From Jihad Watch:
Robert Spencer: Why Can’t Non-Muslims Criticize Islam?
At Atlas Shrugs this morning I discuss the peculiar tendency that many anti-jihadists have to believe that their efforts are not quite legitimate unless a "moderate Muslim" is fronting them:
...Islamic law forbids non-Muslims to criticize Islam, and Islamic supremacists routinely accuse Americans who dare to speak out against the jihad and Islamic supremacism of “racism.” Anti-jihadists deny the label, and yet tacitly endorse it when they take pains to feature “anti-Islamist” Muslims and even non-Muslim Arabs at rallies and conferences, and to laud their work beyond all proportion to its effectiveness in actually bringing about change within the Muslim community.
And so several years ago, an organization called the Free Muslims Against Terrorism held a massively publicized rally against terrorism, and drew no more than two dozen Muslims. More recently, last week another massively publicized rally of Muslims in support of NYPD anti-terror measures drew 36. The enthusiasm greeting both of these sparsely attended rallies was out of all proportion to their actual significance. The unspoken and unexamined assumption behind this eagerness to call attention to “moderate Muslims,” despite their obviously non-representative character in the Muslim community, shows how deeply the “racism” charge has penetrated the anti-jihadist mindset: even opponents of jihad and Islamic supremacism apparently believe that their efforts are not fully legitimate unless Muslims are joining in them.
But why can’t non-Muslims criticize Islam on their own, without Muslims or Arabs to validate their efforts? The human rights violations embedded within Islamic law are obvious to any objective observer. Any individual who cares for human rights has the right and, indeed, the responsibility to speak out and oppose them. It is good that there are “anti-Islamist” Muslims, insofar as they are sincere, but anti-jihadists who exaggerate their importance, influence, and Islamic authenticity not only delude themselves and mislead others; they also show that they have unconsciously adopted the dhimmi status that Islamic supremacists so devoutly hope to impose on them – at least in regard to the legitimacy of their own critique of Islam and jihad.
Non-Muslims standing for human rights against Sharia do not need Muslims to stand with them to give their efforts legitimacy. Muslims should be invited to join, and exhorted to renounce sincerely the violence, hatred and supremacism embedded within Islamic texts and teachings. However, the refusal of most to do so should not become the occasion for self-delusion about the few who do, or willful blindness about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.
There is more.
Posted by Robert on March 12, 2012 8:02 AM
Robert Spencer: Why Can’t Non-Muslims Criticize Islam?
At Atlas Shrugs this morning I discuss the peculiar tendency that many anti-jihadists have to believe that their efforts are not quite legitimate unless a "moderate Muslim" is fronting them:
...Islamic law forbids non-Muslims to criticize Islam, and Islamic supremacists routinely accuse Americans who dare to speak out against the jihad and Islamic supremacism of “racism.” Anti-jihadists deny the label, and yet tacitly endorse it when they take pains to feature “anti-Islamist” Muslims and even non-Muslim Arabs at rallies and conferences, and to laud their work beyond all proportion to its effectiveness in actually bringing about change within the Muslim community.
And so several years ago, an organization called the Free Muslims Against Terrorism held a massively publicized rally against terrorism, and drew no more than two dozen Muslims. More recently, last week another massively publicized rally of Muslims in support of NYPD anti-terror measures drew 36. The enthusiasm greeting both of these sparsely attended rallies was out of all proportion to their actual significance. The unspoken and unexamined assumption behind this eagerness to call attention to “moderate Muslims,” despite their obviously non-representative character in the Muslim community, shows how deeply the “racism” charge has penetrated the anti-jihadist mindset: even opponents of jihad and Islamic supremacism apparently believe that their efforts are not fully legitimate unless Muslims are joining in them.
But why can’t non-Muslims criticize Islam on their own, without Muslims or Arabs to validate their efforts? The human rights violations embedded within Islamic law are obvious to any objective observer. Any individual who cares for human rights has the right and, indeed, the responsibility to speak out and oppose them. It is good that there are “anti-Islamist” Muslims, insofar as they are sincere, but anti-jihadists who exaggerate their importance, influence, and Islamic authenticity not only delude themselves and mislead others; they also show that they have unconsciously adopted the dhimmi status that Islamic supremacists so devoutly hope to impose on them – at least in regard to the legitimacy of their own critique of Islam and jihad.
Non-Muslims standing for human rights against Sharia do not need Muslims to stand with them to give their efforts legitimacy. Muslims should be invited to join, and exhorted to renounce sincerely the violence, hatred and supremacism embedded within Islamic texts and teachings. However, the refusal of most to do so should not become the occasion for self-delusion about the few who do, or willful blindness about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.
There is more.
Posted by Robert on March 12, 2012 8:02 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment