“Islam is a religion. But “Muslim” is a signifier, and the signified is not your reassuringly white neighbour. Let’s dispense with the disingenuous distinctions of Muslim-baiters and see their xenophobia for what it is—racism in another guise.” Dr. Dawg
What a silly position.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”
The Dawg wants xenophobia to be racism (which is, presumptively, just so damned evil). And he deems Islam to be a religion which, amazingly, is the only racialized religion on the planet. (Oh, and by the way, in other contexts, race is simply a social construct which, I suppose, allows it to be applied, like whitewash, to any instance where it might be useful.)
Now a reasonable person might query, “Why does Dawg want Islam to be a race?” What is useful about converting a religion into a race? How does this assist our understanding of that thing? Or, cynically, is racializing Islam designed as a last ditch attempt to prevent us from understanding that thing?
Here is a suggestion. Try running the argument that Islam is only superficially a religion; scratch the surface and you find a political ideology as fully elaborated as conservatism, liberalism, socialism or fascism. Rather than trying to fit up Islam as a race – which either does damage to Islam or to the common sense idea of race – why not pay attention to its distinctly political elements.
Do races have “law”? Islam does. Do races have a singular position on the Jews? Islam does. Do races have specific views of homosexuality? Islam does. Do races have injunctions as to how to treat non-members? Islam does. Do races have strictures as to how to treat women? Islam does. Do races proselytize? Islam does.
One may be xenophobic or racist with respect to an actual race; but rejecting a political ideology is neither. It may be prudent. It may preserve political positions which are the basis of our society and culture; but it cannot be racist.
For the “progressive” left the defence of Islam should be a deep and enduring embarrassment. Every progressive principle, from basic human equality, feminism, anti-discrimination, anti-slavery, anti-imperialism is violated repeatedly and doctrinally by Islam.
Yet you excuse it. You accuse people who want to fight the evil politics of Islam of the very worst of progressive sins: racism. Because, for some reason, you seem convinced that it is somehow your duty to welcome the agents of your own destruction to your own country and culture. You have this weird need to prostrate yourselves before a politics of brutality, conquest, rape and subjugation.
You’ll have to excuse me if I can’t join you in your political and cultural surrender.
Hmmm. Suppose we use the term “bigot” instead of racist, and “bigotry” instead of “racism? That would relieve you of the need to avoid the real point through this tiresome pedantry.
I really really don’t like a culture and religion that encourages men to beat their women. Am I a bigot?
Well that would be more accurate and avoid the phoney “Islam is a race.” thing. But it would deprive the lefties of the capacity the whine “racist” by way of virtue signalling. And it would mean that the question of whether or not there are reasonable grounds to disapprove of Islam.
Saying that you don’t see Islam as anything but a political ideology and that its practices are inimicable to Western liberal traditions are statements of fact. Those facts can be disputed but merely holding them, especially if youyou have done your research, is not properly called bigotry.
True, a statement that “you don’t see Islam as etc….” is, in fact, a statement of fact, and an admirable admission of ideological myopia.
“Yet you excuse it. You accuse people who want to fight the evil politics of Islam of the very worst of progressive sins: racism. Because, for some reason, you seem convinced that it is somehow your duty to welcome the agents of your own destruction to your own country and culture. You have this weird need to prostrate yourselves before a politics of brutality, conquest, rape and subjugation.”
1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. For many modern lefties, Western civilization and more specifically Judeo-Christian civilization is evil and must be destroyed.
2. The fact is, the vast majority of muslims in the world aren’t pale-skinned Europeans, this automatically makes them sacrosanct conveyors of truth in modern leftist eyes and excuses them from all sin. Reverse racism if you will.
A religion invented to go to war.
A religion invented to bring peace.
You chose. Personally I don’t have a religion, I just like to point out that some unwashed guy in the desert hit upon the right tone to convince his fellow unwashed folks that if they listened to his “god” then they could fight and win, and maybe take the loot and booty too! I don’t recall any military campaigns under Jesus though.
Nor is there any creed in Christianity that demands:
Sounds more like politics than religion to me.
Political correctness is a 50-50 sort of proposition — it is political, but it is not correct.