A River in Egypt: Denial Among the Apologists for Islam

I have been having a debate with a dogmatic apologist for Islam, one D. Charles, who insists that Islam is no more violent than any other religion, and that Islamic terrorism is not supported by Islamic holy texts like the Koran or the Haddith.  Charles has more excuses for Islam than Islam has severed heads...and that's a lot.

If you want to follow the arguments, see the comments section for this blog post.

Meanwhile, Lawrence Auster of View From the Right supports my position in his blog post here.  Larry points out an even more extreme case of denial in one Karen Armstrong.  He writes:

Inspired by the reflexive anti-American fallacies of Ron Paul and his intellectual mentor Robert Pape, the blogger Stogie has coined a term that I will need to add to my catalogue of non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism: the Blowback Theory of Islamic Extremism.

I see that some of Stogie's commenters [i.e. D. Charles] are still in Standard Denial Mode. Thus one argues that the Barbary pirates had nothing to do with Islam--they were merely pirates who happened to be Moslem, along with lots of non-Moslems in their ranks. Evidently the statement by Tripoli's ambassador in Britain to Adams and Jefferson in 1786, in which he justified the piracy on purely Islamic grounds of divinely mandated aggressive jihad against all non-Moslems, made no impression on this commenter.

Karen Armstrong has of course similarly argued that the vast Moslem conquests of the seventh century had nothing to do with Islam; the armies that swept across Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, and northern Africa and subjected them to Islamic rule were merely conquerors who happened to be Moslem. And then consider the fact that probably the majority of America's "intellectual" class follow Armstrong's ideas.

Such is the continuing power (I'm almost tempted to call it a supernatural power, though of the dark kind) of the modern West's suicidal denial of the truth about Islam.

 But why the denial in the face of overwhelming evidence that Islam is a violent, aggressive form of tyranny, that it is so by its very nature?  We have 14 centuries of Islamic history and aggression to draw from, the statements and bloody example of the "prophet" himself, the ongoing wars and terrorism in the world today, the statements of the terrorists, Imams and Islamic leaders, and of course, the Islamic holy texts themselves.  Amidst the mounting death toll, it would seem sheer folly to disbelieve that Islam is inherently violent, intolerant, hateful and evil.  In spite of this, D. Charles and other apologists continue to insist that Islam is benign.  Who are we to believe, D. Charles and Karen Armstrong, or our own lying eyes?

I think there are some, mostly those on the left, who are unable to face the unpleasant reality of "the clash of civilizations," that our future is likely to be one of war for survival against a determined foe, or one of dhimmitude and darkness.  So they go into denial.  The worst of these deniers is the 9/11 "Truthers," who insist that the 9/11 attack on America was "an inside job," and not perpetrated by Muslims at all.

However, denial and wishful thinking will not alter basic reality, no matter how fervently the Islamic apologists wish it would.

Western Denial and the Islamic Threat

Another Black Conservative has an interesting post this morning, in which Dick Cheney criticizes Obama for his denial of the war declared on us by Islamic extremists.   Cheney said, in part:

"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war."

Cheney makes a good point, but it applies to more than just Obama.  Many western politicians, political leaders and media types are in denial about the Islamic threat.  They seem to think that by redefining the terrorist war on the west, they can make it go away, or at least transform it into something less frightening.  The reality of an external threat is highly inconvenient to those who already despise their own country.  9/11 generated a lot of patriotism within the United States, making the goals of the hate-America crowd much more difficult.  Denial then becomes a key counter strategy of the disloyal left and right.

Denial can be deadly, however, as 9/11 proved.  Denial takes many forms.  For many liberals, Islamic terrorism is merely unlawful activity to be fought and punished by the police and courts of law.  For nutcases like the 9/11 Truthers movement ("9/11 was an inside job"), there is no threat at all, except for the one posed by our own federal government.  If 9/11 represented a declaration of war by Islamic extremists, then they would be honor bound to do something about it.  They would have to acknowledge that pacifism doesn't work, that our wars in the Middle East are morally justified, that multiculturalism is a lie, that their own personal value systems are culturally based and not the law of nature as they previously believed.

So, they just deny the existence of terrorism altogether.  There is no external threat, just a massive, intricate and widespread conspiracy by a high cabal right here in our own government.  This is denial on a massive scale, substituting an absurd fantasy for an unpleasant reality.

Others try to provide justification for the terrorists' actions.  They are merely reacting to "American Imperialism," or are annoyed by our carbon emissions, our support of Israel, our national arrogance.  Again, it is denial.  Since Muslims have murdered 280 million people since Muhammad invented the wretched religion, what "Imperialism" were the Muslims reacting to?  Was it Hindu imperialism that caused the Muslims to murder 40 million Hindus (the latest installment being the Mumbai, India massacre of one year ago)?  School children imperialism that resulted in the terrorist murder of 300 children in Beslin, Russa?  Perhaps it was European imperialism that caused the Muslims to invade Europe in 1683 and make it all the way to the gates of Vienna before Christian forces stopped them?

History shows that wars with Islam were the result of Islamic aggression and Islamic imperialism, and not that of their victims.

Wise men and women do not attempt to reorder reality to fit their ideology.  They amend their ideology to fit reality.

Islam, a Terrorist Ideology and the West's Slow Awakening

In light of the terrorist attempt to bomb a plane on Christmas day, more people are waking up to the Islamic threat.  No, Islam is not a religion of peace.  It is, and always has been, a religion of war, aggression and imperialism.

There are a couple of news items today that support my statement above.

Ralph Peters in the New York Post writes that we are lying to ourselves about Islam.  He writes:

Despite vast databases crammed with evidence, our leaders -- of both parties -- still refuse to connect Islamist terrorism with Islam.  Our insistence that "Islam's a religion of peace" would have been cold comfort to the family members of those passengers had the bomb detonated as planned.

The U.K. Telegraph ran an editorial, a murderous ideology tolerated for too long.  The editorial says 

Jihadist Islamism is also a murderous ideology, comparable to Nazism in many respects. The British public realises this; so do the intelligence services. Yet because it arises out of a worldwide religion – most of whose followers are peaceful – politicians and the public sector shrink from treating its ideologues as criminal supporters of violence. Instead, the Government throws vast sums of money at the Muslim community in order to ensure that what is effectively a civil war between extremists and moderates is won by the latter. This policy – supported by all the main political parties – does not seem to be working. 

Meanwhile, the American mainstream press are trying to engender sympathy for the terrorist of Flight 253, saying that he "was lonely and depressed."  (Awwwwww!)  So it is loneliness and depression that leads to Islamic terror!  At last, we have the key connection!  Terrorists are people who just need a hug!  Idiots!

Lorne Gunter of the Edmonton Journal adds more common sense to the discussion.  He writes that, because of the attempt on the Detroit bound flight, the airlines will devise more passenger tests and taboos to "prevent" terrorism, but it is mostly for show.  With each new ban -- from box cutters to sports drinks, terrorists will simply invent new ways to carry and hide explosives.  Gunter notes that the west will continually engage the PC fiction that all passengers are equal in their potential as terrorists, instead of profiling young Muslim males, who are by far the most likely terrorists.  Profiling would greatly improve security and reduce the risks of a serious terrorist attack.

Read it all at the link above.  (Hat tip:  American Power)

More Denial from Liberals: CBS's Schieffer says "There Are Christian Nuts Too"

CBS's Bob Schieffer goes the "moral equivalence" route, attempting to downplay the Muslim connection to domestic terrorism.  News Busters has the story.

He's right you know.  There are these Christians who mass murder innocents, quoting the Bible as authorization for their actions.  The FBI has stopped a lot of Christian plots to blow up landmarks in the United States; Christians have fragged soldiers on the battle front, and have shot soldiers at Fort Hood and have flown planes into skyscrapers.

Wait a minute, no, those were all Muslims.  My mistake.

Update:  the video at this link discusses whether Hasan is mentally ill or a terrorist.

If We All Pretend, We Can Alter Reality to Something We Like

Or so many seem to think.  Denial is the way to edit reality.  If we all agree that something unpleasant isn't true, then by God, it isn't.  If we all agree that Nadal Malik Hasan's religion had nothing to do with 13 dead and 30 wounded at Fort Hood, then by gum it didn't.  For those who say that Islam is inherently violent and seditious, we can just put our hands over our ears and say "LA LA LA LA LA - I'M NOT LISTENING!"

David Horowitz says our country is "brain dead" for not seeing the Fort Hood tragedy coming.  He writes:

The Fort Hood massacre is the first of the preventable atrocities we have been warning about on our websites since 9/11 — the atrocities which are apparently necessary for Americans to wake up to the threat that confronts us. We have a vast internal threat in this country in the form of this unholy alliance between the anti-American Left and radical Islam – whose Muslim Brotherhood network extends through our universities, our government and our military. It is “politically incorrect” to recognize this fact. You can be barred — as I have been — from speaking at universities for even talking about it. The embargo of discussion of the Islamo-fascist threat puts every American (including the infidel collaborators) at risk. Hasan had semi-automatic weapons. But they weren’t nuclear. That possibility is just around the corner unless we undergo a sea change in our attitudes and marshal the intelligence and the courage to recognize the threat.

Read it all here.

Yes, intelligence reports have been saying for some time that Al Qaeda wants to acquire nuclear weapons and detonate them in American cities.  Unless America pulls its head out of its ass, that will eventually happen.  Meanwhile, we have smaller fish to fry, like Nadal Malik Hasan and thousands of other potential jihadis in our military, our government and our universities.  But until we actually admit that a problem exists, there will be no solution.

The Reaction to "Fitna," the Film Critical of the Koran

Update: Live Leak has removed "Fitna" from public view over Islamic threats to its staff.
Update: Google has the film at this link. Watch it now as it could be removed at any time.

Fitna (Arabic for "Upheaval") has been released and Leftists and Liberals all over the western world are outraged, right along side the Muslim extremists that they pander to and appease.

Diana West (of the Washington Times) puts it into perspective. She writes:

From EU to NATO officials, from the head of France to (sadly) the head of
Denmark, the official European response to "Fitna" is less in line with Western
traditions of free speech than with the censorship of Islamic law. Indeed, Dutch
officials couldn't find a Dutch law under which to ban "Fitna," and they tried.
The pressure to silence "Fitna," however, reveals the extent to which Islamic
law has already eroded core conceptions of Western liberty.

Over at the conservative French Blog DRZZ, French men and women have posted a number of comments on the film. Mostly, they sound a lot like American rightist bloggers like you might see at the Jawa Report, Moonbattery and other sites. However, they too have their "oysters," those who bury their heads in the sand, clamp tightly shut their clamshells and screen out all information that they are unwilling to face.

The biggest reaction that liberals seem to exhibit is denial. Not just denial, angry denial. One writer, Anomalie, at DRZZ, went into a diatribe about how Fitna is similar to a Michael Moore film, filled with propaganda and half-truths and emotive photographs of terrorist victims. Yes, if only we don't look at the pictures of the terrorist victims, then terrorism can be disregarded, overlooked and ignored. Therefore, the liberal anger is towards Geert Wilders, not the terrorists. Anomalie argues that Fitna is an example of extremists knocking heads with other extremists. Merde de Cheval, Anomalie.

Anomalie, like many other Leftists, seems to believe that if we don't think about the Islamic threat then it will not exist. Rationalizatiion, finding false "moral equivalence" between Islam and Christianity, changing the subject or pointing to the "crimes" of George Bush, these are the typical responses of the Left towards disturbing information. Such information is simply inconsistent with their worldview (all cultures are equal and worthy), their philosophy (all anti-Amerianism is understandabe anger because we are not yet adequately socialist), and their most sacred beliefs (if you are nice to other people in other cultures, they will be nice to you. Tolerance begets tolerance, refusing to fight begets peace, etc).

Predictable leftist tricks are (1) attacking the quality or nature of the film (e.g. likening it to that of Michael Moore) instead of answering its points; (2) attacking the author of the film, calling him "an extremist" and other names, instead of penning an intelligent counter-argument, (3) finding false moral equivalence ("we too are terrorists") and finally (4) ignoring the film completely or changing the subject.

The film, however, doesn't have much in the way of editorial comment; it shows, without comment, major scriptures from the Koran that urge violence towards non-believers, highlighted with film and pictures of terrorist attacks on western nations. There is some editorial comment at the end of the film, likening Islam to past tyrannies that we have had to defeat. However, it hardly seems controversial.

See the film; post it on your site; refer others to it. All Westerners need to see this film.