Comments on: False Parallels http://pjmedia.com/flemmingrose/2007/07/27/post_3/ Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:35:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Roger W. Gardner http://pjmedia.com/flemmingrose/2007/07/27/post_3/#comment-53 Roger W. Gardner Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:30:16 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/flemmingrose/2007/07/27/false-parallels/#comment-53 I appreciated reading Mr. Rose's inciteful article on the latest well-intentioned lunacies of Ms. Armstrong and her delusional liberal crusade, and I agree completely with his conclusions and with Dom's follow-up comments. I would only add this. As Mr. Rose's own personal experiences so perfectly demonstrate, the enormous problems which are plaguing all of Europe and Britain (and to some extent the United States) at this very moment are hardly the result of the West not being tolerant enough but, rather, that the liberal democracies have been excessively and indiscriminately tolerant of an ever-expanding, violent and intolerant fanatical religious movement -- which, given the opportunity, would quickly do away with all of the liberal values which the good Ms. Armstrong so ardently embraces. The very last thing that we need at this critical point in our desperate struggles against this vicious form of religious fascism is this kind of foolish and misleading propaganda. I appreciated reading Mr. Rose’s inciteful article on the latest well-intentioned lunacies of Ms. Armstrong and her delusional liberal crusade, and I agree completely with his conclusions and with Dom’s follow-up comments.
I would only add this.
As Mr. Rose’s own personal experiences so perfectly demonstrate, the enormous problems which are plaguing all of Europe and Britain (and to some extent the United States) at this very moment are hardly the result of the West not being tolerant enough but, rather, that the liberal democracies have been excessively and indiscriminately tolerant of an ever-expanding, violent and intolerant fanatical religious movement — which, given the opportunity, would quickly do away with all of the liberal values which the good Ms. Armstrong so ardently embraces.
The very last thing that we need at this critical point in our desperate struggles against this vicious form of religious fascism is this kind of foolish and misleading propaganda.

]]> By: Dom http://pjmedia.com/flemmingrose/2007/07/27/post_3/#comment-52 Dom Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:25:11 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/flemmingrose/2007/07/27/false-parallels/#comment-52 Armstrong, who certainly writes in good faith, seems to think that tolerance of Islam is an answer to anything negative connected with Muslims. What a profound mistake. Tolerance of Islam is a given. If it is violated by harming or excluding Muslims, that tolerance does need to be emphasised and supported. That is not her point. Instead, suggesting that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were "<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week602/armstrong.html" rel="nofollow">odd Muslims</a>" she believes it is important to present other Muslims with a platform in response. In the initial absence of repudiation of the extremes of Deobandi and Wahhabi Islam, not only has this allowed these aggressive ideologies to propagate themselves in a wider audience; it has also undermined the distinction she is trying to make between traditional and modern fanatical Muslims. For when, following an act of terror, news providers invite Muslim spokespeople to beg for tolerance, we suspect that accompanying denunciations are merely for the purpose of grabbing our attention, and not directed at the perpetrators. Anyone familiar with the "Muslim representatives" from CAIR or <a href="http://mpacuk.org/" rel="nofollow">MPAC</a> will know that their primary objective is to supplant piety with <a href="http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141030432,00.html" rel="nofollow">political Wahhabism</a> and garner acceptance from wider society. Today there are increasing numbers of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/egypt/story/0,,2135869,00.html" rel="nofollow">former jihadis</a> willing to stand up and be counted. In a climate of free speech they do not need to be patronised with excessive sensitivity. Just like the jihadis they can speak for themselves. Though it is not her objective, Karen Armstrong's generous efforts could be mistaken for Wahhabi <a href="http://www.7cgen.com/index.php?showtopic=13364" rel="nofollow">agitprop</a> lending weight to the wrongful perceptions of grievance on which jihadis feed. Perhaps if Christians were to wail and burn flags when Jesus is depicted naked or if Jews issued death threats when Moses is trivialised on a birthday card, Armstrong would have the context she needs to make the whole world a better place. Armstrong, who certainly writes in good faith, seems to think that tolerance of Islam is an answer to anything negative connected with Muslims. What a profound mistake.

Tolerance of Islam is a given. If it is violated by harming or excluding Muslims, that tolerance does need to be emphasised and supported. That is not her point. Instead, suggesting that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were “odd Muslims” she believes it is important to present other Muslims with a platform in response. In the initial absence of repudiation of the extremes of Deobandi and Wahhabi Islam, not only has this allowed these aggressive ideologies to propagate themselves in a wider audience; it has also undermined the distinction she is trying to make between traditional and modern fanatical Muslims. For when, following an act of terror, news providers invite Muslim spokespeople to beg for tolerance, we suspect that accompanying denunciations are merely for the purpose of grabbing our attention, and not directed at the perpetrators. Anyone familiar with the “Muslim representatives” from CAIR or MPAC will know that their primary objective is to supplant piety with political Wahhabism and garner acceptance from wider society.

Today there are increasing numbers of former jihadis willing to stand up and be counted. In a climate of free speech they do not need to be patronised with excessive sensitivity. Just like the jihadis they can speak for themselves.

Though it is not her objective, Karen Armstrong’s generous efforts could be mistaken for Wahhabi agitprop lending weight to the wrongful perceptions of grievance on which jihadis feed. Perhaps if Christians were to wail and burn flags when Jesus is depicted naked or if Jews issued death threats when Moses is trivialised on a birthday card, Armstrong would have the context she needs to make the whole world a better place.

]]>