Two stories in the Wired State today that illustrate the ongoing battle over Islam in America, regardless of whether one war, at least, in a Muslim country, is "over". (Not really, with 63 killed in terrorist attacks in Iraq). One urging people to control their speech in debating Islamic extremism and frame it only in certain ways. Another insisting on First Amendment rights for a jihadist who was convicted of material assistance to Al Qaeda.
First, there's Newt, going on a toot. Newt is not going to be the Republican presidential candidate. So while you can go on punching the punching bag set out there to make a more marked contrast with Mitt Romney, you will be punching in thin air soon.
The New York Times lays it out, In Shariah, Gingrich Sees a Mortal Threat to US.
And naturally, you see how this man can't be president, if he is going to antagonize not only one percent of the population (American Muslims) but the X percentage of the population that finds it bigoted to rant about the "mortal Muslim threat" as if it were some real thing. He launches the theory of "stealth jihad" to the effect that parallel to overt terrorist acts, jihadists are mounting a stealthier attack via politics and culture.
I'm more ready to believe in "stealth socialism," having seen its birth and adolescence and young adulthood since the 1980s (cultiminating in Obama), than I am to believe in "stealth jihadism." To be sure, jihadism borrows more than a little Leninism for its own ideologies. But "stealth socialism" was always articulated openly: package "progressive" (socialist) values in single issues, work as "community organizers" doing social services and promoting single issues, claim that progressivism isn't socialism -- and voila. But the reason the "stealth socialism" works is there is a huge audience for accepting progressivism, single issues, even hidden agendas. Not *that* huge (the Occupy Wall Street movement has now dwindled down to its loony and/or hard left core). But certainly way bigger than the audience for accepting a set of religious beliefs that will involve refraining from alcohol, not making interest in a bank account, covering your head, not being able to drive, or even being stoned for adultery. Just not there.
“I believe Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it,” Mr. Gingrich said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington in July 2010 devoted to what he suggested were the hidden dangers of Islamic radicalism. “I think it’s that straightforward and that real.”
This is the sort of comment that plays in a think tank or plays on a blog or in a forums comment (or in a political campaign!), but it doesn't play as president -- as political leader. And walk over to any other think-tank and debate the obvious: where is this "mortal" threat? If your purpose is to explain how theoretically, there are aspects of the Islamic faith, or forms of Islamic fundamentalism, that are antithetical to American liberal values, you will simply not be persuasive if you claim that Islamic radicalism is a "radical threat". Not when most people ignore the precepts of Sharia law, including even some American Muslims (they're like Catholics in that regard). Not when terrorists are headed off or caught after they commit their terrible acts, proving that the threat is repelled.
Romney said in a debate in June "“We’re not going to have Shariah law applied in U.S. courts. That’s never going to happen.” He immediately added, “People of all faiths are welcome in this country.”"
Of course, there's something to be said for mounting the intellectual arguments against having shariah law in the US, in the event some local community starts demanding it. It *is* pretty theoretical, unless you think about what has happend in Great Britain, where there have been some cases where courts reportedly upheld Shariah law concerning marriage or property matters (certainly not anything like stoning adulterers or taking away women's driving licenses or something).
And while I respect that it sounds completely absurd "and takes your breath away," this notion of the "mortal threat," as Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic studies at American University in Washington phrased it -- there's something very discomfiting about what comes next in this NYT piece:
But Dr. Jasser, a Phoenix physician and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said non-Muslims like Mr. Gingrich were not the most effective advocates for what he believes is really a debate within Islam.
“Unfortunately, as long as a non-Muslim opens the discussion, whether it’s Gingrich or someone else, it’s going to hit a brick wall in the Muslim community,” Dr. Jasser said.
Well, why can't we all argue against Islamic fundamentalism, regardless of our religion or ethnicity?!
So what if it doesn't seem effective, or is discredited for being extreme?
The debate has to be open. Open to anybody, regardless of their ethnicity, faith or views. That is what freedom of speech is about. Why are these preconditions being set?
Speaking of First Amendment values, let's go over to this other piece in The New York Times yesterday, about a US citizen convicted in a plot to help Al Qaeda.
This jihadist is from an "upscale Boston suburb":
During the trial, prosecutors said Mr. Mehanna considered himself part of Al Qaeda’s “media wing,” translating and posting materials online that glorified jihad. But the defense argued that Mr. Mehanna was well within his First Amendment rights in posting such content and that he was expressing his own views against American foreign policy, not working with Al Qaeda.
Do we have another Mumia in the making here? Looks like it:
In a statement Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts said the verdict “undermines” the First Amendment.
“Speech about even the most unpopular ideas serves as a safety valve for the expression of dissent,” the group said, “while government suppression of speech only drives ideas underground, where they cannot be openly debated or refuted.”
I don't see the ACLU turning in a statement about the right of Lowe's not to advertise on a TV show they are not comfortable with, nor, of course, defending Ginrich's right to say extreme things (and they don't pre-emptively that way on a case not yet at trial -- oh, except for their campaign against SOPA.)
Well, nobody's suppressing Newt's right to speak, they're just suggesting he isn't fit to be president. Ok, so don't vote for him?
But that's not enough for these Muslim leaders:
Mohamed Elibiary, a Muslim and an adviser to law enforcement agencies in Texas and to the Department of Homeland Security, is a conservative Republican who said he once idolized Mr. Gingrich. He said he no longer did.
He said the anti-Shariah campaign in the United States was “propaganda for jihadists,” offering fuel for the idea of a titanic clash of faiths. Those who truly want to protect American values should talk to Muslims, he said, not demonize them.
“There are plenty of American Muslim patriots who will defend American freedoms,” Mr. Elibiary said. “But you can’t be anti-Islam and find those allies.”
In other words, what this advisor to law-enforcement agencies is telling us is the following:
o don't go by First Amendment values, as we do for jihadists calling for support for Al Qaeda, don't speak on this issue at all unless you speak upon it in the form of a dialogue with hand-picked Muslim leaders who will defend American values
o don't speak out against Islam in any kind of strenuous way as Newt Gingrich is doing, or you will never get those allies to surface and show themselves -- they will run from you.
Of course, these allies are free to appear at any time and defend American values, and no doubt some of them do.
But you can see where this is going -- a "chill on speech," a refusal to recognize freedom of speech, even extreme speech. A demand for certain pre-requisites before you can even talk. Either you have to *be* Muslim, because you can never understand the special-snowflake situation and be credible in critiquing extremism ever-so-carefully OR you have to only discuss these issues in a pre-ordained interfaith dialogue mode, where you find the "good" Muslims to have the debate with so you can make sure the faith is shown in a good light.
Say, no one would ever tip-toe around like this with Catholics. They condemn priests' sexual abuse of minors -- and that's it. They go further and ascribe this offense to the entire priesthood or entire Church, and most people don't call them on it. Even conservative Catholic leaders don't demand that the press only speak of these offenses if they find a qualified priest who has reported such incidents or is a staunch proponent of prosecuting these cases.
Newt is pretty bad, implying there's a terrible mortal danger when there isn't -- in danger of not only crying wolf so that people become desensitized to the issue, but in danger of angering and inciting violence from jihadists themselvse, so these moderate Muslims tell us. Awful!
But frankly, they are bad, too. Because they make it seem like no one can criticize the obvious about Islamist extremists - like the terrorists who blew up 57 people in Iraq today! -- without inciting *more* jihadism because we have smeared the faith. Something wrong with that picture.
Recent Comments