*Islamophilia Unmasked*

Posted By *Bruce Bawer* On June 27, 2013 ****

There are few braver, wittier, and savvier commentators on the present
confrontation between Islam and the West than Douglas Murray. A
contributing editor of *The Spectator *and a familiar face on Britain’s
political chat shows – and an eloquent fellow panelist of mine at last
November’s Restoration Weekend – he has now written an
e-book<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/180-8084969-0969309?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=Douglas+Murray>entitled
*Islamophilia: A Very Metropolitan Malady.*****

It’s about time that we started talking about Islamophilia as often as our
opponents talk about Islamophobia. As Murray points out, while a healthy
fear of Islam is certainly justifiable – given the events of 9/11 and 7/7,
for example, and the murders of people like Theo van Gogh and Drummer Lee
Rigby – the kind of extravagant praise of Islam that has become commonplace
in the Western world in recent years is anything *but *justifiable. And yet
the noxious eulogies for the religion of Muhammed keep coming – from
authors and filmmakers and the news media, from “world leaders, diplomats
and politicians,” from “academics or scholars who lose all critical
distance when it comes to the subject of Islam.”****

In my 2009 
book<http://www.amazon.com/Surrender-Appeasing-Islam-Sacrificing-Freedom/dp/038552398X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236856853&sr=1-4>
*Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom *I went chapter by chapter
through different categories of Westerners – journalists, academics,
judges, etc. – who are censoring and self-censoring in order to pacify
Muslims. Murray examines much the same phenomenon, and related phenomena,
from a somewhat different angle – he’s interested here not so much in the
readiness to appease, or in the act of censorship or self-censorship
itself, as he is in full-throated expressions of respect and admiration for
Islam, whether sincere or feigned. Fake Islamophilia is, of course, nothing
other than sheer dhimmitude; but genuine Islamophilia is something else
again, and is a very real commodity. Britain especially has a long
tradition of admiration for Islam (as exemplified by none other than the
current Prince of Wales), but Murray doesn’t go into that history here –
and with good reason, for there’s plenty of Islamophilia in the Western
world nowadays to keep him busy.****

Like Virgil guiding Dante through Hell in the *Inferno, *Murray takes us on
a spin through contemporary Islamophilia.* *Some of his examples were
familiar to me, others not. While I knew, for example, that British Prime
Minister David Cameron had called the slaughter of Drummer Lee Rigby an
assault on Islam – what else would he say? – I didn’t realize that London
Mayor Boris Johnson, who I had thought to be above such folderol, had
insisted that the murder of Rigby surely had nothing to do with Islam. For
those who have forgotten, or are too young to remember, Murray provides a
useful wrap-up of George W. Bush’s habit, during his presidency, of
“forever hosting dinners for Muslim holy days and visiting mosques” and
generally “going on about Islam,” all of which began with his firm
declaration, a few days after 9/11, that “Islam is peace.”****

Murray recounts a speech in which FBI Director John Brennan, addressing a
Muslim audience, kept saying things like “as the Koran reveals,” thus, as
Murray notes, referring “to the origins of the Koran as though the orthodox
Islamic tradition was not just an opinion, but in fact true.” Murray
observes that Brennan, a Catholic, evinced in that speech “a great symptom
of the Islamophile” – namely, the tendency “to park your own actual beliefs
to one side for a moment and then do a fair to middling job of pretending
to any given audience that you do not believe what you believe but in fact
believe what your audience (if they are Muslim) believe. I suppose people
think this makes people warm to them. It doesn’t always work. Usually
people are left confused and wondering why, if the guy up there thinks
Islam is that great, he doesn’t become a Muslim himself.”****

Especially appalling to Murray – as it should be – is the
institutionalization of Islamophilia among America’s military brass.
Recalling General John R. Allen’s four-alarm response to the alleged
mistreatment of a copy of the Koran on a base in Afghanistan (his speech
began “To the noble people of Afghanistan: Salaam Aleikum….”), Murray
suggests that the “solemn tone would not have been out of place for
announcing an incoming nuclear strike on the American homeland.” As a sign
of just how far General Allen was willing to bend over to pacify Muslims,
he had even “learnt how to provide extra glottals. Not just as in ‘Qu’ran’
but, it seemed, something like ‘Q’u’r’a’n’. It sounded as if he was choking
as he tried to swallow all the glottals.”****

Then there’s Hollywood. I love some of director Ridley Scott’s work, but
Murray convincingly shows that Scott’s movies *Kingdom of Heaven *(2005)
and *Robin* *Hood* (2010) are pure Islamic propaganda. Among the other
film-world Islam-boosters whom Murray skewers are Liam Neesen and Oliver
Stone’s Muslim-convert son, Sean. Moving on to the pop-music world, Murray
makes the telling point – although this seems to be less a case of
Islamophilia than of good, old-fashioned dhimmitude – that while Justin
Bieber, on his current world tour, fought with paparazzi in Britain, made
an ass of himself in the guest book at the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam,
and let himself be caught in Sweden with drugs on his tour bus, when he
arrived in Turkey he suddenly “behaved like one of those bad boys who knows
just how to behave when he actually has to be good. In Istanbul, he halted
his concert twice in order to observe the Muslim call to prayer.” (Did you
know that? I didn’t.) As Murray sums it up: “In London you can keep your
fans waiting so long that had they felt so inclined they could have packed
in a whole day of prayer sessions. But in Istanbul you turn up on time,
respect the local customs and remember you’re dealing with Islam here, not
any of those sappy European ‘Beliebers.’”****

I wrote here 
recently<http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/islamic-science/>about
a traveling museum exhibit, “Sultans of Science,” currently on
display in Oslo, that exaggerates to the point of parody the debt that
modern science owes to Islam. Murray describes about another exhibit, “1001
Islamic Inventions,” that could be seen at London’s Science Museum in 2010
and at the National Geographic Museum in Washington in 2012-13. It sounds
even worse than “Sultans of Science.” Talk about Islamic invention! The
snake-oil salesmen behind the London installation claimed – and I’ll quote
this passage from Murray at length because it’s all so thoroughly
outrageous –****

that it is only thanks to the Islamic world that we have universities,
libraries and bookshops. All disciplines, including maths, chemistry,
geometry, art, writing and agriculture come from Islam. So do dams,
windmills, the concept of trade, textiles, paper, pottery, glass, jewels
and currency. All medical knowledge also comes from Islam, including,
strangely, inoculation and not forgetting the toothbrush. In its attempt to
show that there is nothing that Islam has not given us the exhibition
claims that Islam invented not just the countryside but the town as well,
including everything about the buildings in towns, including vaults,
spires, towers, domes and arches.****

Now that’s Islamophilia at its reality-defying worst. And while we’re
talking about science, let’s mention Richard Dawkins, the fearless atheist,
who in a recent interview on Al-Jazeera, as Murray reminds us, lustily
savaged Judaism and Christianity but, when asked about Islam, hemmed and
hawed and finally said, “Well, um, the God of the Koran I don’t know so
much about.” Murray gives the pusillanimous Dawkins exactly what he
deserves. And Murray also tells us – here’s something else I didn’t know –
that Pope Francis, when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, chided Pope
Benedict XIV for the Regensburg speech in which he dared to speak less than
glowingly of Islam “and even called on fellow Catholics to criticise him –
an extraordinary breach of authority.” An interesting – and depressing –
insight into the current pontiff.****

For all the failings of presidents and pop stars, G-men and generals,
Murray seems to be capable (as I am) of particular disappointment in – and
contempt for – members of our own profession who play at being gutsy until
something is actually on the line. Hence he singles out for special – and
deserving – ridicule two highly celebrated British writers. Martin Amis,
who for many years was the Justin Bieber of English fiction – a “bad boy”
who made headlines tipping over sacred cows – made the mistake a while back
of saying something critical of Islam in an interview, and, faster than you
could say “Allahu akbar,” he’d published a piece in the *Observer* that, in
Murray’s apt words, “set a new high-water mark in Prophetic prostration.”
Amis wrote, in part (and if you haven’t already taken out the barf bag, do
so now): “no serious person could fail to respect Muhammad – a unique and
luminous historical being.”****

Novelist Sebastian Faulks had an almost identical experience: taken to task
for being less than reverential of Islam in an interview, he rushed into
print with his own nauseating *mea culpa*. In short, as Murray puts it, “at
the slightest whiff of receiving a bit of Islamic opprobrium these two big
beasts of letters folded. It’s an interesting lesson in abjection. Our
cultural and literary front-runners, like our film-makers and artists,
forever portray themselves as fearless truth-tellers, willing to fight in
the last artistic ditch to say what they think to whoever they like. And
yet Islam comes along and it turns out that not only did they not stay
around for the fight, they hauled down the flag and cleared out before any
fighting had begun.” Bingo. And bravo.****

Murray’s book is valuable not only for its accumulation of all this
evidence (stomach-turning though it is) but for its lucid, no-nonsense
analysis of the perverse phenomenon that gives his book its title. “Of all
the reasons why people have become Islamophiles,” he proposes, “perhaps the
most common – apart from terror – is the combination of the desire to be
nice with the knowing of very little.” While many professed admirers of
Islam are acting out of fear, and others out of ignorance, some, he
insists, are genuinely driven by a fierce need to believe that Islam truly
is “not just a peaceful religion but a wonderful religion – a religion to
which we owe so much.” Because the alternative to thinking this is – well,
unthinkable.****

*Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click
here<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=david+horowitz&rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&qid=1316459840&rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&sort=daterank>.
*****
------------------------------

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: *http://frontpagemag.com*****

URL to article: *
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/islamophilia-unmasked/*****

** **


__._,_.___






__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to