2008: Stealth Jihad: Embracing Dhimmihood / Robert Spencer

This is another important excerpt from the new book Stealth Jihad by Robert Spencer. It consists of excerpts from chapter 4, on the subject of how reporters, scholars, and thinkers around the world are frightened by the threat of punishment or death by Islamicists, and fail to study the religion’s serious problems.

One of the interesting examples is that of Lawrence O’Donnell, Jr., news commentator discussing the recent Mountain Meadows Massacre movie that was very hard on Joseph Smith the Latter-day Saints. I listened to an interview several days later on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, where he was asked by Hugh whether would make similar statements about Islamic terrorists. He said he would not dare to do so, because he may pay with his life at the hands of Muslims, whereas the Mormons are completely harmless.

This is one of MANY reasons why LDS Public Affairs people and scholars trying to draw similarities between Mormons and Muslims are seriously mistaken.

See the Robert Spencer book on Amazon.com at this link.

Thanks very much,

Steve St.Clair

Stealth Jihad
Chapter 4
Embracing Dhimmihood

Even if stealth jihadists do not employ or publicly endorse vio­lence themselves, they know that physical attacks are effective in stifling opposition to their agenda. And of course, violence against Islam’s critics is not, by any means, confined to Islamic countries. Such attacks are frequently carried out in the West, resulting in self-censorship by Westerners on topics related to Islam. This ever-present fear makes Western commentators and media figures much less resistant to the adoption of formal blasphemy laws.

The most brutally efficient way to get rid of critics, of course, is through murder. An Islamic supremacist killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street in 2004 in revenge for van Gogh’s film criticizing the mistreatment of women in Islam. Sim­ilarly, the artists who drew the Danish Muhammad cartoons in 2005 received numerous death threats, and some were forced into hiding. As recently as February 2008, Danish authorities arrested two Tunisians for plotting to strangle to death one of the car­toonists, seventy-four-year-old Kurt Westergaard. 26

Violence works. When free speech advocates called upon news­papers in Europe and America to reprint the Muhammad car­ toons as a reaffirmation of free expression, nearly all refused. Many editors and publishers professed a newly-found respect for religion that they had never shown when a crucifix dipped in urine and a dung-encrusted portrait of the Virgin Mary were publicly displayed as works of art. That strange new deference clearly had other derivations: most Christians, of course, are not in the habit of attacking and killing people to avenge insults to their faith.

Violence against Western “blasphemers” of Islam has been part of the public landscape at least since 1989, when the Ayatollah Khomeini called for the murder of Salman Rushdie after he pub­lished a book that Khomeini deemed “blasphemous to Islam.” Rushdie is still alive today, but Iran never rescinded the fatwa on his head. Although he spent a decade in hiding, Rushdie must be considered lucky—one of his translators was murdered and sev­eral others attacked.

The death sentence passed on Rushdie elicited shock and revul­sion in the West when it was first publicized. But today, nearly twenty years later, all too many Westerners placidly acknowledge violence as an acceptable element of the cultural landscape. When the Swedish artist Lars Vilks drew Muhammad as a dog in 2007 as a gesture in defense of artistic freedom, al Qaeda put a $100,000 bounty on his head. Incredibly, CNN’s Paula Newton reacted by condemning Vilks, arguing that he “should have known better because of what happened in Denmark in 2005, when a cartoonist’s depictions of the prophet sparked violent protests in the Muslim world and prompted death threats against that cartoonist’s life.” She registered no such disapproval of those who actually issued the threats.27

The same dynamic of fear was exhibited by Lawrence O’Don­nell, Jr., MSNBC’s senior political analyst and a panelist on The McLaughlin Group, who gained national attention late in 2007 for an emotional attack on Mormonism. Radio host Hugh Hewitt asked him, “Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?” In reply O’Donnell expressed with unusual candor what many other journalists were undoubt­edly thinking: “Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the … that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.”28

John Voll, associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown Uni­versity, also seemed quite ready to condemn those who insulted Muslims—while raising no complaint against Muslims who engaged in violent threats and intimidation. In May 2008 in the Netherlands, the Iranian avant-garde artist Sooreh Hera exhibited a series of photographs that included depictions of Muhammad and his son-in-law Ali, the hero of Shi’ite Islam, in provocative homosexual poses. Death threats followed, forcing the cancella­tion of the exhibition. Hera’s “art” might justly have been deplored or condemned, but that was no justification for threat­ening her life. Still, Voll chided her for provoking the threats. “Can you imagine,” he asked, “what would happen if John McCain used the n-word about Obama while campaigning? There are consequences. Free speech is not absolute.”

Yet if McCain really had done such a thing, he probably wouldn’t have been killed or even threatened with death. The con­sequences would have been condemnation and electoral defeat. Voll, however, went farther, essentially suggesting that threats of violence in such circumstances were perfectly justifiable.29

The violence unleashed by Muslims throughout the world in response to perceived Western slights of their religion has softened up Western cultural elites, making them more conducive to accept the limits on free speech demanded by Islamic diplomats. Indeed, with commentators such as Lawrence O’Donnell, Jr., already cen­soring themselves out of fear, the adoption of international con­ventions outlawing blasphemy of Islam would just legally enshrine restrictions that many frightened Westerners already observe. With potential critics intimidated into silence by the knowledge that voicing their concerns about Islam will likely result in ostracism on charges of “bigotry” at best or physical violence at worst, very few commentators are left who are willing to stand up publicly to the full scope of the jihadists’ efforts.



Filed under Radical Islam

2 responses to “2008: Stealth Jihad: Embracing Dhimmihood / Robert Spencer

  1. Kathleen

    It is very different, what happened at the Meadows–not a religiousmassacre. There are two video’s on You Tube called ”The Navaho trailof tears. Jacob Hamblin was considered a Prophet by them and agreat war leader.Some 200- Navahos died in a forced march. They were denuded if notraped and the food promised them was not delivered. Jacob Hamblin or some previous prophet kept his followers to the highlands where 1,000 of themresisted and survived.The Massacre happened in his door yard while he was at a council up North. While noone was more pleasedby the monument and memorial, theapology than my diseased grandparents, the cause of Hostilities was basically that the Mormons veered from the Federal Government’s Genocidal policyof extermination of the Indians.What shocked and still shocks is that White people would side withBlack Indians against their ownpeople. People that many of themhad attempted Genocide against.There were many dead. The Mormons of 1857 were Europeans, in the mainwith the survivors of the earlyGenocides being sent South, taking up a position there because of their 20-30 years of being floggedand driven into malarial swamps with few tents or covering.Their mistake was in taking unauthorized action against theimmigrant trains. It was a long way to California–no reason to act without orders except for theirPT Stress and the drunken boasts and threats of a small Missouri Militia.Pride cometh before a fall, and theFanchers were convinced by their experienced guides not to get theproper paperwork for anything theyneeded to complete their journey.This puzzles me. They had a hundred and fifty head of cattle.What was it that they needed so much that they couldn’t leave Mormon Country?

  2. Kathleen

    Errata: 2000 Navaho Women, old men and children died in a series of forced marches. This was about 7years after the Massacre at MountainMeadows. Jesse James was sent to manage the Genocide–known as an ardent participant in the Percution of the Mormons, just as Buchannonsent Squaw Killer Harney to Utahin the first year of the Utah War.He reached Fort Bridger famished,he had lost so many provision and stock. Fresh troops were sent the next year. September Dawn was not only sloppy, it left out nearly allcontext. Easier to pass the Massacre off to the mysterious dark side of Human Nature and Religious hatred than to tackle the complexity of 1857-8, not only here, but in Europe.h

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s