In presenting his book American Taliban for public consumption, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga claimed that conservative concerns about leftist tolerance for Islamic terrorism are an “extra level of stupid” because “these Islamic fundamentalists subscribe to the very same ideology and values that drive American modern conservatives.” The meme that conservatism is equivalent to Islamic fundamentalism got its first big jump-start in the leftist media and it continues today. On any given day and in all areas of both movement and ‘mainstream” media, one can find radical Islam termed not as “radical Islam” but rather the “conservative” form of Islam. The left is hereby co-opting the term “conservative”, using it to describe both those who murder in the name of Allah and mainstream leaders in America who happen to be politically conservative.
Recently, for example, the New York Times has taken to using the word “conservative” in defining Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Virginia Thomas and pro-life Catholics while also using the term to describe a “student vigilante” in Iran, Islamists in Tunisia who threaten the most basic rights of women, and Islamic bombers in Pakistan.
Using the same word to lump American conservatives in with Islamists? It’s the leftist way.
III. Thou Shalt Keep Holy the Name of Islam
The term “Islamophobia” was first used in media by a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in 1990 to warn that the “Islamophobia” of Soviet leaders might result in an “Islamic explosion“. In other words, if Islam is criticized, there will be violence. In this, it signified a dangerous capitulation to the inherently intolerant system that Islam is. By condemning criticism of Islam, one therein upholds the the precept of the “supremacy” of Islam over all other belief systems. He has become a “dhimmi” by allowing Islam to conquer him internally through “jihad“. In this context, the Islamist can truthfully claim that jihad” is not violent but is rather an “interior struggle”. If one allows himself to be conquered internally by accepting that Islam is supreme and never to be criticized, there is no need, in the mind of an Islamist, for you to be killed. In reality, then, those who criticize Islam are not the “phobic” (fearful) ones. It is the dhimmis of the world who are fearful of Islam.
Conservative talk radio host Dennis Prager has noted that “Islamophobia” is a term that is “brilliant” in its shrewdness as it implies that disagreement with this political/religious ideology is “racist”. The Left has been playing “identity politics” for years, having utterly rejected individualism on such a serious level that they cannot even acknowledge, let alone value, the clear distinction between individuals and ideology. This is dangerous. If one cannot distinguish between “persons” and “ideas”, one might then reason that in order to “kill” an ideology, the people who hold the ideology must themselves be killed. Fascism and Communism, both of which are responsible for the murder of billions of individual persons in recent history, share collectivism as a key element. The Nazi regime and their compatriots tossed Jews into ovens to kill European “Jewry” and Stalin murdered millions of Ukranians in bringing “socialism to the countryside” . Collectivism, which rejects individualism, is the intellectual common ground that Islamists share with fascists and communists.
“Individualism” refers to the “moral worth of the individual“. If I value the “moral worth of the individual”, I will, as a matter of logic, understand that the people who hold to an ideology are not ‘themselves’ the ideology. David Horowitz has noted that justice compels us to warn people about the dangers of any destructive ideology in order to preserve individuals from harm. Warning others about that harm is an act of love, not hatred. It is not representative of fear, but courage.