Saturday, May 24, 2008

White Muslims: Honorary Browns (Part 1)





I have previously discussed in at least two essays on this blog, the popular mantra in the anti-Islam movement, “Islam is not a race”.


For now, I will just adumbrate the facts that make this mantra simplistic and problematic, followed by premises we build upon those facts, which our argument will lead to our conclusion, which will entail the theme of today’s essay. At some later date, I will expand on this with an actual discursive essay.

I. Facts:

1) The vast majority of Muslims worldwide are non-whites (and non-Westerners).

2) The vast majority of patently pernicious Muslims (i.e., known terrorists, terrorist supporters, violent Muslims, supporters of Islamic supremacism, etc.) are non-whites (and non-Westerners).

3) The main reason for #1 and #2 is that Islam in both its historical formation and expansion, as well as in its continuing current expansion, is predominately non-white and non-Western in its demographic complexion as well as in its tapestry of worldwide cultures.

4) During all of its history, Islam has been in an antagonistic relationship with the white West, mostly because of its offensive belligerence against the white West, and all the more so as we approach the present time.

5) The vast majority of Western whites are non-Muslims.

6) Islam as an organization allows people of all races to join.

7) #6 does not vitiate #1-5.

8) The Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist climate, which is dominant and mainstream throughout the West, is heavily biased in favor of an irrational solicitousness for non-whites and non-Westerners coupled with an irrational bias against its own white and Western values.

9) Islam divides Mankind into two populations—one that is superior (Muslims) and the other that is inferior (non-Muslims).

II. Premises:

1) Because of I.8 and I.1-5, then: whenever anybody criticizes Islam and/or Muslims, they are at the very least appearing to be criticizing a non-white aggregate.

2) Because of II.1 and I.8, then: when you criticize a non-white aggregate (like Islam and/or Muslims), you are being “racist”, even when that is not your intent.

3) Because of I.1-5, I.7 and II.1-2, then: Muslims—particularly those engaged in propaganda for Islam—tend to identify themselves in an ethnically particularized sense as non-whites, and therefore in effect, as “Browns”.

4) II.3 tends to become conflated with a politicized anti-Western propaganda, which furthermore becomes particularized as a politicized anti-American propaganda, all of which is assimilated by Muslims in their anti-Western and anti-American propaganda which, of course, has a deeper context of anti-Infidel propaganda unique to Islam.

5) I.9 tends to erect a de facto division of Mankind into two races (whereby in terms of I.8 even non-Muslim Browns are inferior to Muslims:  if they come into conflict with Muslims, non-Muslim Browns are thrown under the bus). Furthermore, in the context of the perennial antagonism between Muslims and the predominately white West, and because of modern propaganda influenced by Western Leftist movements (I.8), I.9 tends to crystallize the two races of Muslims and non-Muslims as the Third World (represented pre-eminently, of course, by Islam) against the white West.


Conclusion from Facts I.1-9 and Premises II.1-5:

When a white Westerner converts to Islam and becomes a Muslim, he in effect joins a trans-national club that makes him an honorary Brown.

To read Part 2, click
here.

2 comments:

Nobody said...

II.2) Because of II.1, then: when you criticize a non-white aggregate (like Islam and/or Muslims), you are being “racist”, even when that is not your intent.

I don't dispute this, but I think the reason one is accused of being 'racist' here is one's race. If one is a White Infidel criticizing a non-White Muslim, the charge is made not only because the target is a non-White, but more because the critic is White. And as I pointed out in our previous discussion on the Serb aspect of this, because the Serbs are considered 'White', the Bosnians/Albanians get sympathized with, despite being White Muslims. Ditto for Chechens & Russians.

Actually, a good litmus test of your theory would be a conflict between non-White Infidels & White Muslims. However, I can't think of any such examples, unlike in the case of the Serbs that I dug up above. UK maybe - like Yvonne Ridley vs Michael Nazir Ali?

Erich said...

nobody,

"II.2) Because of II.1, then: when you criticize a non-white aggregate (like Islam and/or Muslims), you are being “racist”, even when that is not your intent.

I don't dispute this, but I think the reason one is accused of being 'racist' here is one's race."

Your additional wrinkle is already folded into my analysis -- insofar as II.2 refers to II.1, which in turn contains "I.8, juxtaposed with I.1-5", and I.8 stipulated:

"The Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist climate, which is dominant and mainstream throughout the West, is heavily biased in favor of an irrational solicitousness for non-whites and non-Westerners coupled with an irrational bias against its own white and Western values."

The Balkans conflict is a good example as you say. I think the reason the West has favored the Muslims there, most of whom (the indigenous ones of course, not the foreign "radicals" who have come in for trans-national jihad) are "white Muslims", is because the PC MC West tends to favor Browns over Whites. It's part of the grander movement of the post-Colonial West trying to purify itself of its "shameful past".