims or our secular liberal democracy any good.

In any case, just I stopped by to see if things were changing here..

“Islamophobia” is a word that tars a wide swath of the population just as simplistically and unfairly as any other term.

Sneer-quote-Islamophobia-Close-sneer-quotes is a frame of mind of a growing number of not-always unreasonable people from a variety of backgrounds, faiths, cultures, ethnicities and IQs.

It is a word that is intended to stifle, rather than advance the conversation.