by Raymond Ibrahim

Pajamas Media

If the same exact criticisms being made against Islam today were also made centuries ago, is it reasonable to dismiss them all as “Islamophobic”— that is, as “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam,” as the Council on American Islamic Relationswould have it?

This is the question I often ask myself whenever I read pre-modern writings on Islam. Take that elementary schoolbook hero, Marco Polo and his famous memoirs, for example. By today’s standards, the 13^th century Venetian merchant would be denounced as a rabid “Islamophobe.” For me, however, his writings contain a far more important lesson — one in continuity — and deserve closer scrutiny.

Before examining Polo’s observations, it should be noted that his anthropological accounts are, by and large, objective. Unlikesimplistic explanations that portray him as a prototypical “Orientalist” with an axe to grind against the “Other” — specifically non-whites and non-Christians — in fact, Polo occasionally portrayed the few Christians he encountered in a negative light (such as those of the island of Socotra) and frequently praised non-Christians, including Muslims.

For example, he hails the Brahmins of India as being “most honorable,” possessing a “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons. They are likewise remarkable for the virtue of being satisfied with the possession of one wife (p.298).” He refers to one Muslim leader as governing “with justice” (p.317) and another who “showed himself [to be] a very good lord, and made himself beloved by everybody (p.332).”

That said, Polo clearly had no problem being blunt about Islam (political correctness being nonexistent in the Middle Ages). Whereas he praised the Brahmins for their “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons,” regarding the Muslims of Tauris, (modern day Iraq), he wrote:

According to their doctrine, whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians, are considered as martyrs. If, therefore, they were not prohibited and restrained by the powers who now govern them, they would commit many outrages. These principles are common to all Saracens (p.63).

In fact, based on the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s numerous raiding expeditions, plundering infidels is quite standard in Islam and treated regularly in legal manuals; the Koran has an entire chapter dedicated to and named after plunder (Surat al-Anfal). As for being a martyr simply by dying at the hands of the infidel enemy, this too has ample support in Islam’s texts and enjoys consensus among the ulema. The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary translates shahid (martyr) as “one killed in battle with infidels.”

A more telling anecdote follows: According to Polo, a certain “Achmath” (probably “Ahmed”), one of the few Muslims to have had great influence over Kublai Khan, habitually abused the largely non-Muslim subject peoples without the Khan’s knowledge: he put to death anyone he pleased, robbed them of their possessions, and, most notoriously, he and his sons regularly raped and coerced into concubinage countless women. Due to Achmath’s many atrocities, he was eventually assassinated. When the Khan later discovered the extent of Achmath’s crimes, his

attention [went] to the doctrines of the Sect of the Saracens [i.e., Islam], which excuse every crime, yea, even murder itself, when committed on such as are not of their religion. And seeing that this doctrine had led the accursed Achmath and his sons to act as they did without any sense of guilt, the Khan was led to entertain the greatest disgust and abomination for it. So he summoned the Saracens and prohibited their doing many things which their religion enjoined (p.173).

Of course, crimes against non-Muslim infidels have a doctrinal base and fall within the legal jurisdiction of jihad and its attendant institutions (e.g., dhimma status): war upon and death for non-subjugated infidels is a Koranic mandate (e.g., 8:39, 9:5, 9:29); the sub-human treatment of infidel slaves, particularly women, or, in the Koran’s language, “what your right hand possesses,” is well codified. Little wonder that Muslims like this Achmath — or today’s terrorists — can act “without any sense of guilt.”

(It is significant to note that, in both of Polo’s block quotes above, he criticizes Muslim doctrine — not so much Muslim peoples. In other words, he allows for what would today be called “moderate” Muslims, as shown by his aforementioned praise for individual Muslim leaders.)

Polo also confirms that Muslim leaders have long relied on Muhammad’s account of a lusty paradise to lure young men into becoming “martyrs.” He recounts how the Shia assassins dedicated their lives to assassinating and terrorizing their opponents simply to enter into “paradise, where every species of sensual gratification should be found, in the society of beautiful nymphs” (p.78). (It is further interesting to note that the assassin leader took into his service men primarily between the ages of 12-20 — not unlike Osama bin Laden’s position that Muslim men aged 15-25 are most suited for jihad and martyrdom: The Al Qaeda Reader, p.267.)

Other “Islamophobic” allusions are scattered throughout Polo’s account: the caliph of Baghdad’s “daily thoughts were employed on the means of converting to his religion [Islam] those who resided within his dominions, or, upon their refusal, in forming pretences for putting them to death” (p.59); and Muslims “utterly detest the Christians” (p.316), perhaps in accordance to Koran 60:4 — still cited by today’s Islamists as mandating permanent hatred for non-Muslims.

Here, then, is the problem: If today it is “Islamophobic,” that is, irrational, to claim that Islam advocates war against and subjugation for infidels, permitting the latter to be abused, plundered, and enslaved in the process — what does one make of the fact that, some 700 years ago, the same exact claims were made by our Venetian traveler? Indeed, what does one make of the fact that, centuries before and after Polo, a diverse host of writers — including John of Damascus (d.749) Theophanes the chronicler (d.818), Francis of Assisi (d.1226), Joinville the crusader (d.13^th century), and Manuel the Byzantine emperor (d.1425) — all made the same “Islamophobic” observations about Islam? (The latter’s writings, when merely quoted by the pope, caused an uproar in the Muslim world.) This, of course, is to say nothing of the countless Muslim ulema who regularly affirm that Islam teaches war, subjugation, slavery, and plunder vis-a-vis the infidel, tracing it back to the words of the Koran and Muhammad.

In short, the word “Islamophobia” is a ruse — also permitted in Islam under the doctrine of taqiyya — meant to paralyze all discussion concerning Muslim doctrine; and it has been successful: the United Nations has already presided over a conference titled “Confronting Islamophobia” and a Council of Europe summit condemned “Islamophobia.” Moreover, the influential Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) regularly lambasts the specter of Islamophobia, calling it the “worst form of terrorism,” and publishing two reports on the phenomenon.

Yet, in a classic twist of irony, the opening assertion of the OIC’s first report — “Islamophobia has existed since the time of inception of Islam” — contradicts its entire argument, for it begs the following question: How can something, in this case “unfounded fear of and hostility towards Islam” — to use CAIR’s definition of Islamophobia — be a constant aspect of Islam’s fourteen-hundred year history, and yet still be regarded as “unfounded”?

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

DO YOU THINK WORDS LIKE RACIST AND ISLAMOPHOBE ARE BEING USED TO SILENCE LEGITIMATE CRITICISM OF ISLAM?

90 % voted       “Absolutely”

3 % voted            possibly

7 %  disagree   (as usual, we can guess who they were…)

New Poll:

Should Muslims be allowed to serve in the military, police, judiciary, politics?

Are you an Islamophobe?

Do you suffer from this malady that is the worst form of terrorism?

• Pat Condell has his own, very good definition of it, here…
• Salma Yaqoob Watch: anything to shut you up!
• Bunglawussi Watch: A committee against Islamophobia

Take this simple test. Consult your local Reeducation Camp Supervisor to discuss results. And don’t worry. There is a cure. You, too, can learn to love Big Brother.

“Are You An Islamophobe?,” by Phyllis Chesler in Pajamas Media, August 26, via JW:

Are you an Islamophobe? Here is a simple test.

Lorna Saltzman’s Test

Do you favor equal rights and treatment of women and men?

Do you oppose stoning of women accused of adultery?

Do you favor mandatory education of girls everywhere?

Do you oppose slavery and child prostitution?

Do you support complete freedom of expression and the press?

Do you support the right of an individual to worship in her chosen religion?

Do you oppose government- and mosque-supported anti-Semitic publications, radio, TV and textbooks?

Do you oppose the wearing of burqas in public places, schools and courts?

Do you oppose segregation of the sexes in public places and houses of worship?

Do you oppose the death penalty for non-Muslims and Muslims who convert to another religion?

Do you oppose “honor” killings?

Do you oppose female genital mutilation?

Do you oppose forced sexual relations?

Do you oppose discrimination against homosexuals?

Do you support the right to criticize religion?

Do you oppose polygamy?

Do you oppose child marriage, forced or otherwise?

Do you oppose the quranic mandate to kill non-Muslims and apostates?

Do you oppose the addition of sharia courts to your country’s legal system?

Do you disagree with the quran which asserts the superiority of Islam to all other religions?

If you answered most or all of these affirmatively, you are a vile Islamophobe and deserve to be beheaded as the quran instructs.

If you answered one third or more of them affirmatively, you are a borderline Islamophobe and need to receive brainwashing to become a full-fledged dhimmi.

If you answered a quarter or fewer affirmatively, you need a few private lessons in dhimmitude to scrub yourself clean of those remnants of Islamophobia.

If you answered affirmatively to NONE of these, Congratulations! You are a worthy observant (radical–PC addition) Muslim and have a bright future vilifying Jews, torturing women or, inshallah, becoming a suicide bomber.”

Thank you Lorna for laying it all out.

FYI: Lorna Saltzman has been a environmental writer, lecturer and organizer since the early 1970s and was a candidate for the US Green Party’s presidential nomination in 2004. Her articles on evolution, energy, Green politics and secularism can be found on her website:
www.lornasalzman.com

*  Brigitte Gabriel analyzes this absurd, but very clever word,  which is solely invented to shut down free speech. Islam, as you know, is supposed to be above critique. But those who have gone to great lengths and learned about Islam, learned about the vile, perverted teachings of the Koran & hadith, have long come to understand that an ‘Islamophobe’ is a person who is well informed about Islam and can’t be fooled. An Islamophobe is a person who  knows too much about Islam.

For the past five years, I’ve been traveling the world in an effort to inform people about the threat of radical Islam.  I have often been accused of “hate speech” and “Islamophobia.”  The latest was in an article in the New York Times, where I was described not just as an “Islamophobe,” but a “radical Islamophobe.”  This made me question what those terms really mean.  What is the difference between “hate speech” and “free speech”?  What is “Islamophobia” and who are the true “Islamophobes?”

“Hate speech” verses “free speech” is easy to define.  All over the United States, so-called “progressive” individuals and groups berate the USA and Israel and in the process tell outrageous lies about both countries.  That’s called “free speech.”  When others, including me, tell the truth about the threat of radical Islam, that’s labeled “hate speech” by many of these “progressives.”

But what is “hate speech” and what is “Islamophobia”?  When I describe the threat presented by radical Islam, I quote chapter and verse from the Koran and authoritative classical Islamic sources.  When I describe the worldwide campaign of Islamist hate indoctrination against the West, and the mind-numbing mass violence committed and glorified by radical Islamists, I am relaying facts that have been published by print and electronic media outlets all over the world. Do some of the facts about Islamist supremism manifest “hatefulness?”  Certainly.  

However, it’s not my fault that the truth about Islamist supremacist teachings and edicts is that they promote hate.  I wish they didn’t.  But wishing doesn’t make it so (contrary to the belief of the New York Times).  The Koran explicitly tells Muslims to hate (terrorize, subdue, oppress, and slaughter) the unbeliever until Islam is supreme in the world:  ”Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.’” (Koran 8:12)

The Koran explicitly preaches that Christians and Jews are descended from monkeys and apes.  In the more than 13 centuries since the emergence of Islam, this strict Islamic dogma has never been abrogated, amended or ameliorated.  It is the Koran that is guilty of “hate speech.”  I merely am the messenger exposing this hate.

 Which brings us to “Islamophobia” and “radical Islamophobes.”  According to the dictionary, the suffix “-phobe” comes from the Latin phobos, which means “fearing.”  Do I fear radical Islam?  You bet.  Do any of these locales ring a bell?  London subways.  Madrid train stations.  Bali night clubs.  Beslan elementary school.  They are all locations of horrendous terrorist atrocities committed by radical Islamists, with scores of civilian fatalities and hundreds maimed.  I can name hundreds of other locales, from all over the world.  If fearing radical Islamist terror makes me an “Islamophobe,” then I am an “Islamophobe” in its healthiest manifestation.  In light of recent history, I submit that it would be (at best) foolhardy to be otherwise.

Things get a little more complicated when we get to “Islamophobia.”  The dictionary defines a “phobia” as “an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.”  Anyone who thinks that my fear of radical Islam is “exaggerated,” “inexplicable” and/or “illogical” is invited to take the world terrorism tour referred to in the preceding paragraph, or read my two books, which I submit as evidence from a personal and factual level.  If exaggeration or illogic are required elements in the definition, then my fear of radical Islam is NOT “Islamophobia.” 

If that was not sufficiently complicated, when used as a suffix “-phobia” can include “intolerance or aversion for” the object of the phobia. Am I intolerant of mass murder, justified and glorified in the name of Allah?  Yes, I am.  Do I have an aversion to subway and train bombings?  Yes, I do.  According to that definition, my fear of radical Islam would be “Islamophobia.”  However, if my intolerance of mass murder and my aversion to nightclub bombings makes me a “Islamophobe,” then I submit that my so-called “Islamophobia” is fully justified and logical and therefore not a phobia in the usual sense of the word.

The next question must be: what distinguishes a “radical” Islamophobe from a run-of-the-mill Islamophobe?  Perhaps they should be distinguished by how their Islamphobia affects their behavior.  My “Islamophobia” motivates me to stand up and speak out about the threat of radical Islam.  My “Islamophobia” motivates me to tell-the-truth.  This definitely makes me a “radical.”  Examples of conventional Islamophobes abound.  Their fear of Islam motivates them to censor themselves in the face of Muslim threats and intimidation.

The best-known example is the craven failure of the major American media to stand up for freedom of the press during the Muhammad cartoon controversy.  Anyone who will read this will be familiar with the details.  There was much hand wringing in the media about freedom of speech, but only three newspapers in the United States had the journalistic integrity to print the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish newspaper which originally printed them.[1] Only one newspaper in the United States actually had the integrity to admit that they were not printing the cartoons because of “fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do….”[2]  The rest declined to do so, usually offering as their rationale that the cartoons were “offensive,” and they were being “respectful” of Muslim “sensitivity.”  Approximately two dozen periodicals in 13 European countries ran the Muhammad cartoons, “insisting that they will not allow thugs to decide what a free press can publish.”[3]  

The New York Times itself dutifully reported on various European newspapers printing the Muhammad cartoons in solidarity with and support of the Danish newspaper.[4]  The Timescould have taken the hint and printed the cartoons, but was apparently oblivious to the irony of being taught a lesson in freedom of the press by a bunch of Europeans.  Instead, theTimes’ fear of Islam, its Islamophobia, caused the great Grey Lady of the Fourth Estate, the most respected voice in American print media, to roll over and play dead.  This is dangerous, craven Islamophobia.

And the Times is still playing dead.  It has failed to report adequately on an even more egregious and harmful example of Islamophobia afflicting the American publishing industry.  Random House has just cancelled the publication of a book about one of Muhammad’s wives explicitly because of fear of a violent Muslim reaction.[5]  The major American media outlets, both print and electronic, have absorbed the lessons of the Muhammad cartoon riots, and the Salman Rushdie affair, and the slaughter of Theo Van Gogh, etc., etc.  They are intimidated into silence by their Islamophobia.  They’ve become like slaves, so accustomed to the feel of the lash that they flinch at the mere thought of their master raising his hand.  No one rings the alarm at the Times when a major American publishing house cancels publication of a book because they fear Muslim rioting.

Am I afraid of those Muslims who do not use the Koran as justification for murder and terrorism?  No.  Do I fear radical Islam?  I already admitted that I did.  Maybe that makes me a “radical Islamophobe.”  But am I cowed by my fear of radical Islamists?  Absolutely not.  I will continue to stand up and tell the truth.  Will anyone on the staff of the New York Timesadmit that they fear radical Islam, and they are cowed by their fear?  Almost certainly not.  On the contrary, they would probably protest loudly that the opposite is true.  But their actions, and their editorial policy, speak louder than their protestations.  They are also Islamophobes, but of a different stripe. 

If I were a New York Times Islamophobe instead of a Brigitte Gabriel Islamophobe, I could no longer say I come from the land of the free and the home of the brave.

NOTES:

1 These newspapers are the New York Sun, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Austin American-Statesman. William J. Bennett and Alan M. Dershowitz, “A Failure of the Press”,Washington Post, Thursday, February 23, 2006, page A19,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202010.html

2 The Boston Phoenix, as reported by Jeff Jacoby, “When fear cows the media”, Boston Globe, February 19, 2006, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/19/when_fear_cows_the_media/

3 Jacoby, Id.

4 Alan Cowell, “More European Papers Print Cartoons of Muhammad, Fueling Dispute With Muslims”, New York Times, February 2, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/international/europe/02danish.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

5http://www.randomhouse.com/rhpg/medinaletter.html