news & archives

the abuse of islam in political rhetoric : a deconstruction

for other news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button to the left) deconstruction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

• Fisking Chomsky, a deconstruction
• manipulative writing at the BBC: a deconstruction
• an everyday story of politically correct folk: an ‘appreciation’ - RH
• voodoo economics by the ‘independent’ - the sky is falling said chicken licken
• steyn very confused - t.a.s.
• how the fossil media wages war against the civilised world - t.a.s.

• the abuse of islam in political rhetoric : a deconstruction
• deconstructing the moonbat line over iraq
• alleged physics ‘teacher’ complains about watering down standards
• Peter Oborne, a deconstruction
• it's said that the labour party is over - no, it isn't

islamic authoritarianism

statistics

on misusing words to avoid criticism, while critising the critics

This one of the worst pieces of pseudo-intellectualism I’ve seen in weeks. It has so many errors of reasoning that it would take a small book to cover them all. And yet this passes for education at the lower end in the States.

“First, the abusive language may be described as an effect of an over-generalization. Suppose that Muslim militants indeed wish to impose Islam on the Anglo-American world, a supposition that even the militants would ridicule as blatant propaganda to infuriate domestic audiences.”

Would they? What a surprise!

“Though mounted on a questionable supposition, the label is accurate to the extent that the use of violence to forcibly modify the values of a foreign nation is indeed fascism - a definition that, ironically, would also paint President Bush as an American fascist for his forcible democratization of Afghanistan and Iraq. Even if President Bush were declared a fascist, it would be wrong to describe his foreign policy as American fascism because that is tantamount to over- as well as mis-generalization.”

Here is the usual socialistic attempt to equate the disgraceful illegitimate dictatorships of the Middle East with legitimate democracies.

It is constantly amazing the way the jihadi apologists use a mirror language of marxist socialism to strip language of meaning as a constant precursor to their dishonest rhetoric.

“Islamic fascism as a descriptive label also fails to capture the limited meaning of describing militants who are supposedly fascists.”

They are not “supposedly” anything; neither are they just “militants”. They are attempting to promote islamo-fascism by violence.

“The label comes across as a prescriptive indictment, suggesting that Islam is intolerant, violent, and aggressively self-righteous in imposing its values on non-Islamic cultures.”

Where are the churches and cathedrals in the Middle East?

“If Anglo-American politicians are using the label in this broad sense, and thus accusing Islam and not merely the militants, they should say so.”

It is not the place of “Anglo-American politicians” to define Islam. It is the place of islamics to do that. Meanwhile, I see no problem with referring to islamo-fascists. We need a label for the murderers, the gang leaders and their apologists. Islamo-fascists will do for the moment, with or without the permission of supposed islamics steeped in marxism.

The real objective of this sort of evasive tosh is to make it impossible to discuss the problems with islamo-fascism and how to deal with them. This very same game I see in the pseudo-intellectual maunderings of marxists and socialists everywhere. For example, misguided attempts to claim “everyone and every government is socialist” are used as a means of confusing and inhibiting discussion on the evils of socialism.

“If they are using the label in a limited sense and do not wish to antagonize the entire Muslim world or malign the faith of Islam, they must abandon the label. The label of Islamic fascism even in a limited sense is not an intelligent use of the language, for it is susceptible to multiple interpretations. Its use in the broad sense is highly provocative and counterproductive to the war on terrorism. It foolishly alienates all Muslims.”

And now the babbler attempts to claim all muslims come under the heading of islamo-fascists. I wonder why he would do that!

“Second, there might be a democratic argument for politicians using abusive language involving Islam.”

It isn’t “abusive”. It is descriptive, and it does not involve “Islam’ unless Islam does not put its house in order. The jihadis are trying to shelter in a grey world between nationalism and cult loyalties. Better they decide which rather than keep switching rhetoric to the reverse in order to evade any meaningful discussion.

Where is “Islam”? Is it Iran or Saudi? Or is it some international cult? Where is the cult leader? Is he in Rome or Peking? Who is responsible? Nobody? Everybody calling themselves “muslim”?

Here you see them, now you don’t. Shame about the Twin Towers - not my fault, gov. Can’t be helped. “We” don’t like your foreign policy.
Who is “We”?
Well, it’s sort of nobody, but you’re “offending” Islam.

Just because almost all the serious nuisance is perpetrated by “muslims” doesn’t mean you can complain about Islam or muslims. “You’re just over-generalising. Ain’t me gov!”

“But no American politician would describe pedophilia scandals in some Catholic churches as Catholic pedophilia.”

I have yet to hear any priests promoting pedos. Again the dishonest attempts at false analogies. Again, the surreptitious attempts to destroy meaning in language.

“Such an over-generalization would be politically unwise”

Is this a threat? Why would it be “unwise” to talk of Islamo-fascism? That after all is what we are dealing with.

“[ ...] because no prudent politician would want to lose Catholic money and votes.”

So, it’s about money then?

Note the blanket bombing. Note the constant movement from one weak argument to another in the hope that each false argument can be lost in the midst of the rickety tirade. Never leave time to analyse any part of the pseudo-arguments, just rush on piling nonsense upon nonsense. The very same techniques can be seen in the likes of Chumpsky. How much of this article is about Islamo-fascism, or ‘religion’? And how much of it is just marxist socialism in a new package?

“Likewise, no politician would use abusive language against Jews or Judaism for fear of alienating that community, not to mention the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which keeps a close tab on what American politicians are saying and doing.”

Ah yes, never forget to slip the Jooooooze in.

“Because American Muslims do not have loads of money, lobbying clout, [...] ”

So who is bribing politicians around the world with oil money and threats of oil restriction?

“ [...] or votes,[...] ”

Who is threatening politicians with claims on European foreign policy?
How many muslims are there in Europe?
How many christians in Iran or Saudi?

“ [...] however, they constitute a minority that can be easily sacrificed and trashed.”

Where is the evidence for this dippy claim?
Why the vast expenses of airport security?
Why the freedom to build mosques?

“If this is the reason behind abusive rhetoric against Islam, [...] ”

The article looks more like “abusive rhetoric against the West”.

“ [...] however,it reveals a sad truth about democracy in general and American democracy in particular which has had a tainted record when it comes to the abusive treatment of minorities including native Indians, Blacks, and others.”

Ah yes, now the irrelevant appeal to history by the writer to justify the feelthy dictatorships of the middle East, and the constant apologists for them and their murderous allies.

“Third, there seems to exist an unexamined assumption in American political circles that Islam is a foreign religion, an outsider, the other. Politicians who use abusive language against Islam do not see Islam as part of American multi-religious fabric. Despite their enchantment with secularism, they still see this nation as Christian, perhaps Judeo-Christian, ignoring the fact that millions of Muslims, immigrants and native born, now live in all states of the United States. Hundreds of mosques in America, though under surveillance, furnish indelible signs that Islam has arrived in this country, [...] ”

Ah, you mean those people you just claimed were ‘easily sacrificed and trashed’?

“ [...] not to forcibly convert anyone but to enrich American culture, diversity, history, architecture, sciences, and, yes, laws.”

Do you mean Sharia by any chance? Or do you mean the laws being introduced to confront Islamo-fascism perhaps?

“Let American politicians greet Islam and Muslims with Assalaam ulaikum (peace be upon you) if for no other reason than to remind them that their religion is one of peace and not of violence.”

You could have fooled me, especially after the intemperate and aggressive tirade against the West i have just had the joy of reading. I’ll be more interested when islamo-fascists and their apologists start working with Western governments to introduce democracy to the Middle East, and towards opposing the terror groups and nuclear ambitions of Islamo-fascism.

“Ali Khan is a professor at Washburn University School of Law in Kansas. His publications are available here.”

I don't think I’ll bother. Too much of my time is taken up working out how to deal with Islamo-fascism. Perhaps the ‘professor’ would turn some of his attention to that, instead of attempting to convince that Islamo-fascism was scotch mist.

advertising disclaimer

email email_abelard [at] abelard.org

©abelard.org, 29 november2006


all rights reserved

the address for this document is https://www.abelard.org/news/deconstruction7.php

380 words (plus 165 words of quoted text)
prints as 2 A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)