On Islamophobic individuals.
The rise of modern terrorism has seen many ignorant, fearful and downright angry people flock to the shepherds of emotional release – people who see self-aggrandizement in the pool of bewildered victims of the current and uncertain political environment establishing the war on terror.
Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer give a political and ideological embodiment respectively of this movement, which has been correctly labeled as “Islamophobic.”
In the case of Wilders, his political agenda directs his point of view. As Reza Aslan explains, 'for critics of globalization the European Union is a nightmare of unfettered capitalism, cultural dilution, and , ultimately, the loss of national identity.' The appeal of neo-facists, such as Wilders, the late Jorg Hader of Austria and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France 'derives from their ability to tap into widespread fear among many Europeans of globalization and its consequences' namely a stifling of perceived national values, cultural and ethnic homogeneity coupled with an anxiety of the future through social change. Playing the role of Europe's traditional 'quintessential Other', Muslim migration to Europe of the last 50 years 'has created a situation in which Europe's identity crisis [has been] experienced almost wholly through the lens of Islam.' Islam has generally become the social scapegoat of these anti-globalization political groups; 'it seems that the Muslim has replaced the Jew as Europe's new "negative pole".'
True to the form of deceitful bigotry and prejudice, in Wilders’ recent experience of being sued for his political assertions (a terrible attack on of freedom of speech might I add) Wilders celebrated his confirmed freedom of speech by continuing to call for a ban on the Quran. Another intriguing case was how Thomas von der Dunk a cultural historian and political commentator, under pressure spearheaded by Wilder’s Freedom Party, was barred from giving a lecture in honor of a Nazi-resistance hero ‘after it became known that he proposed to compare the Freedom Party's portrayal of Muslims to “the way in which Jews were smeared in the 1930s”.’
His anti-Islamic platform is part of his political agenda, this much is obvious, but we must be ready to site and point it out to those who are blind to such facts lest we see an infection of discourse regarding the matter.
In the case of Robert Spender, a man who attacks others for religiously motivated manipulation of the barbaric truth of Islam as he sees it (yet has no academic credentials of his own by way of Islamic studies of any kind), his ideological and philosophical thought on modern Islamic terrorism and politics has leant a helping hand to the likes of Wilders, and individuals seeking to gain an understanding of Islam and an explanation of current socio-political tendencies it is associated with. He regularly lies to those who follow his blog, whilst publishing massive lies within his literary work.
As he sees it, only modern terrorists can be acknowledged as ‘true’ Muslims who, in line with Wilders’ position, must be isolated and disconnected. All this is done in an appeal to set oneself upon an imaginary stage in which we surrender our rational senses for fearful reactionism.
The likes of Spencer seem to be the biggest threat in my opinion, as they establish they rhetorical and often mindless thought process that props up the likes of Wilders. Amazingly, in the same way bin Laden refers to Coalition troops as ‘Crusaders’, Spencer has references to such thought in his own work. In place of the dedication section of his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, he has ‘Deus Vult!’ written. It’s a Latin phrase used by the first crusaders meaning ‘God wills it’. He makes a bizarre, ahistorical and nonsensical appeal to the idea we must engage in another crusade with modern terrorism, and Islam generally, to save ‘the West’ (incidentally this ‘West’ is where Obama is a socialist).
It is this kind of thought that displaces us from our senses and drives us into a fiery pit of hatred, ignorance and inhumanity through which modern terrorists themselves forge their world view.
Spencer is wrong, this much can be gleaned from any general reading on Islam, but we must be prepared to refute his assertions if we are also to refute bin Laden and his associates before we find ourselves perpetuating those crimes we seek to extinguish through representatives like Wilders.
 Reza Aslan, How to Win a Cosmic War: Confronting radical religion, Arrow Books, London, 2010, p. 131.
 ibid., 132
 Timothy Garton Ash, Geert Wilders and how to handle a gold-medal hypocrite, Los Angeles Times, <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/12/opinion/la-oe-gartonash-wilders-20110512> 12 May, 2011.
 Greeneye, Spencer Distorts Egyptian Society; Spreads Interfaith Bigotry, Spencer Watch <http://spencerwatch.com/2011/01/11/spencer-distorts-egyptian-society-spreads-interfaith-bigotry/> 11 January, 2011.
 Danios, The Church’s Doctrine of “Perpetual Servitude” was Worse than “Dhimmitude”, Loon Watch <http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/> 30 November, 2009.
 Robert Spencer, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington D.C., 2005, p. v.
Last edited by MegadethFan; Oct 06 2011 at 04:42 AM.
I'm willing to change my position at any time on any issue. I have done so in the past. All you need is a logical, provable case, and I'm all in. The question is, have you got what it takes?
Oh, and just so you're not confused, I'm an apatheist libertarian.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." --Noam Chomsky