Join our editorial board by applying here or become a columnist at the Spectator by clicking here.
I'm Afraid of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 19, 2007
David Horowitz wants to know who’s afraid of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. Though I’m a proud Jew who feels a very close connection with my Jewish community both at Columbia and at home, I think there are many reasons to be afraid of such an idea. The idea of simplifying Islam and the Muslim world’s current situation and reducing the significance of an ideology that precipitated the murder of six million Jews is very scary. For one, such simplification makes it much more difficult to understand the social, political, and economic forces that have caused a conflict between the West and the Muslim world, and it thereby prevents any hope of a resolution. Moreover, to associate Hitler with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Osama bin Laden is equivalent to forgetting the real events that occurred.
Reducing the Muslim ideology and the Muslim world so that all the people between Jordan and Indonesia are terrorists misses the important complexities and nuances of the Middle East and the Muslim world. When Horowitz uses an Al-Jazeera poll that shows 50 percent of Muslims supporting Osama bin Laden as a sign that nearly all Muslims are evil, he just assumes them all to be terrorists, without trying to understand how someone could support a man whose philosophy is so hateful.
Nevertheless, the reasons for bin Laden’s support are many. Certainly, there is a radical minority who believes that anyone who doesn’t follow Shar’ia is an infidel. But there are also extremist Jews who tell their followers to throw stones at those marching in a gay pride parade in Jerusalem. And not that long ago, there were Christians who believed that marriage between a black man and a white woman was a sin. For every religion there’s a small group of fanatics, but that doesn’t mean everyone who supports bin Laden supports such fanaticism.
Many others who support bin Laden, however, see him as an activist who is standing up to American imperialism. For more than 60 years, Muslims have seen the United States oppress, evict, or terrorize them. In 1947, the U.S. supported the establishment of a Jewish state and the eviction of people who had lived there for generations. They watched as the U.S. and the European Allies apologized to the Jews for their inaction during World War II by displacing their brethren. From the support of the Shah of Iran to the continued support of an undemocratic and oppressive (but pro-American) Egyptian regime, Muslims have witnessed the United States suppress their autonomy in order to further its own political and economic goals. And the U.S. continually violates the American principle of due process and the Geneva Convention as they arrest suspected terrorists and either leave them in Guatánamo Bay or send them on super-secret renditions. Most significantly, they see that American interference in their affairs has caused the horror and chaos that is currently taking place in Iraq.
Because of this history and our continued actions in the Middle East, many Muslims see the United States as an oppressive, imperialist power that has both continued to thwart democratization by propping up oppressive pro-American leaders and has done little to aid those Muslims suffering from earlier American actions. They therefore support anyone who will oppose this imperialism. Today, that person is bin Laden.
That’s why labeling all Muslims who support bin Laden as fascists or terrorists misses a more important point. It neglects to acknowledge that support for fanaticism did not just spring from the Qur’an, a book no more violent than the Old Testament. It neglects to understand that bin Laden is not the cause of the terrorism—he’s only the vehicle through which terror is spread today. If we keep neglecting to understand causes of animosity and just label it all with a scary word like “Islamo-Fascism,” then we will never be able to actually rectify the problem. We may thwart terrorist cell after terrorist cell or depose Saddam after Saddam, but we will never really be able to kill the nucleus of the issue. The United States can only do that by recognizing the issues that have inflamed such hatred and seeking reconciliation.
The other part of Islamo-Fascism Week that perturbs me is that, by comparing hateful Muslim leaders to Hitler, Horowitz dilutes the horror of the Holocaust. During the Holocaust, the Jews of Europe, many of whom had been integrated into society, were systematically rounded up, tortured, and murdered because of a state-sponsored program of hate. The government was not only actively spreading hate, but also taking the necessary actions to commit genocide.
This is not the case in Iran, though people like Horowitz call Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the second Hitler. It surprises many to learn that the second largest population of Jews in the Middle East is located in Iran. Despite Ahmadinejad’s vehement rhetoric, he is not a Hitler. In fact, the most expensive show aired in Iran today by Iranian state media is about the Iranian embassy in Paris during World War II, in which Iranians forged passports so that Jews could escape the Nazis. To call Hitler and Ahmadinejad the same is to obstruct the memory of the most horrific event the modern world has ever seen. Moreover, it scares people into thinking that Iran must be attacked. This, as Nicholas Kristof noted in a New York Times column on July 19, would be a huge mistake because, Iran is actually “the most pro-American Muslim country in the region.”
So, Mr. Horowitz, do you really want to know who’s afraid of a week during which Islam is so simplified that it can be labeled as evil, and the real history of the Holocaust is forgotten so as to make it a political tool to spread fear? I am.
The author, a Spectator Associate, is a Columbia College sophomore.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 12)
Post a Comment
You may argue that it is not the case for Muslim women, but if you actually study and know enough about Islam, you know that the she is permitted under the idea that her children are free beings who are allowed to chose the religion they like. So, any human is allowed to decide for him or her what religion they want to follow, this is a Islamic ideal and thus, a woman or man can actually marry anyone from any religion because every human has the freedom of religion in Islam.
It seams to me that you are the one who needs to ask your Imam if the view you hold is correct or maybe you are just practicing some "TAQIIYA" here. Can you present some link to an official ruling that upholds your view?
A fatwa issued in August 2007 by the secretary-general of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA), Dr. Sheikh Salah Al-Sawy, states that marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man is forbidden and invalid, and that children born of such a union are illegitimate.
The following are excerpts from the fatwa, which was posted on the website www.islamonline.net/servlet/sa...
"Marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim [man] is forbidden and invalid - that is a consensus among Muslims. A [Muslim] woman who has taken the liberty [of marrying a non-Muslim man] has removed herself from the fold of the Muslim community - and one who has done so knowing that it is wrong, has done something strictly forbidden, and has committed an open [act of] abomination that may hurl her into the abyss of heresy and apostasy.
"Some clerics hold that [a Muslim woman who marries a non-Muslim man] is considered a heretic from the very beginning [i.e. from the moment she marries], since the bond of marriage allows her to have sexual relations and intercourse [with her husband], and to take pleasure [in this], and it is inconceivable that she should commit the crime [of having intercourse] without the sanction [of a valid marriage].
"The wisdom of the religious ban [against the marriage of a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim man lies in] its preventing [the woman] from being tempted away from her faith. The Koran justifies this ban by saying that these marriages 'beckon [the believer] to the Fire [of Hell; Koran 2:221].' In other words, they lead to sins that doom [the sinner] to Hell... since [the woman] may be tempted to renounce [Islam], to doubt [the truth of] Islam, and to disparage its religious rituals.
"Woman is weak by nature, and the guardianship of a [non-Muslim] man affects her powers of reasoning. [Marriage to a non-Muslim] may thus cause a woman to follow the ways [of her husband], or at least to abandon her [own] religion and neglect its rituals. [By so doing,] she is neither a Muslim nor one of the People of the Book [i.e. a Christian or Jew like her husband]...
I acknowledge that a Muslim woman's marriage with a non-Muslim is not explicitly permitted. By those children also grow up to be adults and these adults, under Islamic, have the right to choose their own religion. There is a clause in the Koran that says that there is no coercion in religion. This not only means that people cannot force someone to become part of Islam, they cannot coerce anyone into abiding by it either. Each person's religion to his/her own, no good Muslim is allowed to judge another. I know my religion.
You cite extreme cases of fatwa by radical imams, but notice that there are thousands of Muslim women married to non-Muslim men and they do not have a fatwa on them. Now if I had to attack a religion, I could do it by pointing to the wrongful action of their priests, but I don't think that those priests represent the religion as a whole. I would not let wrongdoers negatively color any religion. You should not either.
I makes be extremely proud to see such a fair and intelligent opinion piece on this issue. This is very special to be also because you, Hammer, are a good, observant Jew. You have some very good points and you look at the current issues as an intellectual who believes in finding the causes, rather than just making biased decisions based on the actions of some radical terrorists who call themselves Muslims.
For those of you who are quoting the Koran out of context, stop pretending that you have actually read the Koran just because you have one sentence that makes the religion look violent. I have actually read the Koran, its most original form and language, and I affirm that it teaches peace, not war.
Some wars that happened in the past were in the PAST, those don't apply today. Look at other religious texts that also talk about war and you will understand that those religions don't teach violence just because they talk about the opponent of that time.
Judaism and Islam have the SAME religious values. Moses (pbuh) it considered a prophet in Islam and regarded with utmost respect. He is the one who set the Ramadan limit to one month for the followers of God. Same with Jesus, he is the Prophet Isa (pbuh) in Islam. These religions are religions of peace (like all other religions) that teach peace.
Did you know that in Islam, Muslims are permitted to marry a Jew or a Christian because they believe in the same God? Why would this religion ask to kill these same Jews and Christians if they are seen as brothers and sisters? Muslim men are explicitly allowed to marry Jews or Christians, it follows that his children are by lineage Muslims. This is not because Judaism and Christianity are any less as religions, Islam is believed to be a more updated version from the same God. You may argue that it is not the case for Muslim women, but if you actually study and know enough about Islam, you know that the she is permitted under the idea that her children are free beings who are allowed to chose the religion they like. So, any human is allowed to decide for him or her what religion they want to follow, this is a Islamic ideal and thus, a woman or man can actually marry anyone from any religion because every human has the freedom of religion in Islam.
Women are treated with more respect in Islam, trust me, I am a Muslim woman, I know. Under Islam, women's good deeds count for more, they are more easily forgiven, etc. Men who abuse this ideal are using Islam as an excuse. Men is another countries and other religions do this too. Thus it has nothing to do with religion, it has more to do with patriarchy. Did you know America has a higher rate of domestic violence that other Muslim countries? Americans are of all different religions, so that says something, it is not the religion that encourages domestic violence.
Islam does not teach violence. The main ideals of Islam is that Allah loves all and forgives all.
Dear Brandon,
First let me say that this is a very interesting piece you wrote, and second let me say to you........... " Please don't be afraid."
You are only one of a few writers today who are obsessed, almost pathologically, by the conviction that the USA and Israel are the most evil countries that have ever existed, and that Israel's removal from the family of nations is a precondition of world peace. And of course "American Imperialism" is the cause of all the world's problems.
Such lethally Utopian dreams are not strictly the playground of anti-Semites, but also the common coin of such liberal Jewish writing as yours. As George Steiner put it, "Might the Christian West and Islam live more humanely, more at ease with themselves, if the Jewish problem were indeed 'resolved' (that is, the final solution)."
You present a Leftist-Progressive Jewish voice to this Islamo-Fascism debate. In doing so you equate Horowitz's mention of the Al -Jazeera poll as " a sign that nearly all Muslims are evil" knowing all the while that this is not true. Horowitz never claims that all Muslims are evil. In short, you present a leftist attack on a plethora of issues, one of which is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a second Hitler. Well, why don't we let history be the judge of that! If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Mahmoud could still prove you wrong.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, the chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, responded to Ahmadinejad’s " vehement rhetoric" as you call it, by calling it and the unabashed outpouring of anti-Jewish venom and the reemergence of anti-Semitism as "one of the most frightening phenomena in [my] lifetime–because it’s happened after sixty years of Holocaust education,anti-racist legislation, and interfaith dialogue.” Yet you paint a rosy picture of Iran's Jewish Community (which is down to less than 25,000 from as many as 100,000 pre-Islamic revolution). You are more concerned with some imagined 60yr U.S. oppression of Muslims.
Are you aware that copies of a new Turkish translation of Mein Kampf have been selling in Istanbul and other Turkish cities like hotcakes. The popularity of Hitler’s diatribe against the Jews is so great that eleven different publishers are currently marketing it, yet, bookstores cannot keep up with the demand. New editions of Mein Kampf have also appeared in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, and it is readily available in Arabic translation in London bookstores.
At the same time, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, another classic work of anti-Semitic literature, is also selling well in Teheran, as it is in Arabic translation throughout North Africa and the Middle East.
Mr.Hammer , your Jewishness does not insulate you from criticism and certainly does not guarantee that you are even close on this issue. I suppose you will claim also, that the only genuine loyalty to the memory of the Holocaust is found in recognizing the injustice done to the Palestinians. You are so far out in left field that even the best GPS, can't get you back on course.
Your article certainly goes far to establish your leftist credentials. Because we all know the ideological package that forms progressive politics today links anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, anti-globalization, anti-racism, etc.,to anti-Zionism and one is expected as a matter of course to be against Zionism and the supposedly “racist,” “colonialist,”and “oppressive” state it has created.
I suppose your reason why "In 1947,the U.S. supported the establishment of a Jewish state and the eviction of people who had lived there for generations" was our need for an ally in the Middle East to help us oppress, evict & terrorize Muslims. This is laughable and pathetic.
I simply can't find the words to describe your defense of bin Laden (not on this public forum anyway). I will suffice to say that many New Yorkers find your apologetics unacceptable and an affront to the memory of those New Yorkers who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, and their families.
In closing, let me say again,Brandon, don't be scared of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, and have no fear the history of the Holocaust will NEVER be forgotten.
"The Mufti of Jerusalem, al-Husseini, was a close friend of Hitler, Himmler, and Eichmann."
This is a lie. The mufti was a pathetic, opportunistic reactionary, but he was never personal friends with the Nazis. On the other hand, Eichmann actually visited a kibbutz in Palestine as a personal guest of the Haganah, invited by their representative Feivel Polkes. This has little to do with holy texts, and everything to do with the colonial ideologies and "blood and soil" nationalism that the Nazis and Zionists shared. You should read a book or something before you go shooting your mouth off.
Hammer, very good points. Keep up the good work bro.
"...the Qur’an, a book no more violent than the Old Testament."
LOL, you obviously have never read the Qur'an. The OT does not command the annihilation of everyone who is not Jewish, and for all time.
The Koranic injunction to "Kill the Unbelievers" is open-ended - it's for all-time, never ending. I'd call that the apex of "violence." The OT does not command any such thing, at any time, ever.
You don't know what you're talking about. BTW, it's Nazi ideology, not Fascist, that "precipitated the murder of 6 million Jews." In addition, there were Muslim troops fighting on Hitler's side. This is historical fact, look it up. The Mufti of Jerusalem, al-Husseini, was a close friend of Hitler, Himmler, and Eichmann.
P.S. Don't you know that the Qur'an refers to you people as "apes, pigs, and swine?" And here you are defending it. Yep, there's such a thing as a "Jewish dhimmi." How sad.
Have you read the qur'an?
Can you point out exactly where it refers to "those people" as apes, pigs, and swine?
Where's the sura that tells Muslims expressly to "kill the unbelievers"? If I remember correctly, the "unbelievers" are supposed to be judged somewhere along the line, in both texts.
As for Muslims supporting Hitler, what sources are you looking at? What are the numbers? Furthermore, what end of the spectrum of Islam would they be considered on?
And, though I'm pretty sure someone already said this, even if al-Husseini was BFFs with Hitler, Himmler, and Eichmann, it's just as historically credible a fact that early Zionists and Nazi officials were kinda tight too. It's interesting that you left that bit out.
I'm not saying that everything you said is wrong, or that everything I'm saying is right, but your entire argument seems pretty dubious when I'm not even sure if you've opened and read the Qur'an, without your all-too-obvious bias; the fact that I can say that after only studying it for an intro class weakens it even more.
By the by, Hammer, I applaud you for making light of another side of this without attacking anybody. Good work.
You are right. Mr. Hammer is a Jewish "Useful Idiot."
The “moderate” mainstream of Islam has been outright genocidal from inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man, beheaded 700 Jewish men in the presence of the Prophet himself. The Prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men’s women and children in slavery. Muslims have been, and continue to be, the most vicious and shameless practitioner of slavery. The slave trade, even today, is a thriving business in some Islamic lands where wealthy, perverted sheiks purchase children of the poor from traffickers for their sadistic gratification.
Muslims are taught deception and lying in the Quran itself—something that Muhammad practiced during his life whenever he found it expedient. Successive Islamic rulers and leaders have done the same. Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance, rallied the people under the banner of democracy. All along his support for democracy was not a commitment of an honest man, but a ruse. As soon as he gathered the reins of power, Khomeini went after the Useful Idiots of his time with vengeance. These best children of Iran, having been thoroughly deceived and used by the crafty phony populist-religionist, had to flee the country to avoid the fate of tens of thousands who were imprisoned or executed by the double-crossing imam.
Almost three decades after the tragic Islamic Revolution of 1979, the suffocating rule of Islam casts its death-bearing pall over Iranians. A proud people with enviable heritage is being systematically purged of its sense of identity and forced to think and behave like the barbaric and intolerant Muslims. Iranians who had always treated women with equality, for instance, have seen them reduced by the stone-age clergy to sub-human status of Islamic teaching. Any attempt by the women of Iran to counter the misogynist rule of Muhammad’s mullahs is mercilessly suppressed. Women are beaten, imprisoned, raped and killed just as men are slaughtered without due process or mercy.
The lesson is clear. Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power.
Your little rant has more opinions and abuses than facts. Forget "Useful Idiots," you are simply an idiot. I hate to personally attack you, but if these are the biased views you hold, then you deserve it. I am a Muslim feminist against misogyny and I am NOT suppressed by any Muslim or any Muslim government. I have been to a good number of them, so take this as evidence.
Post new comment