Tuesday, September 19th | 28 Elul 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
February 20, 2015 1:13 am

Just Who Has to Adjust in the Name of Tolerance?

avatar by Phyllis Chesler

Email a copy of "Just Who Has to Adjust in the Name of Tolerance?" to a friend

President Barack Obama is under fire for failing to mention antisemitism when describing the Paris kosher supermarket attack during his interview with Vox magazine. Photo: White House.

Brookings Institution Center for Middle East Policy Fellow Shadi Hamid recently criticized the West as “illiberal” for refusing to accept the fact that Muslims, both in the West and globally, are different from Westerners.

It was an unusual argument, one to which The Atlantic devoted 3,400 words.

Although President Obama insists that the “fight against terrorism is not a religious war,” Hamid seems to disagree with him.

According to a variety of polls, Hamid is right. For example, while a 2009 Gallup poll shows that European Muslims overwhelmingly reject violence, they are far more religious than those who live in secular Europe (France, England, and Germany), and are more strongly opposed to homosexuality than are secular Europeans. In addition, young, second or third generation European Muslim men favor veiling for women, polygamy, the execution of apostates, and favor prohibiting Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men.

Related coverage

September 19, 2017 4:22 pm
0

For Comment On Holocaust Museum, New York Times Turns to Anti-Israel Activist

The New York Times finally tackled the issue of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s report analyzing whether America could have...

Muslims are more likely to view “blasphemy as unacceptable,” Hamid wrote. He described Muslims as “deeply conservative” and, to varying extents, wanting “the application of Islamic law.”

The liberal West believes in criticizing everything, especially religion, beginning with Judaism and Christianity. Extending this right-to-criticize, satirize, or examine Islam has led to major Muslim meltdowns.

Creative and scholarly exposures of Islam’s history and practices amount to shaming and therefore are impermissible, especially when infidels are doing the exposing. Lawsuitsassassination attempts, lynch mobs, and political murders have been the radical Muslim response to booksfilmslectures, and cartoonsthat detail Islamic gender and religious apartheid.

Documentation of normalized daughter-and wife-beating, child marriage, forced veiling, forced marriage of adults, polygamy, pedophilia, FGM, and honor killing has led to cries of “Islamophobia” and “blasphemy.”

In a recent conversation, Israeli Arabist and counter-terrorism expert, Mordechai Kedar said: “Why would anyone get so outraged by a cartoon unless they believe that the cartoon is telling the truth? They are angrybecause it is the truth.”

According to a 2006 Pew poll, 79 percent of French Muslims blamed the 2005 cartoon controversy on Western nations’ “disrespect for the Islamic religion.” The general population blamed “Muslims’ intolerance.”

This is completely foreign to the West’s post-Enlightenment culture. Many Muslims are very clear on this point.

Hamid writes that French Muslims are “more likely to believe that attacks on the Prophet Mohammed and the Quran should be criminalized as hate speech and incitement, much like denial of the Holocaust is.”

This is a shocking but familiar false equation. Jew-haters and Islamists minimize, disbelieve, but deeply envy the Jews as victims of the Holocaust. But they covet the reverence for sacred victim status that they believe Jews have—ostensibly via trickery. Islamists invented the false allegation of “Islamophobia,” positioned the Palestinians as the “new Jews,” and appointed the Jewish Israelis as the “new Nazis.”

Unfortunately, many Europeans signed onto this lethal narrative in the hope that doing so would appease their hostile, unassimilated Muslim citizens. Also, latent European anti-Semitism happily found a new outlet in anti-Zionism, which is the new anti-Semitism.

Are Muslims being falsely accused and even persecuted? Can one even ask this question in an era when Muslim-on-Muslim, Muslim-on-infidel, and Muslim male-on-female barbarism is borderless, boundary-less, and beyond surreal?

Nevertheless, the false concept of Islamophobia – often defensively raised when the discussion focuses on radical Islamic ideology – has become equal to real concepts such as homophobia, sexism, and anti-Semitism. Despite FBI verification that hate crimes against Jews are far greater than those against Muslims, Muslims continue to insist that they are being racially and religiously targeted.

Islamophobia is worse than anti-Semitism, according to Hatem Bazien, the founder of Students for Justice in Palestine and the director of Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender, in a 2011 report co-sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Bazian concluded that, on a scale from 1 (best situation for Muslims) to 10 (worst possible situation for Muslims), “Islamophobia” in America stands at 6.4. One does not know how to greet such brazen foolishness.

Globally, Islamists demand that the West, which has separated religion and state brilliantly, accept and accommodate an aggressive and entitled theocratic state—not only abroad but in its midst.

In Hamid’s view, real “moral courage” in France would consist of a “major political party” calling for “a rethinking of laïcité [secularism], and for the broadening, rather than the narrowing, [of] French national identity.”

Challenging the “tolerant” West to accommodate an intolerant Islam is the tried-and-true Islamist method of hoisting the West by its own petard. Sophisticated Islamists are trying to use post-Enlightenment laws to achieve the right to practice pre-medieval and barbaric customs. Western political leaders and the intelligentsia are flirting with cultural suicide and siding with barbarism over civilization.

Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and the author of 15 books, including The New Anti-Semitism and An American Bride in Kabul. She is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum, writes regularly for Israel National News and Breitbart, and is the author of three pioneering studies about honor killings.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Tut

    Shadi Hamid is a resident of Doha, Qatar and is paid by the Wahhabi Qatari to defend their policy of financing and arming terrorists

  • steven L

    The American President most likely will vouch for Shadi Hamid. Let us go back to the 8th century.
    Europe antisemitism is far more ingrained than their anti-Islamism.
    They don’t fear Jews but fear Islamists.
    CAIR and alike use NAZI propaganda, false victimization to get unjustified favors or privileges. These are the organizations the US administration work with while delegitimizing moderate Muslims and democracy in Iran.
    Where is the congress?

  • tom tuey

    Never Islam!….And, just to make myself clear to
    you Mr/Ms Muslim……Never Islam….Never your
    make believe prophet….Never your neanderthal
    law….Never. The Muslim advocates have dealt only
    with self serving politicians….and spoiled children
    who are looking for an outlet for their frustrations..
    same brats as the 1960-70’s…..But….the Muslim
    pushers of their law and their phoney prophet
    have NOT met the real day-to-day people of this
    Nation…who always rise up to meet those who
    challenge our way of life…regardless WHO is in
    the WH….regardless WHO controls Congress…
    The American People are the Real strength of this
    Nation as it has been shown time and again…So,
    again I say to you Mr/Ms Muslim ….NEVER!

  • Yale

    In Hamid’s view, real “moral courage” in France would consist of a “major political party” calling for “a rethinking of laïcité [secularism], and for the broadening, rather than the narrowing, [of] French national identity.”

    This is logically impossible. A broadening of French identity would have to strip it of additional particularizations, but Islamists want their particular brand of religiosity to become the prevailing one. Since they reject the legitimacy of other religions, making Islam part of French identity would require France to accept the illegitimacy of France’s traditional Catholic heritage.

Algemeiner.com