What do we understand that Islamophobia really means?
The most socially destructive and pervasive strain of Islamophobia has not even been identified. We identify this strain of Islamophobia and close with the antidote for both strains.
The Multicultural “bigotry” accusation problem
You’ve heard of the golden rule. Incidentally, it is a rule that Islam rejects. You have also heard the golden non–sequitur of political correctness, that all religions are morally equal. Multiculturalism’s golden non–sequitur shields Islam from being morally vetted.
With our state–sponsored inoculation of moral relativism, it immediately becomes bigotry to deny statements like
Indeed no US politician holding a national level office has challenged either A or B.
But recently an argument has been made: Since Mohammad is the ideal example for all Muslims, were Mohammad a terrorist, all Muslims would be doctrinal terrorists.
Clearly all people should agree that one should not be called a “bigot” for defending a civilization against a human rights violating ideology.
So the question, “Is one who denies either A or B a bigot?” is linked to the question, “Was Mohammad a terrorist?” If Mohammad was a terrorist, then A and B should be denied and our entire political culture should reverse course.
The “Was Mohammad a terrorist?” national debate imperative
Because one should not flippantly be condemned as a “bigot,” and because the left has been calling so many of us “bigots,” answering the question, “Was Mohammad a terrorist?” has become an imperative. The debate over Mohammad’s character is a win–win for two reasons
- If Mohammad was not a terrorist, then having a debate on the subject should help to cure the problem implied by statements A and B.
- If Mohammad was a terrorist, then it would seem that the world should help disabuse Muslims of Mohammad’s virtue. And it would follow then that not A and not B should be embraced by all. The Multiculturalists could then apologize for their condemnation of virtue.
If Muslims and Multiculturalists are going to call one a “bigot” for acting virtuously, it becomes doubly unseemly to not advocate a debate on the question, “Was Mohammad a terrorist?”
Background on the debate over Mohammad
It is not the purpose of this short article to answer the question, “Was Mohammad a terrorist?” Rather, we merely advocate the need for this question to be part of our public debate. But a few observations are in order.
Brigitte Gabriel revealed that the peaceful majority of groups which embody a violent core doctrine are historically irrelevant. We are not asking, “Are most Muslims operational terrorists?” The answer to this question is as obvious as it is irrelevant. Rather we are asking a doctrinal core question, “Was Mohammad a terrorist?”
Since 2001 the ex–Muslim Ali Sina has offered a reward for anyone who could prove he was wrong in asserting that Mohammad was a terrorist, a pedophile…. Sina has posted numerous extensive debates on–line with leading Muslim scholars throughout the world. To date no one has been able to claim the $50,000 prize for proving Sina wrong.
On the other side, a Muslim has recently published “an open offer that will never expire” where he “will award anyone $10,000 if they can find me [sic] a verse in the Quran that says it’s ok to kill innocent people or to commit acts of terror.” A number of people have submitted claims for this reward. This author wrote to HuffPo asking if the paper would be transparently evaluating these claims. No response to the status of the reward claims or of a forthcoming rebuttal to the arguments of these respondents has been received by this inquirer. (Litigating HuffPo for their liability in publishing this ostentatious yet bogus reward offer could be a worthwhile cause.)
The most virulent strain of Islamophobia
Presently our political lexicon only recognizes one strain of Islamophobia: The strain which — should a critical mass of Muslims infiltrate our culture — fears the erosion of freedom and human rights.
Our culture’s collectivist news stigmatizes this strain of Islamophobia. Owing to the golden non–sequitur of Multiculturalism, people who believe not A and not B are condemned as “bigots.”
But the problem with this accusation of bigotry is that it rests on an unquestioned premise. Fourteen years after 9/11, our political leadership and our collectivist media still not have entertained the most natural debate question, “Was Mohammad a terrorist?”
But now we identify another strain of Islamophobia: The strain exhibited by both Muslims and Multiculturalists who fear that dialogue on Mohammad’s character will reveal Mohammad to be a terrorist. They fear a fair, free and open debate about Mohammad and terrorism.
Contrary to the beliefs of Multiculturalists, Muslims are not animals who are incapable of moral dialogue. By debating Muslims on the thesis that Mohammad may have been a terrorist, we respect Muslim’s moral faculties. However difficult, such a debate can ultimately be healing for all.
If there are bigots who unfairly stigmatize Muslims, then having a national debate on the subject “Was Mohammad a terrorist?” could make Mohammad’s virtue plain to all and reveal to all that these Islamophobes truly are bigots. But until such a debate takes place, Muslims and Multiculturalist need to stop their unjustifiable condemnation spree and recognize that their unjustifiable Islamophobia prohibits the rest of us from shedding our Islamophobia.
Because multicultural Islamophobia
- unjustifiably stigmatizes Americans who either know or suspect that Mohammad was a terrorist
- prevents America from identifying our enemy in this misnamed “war on terror,” and
- disrespects the moral faculties of Muslims
It is the most virulent strain of Islamophobia.
Multiculturalism’s non–sequitur: A red carpet for an Islamic Trojan horse?
The golden non–sequitur of political correctness — that all religions are morally equal — has long been a central tenant in our state “schools.” As multiculturalism’s moral relativism has caused our culture’s collectivist sectors to be blind to a potential enemy within, the “knowledge” of statist schools is better identified as “anti–knowledge.”
Unlike the proof for the quadratic equation, the proof for the moral equality of all religions is not entertained. And neither is the follow up question, “How does our Multicultural misinterpretation of the First Amendment enable us to protect ourselves against terrorism in the name of a religion?”
It is time to turn the Islamophobic tables and ask, “Why are you, dear Multiculturalist, afraid to even ask the question, ‘Was Mohammad a terrorist?’? Is it that you fear the correct answer to be ‘yes’ and that you do not have the courage to defend America from a terrorist ideology?”
After conquering state “education” with moral relativism, Multiculturalism has created a front Islamophobia which shields Multiculturalism’s true Islamophobia from being identified. By this chicanery, the most virulent strain of Islamophobia is also the most unknown and the most pervasive.
The resolution or antidote for both of these two strains of Islamophobia is found by addressing — head on — the question, “Was Mohammad a terrorist?”
If we allow the debate to begin, then we will see the facts for what they are, just like the expose of the Saudi’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks and those traitors who have been complicite with it’s coverup!.