I bet it's a Muslim.
That was my first thought when I heard about the shootings at Fort Hood. The media, military 'leadership', and the U.S. president weren't so sure. Obama warned us against "jumping to conclusions." The media continues to insist that Nidal Hasan's motives "were unclear." And General George Casey, the Army chief of staff, lamented that "it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here."
Despite Obama's warning, I myself jumped to plenty of conclusions. For example, when it emerged that Hasan was a reactionary misogynist who pledged allegiance to the Koran in military uniform after giving speeches praising suicide bombers, claiming sharia law superseded constitutional law, and suggesting that all infidels should be beheaded, all the while attempting to contact al-Qaeda for months before massacring thirteen people while screaming "Allahu Akbar", my natural conclusion was that this guy was an Islamic terrorist whose motives were crystal clear and who probably didn't spend quite as many sleepless nights chewing his nails over diversity as General Casey.
I'm also willing to bet that the conclusions I "jumped" to were identical to the conclusions jumped to by a majority of Americans. So what does this mean? Are we all Islamophobes? Do we have an irrational fear of Islam? Certainly, groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Arab-American Institute, and the Council for American-Islamic Affairs seemed more concerned about a theoretical "backlash" against Muslims then they were about the terrorist attack itself. Needless to say, the feared "backlash" once again never materialized, but at this point the media is lockstep with these groups in bemoaning fictional future crimes rather than actual present crimes.
Where is the phobia here? In the mindset of a concerned citizenry who recognizes undeniable ideological patterns behind a string of persistent terrorist campaigns over the last three decades? Or in the mindset of that ideology's hosts in their insistence that any and all criticism of said ideology is a vitriolic, Zionist-inspired hate crime?
To do this, let's observe the term "Islamophobia." The "Islam" under scrutiny here is not the religious aspect, though the Koran is quite violent (yes, I've read it). The "Islam" under scrutiny is the political-ideological aspect of it, which unfortunately is currently inseparable from the religious aspect. The fact that almost every manifestation of this political-ideological aspect is violent, intolerant, and regressive shatters the "phobia" defense, because a fear or mistrust of these solely Islamic phenomena is completely rational.
So no, I'm not an Islamophobe. And yes, I find myself distrusting and disliking Islam more and more with every terrorist act carried out in its name. And if I'm phobic about anything, it's not so much the explosions of the terrorists as it is the silence of "peaceful Islam." Like good little progressives, we all learn in our urban campuses that peaceful Islam is far removed from Islamofascism, and that any suggestion otherwise must derive only from those stump-toothed inbreeds in flyover country. But peaceful Islam, while perhaps not consorting with terrorists, nevertheless treads the same ideological path in the same direction. Peaceful Islam refuses cab rides in Minnesota to blind people with seeing-eye dogs. Peaceful Islam refuses to recognize the Holocaust. Peaceful Islam roams the streets of Mogadishu, beating and flogging women for not wearing veils. Peaceful Islam calls for the death of the Danish cartoonists, and protests in European streets that Islam will dominate the world. And right here in Chicago's Albany Park, Peaceful Islam treats its women like animals, forcing them to cover themselves from head to toe and walk a certain distance behind the men on those lucky days they're allowed out of the house.
For peaceful Islam to exist in a Western democracy, it needs to mean more than not murdering infidels. It needs to include acceptance of basic democratic norms regarding liberty, equal rights, and pluralism. It needs to actively oppose the extremists within its religion. Peaceful Islam needs to close down the radical mosques and isolate the extremist imams. Peaceful Islam needs to launch "Not In Our Name" campaigns and protest in the streets. Because right now, the Muslim "response" to terrorism is abysmally pathetic to the point of nullity. That peaceful Islam feels it can placate the infidel masses by squeezing out tears like blood from turnips speaks either to its utter lack of shame or their faith in our (ahem, see Obama administration) gullible desire to be liked.
I don't want to think it's a Muslim after every bombing. I want to believe that true, authentic, peaceful Islam is the rule, not the exception. I want to believe that Muslims can coexist with other faiths, even polytheistic faiths and secularism. But this is up to them, not me, to prove. And right now, less and less Westerners are convinced of this possibility. It's time to step up; the ball is in your court.
Be the first to comment on this article!