Author: Admin

Track2Training for students. Learn more on https://track2training.com

Islam and its Denial. Part I

The inability to face the Islamic threat, indeed, the outright whitewashing of Islam, has striking similarities with past difficulties coming to grips with the nature and threat of Communism. During the first thirty years of Communism, from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 to Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech of 1947, social democrats refused to face the stark evilness of Communism. Seen as a brave “social experiment” to engineer a new human nature devoid of “selfish” impulses, the left denied, apologized, diminished, trivialized, or otherwise excused the Soviet catastrophe.

Few social democrats or left-liberals were immune to the collectivist dream, one that turned into a nightmare in Russia and eventually China, Cambodia, etc. Even that most respected of American intellectuals, John Dewey, went through a sympathetic period in the late 20s but come to his senses and spearheaded a critical examination by the mid 30s. Both The New Republic and The Nation downplayed the problems of International Communism during the whole decade of the 1930s – the “Red Decade”.

Today, Islam is new to most people in the West, and we are going through a similar denial stage. Only this time the denial is on the left and the right. The left dismisses the threat of Islam as a mere epiphenomena reflecting what they see as the underlying dynamics of American empire and oppression. On the left, there is sympathy of our Islamist enemy even if the religious form is seen as an unfortunate by-product. I’ve written about this in detail here and here.

The right has a hard time believing a religion can be bad – especially the ecumenical intellectual conservatives who dominate the main venues of conservative discourse. Fresh from victory in the Cold War, where they see Godless Communism defeated by the Judeo-Christian West, they are unprepared for the threat of a super-religion. How could trust in God lead one astray? I’ve discuss the conservative’s mistake here.

Currently, I’m reviewing the denial phase during the rise of Communism. I suspect the parallels will be revealing. I’d appreciate references on this period. Leave a comment or e-mail your suggestions

Bat Ye'or on C-Span

Bat Ye’or, on a C-Span rebroadcast, discussed the ominous rise of Islam in Europe and her latest book on the subject: Eurabia. This brave woman has written on Islamic history and the Islamic threat for over 3 decades.

Because of the taboo (and laws in some cases) against being critical of Islam, Europe lacks intellectual leadership. Ye’or mentioned in the Q&A, that a proper understanding of the problem must be differentiated from a xenophobic attack on the demographic group, which includes moderate assimilated Muslims. Without discussion and proper intellectual leadership, there will be an inadequate understanding of the threat of Islam by both those who dismiss it and those who distort it.

This is a woman who talks calmly, patiently, clearly and forcefully – all in the face of an unresponsive and hostile culture that doesn’t want to take its head out of the sand. The dignity of this woman is inspiring. If the C-Span broadcast is repeated, don’t miss it.

Her website: dhimmitude.org. Unfortunately, I missed her talk at Columbia University.

Have you read Das Kapital or …

Have you read the Koran?

Muslims, who lie on principle (taqiyya), will insist you can only understand Islam by reading the Koran. After you read it in English, you’ll be told you can only understand it by reading it in Arabic. If you learn Modern Arab, you’ll still be hampered as the Koran is written in Classical Arabic. Of course, all this is bull just to intimidate you to accept the party line. After all, was it unfair to be critical of Nazism without reading Mein Kampf in German? Or should you ignore the 100 million that have died under communism because you didn’t read Das Kapital?

The Koran actually isn’t hard to understand. Amber Pawlik systematically analyzes the Koran and subjects it to a scientific analysis (over here). Half of the verses of the Koran are vitriol against the Infidels. Most of the rest is about Allah, believers and the judgment day. Only about 5% concerns itself with ethics for living this life.

Pawlik illustrates how you can sample the Koran and get a representative picture that continues to holds with further study. Thus, you can verify her results without spending years and years of worthless study. After all, we’re not talking about some esoteric detail; we’re talking about the general tenor and message of the religion.

Here are some super quotes from Amber:

“In order to judge Islam, I did what most Islam apologists and most Muslims (many of whom are illiterate) did not do: I read the Koran.”

“There is no moral system outlined in the Koran – with the exception of allowing men to beat their wives, sleep with their slaves, and there is an occasional, ‘give to the poor.’ There certainly is no unequivocal ‘Do not kill’; ‘Do not steal’; or ‘Do not lie,’ let alone any other insight into how to behave properly as a human being. Most of the ‘moral’ guidance given in the Koran is not a restraint on humans but permission to do what they want – mostly for men to do what they want.” … “Indeed, the Koran gives men full right to have sex with female slaves and their allotted four wives.”

“What has a tendency to shock most people about Islam and the Koran is its belief in predestination … the Koran says that it is Allah who causes people to believe or not believe.” … “Almost the entire Koran is dedicated to delegating to infidels an inferior status. They are called blind, stupid and ignorant. No proof is given of why they should believe.” … “All of this sets up for what the Koran, at heart, is: one long battle cry against infidels.” … “Muslims are taught to wage war on nonbelievers. It is written in plain language. Muslims are to fight until nonbelievers convert or pay alms. All else are to be killed.” “Everything about Islam prepares its people to be fighters. It riles them with hatred. It prods them to fight.”

“The terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001 did not do so in the name of their country or for any demand, such as money or land: they did it openly and proudly in the name of Islam. They were not misguided; they were in every way Islamic.“ … “Islam is a fighting ideology with an uncanny hatred for those who don’t believe as they do. But don’t take my word for it. Please, by all means, read the Koran for yourself.”

Read her whole report and analysis. If you are still in doubt put the Koran to the test yourself. It’s not that hard. It’s easier than reading Das Kapital … in English!

Dogma and relativism: the method to their madness.

Socialism failed. It wasn’t a close runner-up to capitalism, it was a massive and catastrophic failure in proportion to the degree it was practiced everywhere it was tried. The failure was understood, explained, and documented. Those who wished to continue the dream were unable to continue the pretense of a “scientific socialism” rooted in reality but instead had to dispense with reason, push aside science, and evade reality. 11 Indeed, reality is the enemy and reason is the enemy’s tool. Only relativism and subjectivism can support the dream. But what supports relativism and subjectivism? The history of philosophy! “Postmodernism is a result of using skeptical epistemology to justify the personal leap of faith necessary to continue believing in socialism.” 12
The slightest familiarity with the far left shows a ruthless adherence to dogma and an abhorrence of traditional Western values. This is hardly the signs of a doubtful skeptic. Prof. Hicks argues, successfully in my opinion, that the skepticism is selectively invoked only to undermine the remaining elements of the liberal Enlightenment order. America, the symbol of that liberal order and most powerful country on earth, must be opposed by any means necessary. That means denigrating “truth” (generally put in quotes by postmodern detractors), championing any powerless group as noble victims, and consciously embracing whatever lie one can get away with. “[S]ociety is a battle of competing wills, that words are merely tools in the power struggle for dominance.” 13 Thus, postmodernism “justifies using language not as a vehicle for seeking truth but as a rhetorical weapon in the continuing battle against capitalism.” 14
With Prof. Hicks’ analysis, the events of the past two years become intelligible. We are actually witnessing the most vicious embrace of anti-American propaganda during wartime; with the sole purpose of demoralizing and defeating our war effort. This is not the loyal opposition; the concern is not prudence and effectiveness. This is fundamental attack on the soul and character of America. To the left, America is the enemy – a “rogue nation”. The sin of America is capitalism and it is that intrinsic evil that compels America to commit atrocities around the world. And the left’s denial of this duplicity is just part of the New Lie. All dissent is honorable and should be respected according to this trope, even as it viciously attacks American values.
The New Lie is not identical to the Big Lie practiced by the Nazis. It goes beyond that. The Nazi practice consisted of the continual repetition of a falsehood while pretending it is obviously true. The New Lie boldly puts forth a falsehood but without hiding that fact. Thus, there is no longer any embarrassment in contradictions; say whatever you think you can get away with and if that doesn’t work try something else. Show indifference to inconvenient evidence. However, if it is obvious that you’re caught in a lie, deny that truth is possible. The litmus test is “if it hurts the powerful, it’s right; if it hurts America, it is just.”
Remember that the classical liberal mindset holds reason and reality to be important. This leads to the virtues of rational argumentation and the reliance of supporting evidence. Postmodernists discard the concept of truth and thus need to prove nothing. They need only insert arbitrary and unwarranted doubt. They seek to establish nothing but only to annihilate. The use of rhetorical spam and arbitrary statements are merely dialectical trash thrown in the path of all rational persons of good-will in the hopes you may stumble or that you may become worn down jumping these hurdles. With a continue barrage of baseless accusations, piles of irrelevant details, and empty moral posturing, the hope is to undermine morale and induce cynicism. The goal is to destroy, destroy, destroy.
Where does this leave us? First of all, the arbitrary doesn’t need to be addressed. Unless a statement or the assumptions of a question are based on reality and motivated by substantial considerations, they do not deserve cognitive status. They are no different than the sounds of a parrot, and should be summarily dismissed. The very stance of the left – i.e. that truth is a fiction – makes any further dialog a farce. Now one might ask: have we not been silly to dignify the empty and deceitful posturing of the left? Perhaps. But even with a parrot, there may be someone else in the room that says: “hey, what about that?” To which you may reply, it is only a parrot – ignore it.

Academia’s latest fashion: postmodern irrationalism.

Deception has had its proponents in the past. In the “Republic,” Plato made an exception for a “noble lie” in the service of the collective good. Machiavelli left out the “noble” part. However, these moments are footnotes in history. Truth was power, it was believed, or for those less sanguine, duty. Today, however, there is a complete and unabashed acceptance of lies, deception, and irrationality, and without any fear to one’s reputation. Columnists, politicians, academics – all regurgitate the party line without embarrassment or fear to their careers. Just the opposite, Moore has demonstrated you can make millions and stay in the spotlight by popularizing the New Lie. It’s the latest in leftist fashion, and it’s hot off the academic runway.
To the average American it still seems incredible that intellectuals and writers could be doing what we think they are doing: embracing lies on principle. How can they justify this? This is a story that unfolds behind the walls of academia, slowly simmering for some time, and finally reaching a boil in a self-consciously anti-rational creed that’s sweeping our colleges and universities: Postmodernism. This snake-oil unleashes the inhibitions that limit deception and underwrites the policy of the lie. Stephen R. C. Hicks2 has written a scathing expose called “Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault.” To appreciate the story we have to step back a few centuries and see how this descent has unfolded.
It was during the 18th century Enlightenment that reason reaches the pinnacle of respect in modern times. Flush with confidence that reason could make sense of reality and mediate human contentions, men of the Enlightenment embrace reason as the key to knowledge and human well being. There is a profound sense of optimism and confidence that the power of reason can conquer ignorance, superstition, bigotry, strife and suffering. The founding of America is suffused with the spirit of the Enlightenment. England’s benign neglect allows the colonialists to order their affairs guided by the philosophical spirit of the times and when that tolerance wanes we confidently create a new nation.
On the European Continent, the Enlightenment spirit, exemplified by Diderot, Voltaire, and Montesquieu, would soon be eclipsed by the most influential of all: Jean-Jacques Rousseau. By attacking key planks of the liberal paradigm, he effectively launches the Counter-Enlightenment. Rousseau disparages civilization as a corrupting influence, charges that rational progress undermines morality, and damns private property as socially destructive. Reason and progress, in his view, brings inequities, oppression, insensitivity, superficiality, and degeneration. Science, he declares, is “vain curiosity” harmful to society. Rousseau’s collectivism – submission to the general will, by force if necessary – is an inspiration to the Jacobin fraction of the French Revolution. 3
The Enlightenment’s nominal defenders often did more damage than its detractors. In one way or another both Rationalists and Empiricists took the primary object of awareness as mental in nature. This made reality inferential and empirical knowledge problematic. Since the purpose of knowledge is to grasp objective reality, the philosophers’ flawed formulations of reason’s ability to achieve certainty in this matter lead to the skepticism. Kant, however, saw this analysis as an opportunity. The mind, according to Kant is what gives the properties and regularities we previously associated with the object-in-itself. Thus, it is consciousness itself that contributes the important properties of our experience. As Hicks writes, “Kant’s significance in the history of philosophy is that he absorbed the lessons of the rationalists and empiricists and, agreeing with the central assumptions of both sides, transformed radically the terms of the relationship between reason and reality.” 4
The assault on reason accelerates through out the 19th century. Hegel explicitly embraces contradictions and identifies consciousness with object. Kierkegaard learns “to relinquish his understanding and his thinking, and to keep his soul fixed upon the absurd.” 5 In the 20th century, Heidegger finds that “[t]he entire Western tradition of philosophy – whether Platonic, Aristotelian, Lockean, or Cartesian – based as it is on the law of non-contradiction and the subject/object distinction, is the enemy to be overcome.” 6 Postmodernists will even surpass Heidegger and abandon metaphysics and truth all together.
The Anglo-American analytical tradition never seriously challenges the Kantian turn. Instead we see the reduction of reason to the merely formal, conventional, tautological, or nominal. The emaciation of rationalism to an internal tool of mental housekeeping underscores the divorce of reason from reality and removes it as a tool of scientific truth. Ayer announces that “the principles of logic and mathematics are true universally simply because we never allow them to be anything else.” 7 “By the 1950s, these conclusions were commonplace. Language and logic were seen as conventional, internal systems – and not as objective, reality-based tools of consciousness.” 8 “Consequently, by the 1960s, the pro-objectivity, pro-science spirit had collapsed in the Anglo-American tradition.” 9 Rorty concludes “’[t]he nature of truth’ is an unprofitable topic.” 10
The combined effect of the direct assault on reason by continental irrationalists and the trivialization of reason by nominal proponents of the analytical tradition set the stage for the overt and belligerent anti-realist, subjectivist, and nihilistic postmodern movement. But why have these academic foundational issues become so important to the modern left? It is here that Hicks provides a powerful and compelling narrative.

The left’s intellectual disintegration

There used to be a time when the left proudly carried the banner of reason and science; and disdainfully viewed religion as a superstition or at best an antiquated myth. In the name of science they advanced an agenda on several fronts. In economics, central planning was described as a rational systematic alternative to the chaotic free-for-all of the market. In human relations, what was previously viewed as a moral failing was now a condition amenable to social engineering. Social science, we were assured there was such a thing, would provide the guidance and justification for the socialistic regulations required for a better world. To maintain this stance, left-wing intellectuals felt compelled to provide substantiation, evidence, and rational arguments. That time has long since past.
The façade of science is gone – reality stubbornly refused to go along. Socialism was a glaring failure that brought poverty, misery, and wholesale death. Yet, despite this, the dream remains. The left seems strangely indifferent to evidence that undermines their worldview. Communism was responsible for over 100 million deaths and the enslavement of over 1 billion more. But on the left, this hasn’t hurt the popularity of communism’s remaining standard-bearer: Fidel Castro.
Rational debate no longer exists among the vanguard of today’s left. Exposing a flawed argument engenders few signs of discomfort. Contradictions curiously fail to perturb in the slightest the left’s steadfast adherence to fixed doctrine. For example, America and Britain are singularly condemned for the sins of slavery as if it were unique to our history or a particularly egregious example. However, it was Anglo-American tradition of individual liberty which is exceptional in history, not the remnants of slavery which existed everywhere and through out history. Islam, which invented the race-based slave trade centuries before America’s discovery, condemned people to slavery from Africa, India, and Europe, exceeding the British slave trade by orders of magnitude. And it was the West that led the abolitionist movement worldwide. But the left shrugs. All of this is deemed irrelevant since in absolute terms the West’s history remains blemished.
Not only is evidence summarily dismissed, but what spews forth often has little relation to the subject matter. By being barraged by “rhetorical spam” the listener is overwhelmed with dubious claims in the hope that something will stick. No shame accompanies wrong, arbitrary, or ridiculous statements. This technique was ubiquitous in response to recent military actions in Iraq. For example, every major intelligence agency, including France, Germany and Russia, incorrectly believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Yet, leftists continually repeated the mantra that Bush is a liar. On top of that, they yammer about Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam, Iraqis getting bio-agents from “us”, and nefarious neocon Zionist conspiracies. It becomes impossible to have an intelligent discussion under these circumstances.
Not surprisingly, civil and reasonable discussions are now the exceptions. The far left is reduced to chanting: racist imperialist war-mongering America. No they won’t say they hate America – they realize you can’t say that yet. But are we to believe that imperialist, racist, and war-mongering describe a country one could love? Of course not, but apparently most imagine a confession is required before you can point to the obvious conclusion.

Introductory Articles on the Web:

Philip Carl Salzman discusses the tribal roots of Islam in his article in The Middle East Quarterly. He shows many of the cultural conditions that influenced the formation of this religious political ideology are still operative today. These include tribalism and its distinctive honor dynamics; conquests, domination, and the need to humiliate; warmongering and seeking validation in military victory.
Professor Moshe Sharon, a scholar of Islamic history, presents a frightening description of the worldview of Islam in: “The Agenda of Islam – A War Between Civilizations”.

This article, “ Islam Warriors Looking For Saladin” describes the origin and early development of Jihad. Non-Muslims find it hard to imagine the importance of such distant history. Muslims, however, talk as if events like the Crusades happened yesterday. Indeed, Shiites and Sunnis still feud over the rightful successor to Muhammad! Thus, it is critical to understand Muhammad and the first few centuries of Islamic conquests if we are to understand the Islamic threat.

It is not only the “Crusader” West that has suffered the wrath of Islam. This article gives a brief description of the horrific Islamic invasions and conquests of India: “ Islam’s Other Victims: India.” For information about the Islamic concept of Jihad read “ Spread By The Sword,” “The Global Jihad,” and “Islam’s Imperial Dreams.” The prolific writer and scholar, Daniel Pipes comments on the propaganda in academia aimed at hiding the real meaning of the word Jihad in “ Harvard Loves Jihad.”

Islamism’s antipathy to the Western liberal democratic tradition and the rational secular worldview should be obvious. Yet, there is a dearth of insightful commentary on this matter. One notable exception, available online, is “ The War against Modernity”. The author, philosopher David Kelly, contrasts the Enlightenment worldview with the mindset of Islam (and religion in general). He writes, “The West may still be a culture of Christians, by and large, but it is not a Christian culture anymore. It is a secular culture. And that is what the Islamists hate most about us.” Kelly makes other subtle and valuable points in this important article.

How were we so blind to the events that led to 9/11? Most writers focus on the government’s failure. But it goes much deeper. For over 20 years experts on the Middle East have been willfully blinded by our academics. No one has done more to expose this treachery than Martin Kramer. His book, “Ivy Towers in the Sand”, is a classic expose of the bogus academic research of left-wing post-colonial propagandists that dominate the Middle East studies departments in today’s universities. To get a sample of his analysis read “ Islam Obscured”. Kramer shows that our intellectuals purposely blinded us to the threat of Islamism and the chief propagandist taught just 8 miles north of Ground Zero.

“Islam is a totalitarian ideology that aims to control the religious, social, and political life of mankind in all its aspects.” This is the first statement of Ibn Warraq’s forward to “The Myth of Islamic Tolerance” edited by Robert Spencer. Warraq shows how the myth developed in the West and what purpose it served those who propagated this lie. The romantic fantasy of the “noble savage,” the relative ignorance of Islam, the selective focus on an atypical time and place, the willful evasion of evidence of Islamic barbarity – all themes covered in just the forward. Then read the rest of the book!

Bruce Bawer, in “The Crisis in Europe,” explains the threat of Islam to European civilization.
For the role of Islam in terrorism see “The Terrorists’ Motivation: Islam” by Edwin A. Locke and Alex Epstein. Also see my article “Root Cause.”

Finally, I’ve written extensively on my blog on various aspects of the Islamic threat that weren’t fully covered by other authors. I index those articles via hyperlinks in my summary essay.

References on Islam

The contemporary literature on Islam is rife with ideological and religious bias. It is difficult to wade through the mountain of books on Islam and get to the truth. In the last several decades, the newly created Mid-East Studies departments of American universities are dominated by multi-culturalism and post-modern political ideologues. The vast output from academia – virtually all pro-Islamic propaganda – is completely useless with a few rare exceptions. Today, true scholars and objective writers exist either outside of the academy or in other departments. We must look to these brave few who are willing to stand up for the truth.

I highly recommend Ibn Warraq’s “Why I Am Not A Muslim”. Raised as a Muslim, Warraq now lives in the West and is an outspoken critic of Islam. He has a secular humanist approach. The name of the book is deliberately similar to Bertrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not A Christian”. Since the punishment for Islamic apostasy is death, he, like many other ex-Muslims, uses a pseudonym. There are several informative websites run by ex-Muslims: Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society, Ali Sina’s Faith Freedom, Apostates Of Islam.

Robert Spencer’s, “Islam Unveiled”, is an excellent book for people knowledgeable about Christianity. He contrasts these two religions – a very effective way to get a sense of the magnitude of Islam’s inherent flaws. See his website: Jihad Watch.
Serge Trifkovic’s, “The Sword of the Prophet,” reviews the full bloody history of Islam with a no-holds-barred approach. Read, for example, the horrific Muslim invasion of India. Historians have described it as the bloodiest atrocity prior to the 20th century. Remember, Hindus and Buddhists do not practice a “religion of the book”; strict Islam requires their conversion or death. Read his interview.
Bat Ye’or’s, “ Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide,” gives a voice to the suffering of non-Muslims forced to live under oppressive Islamic rule. Bat Ye’or, a leading Islamic scholar, rejects Islamic mythology in favor of sound historical analysis. Her website is an excellent source of information on Islam: Dhimmitude.
The above are excellent introductory books. For more indepth studies see Andrew Bostom, Bruce Bawer, Paul Sperry, Steven Emerson, and Sam Harris.

The limitations of Horowitz’ book.

There are several shortcoming with Horowitz’ analysis. Horowitz fails to come to grips with the underlying problem of Islam. While the influence of 20th century totalitarianism is an important influence on the Islamic Revival, there is little discussion of Islam proper. Is Islam itself a problem? Is Islam susceptible to the influence of secular totalitarianism and a ready receptacle of the worst collectivist ideas and practices? Or has Islam gone astray in a failed attempt a modernization during the heyday of fascism and communism? I suspect Horowitz isn’t sure given the debate on his website, frontpagemag.com, between critics of Islam and defenders of reform. His book leaves the impression that Islam was harmed by the absorption of foreign totalitarian ideas in an otherwise blameless culture. Interestingly, he retains a failing of the left; he fails to come to grips with the indigenous backwardness of Islamic cultures and has implicitly found the fault external to Arab culture and the Islamic religion.
Moving from the political to the epistemological, there is a deeper connection to be made. The nihilistic post-modern academia shares something with the pre-modern Islamists: skepticism of reason. The post-modern attack on reason is a culmination of centuries of critiques that undermined reason’s authority, reduced reason’s domain, and opposed reason’s centrality in human affairs. Reason is no longer seen as a substantial and robust power to grasp and master reality; and guide man’s actions. The only power of reason, for the post-modernist, is to destroy itself. There are epistemological nihilists attacking our culture at its root: the human mind.
The Islamic hostility to reason is centuries older. It is rooted in the mysticism and dogmatism of an unreformed religion. One thousand years ago, the remnants of Hellenic philosophy were tolerated in Arab society in one locale or another. However, Islam ultimately rejected the best of Hellenic thought allowing that advantage to pass to Christian Europe. Horowitz doesn’t tread on this philosophical turf. He hardly explores the post-Kantian philosophical disintegration that gives rise to the multi-cultural constructivist group-oriented subjectivism. He does, however, briefly deal with the left’s transformation from class analysis to race/gender/queer analysis.
Horowitz could dig deeper and explicitly discuss the hostility both have towards the importance of the individual. Neither the left nor the Islamists see the individual as an end in himself. However, Horowitz approaches this issue in another way. He describes their common utopian desire for purification and perfection of society. It’s an important point to which he allocates a chapter. It is not clear that his criticism is reserved for irrational standards of human perfection, but may include human excellence itself. Is his view is more Augustinian – finding an essential baseness of human nature? He is, after all, a conservative. It’s often hard to tell his view. This is part of a general failure; he rarely gives alternatives. Even though this is a book about the American left, its narratives, and its failures; the reader is left without a potent contrast.
Horowitz does what Horowitz does best: expose contemporary trends in a common sense manner accessible to the average person with an open mind. He is virtually a one man expose of the left’s sad history in contemporary post-war America – including much they wished would disappear in the revisionist’s trash bin. Mr. Horowitz has prevented that from happening. Despite the near complete takeover of academia, a few men and women, speaking the truth is enough to hold the line against the enemy within. Horowitz is leading that contingent. This book is a major contribution in the battle for civilization.

A review of David Horowitz’ “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left”

What has happened to the left? Why are they so comfortable with a picture of America as the evil force in today’s world when religious fanatics, motivated by Islam, are viciously killing peaceful civilized people in the West and establishing oppressive theocratic states in the East? Why do some on the far left have an instinctive kinship with the jihadists that fight against our country and our allies? Why is there such an instinctual hatred for America on the left that only grows year after year? These are the questions that David Horowitz addresses in his latest book: “Unholy Alliance”. 3
Immediately after the 9/11 atrocity – with the World Trade Center smoldering and America still in shock – the far left “launched a campaign to protest, in advance, any military response.” 4 Echoing enemy propaganda, the left insinuated that we brought it on ourselves. They saw this not as an aggressive attack but a retaliatory act whose “root causes” were understandable. Susan Sontag, Barbara Kinsolver, Kate Pollitt, and Eric Foner – the usual suspects – wasted no time launching a parallel front here at home. They denigrated our patriotism, scoffed at our moral righteousness, called our country the true terrorist, condemned our future actions as heinous war crimes, and blamed Bush for starting a Holy War. Teach-ins, demonstrations, and other forms of mobilization, as virulent of the 60s, propounded the party line that the threat was not our theocratic fanatical Islamo-fascist enemy but the government of the United States. And this was before the battle of Iraq.
Under the banner of “United We Stand” both sides of the isle supported the battle of Afghanistan. Of the various options, the President chose Iraq as the next battle in the war due to a number of factors. In actuality, the policy of regime change originated in the previous administration. Indeed, in Clinton’s Operation Desert Fox, “the United States and Britain flew 650 bombing sorties and fired 415 cruise missiles into Iraq, a greater quantity than during the entire Gulf War.” 5 Thus, there was “a reasonable expectation” for continued “broad and unified support.” 6 Horowitz documents the growth of the “anti-war” movement leading up to the invasion of Iraq, chronicling the transformation of the Democratic Party into a rallying point for the opposition. Once again the odious nature of Saddam’s fascist regime made little difference to the left. The concern and wrath was directed toward that which was, oddly enough, considered a significantly greater problem and threat: America. Colombia professor, Nicholas De Genova expressed outright what others only implied: “U.S. patriotism is inseparable from imperial warfare and white supremacy. … The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military.” 7 He called for “a million Mogadishus.” 8
In Part Two of the book, Horowitz does what he alone can do best: he paints a well-balanced portrait of the American left’s political endurance amidst its intellectual disintegration. Its ideals scattered by the harsh reality of failure after failure, its dream of “social justice” is now only a vague sentiment. With no concrete political philosophy, system, or program, the dream becomes a dim apparition fading into a future that recedes beyond sight.9 The only thing real that binds the left is its nihilist hatred.10 It’s all that is left. Todd Gitlin explains the transformation of the anti-war movement of the 60s. “It inflamed our hearts. You can hate your country in such a way that the hatred becomes fundamental. A hatred so clear and intense came to feel like a cleansing flame. By the late 60s, this is what became of much of the New Left.” 11
This nihilism is the remnants of irrational religious-like utopianism created in defiance of reality.12 Subsequent rationalizations, by exaggeration of our historical faults compared to the unknowable utopian dream, enable the lie of America being guilty of genocide,13 sustaining an unusually horrendous slave industry, being an imperialist leader, and being responsible for nearly every ill that befell mankind.14 To some, like Chomsky and Blum, America is worse than or even responsible for Nazi Germany! 15 Obviously, these charges are not the result of an empirical study. They stem from fundamental metaphysical assumptions that precede any consideration of the evidence and, in their world-view, make all explanation possible. “Three assumptions underlie the arguments of the anti-American cult. (1) America can do no right; (2) even the rights America appears to do are wrong; (3) these wrongs are monstrous.” 16 In the end, it boils down to a simplistic formula: we’re powerful, they are pathetic; it must all be our fault.
Horowitz sums up the exceptional position of America: “A crucial element in the worldview of American radicals is the belief in American omnipotence – the ability of America’s leaders to control the circumstances of their international policies without regard to the interests of allies or the threats of adversary powers or the constraints imposed by domestic political forces. Radicals never see America as reacting to a threat …” 17 He continues to back that up with example after example of how the left, like today’s Muslims, blames the world’s problems on American action or inaction.18 He could have easily written a book on this topic alone. If he did he might have exposed the hypocrisy of the left, which implies that the prevalence of dictatorships in impoverished countries worldwide is the result of a handful of American covert operatives, but at the same time, it is apparently “hubris” to imagine that a 200,000 man intervention in Iraq can bring substantial change. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t – it’s all somehow our fault!
The left has long embodied an asymmetric determinism. It comes in many guises. For example, an individual’s behavior is said to be determined by society but apparently not to the extent that they can’t initiate action to change society by becoming part of the collective will – as exemplified by the left or other designated “authentic” group. In the current context one of the most common myths holds that the powerless are subject to economic and structural forces beyond their control thus absolving them of any actions – all actions are reactions – as if they lack any volitional capacity. The successful, however, are automatically to blame for the state of the universe, regardless of their actions, so long as there are inequities. This structural analysis holds that ideas are secondary to status; indeed, ideas are the result of structure rather than its cause. Thus, for the left, ideas are an epiphenomenon – a superstructure – with little causal relevance. Religion in particular, quoting Marx, “is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the oppressed.” 19 Thus, Islam is not taken too seriously; the Islamic Revival is our fault.
Part Three is a brief introduction to the malady infecting contemporary Islamic mass-movements. After reviewing the influence of 20th century totalitarianism on Islamist and Baathist movements,20 Horowitz describes the common mindset shared by leftists and the jihadists, at present.21 Much of the Islamist hate comes from reading and regurgitating self-loathing Western critics. And the critics are delighted to find “confirmation” from the “spontaneous” response against American “imperialism.” Paul Berman reports on the left’s embrace of Islamist violence in his book “Terror and Liberalism” At a Socialist Scholars Conference, “an Egyptian novelist defend[ed] a young Palestinian woman who had just committed suicide and murder – and having heard the defense, the crowd broke into applause.” 22 As usual, the “root cause” of the rise of Islamism is seen not as the power of belief – this is dismissed by the left as a by-product – but as the result of material factors controlled by the powerful: American and Israel. Thus, leftists and jihadists are, deep-down, soul-mates united by a common hatred.
For those unfamiliar with the standard faire of anti-Americanism on the far left, Horowitz reviews their treacherous attempts to undermine our response to the jihadist movement and allied regimes – covered in part Four and Five of his book. Here he is on solid ground as one of our foremost critics of this cultural swamp. If you are unfamiliar with this shabby corner of contemporary politics, you can find no better guide than Mr. Horowitz. The influence of the extreme left on the whole of the Democratic Party and mainstream media is achieved not by the doctrinal conversion of sizeable number of the honest and sincere loyal opposition; but the influence has gripped our friends on the left more than they had realized – and realized by the average citizen.
Horowitz masterfully shows how far left ideas captured the Democratic Presidential campaign of 2004. What was bipartisan support for our war against terror, turned into a fierce opposition that viciously vilified a wartime President. On a day to day basis we heard that the war is immoral and unnecessary, that it is based on a lie, and actually caused by ulterior mercenary motives. This constant pounding over and over again is the kind of propaganda one would expect of an enemy intent on demoralizing our fighting men and women. Horowitz documents the events exactly as they unfolded as a fitting climax to the book and a record for future generations.
David Horowitz achieves what may at first seem impossible; he shows how the modern American left and the medieval Islamic revivalists are natural allies. Two sides of the same coin of nihilism, a synthesis of superficial opposites, and united by a common hatred, they move in parallel, attacking and chipping away at the greatest achievement millenniums in the making: Western Civilization. Our Islamic enemy could find no greater ally than the American left.

Anti-Americanism goes mainstream

“Why do they hate us?” This question is repeated ad nauseam in the press, in intellectual journals, and in the broadcast media. For those on the Left, this question holds a peculiar importance that reveals a deeply felt notion about America and its place in the world today. It’s a fundamental sense that we are wrong in our relation to the rest of the world; and that our country’s moral standing has more than eroded.
It was this spirit – a spirit of national shame – that permeated the 2004 Democratic Presidential campaign, not as an overt doctrine but as a leitmotiv continually punctuating the campaign via angered insinuation, undue disparagement, absurd vilification, and incessant whining. There was the oft repeated canard that we suddenly lost the world’s sympathy, so prevalent for a few moments after the attack of 9/11. There was the silly notion that we alienated all of our allies and “went it alone,” because we did not wait for France. There were charges of willful deception, because our intelligence agencies, like every other country’s, failed to give an accurate snapshot of Saddam’s current WMD programs. And then there was the insinuation that we are the aggressor, having undertook a “war of choice” in defiance of the standards of the ”international community”, supposedly all honorable bastions of the rule of law.
Most of all, Mr. Kerry, with a deep resonant scornful voice, conveyed a sense of moral condemnation and shame – a shame for our nation. Over and over again his moral posturing turned minor practical drawbacks – the loss of a few French troops, the lack of one final UN resolution, or the lost of the world’s “love” – into gross negligence if not outright moral failure. “Why do they hate us?” The tacit message, that he would never overtly acknowledge, is that their hatred is understandable. It’s not something wrong with them; it’s something wrong with us. Whether or not he truly feels that way we can only surmise, but it is clear he is pandering to the far left, his core constituency. Why does the left hate America?
In all fairness, traditional social democrats were not completely ready for this harsh view. This posed a problem for Mr. Kerry as he needed wider support than just the hate-America left. During the last days of the campaign, he emphasized the themes of competency and effectiveness. Now it was only a question of the implementation, rather than a profound moral disagreement or a fundamental difference of purpose. However, this isn’t a flip-flop, as is often said; he holds antithetical positions simultaneously by explicitly denying that there’s a fundamental disagreement while insinuating that we are shamefully fighting a “wrong war” – a morally wrong war – in Iraq. His far left core gets his underlying message, loud and clear, as he explicitly contradicts that message in a desperate attempt to gain late-deciding voters.
Mr. Kerry’s core constituency has distinguished itself for showing more sympathy for the enemy than our fighting men and women. According to the left, the few thugs and jihadists, whose daily terrorist bombings kill scores of Iraqis, are the authentic indigenous freedom fighters – not the 100,000 men in the Iraqi security force trying to bring stability to their country. The terrorists, often called insurgents, hate us for invading their land and justifiably target our GIs, according to the left. “Fahrenheit 911”, which got rave reviews from the Democratic Party from Terry McAuliffe on down, portrays a peaceful Iraq made bloody by America. It’s become so common place to vilify America that one is hardly shocked at the hatred and viciousness displayed over the last year. As I point out elsewhere, in many quarters, it is virtually a cliché to refer to America as being evil.1
Sadly few Democrats will repudiate Mr. Kerry’s message of a shameful America. One exception is Zell Miller.2 On the notion that we are oppressors, not liberators, Zell Miller responds: “But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don’t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.”

Planning Regions

 

A planning region is a segment of territory  over which economic decisions apply. The term planning here means taking decisions to implement them in order to attain economic development. Planning regions may be administrative or political regions such as state, district or the block because such regions are better in management and collecting statistical data. Hence, the entire country is a planning region for national plans, state is the planning region for state plans and districts or blocks are the planning regions for micro regional plans. 


For proper implementation and realization of plan objectives, a planning region should have fairly homogeneous economic, to zoographical and socio-cultural structure. It should be large enough to contain a range of resources provide it economic viability. It should also internally cohesive and geographically a contagion area unit. Its resource endowment should be that a satisfactory level of product combination consumption and exchange is feasible. It should have some nodal points to regulate the flows. Seven major regions in India are:
(1) South India
(2) Western India
(3) Eastern Central India
(4) North-Eastern India
(5) Middle Ganga Plain
(6) North-Western India
(7) Northern India

Town and Country Planning Organization Regions
In 1968, the Town and Country Planning Organization suggested a scheme of planning regions delineated on the principle of economic viability, self-sufficiency and ecological balance at the macro and meson levels. The emphasis of the scheme was to introduce regional factor in economic development. This approach would complement the macro planning at the national level, with a component of regional policies, aimed at reducing regional disparities in the development. The macro- regionalization sought to link a set of areas, rich in one type of resources with areas having complementary resources or even resource poor areas, so that the benefits of economic activity in the former may flow into the latter. These planning regions cut across the State boundaries, but do not completely ignore the basic administrative units. The 13 macro regions proposed under the scheme include:
(1) South Peninsular (Kerala and Tamil Nadu)
(2) Central Peninsular (Karnataka, Goa, Andhra Pradesh)
(3) Western Peninsular (Western Maharashtra coastal and interior districts)
(4) Central Deccan (Eastern Maharashtra, central and southern Madhya Pradesh)
(5) Eastern Peninsular (Orissa, Jharkhand north-eastern Andhra Pradesh)
(6) Gujarat (Gujarat)
(7) Western Rajasthan
(8) Aravalli Region (Eastern Rajasthan and wasted Madhya Pradesh)
(9) Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh
(10) Trans Indo-Genetic Plains and Hills (Pune Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, West Uttar
         Pradesh and Uttaranchal)
(11) Ganga-Yamuna Plains (Central and eastern Uttar Pradesh, and northern Madhya Pradesh)
(12) Lower Ganga Plains (Bihar and West Bengal Plains)
(13) North-Eastern Region (Assam and north-eastern states including Sikkim and north 
       Bengal)

Components of Regional planning 
• Economy
• Housing
• Environment

Footnotes

1.Bush quotes can be found on the While House document “Backgrounder: The President’s Quotes On Islam“.
2. Bill Sammon, “Bush praises Islam for its ‘morality,’” Washington Times Dec. 6 2002
3. Scott Lindlaw, “Bush Marks End of Ramadan, Visits Mosque (Islam brings hope and comfort),” Associated Press Dec. 5 2002
4. Dana Milbank, “Conservatives Dispute Bush Portrayal of Islam as Peaceful,” Washington Post Nov. 29, 2002
5. Norman Podhoretz quoted in Dana Milbank’s article above
6. Paul Johnson, “Relentlessly and Thoroughly,” National Review Oct. 15, 2001
7. Frank J Gaffney Jr.,”A Troubling Influence,” Front Page Magazine, Dec 9 2003
8. A few notable books from the early 1940s warning of the global rise of collectivism and demise of liberal individualism are Freidrich A Hayak, “The Road to Serfdom” University of Chicago Press, 1944. Ayn Rand, “The Fountainhead,” Bobbs-Merrill, 1943. Rose Wilder Lane, “The Discovery of Freedom,” Fox & Wikes, 1943. Isabel Paterson, “The God of the Machine,” 1943. Classical liberal contemporaries include Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlett, Albert Jay Nock, and H.L.Mencken.
9. George H. Nash, “The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945”, p. 256, Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1979
10. Nash, ibid p. 257
11. Nash, ibid p. 258
12. Frank S. Meyer, “A Rebel in Search of Tradition,” The Freeman (July 1955): 559-62 reprinted in Gregory L. Schneider’s “Conservatism in America since 1930”
13. Whittaker Chambers, “A Witness” reprinted in Gregory L. Schneider’s “Conservatism in America since 1930”
14. see Garrett Thomson, “On Locke,” Wadsworth, 2001
15. Paul Johnson, “A History of the American People”
16. Forrest McDonald, “A Founding Father’s Library”, Literature of Liberty (January/March 1978) Cato Institute, San Francisco
17. Robert Nisbet, “Conservatism: Dream and Reality,” University of Minnesota Press 1986 p. 1 link. Quotes are from the hardcover edition.
18. Nisbet, ibid
19. Nisbet, ibid
20. David N. Mayer, “The Forgotten Essentials of Jefferson” The Objectivist Center April 4 1997
21. Charles Murray, “Ideas & Trends; Well, It Seemed Like a Good Idea At the Time,” New York Times, Week in Review Nov. 30 2003
22. Russell Kirk, “Ten Conservative Principles” The Russell Kirk Center 1993
23. George W. Carey, “Freedom & Virtue: The Conservative Libertarian Debate,” Intercollegiate Studies Institute; Rev. and updated ed edition p. 101
24. Stanley Reed, “Inside Saudi Arabia,” Business Week, Nov. 26
25. Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, “The Age of Sacred Terror,” Random House, New York 2002 p. 167

The challenge for conservatives

The Islamic Revival and the Jihadist movement grew exponentially during the last several decades. It is arrogant and self-absorbed to attribute this ominous development to our actions or inaction. This indigenous cultural movement is driven by internal factors. The Islamic spirit lay dormant during the secular-socialist post-colonial period. During that time there were signs of a serious return to Islamic basics as a reaction to the failing attempts at modernization of Arab society. Arab dictators only hid the growing revival and in many ways fueled it; Islamic institutions are often the sole sanctuary for the opposition. As the Islamic Revival grew, these dictators adopted a more respectful tone towards the religion. And, as usual, all problems were blamed on the usual scapegoats: Jews and America. The majority of Muslims remained ignorant and angry; and they remained vulnerable to any group that could seize power – at first fascist, and now Islamist.
The revival of original Islam brings with it all the imperialist ambitions and supremacist posturing that has been part of the religion since founded by Mohammad. This is a totalitarian-like religion bent on world domination. In many respects, Islam is religious communism but in some ways it is worse than communism. Communists were atheists who didn’t want to lose this life on earth; containment was a logical solution. Islamists believe they will be rewarded when they die fighting the infidel; containment will fail. This is a battle we will have to fight but to do that effectively we have to start facing the nature of the enemy. We can’t dismiss this problem because we would like it to go away. Islamic imperialism is intrinsic to the religion – whether it remains hidden by a fascist regime or comes out in the open as it has in Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia – we have to face the fact that we have an enemy.
A central part of Islamic supremacy is inflicting humiliation on the infidel. During Islam’s long history certain infidels were spared death, i.e. “religions of the book”, mainly Christian and Jews. However, continual humiliation was part of the ruling ritual towards the dhimmis. Today the Islamic attacks against the West have the very same characteristics. For example, the March 11, 2004 attacks in Madrid were planned before the Iraq War. Part of the humiliation process was to blame the Spanish for their own suffering. Even though the Spanish changed course and promised to remove troops from Iraq, two additional attacks were still attempted in the next month. Even as late as Oct 2004, with Spanish troops long out of Iraq, Islamic terrorists attempted an attack on the Spanish Court. Those who cite Islamic propaganda of “troops in Iraq” as a “reason” or motivation for the 3/11 attack are unwittingly becoming “useful idiots” – in essence, they are helping to complete the humiliation process. Until we understand the role of Islam and the need to humiliate the dhimmis, we will fail to understand these attacks.
The most important element missing from the war on Islamic terror is honesty. Honestly means facing the facts and making the appropriate moral judgments. Trying to pretend Islam has nothing to do with the enemy’s motivation is lying. Trying to appease the Arab Street by expressing admiration for this unreformed barbaric religious practice is lying. Trying to be politically correct by playing down their faults and exaggerating ours is lying. Reality cannot be faked – lying only blinds us to the threat and leaves us vulnerable. The cost, in terms of lives, wealth, and liberty, will be far greater if we continue to evade the simple and salient facts about the threat we face. It is of utmost importance that we speak out and condemn, in the appropriately strong language, how horrified we are at this dark-age superstition engulfing the Muslim world and threatening all of civilization. We can not be too strong in our condemnation nor should we be humble and hesitant to demand respect for our greatness. Honesty and justice requires it.
The problem for conservatives is twofold. Intellectual conservatives are ecumenical by inclination; this policy has helped to avoid religious strife while forging a common secular culture. However, the ecumenical disposition involves a positive prejudice – one that is predisposed to find all religions, or at least well-established religions, as fundamentally good. Combined with the multi-culturalism of the left, we are undercuting our fight for civilization; we blind ourselves to the full nature of the growing Islamic movement and the radical difference between our secular society and their theocratic one.
In contrast, sectarian religious conservatives are often able to face the ominous growth of Islamism. Perhaps it is because of a negative prejudice – one that sees Mohammad as a false prophet. In this case, they may be rationalizing their belief. However, the assessment is still correct: Islam is a threat. The multi-culturalist left will seize on sectarian rhetoric to argue that this is a war between the religions – an absurd throwback to the past. We must be ready for this lie. This is not a war between “our” religion vs. “their” religion. Both sectarians and multi-culturalists would like to put the conflict in such terms – the former out of conviction, the latter out of blame. Multi-culturalism holds that every culture is an equally valid alternative; there are no universal verities. This premise blinds one to the truth: Islam is inimical to life while Western civilization holds a crucial idea that sets men free to live and prosper.
If conservatives are to fight this war effectively, they must do what we all must do: face this enemy’s nature and our superiority. We need to know what we are fighting for as well as what we are fighting against. If conservatives miss categorize this war in terms of Christendom vs. Islam, or our God vs. their God, this will disintegrate into a barbaric religious war and our society will degenerate into internecine paralyzing strife. We all need to realize that we face with an enemy driven by a pure religion – undiluted with Hellenic rationalism and Aristotlean eudaimonism. This is not a religion that shows any capacity to restrict its focus to individual salvation as a personnel private matter – it is, from its inception, a political religious ideology. This is not a religion that has been reformed by the rebirth of the classical worldview; it rejected that path long ago.
But this is the path we took. From Aquinas through the Renaissance and up until the mid-19th century, classical Greek or Latin was a part of a well-educated person’s course of study with which he entered the rich world of classical literature, art and science. Conservatives have to do more than pay occasion lip service to this heritage if we are to fight the Islamic barbarians effectively. This is what makes us different from them. Upon this foundation, stands the Anglo-American tradition of individual rights – a tradition that rejoices in the pursuit of happiness and well being. This is not a country of suffering, denial, and renunciation. This is not a martyrdom nation bent on holy war for the glory of Allah – whatever name you may give Him. Our nation was founded by absolutists who were certain of the rights inherent in human nature and expressed themselves eloquently in conceptual terms – not mere sentiment. Moral clarity comes from conceptual clarity. Conservative sentiment won’t do the job this time.
Once again, like in the Cold War, this is primarily a moral battle, but not some fight against an “atheist” foe as conservatives miscast the communist threat, and certainly not a fight against a false Prophet as some sectarians on the religious right see it. We face a pure religion, a barbaric relic of mankind’s darkest days. These unreformed theocratic fanatics have no place in the modern world where the power of technology can multiply their repressive anti-life impulse into a catastrophic force. If our rational-secular civilization is to withstand today’s barbarians we need to first and foremost develop the mental posture and moral certitude that only comes from a deep understanding of the huge gulf between the essential greatness of our civilization and the savage nihilistic hatred at the core of their retched spiritual depravity. When conservatives and others can talk like that, the war has started. Until then we are just biding our time. It’s time that conservatives retool for the coming struggle as we all must.

The Islamic attack of 9/11

The myth of the sedate and peaceful Sunni traditionalist was refuted by a single event: the atrocity of September 11, 2001. On a clear sunny autumn day as the office workers grabbed a morning coffee on their way to work, as early morning bond traders were calling their floor traders in the Chicago pits, and Jersey secretaries emerged from the subway in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center, this modern metropolis was jolted by an inexplicable attack unimaginable by civilized men and women. A jumbo jet crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center disintegrating on impact and spreading debris and fire onto the street below.
Puzzled, almost everyone believed it had to have been an accident until the second jet hit the south tower. No one would have imagined that this was methodically planned for years, carefully rehearsed, and undertaken with full intention to deliberately cause the greatest number of deaths, chaos and terror. No demands were made, no military maneuvers followed, nothing tangible was gained except the pure satisfaction of the act itself. Just like the rise of Hitler and Stalin, intellectuals can’t grasp the significance of this event – including conservative intellectuals. This act was understood – not here in America or in Europe – but throughout the Islamic world. The response was immediate: delight and deliverance.
Cheers erupted among celebrating Arabs in the West Bank. Throughout Saudi Arabia there was pride and satisfaction. “I don’t know a man, woman, or child who was not happy about what happened in the US [on 9/11/2001]” says Abdullah Al-Sabeh, a professor of psychology at Riyadh’s Imam Muhammed bin Saudi Islamic University. 24 Soon we would find out that the master mind behind this movement was admired by the majority in many Islamic countries. The Muslim denials, perfunctory and with a wink to their brethren, was punctuated with the typical blame that is part of the humiliation process of every Islamic attack: you brought it on yourself. Without missing a step, they quickly contradicted themselves by denying it was Islamic in origin – and followed up with charges of racism for even thinking such things. To this day it is common to hear Muslims blame 9/11 on Zionists or President Bush while taking quiet satisfaction that their folk hero, bin Laden, has still not been brought to justice.
One of the few accurate descriptions of the Islamic reaction can be found in Benjamin and Simon’s book, “The Age of Sacred Terror.” 25

“Bin Laden’s popularity is remarkable. The Arab street exulted in the September 11 attacks and acclaimed him a hero in the mold of Saladin. The mood was encapsulated by Radwa Abdallah, a university student who, sitting in a McDonald’s in Cairo, told a Wall Street Journal reporter that when she heard about the carnage at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, ‘Everyone celebrated. People honked in the streets, cheering that finally America got what it truly deserved.’ Op-eds in regional newspapers reflected Radwa’s sentiments. … Public opinion in Saudi Arabia, where polling is difficult to conduct because political self-expression can be dangerous, matched the Egyptian reaction to the attacks in one survey, where 94 percent of the respondents applauded bin Laden’s actions.”

To this day, the Islamic attack of 9/11 is not understood. This was first and foremost a religious act. That is hard for Americans to fathom given the religions they know. Islam, however, is very different. Islam is a warrior religion at its core. It is an imperialistic religion bend on world domination and, at the height of Islamic power, conquered most of the known world. The religion had been marginalized during the 20th century as Arabs and other Muslims desired to modernize and adapt socialism – the dream of the intellectuals during the time most Islamic countries came of age in the post-colonial period. During the last few centuries, Islam was often mechanically practiced and only lip-service given to its warrior triumphalism. But as the socialist ideal faded and the global rise of identity politics, with the emphasis of indigenous culture authentic to each demographic group, the Islamic revival became a reality.
The difference between dead ritual and animated belief is not uncommon during stages of a religion. One can imagine during the centuries of the Jewish Diaspora, from the shettels of Russia to the ghetto of Venice, the phrase “next year in Israel” was said without a shred of conviction or hope of ever living to see that day – until the mid 20th century, as Israel became a reality, these words became alive and potent. So to, the Muslim practice of Jihad in its primary meaning atrophied to mere words. It didn’t seem possible to regain the glory of Islam when it ruled what seemed like the world and reduced the infidels to constant humiliation as second class citizens called dhimmis. The Islamic attack of 9/11 was a reaffirmation of the Jihadist spirit – it was indeed a religious act meant to galvanize the believers and recruit men for the Jihad. And in accord to Islamic practice, a reaffirmation of Islamic superiority involves the humiliation of the dhimmis.
There were ample reports from Americans who were in Islamic countries during the attack. Few were reported in the media. One American in Saudi Arabia relates what for her was a puzzling state of affairs. She said there was a considerable amount of anger and hostility towards Americans after the attack. She and others agreed that there was clearly an increase in hatred – again afterwards. Of course, you’d expect hatred and anger to motivate and lead to such atrocities. But here cause and effect seemed reverse. The events of 9/11 galvanized the Islamic world. This was a re-affirmation. The Jihadist spirit, which lay dormant and implausible, became real again. This was a profound religious act but not of any religion imagined in the West.
Westerners were puzzled. Who would deliberately kill innocent individuals quietly going about their lives among other civilized people gathered from all over the world in the peaceful and productive activity of trade? What kind a sick person would spend years to plan this atrocity as their final act of life? Who would bring such shame and disgrace to their cause and their people? This was incomprehensible to any rational civilized person. No one would step forward to even categorize the event correctly. The media continued to call it a tragedy. Some called it a horrible tragedy – a redundancy which elicited snide commentary from CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. Now, a tragedy is when your car’s breaks fail and you drive off a cliff. The two planes didn’t hit the World Trade Center because of a mechanical malfunction. This was far more than just a tragedy – although it was obviously that. This was a deliberate vicious attack – it was an atrocity. That’s the missing word that people avoided. Why?
The silence after 9/11 was more than a respect for the families of the victims. It continued too long. What was missing was a righteous anger that should have surfaced after a respectful period of mourning. But without intellectual guidance it continued to lay buried, unexpressed, and formless – perhaps shared only in private. There were those who were ready and eager to demonize America and thus blame the victim. However, the subliminal anger was sensed leaving most critics to complain that there was an atmosphere of censorship. America was in no mood to hear about the so-called grievances of dark-age savages or theories about how we upset these barbarians. The anger is there and it continues to grow.