I realize Sabaditsch-Wolff may be simply deploying rhetorical speech when she asks, "Telling the plain truth about Islam in its own words insults Muslims. How bizarre is that?"
But this situation is not bizarre; it is quite logical, yet complex, composed of the following ingredients:
1) All the aspects of Islam which we find pernicious are considered virtues by Muslims because Muslims have been deformed by Islam. So Muslims themselves are not insulted by the accurate reportage of Islam; they are simply adopting the stance of being offended both because they perceive such reportage to be hostile coming from Unbelievers who according to the Koran are by nature wickedly and perversely hostile to the truths of Islam, and because they perceive a tactical advantage can be exploited by pretending to be "offended".
2) Which brings us to the second ingredient: Alongside the real Islam there has been constructed a Second Islam, an artificial sanitized construct calculated to be acceptable to modern Westerners. The maintenance of this construct, however, is not simple and coherent: it subsists through the pursuit of two tracks:
a) outright lies about Islam in terms of denying facts (e.g., about the beating of wives prescribed in the Koran; about the violent conquest, oppression and abuse by Muslims of nearly all other peoples on earth; about the fanatically harsh laws in Sharia; etc.)
b) a subtler form of sophistry that half-admits, half-denies in the context of a complex tissue of logical fallacies and accuracies.
The dynamic nexus of (a) and (b) is facilitated by a complex dance between Muslim apologists and our sociopolitically dominant PC MCs -- a dance in which the latter partner is being more or less unwittingly duped by the clever tango moves of the former. Muslims are doing this, of course, because they know we are not yet ready to take our Islam without the sweet milk of deceit, straight no chaser -- i.e., Muslims are not yet ready to take off their masks, show their swords, and reveal the true Islam of #1 -- the Islam of which they are proud and love -- because as yet they remain too weak vis-a-vis the stupendously superior West which they are steadily and massively infiltrating.
3) The prevailing sociopolitical culture of PC MC around us unofficially but powerfully defines Muslims as an Ethnic People and Islam as an Ethnic Religion and because of this, accords Muslims and Islam extraordinary deference and protections against the presumed evil inclination of white Westerners to be "bigoted". This PC MC tendency is further augmented by the violent behaviors of Muslims: perversely, the more violently Muslims behave, the more solicitous the PC MCs are towards Muslims.
4) The #3 factor is intertwined with the #2 factor, in that the artificial construct of the Second Islam (the Tolerant Religion of Peace followed by an Ethnic People) is perceived to be the target of criticisms such as those raised by Sabaditsch-Wolff -- and along with that target she is, in their eyes, dangerously tending to condemn all Muslims. As such, the rhetorical speech she deployed can tend to come off as disingenuous to PC MC ears: "Come now," they would say to her, "don't tell us you are merely 'telling the plain truth' about Islam as though you are just neutrally reporting self-evident facts: in fact, you are subtly spinning the complex and diverse tapestry of facts that is Islam and the multitudes of various cultures which define over one billion people from all over the world into an over-simplified demonization of Muslims." And, unfortunately, the defense of the counter-argument against this reflexive reaction by PC MCs becomes mired in a welter of complexity (mostly made up of a complex tissue of logical fallacies intertwined with accuracies and truisms) once it is joined -- though in Sabaditsch-Wolff's case, the PC MCs have opted to try to avoid the discussion and just try to demonize and penalize her.
And in their eyes, they have every good reason to. In their eyes, the situation is urgent, as they see more and more the problem of Islam percolating on the front burner. The perilous potential in their eyes becomes all too clear for the development of "another Hitler" (who, of course, can only be a white Westerner) against these "new Jews" (Muslims, being ethnic, can only be the potential victims, requiring our protection), leading to "another Holocaust" -- unless we stop people like Sabaditsch-Wolff.
Conclusion:
Of course, Sabaditsch-Wolff when she is inspiring a crowd with a speech (as she did yesterday in Luton, England) cannot spell out these intricate factors, and so she went with the rhetorical zinger -- "Telling the plain truth about Islam in its own words insults Muslims. How bizarre is that?" I am not suggesting she should do otherwise; but nothing is stopping her from issuing a written statement on the Internet that fleshes out the fine points of the zinger. Or, I suppose, that's the role of analysts in the still inchoate anti-Islam movement. While the zingers are useful in rallying crowds and keeping the fire of inspiration going, the analysis is necessary too; for, we will not be likely to deconstruct the PC MC paradigm unless we learn its intricate, and often maddening, mechanics.
2 comments:
Hesperado
One thing I found very interesting about Frau Sabaditsch-Wolff from the quoted article:
To make matters worse, in 1912, when Bosnia was incorporated into the Austro-Hungarian empire, my country recognized Islam as an official state religion. The law establishing Islam in Austria is the very same law under which I am being prosecuted.
In other words, a Muslim province which was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire for just 6 years, since Austria lost it in 1918, was enough reason to make Islam an official religion of Austria. Not just a mere recognized religion, but an official one, to boot! This is the same empire that started the 30-year war b'cos some leading people in next door Bohemia wanted to become Protestant. Granted, that was ~300 years earlier.
Not only that, after Austria lost all its territories - including Hungary, it did not look at revising its constitution, w/ the result that a religion that no Austrians followed - either in 1918, nor later in 1945, which was the next opportunity Austria had to redo their constitution after the Anschluss - became one of the official religions, alongside Roman Catholicism (Is Lutheranism one of Austria's state religions? Is Serbian orthodox an official religion? Both of them have a far more legitimate claims to be a longer part of the heritage of former Austrian provinces, if not Austria proper)
And now that comes back to haunt Austria. Where was that legendary Catholic zeal that characterized the Hapsburgs when Austria most needed it?
Nobody,
I caught that too. Over at GOV, I noted:
We can't accuse the 19th century Austro-Hungarian Empire of being PC MC. This is just one example out of thousands why the "Islam is not a religion" meme is unrealistic.
Post a Comment