Saturday, September 16, 2006

Why "Islamo Fascism Insults Islam" is a Totally Hollow Argument

Islam seems almost perpetually insulted. We are now accustomed to it.

Who is making the argument that the term Islamo fascist is perjorative toward Muslims, however, and why is it a hollow argument?

It is hollow because we do not hear Muslim outrage over the insult done their peaceful religion by murdering Al Qaeda terrorists. How then, can we logically believe so-called, peaceful Muslims who seem to find no insult whatever to their religion from its violent, terrorist offshoot?

Who in the perpetually outspoken and protesting Muslim world tells us loudy and clearly that Islam is offended and insulted by Al Qaeda? Where is that protest? Silence. Absent.

Islam's perpetual rants and blatant hypocrisy offend me sorely. But I will forgive them this much: some protests regarding the term Islamo fascism seem political in nature and are being made in this country by non-Muslim lawyers (Democrats) in muslin suits. If this man is elected, things change rapidly. Here may finally come a congressman, Keith Ellison, who will have to speak for Islam.

Three things may come of Ellison's successful election. If he harbors any support for Islamic terrorists, he will lose office and political career in two years. If he attempts to straddle the fence like Ibrahim Hooper has, he will further define the indecisveness of the Democrat party. If he speaks out against Islamic terrorists, of course, he will set a tone for Muslim citizens that has been missing and engender healthy debate.

4 Comments:

At 16 September, 2006 11:12, Blogger Orange_Cross said...

I think the average Muslim would object to Islam being associated with fascism, because of the pejorative connotation of "fascism" and "fascist". You might consider the common usage of similar phrases such as "zionist jew" and "christian crusader" (in reference to US soldiers) that are used for propaganda purposes by pundits who oppose jews and the west in general. Admittedly "zionist" and "crusader" don't have the same punch that "fascist" does for me, but they all hint at violent exclusion and I believe in the context of alien cultures where they are used they may have that punch. In the end all three of those phrases only confuse the issues, the only light they shed is from the flame of ignorant, hateful passion that they ignite, hate that is the glorification of xenophobia.

Do I have to point you to Imam's that denounce terrorism and Al Qaeda? Personally I'm not familiar with many. I've written a letter and received a response from one prominant Muslim cleric in Lebanon (Sayyed Fadlullah), but I have not yet translated his response, though I do have a quote of his in reference to the attacks of sept 11th:
||"Those [who] committed the attacks yesterday were criminals twice over -- for hijacking planes and for killing their passengers as well as for targeting civil installations and thousands of innocent," Fadlallah said on Sept. 12. In a later interview with a Lebanese magazine, he accused Osama bin Laden of "profiteering from the oppression suffered in the Muslim world."|| source http://english.bayynat.org.lb/se_002/news/washingtonpost.htm
In the US the only institutional comments I'm familiar with are from CAIR (though I think I read that you don't believe they represent a significant number of American muslims (did it have something to do with their chariman not being elected) though I would lean towards them indeed having a significant connection to the American muslim community), who denounces Al Qaeda (they haven't responded yet to a letter I sent them several weeks ago questioning them about their stance on Sharia), and from Keith Ellison's website where he objects to terrorism (though I have not yet read any explicit comment on Al qada from him). Before the Minneapolis primary I talked with a twin cities friend of mine who told me he thought he was a very progressive candidate. Another friend who actually voted in the Minneapolis primary, didn't vote for Keith, but believes that any of the three dominant candidates would represent a peaceful stance (my friend favored the more moderate candidate, personally I favor at least one of Keith's more radical stances in his support for an immediate removal of troops from Iraq). I'll be visiting Minneapolis at the end of the month and I'm sure I'll get an earful of the various impressions people have of him. Perhaps it will become more clear to me how opposed and vocal he is about Al Qaeda methods and the climate of the muslim community in Minneapolis in general. I just moved away from Minnesota last year, but had lived there for some time and know that there is a diverse population including a large number of refugees from Sudan and Somalia who are muslim and making a gradual, probably painful transition into understanding the main stream and historical values of our enlightened humanist representative constitutional democracy. I did not frequent mosques, but my one good muslim friend Ismail from Somalia was happy to have the freedom that being an American now gave him, and it wasn't a happyness that stemmed from a desire to inflict harm on anyone or exclude anyone from representation in government but a happyness that he was not only safe and accepted but welcome to be friends with people of different beliefs.

We're a melting pot, we're not about terrorism, we're about respecting individual human rights and cooperating to keep people free. Our cause isn't helped by casting aspersion on a religion, it is helped by not tolerating the casting of aspersions on groups due to their faith, ethnicity, gender, age or race which are distinct from whatever violent criminal acts a person or cadre of criminals might engage in.

On the ligher side, did you ever get called a "boomer fag" or call one of your brothers that.

 
At 16 September, 2006 11:26, Blogger Orange_Cross said...

Do you have background information for the image you used in your post? I'd be happy to supply you with images of serial killers with peaceful charitable expressions, or champions of peace snarling in contempt or howling with outrage. I feel confident that I can find some without much trouble.

 
At 16 September, 2006 16:42, Blogger Vigilis said...

Orange cross, no to your boomer epithet questions. On the lighter side, has anyone ever called you a lawyer?

In regard to your "images of serial killers with peaceful charitable expressions, or champions of peace snarling in contempt or howling with outrage",
to what end? As you know, serial killers are deranged sociopaths. Snarling champions of peace (can you name one besides Jimmy Carter?) seem to be proponents of appeasement at any costs, effete politicians, women, or any combinations of same.

 
At 17 September, 2006 01:51, Blogger Orange_Cross said...

They have similar etymologies, "faggot" and "fascist", bundles of sticks you know?
No one has ever called me a lawyer, I usually represent myself (though one has gibed, with "fuzzy" logic).
With what ends? Your ends, debasement. Don't you realize?
Take a look in the mirror, if you dare; I dare, and sometimes its difficult and I refuse to admit that I often squint at my reflection.

"The coal said to the diamond, 'Why so hard?'
The diamond replied to the coal, 'Why so soft?'
Become hard.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra."
Something like that aye?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

| Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com