Debunking ‘Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week’
Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 9:57 pm
- 12 Comments
Among the vastly exaggerated aspects of “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week,” or IFAW, which debuted nationally this week, is its scope: It is far less eventful than its choreographer, David Horowitz, led us to believe: More and more of the 100 universities he listed on his website as event sites are declaring their noninvolvement.
The University of Minnesota is one of them: The week-long event is neither found on the calendar of events nor has anyone claiming to organize such an event come forward to admit it. Yale and Princeton, among other reputable institutions, have denied having any knowledge of Horowitz’s Islamophobic project.
But that’s hardly the most outrageous part of IFAW. A stated goal of the week is to protest “the silence of feminists over the oppression of women in Islam.” Horowitz, a born-again conservative pundit, instructs his followers to stage sit-ins outside women’s studies departments. Feminists are unobtrusive in the fight against oppressing Muslim women, Horowitz purports.
Another peculiar target is “the academic left.” Horowitz claims that it “has mobilized to create sympathy for the enemy and to fight anyone who rallies Americans to defend themselves.”
The IFAW literature accuses academics of pushing two phony arguments: “First, that George Bush created the war on terror” and, second, “that global warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat.”
Excuse me, but I fail to make a connection between feminists, academics, global warming and radicals who claim to be Muslims. What I see academics doing is untangling the real war on terror from the terror of war — in Iraq.
As intellectual authorities backed by solid scholarship, academics are also warning the world of the impending catastrophe if global warming isn’t addressed conscientiously.
For Horowitz, whose clique in IFAW includes pundit outrageous Ann Coulter and former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., those academics are inseparable from his “Islamo-fascists.”
Clearly, the IFAW’s objective is as confused and misguided as its name suggests. Even President Bush, who briefly flirted with “Islamo-fascism,” has retreated from it, realizing that it’s too dicey. There may be Muslim fascists, but there is no Islamic fascism.
Linking “fascism” with Islam as Horowitz does posits that the faith of over 1.5 billion people around the world is intrinsically totalitarian. That abets the real fanatics who claim to defend the faith from flimsy messages like IFAW’s. Fascism doesn’t quite capture what I think Horowitz should try to tackle, which’s the real danger of fanaticism in all religions.
Horowitz appears to hope that any incendiary remark about Islam and Muslims at this juncture will stick.
But I’m afraid it won’t — at least not on college campuses.
12 Comments
Comment posted October 25, 2007 @ 10:39 am
Hardly seems fair After all, there’s folks arguing — as you do, above — against being aware of Islamofascism 52 weeks of the year; quibbling over giving the other view one week per year hardly seems reasonable.
Linking “fascism” with Islam as Horowitz does posits (sic) that the faith of over 1.5 billion people around the world is intrinsically totalitarian.
Nah. Anymore than criticism of folks like Fred Phelps a slight against the majority of Christians who reject his views.
Granted, Fred Phelps is just a guy, and there are Islamofascist regimes — the Saudi entity comes to mind — so, obviously, Islamofascism is a larger problem than Phelpsiannutsochristianity, but that shouldn’t be any problem for those Muslims who reject Islamofascism — the moderate Muslims who Daniel Pipes insist exist in serious quantities — any more than Phelps’ ravings are a problem for non-nutso Christians.
The difficulty, of course, is that from many outsiders’ views, there are a fair number of false moderate Muslims, and organizations — like the unindicted co-conspirator, CAIR.
Comment posted October 25, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Daniel Pipes a source? It’s loughable at best that you cite Daniel Pipes as a credible source on anything. Don’t know anyone other than Giuliani who takes him seriously.
Oh and I love how you eloquently use Fox News’s/Steve Emerson’s mantra: The “Unindicted co-conspirator.” That must be the grandest fallacy in the justice system’s lexicon.
CAIR aside, the Bush cabal failed, rather miserably, to successfully prosecute the Holy Land foundation after almost 10 years of “evidence.”
Clearly, Islamophopes need new tools to fight. Scare tactic and hate-mongering isn’t going anywhere.
Comment posted October 25, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Now this is REAL funny! Joel, are you talking about this nutcase Pipes who supports Japanese internment during WWII? I heard he also loves a terrorist organization called Mujahedeen-e-Khalk? What does it say about your credibility when you speak so glowingly about a terrorist hugging, Japanese internment gloating bigot?
Do I also see a hint of racism when you respond to Abdi’s posts? Tsk. Tsk.
Comment posted October 25, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Comments Joel R, as you well know, our comment policy asks you to stay on topic and be respectful (that is, refrain from personal attacks). This is your warning.
Comment posted October 26, 2007 @ 8:59 am
Perhaps you do. I don’t know what things that aren’t there that you think you see.
My criticism of Abdi is of his professional chops and insight, not of his skin’s melanin content; I think the latter is just fine.
As to you, I’m sure your accusation of racism — one of those “personal attacks” that so selectively incense Minnie Mon folks – will be dealt with in the, err, traditional way that such things are here at Minnie Mon, when the target is believed to be conservative.
As to your personal attack on Dr. Pipes, I’m sure that will also be dealt with in the, err, traditional way that such things are here at Minnie Mon, when the target is conservative.
Comment posted October 25, 2007 @ 5:39 am
Hardly seems fair After all, there's folks arguing — as you do, above — against being aware of Islamofascism 52 weeks of the year; quibbling over giving the other view one week per year hardly seems reasonable.
Linking “fascism” with Islam as Horowitz does posits (sic) that the faith of over 1.5 billion people around the world is intrinsically totalitarian.
Nah. Anymore than criticism of folks like Fred Phelps a slight against the majority of Christians who reject his views.
Granted, Fred Phelps is just a guy, and there are Islamofascist regimes — the Saudi entity comes to mind — so, obviously, Islamofascism is a larger problem than Phelpsiannutsochristianity, but that shouldn't be any problem for those Muslims who reject Islamofascism — the moderate Muslims who Daniel Pipes insist exist in serious quantities — any more than Phelps' ravings are a problem for non-nutso Christians.
The difficulty, of course, is that from many outsiders' views, there are a fair number of false moderate Muslims, and organizations — like the unindicted co-conspirator, CAIR.
Comment posted October 25, 2007 @ 9:04 am
Daniel Pipes a source? It's loughable at best that you cite Daniel Pipes as a credible source on anything. Don't know anyone other than Giuliani who takes him seriously.
Oh and I love how you eloquently use Fox News's/Steve Emerson's mantra: The “Unindicted co-conspirator.” That must be the grandest fallacy in the justice system's lexicon.
CAIR aside, the Bush cabal failed, rather miserably, to successfully prosecute the Holy Land foundation after almost 10 years of “evidence.”
Clearly, Islamophopes need new tools to fight. Scare tactic and hate-mongering isn't going anywhere.
Comment posted October 25, 2007 @ 10:23 am
Now this is REAL funny! Joel, are you talking about this nutcase Pipes who supports Japanese internment during WWII? I heard he also loves a terrorist organization called Mujahedeen-e-Khalk? What does it say about your credibility when you speak so glowingly about a terrorist hugging, Japanese internment gloating bigot?
Do I also see a hint of racism when you respond to Abdi's posts? Tsk. Tsk.
Comment posted October 25, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Comments Joel R, as you well know, our comment policy asks you to stay on topic and be respectful (that is, refrain from personal attacks). This is your warning.
Comment posted October 26, 2007 @ 3:59 am
Perhaps you do. I don't know what things that aren't there that you think you see.
My criticism of Abdi is of his professional chops and insight, not of his skin's melanin content; I think the latter is just fine.
As to you, I'm sure your accusation of racism — one of those “personal attacks” that so selectively incense Minnie Mon folks – will be dealt with in the, err, traditional way that such things are here at Minnie Mon, when the target is believed to be conservative.
As to your personal attack on Dr. Pipes, I'm sure that will also be dealt with in the, err, traditional way that such things are here at Minnie Mon, when the target is conservative.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
