The Anti Anti-Jihad Crowd

The absence of yellow in the color scheme of some newspapers should not be misconstrued as indicative of the quality of “journalism” to be found therein. Recent scribblings in The Tennessean of Nashville are a case in point.

The “religion reporter” of The Tennessean recently ventured out into the world of Islamic terrorism, violence, and cruelty and was disturbed at what he found. His “investigation” was published as an overlong article (“The Price of Fear”). The prevalent tone in the piece is anger.

The target of the religion reporter’s anger was not the terrorists, however, but those who expose them and write about the ideology that motivates them.

Not to be outdone, a columnist at that newspaper followed up quickly with a supporting column in which opponents of the cruel, intolerant, misogynist and violent ideology of Islam were excoriated as haters and profiteers.

It is not known why the two journalists did not seek out the victims of jihad but focused instead on its opponents.

Several noted anti-jihad authors and activists are criticized in the articles. They are attacked for making money on their books and (according to the followup column) even for inventing the doctrine of Jihad that they oppose (in order, one supposes, to spread “hate” and make money).

The absurd notion that those who oppose intolerance, violence and cruelty are motivated only by hate and profit is a destructive, anti-intellectual moral inversion that must be deconstructed and rejected.

There is little value in pointing out that the two scribes themselves write for money. It is ridiculous to suggest that the only valid approach to the discussion of Islam by those opposed to jihad is through volunteerism.

Apparently, only critics of terrorists and jihad (as opposed to the jihadists themselves) get this type of ridiculous anti-capitalist, uninformed “bigot/hater” treatment by some non-volunteer “journalists.” How can earning a wage through honest labor be the basis for legitimate criticism in our capitalist society? How could the terrorists and killers themselves have escaped such “insightful analysis” and investigatory journalism?

But there is much more at work in this case than the easily dismissed critiques of those who oppose jihad, write about and discuss the doctrine of Islam. When the detritus of the two articles are swept aside, there is a residue left behind. In this residue is the core of the attack upon anti-jihadists – a moral muddle and confusion that are founded not upon knowledge of Islam or its doctrine but upon denialism, utopianism, multiculturalism, and post-modernism.

What is the opposite of “anti-jihad?” What can be the basis of opposition to those who oppose attacks against Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other non-Muslims? Can it be as simple as this: those who oppose “anti-jihad” people are pro-jihad?

On what account then can any American take a pro-jihad position when jihadists kill Americans and other non-Muslims?

For Utopian multiculturalists the anti anti-Jihad position is a pro political correctness position; opposing anti-Jihad to them is to protect multiculturalism. People who talk about the doctrine of Islam and the centrality of jihad to it are supremely politically incorrect. They are unPC because they are calling out a specific ideology as worthy of criticism.

Criticism of other cultures is a no-no for multiculturalists. For them, all cultures are equivalent – that is, they are all equally both good and bad. It is of no matter to such people that this concept is overturned by the entirety of human history as well as common sense. What matters is that if multiculturalism is deconstructed and de-legitimized as it should be (viz., Angela Merkel’s recent comments in Germany this effect), then (they believe) tolerance fails.

The greatest mistake of multiculturalists is that they believe multiculturalism and “tolerance” are one-and-the-same. It is rather instead an anti-intellectual über-tolerance for all cultural concepts (whatever their quality or moral foundations) including supremacism and intolerance.

When one thinks in this upside-down and morally indefensible way, even those who oppose mass murderers and their ideology (viz., 9/11, Fort Hood, Mumbai, London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Kenyan Embassies, etc.) are themselves criticized as “haters” because they criticize another culture.

Multiculturalism and political correctness as well as ignorance and Utopianism are the greatest impediments to our ability to defend ourselves from jihadists and the doctrine that motivates them.

The foundation of our self-defense against oppositional and violent ideologies is knowledge.

Fear of the destruction of Utopian multiculturalism by the acquisition and spread of knowledge of Islam and its doctrine appears to be the source of angst for The Tennessean non-volunteer “commentators.”

Ours is a world of dichotomies and existential threats. If we do not understand the motives of those whose purpose is our destruction we cannot defend ourselves or our civilization. Those who criticize as “haters” those who study, analyze, and speak and write of Islam and jihad are ideologues of ignorance at best and irresponsible abettors of our fall at worst.