Many folks, whether people of the Left or Middle, seem to argue that Trump's travel ban is xenophobic and racist and that it "demonizes" Islam. Also, that the travel ban (and many other issues) represent a turn of the United States toward "Fascism".
The Mainstream Media is full of such commentary.
There's
an underlying premise here in these arguments, and that is that all cultures are the same, in the end, because
all people are the same, bottom line. Sort of like George W. Bush's idea
that Muslims everywhere were really wanting "tolerant" Western-style
democracies. (I'm sure the Left would find it abhorrent to have anything in common
with Bush.) Or that Islam is a good thing, or at least no worse than,
say, Methodist or Lutherans are.
Bush insisted
Islam was a good thing. After 9/11, Bush said "Islam" means "Peace". Of
course it doesn't. It means "Submission." Somehow Bush didn't know
that. (Or, more likely, didn't dare say it.)
In fact, today it is considered outrageous, colonial, racist, and God-knows-what-else to bring up any criticism of Islam.
This "we're all equal" is an underlying premise of all "multi-kulti" ideas. For example, a Leftist I know wrote, "sctotus has just approved
trump's ban of travel from seven muslim countries. this is worse than
islamophobia, it's demonisation of islam," [sic]
To that I'd answer in specifics:
A: The majority of Muslim nations are not on the travel ban.
B. Many exceptions exist even for the countries that are on the ban.
C. We don't need to "demonize" Islam. It does that itself. Check this article out:
An excerpt: This
Cost of Non-Europe report argues that since 2004, terrorism has cost
the EU about €185 billion in lost Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and
around €5.6 billion in lost lives, injuries, and damage to
infrastructure.
Now
that is, of course, a bottom line that Western intellectuals and
leaders have to finally come to terms with. And they must do so whether they like it or not, or whether it is politically correct or not. It is also a bottom line
that the actual European-born people have to actually pay -- in money
(and in blood)!
And
it is insane. Europe is -- purely in financial terms, leaving aside all
the personal pain and cultural disruption -- bleeding itself to death
trying to keep local Muslims in control, and more Muslims out. The next
couple of decades will decide whether Europe continues to exist at all,
and that is the ultimate "bottom line".
So
no, no non-Muslim needs to demonize Islam. Far too many Muslims (a
minority, but a large minority) are only too willing to demonize it
themselves. Therefore, it seems the underlying premise that Muslims are
no different than anyone else is flawed. (This naturally refers to the
aggregate, not various individuals you may know, or think you know.)
Personally,
I've been studying Islam (and the monotheistic religions in general)
for a solid 40 years now, and all I can say is that someone who has not
read the famous philosopher, mystic, and theologian Al-Ghazali (the
Gazelle) 1058 – 1111, or who isn't conversant with the
battle between the Asherites and the Mutazilites that went on from the
two centuries before Al-Ghazali, just doesn't know enough about Islam to
say much of anything.
In
fact, I'd go so far as to say it is cultural imperialism NOT to study
and understand all this. If you don't study Islam, you don't respect it. Ultimately, far too many Westerners think both religion and philosophy unimportant
-- all religions, all philosophy. They could not be more wrong.
This
is extremely important. The Asherites won that battle and Islam became
essentially an anti-intellectual creed, and this manifests itself today
in myriads of ways. The famous Spanish Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes,
1126 - 1198), born only 15 years after Al-Ghazali died, his life is
also extremely important to know, as how he suffered when the Asherites
finally came to Muslim Spain. It's the reason ibn Rushd was the last famous Muslim philosopher.
The
other issue I'd bring up is "Fascism". Mussolini coined the term
post-WWI, when he, an old-time Communist, created the whole Fascist
idea, crossing Socialism with Nationalism. Fascism isn't something of
the "Right" but the Left. Hitler was once asked why, since he was a
National Socialist, he didn't nationalize the German companies. He
laughed and said he had nationalized the German people, and so didn't
need to nationalize the companies.
And
ironically, the first true Fascist state was created in the United
States when then President Woodrow Wilson took the U.S. into World War
I. It became a crime to criticize that decision, and U.S. citizens who
were German-speakers were penalized and spied on, and children in school
(not just German-speaking kids) were encouraged to spy on their
parents. The Irish in the US were also singled out this way.
Woody was a Democrat, too, not a Republican.
Of course, the word "fascism" hadn't even been coined yet.
Now
we have massive evidence that the Obama administration "weaponized" the
IRS, the FBI, the CIA, and so on, to spy on Americans involved in
political campaigns. People used to make fun of Trump for saying he was
spied on. Turns out he was spied on. But this also happened "back
in the day". Lyndon Baines Johnson used the FBI to spy on the Nixon
campaign, but Nixon, in his turn, hired private contractors to do that,
and he was caught and "Watergate" ensued, but LBJ, who "weaponized" the
FBI then, and who got us massively involved in Vietnam, was never
brought to account.
In other words, "fascism"
is a useless term to toss around, except as a weapon. I used to like
Garrison Keillor, the US public radio "Prairie Home Companion" funnyman.
But then about four or so years ago, before he was brought down by a
sexual harassment allegation, I heard him say of Republicans that they
were "Brownshirts in pinstripes".
Nothing could be more grotesque, nothing more stupid, nothing more asinine.
Nothing, in short, could be more ignorant. And damning.
RC
