Islam, Modernity, and Honor-Shame Dynamics: Reflections in the Wake of Breivik

Politeness is not saying certain things lest there be violence; civility is being able to say those certain things and there won’t be violence.

Honor-shame and Islamism:

In an honor culture, it is legitimate, expected, even required to shed blood for the sake of honor. A man is not a real man until he has killed another. The need to save face, and to avenge a blackened face, justifies both quotidian lying and occasional violence. People in such cultures are, as a result, careful to be “polite”; and a genuinely free press is impossible, no matter what the laws proclaim. Public criticism is an assault on the very “face” of the person criticized.

Thus, modernity is a crucible of humiliation: alpha males have to allow others to criticize them publicly, and modern media (newspapers, pamphlets, radio and TV news, blogs) are the vast public venue of that criticism (public sphere). Similarly, modern scholarship depends on this shift from the use of violence (and other forms of imposing consensus) to settle arguments, to one that gives priority to principled dispute (public mutual contradiction) and a commitment to “tell the truth.” Modernity is based on civil, not polite discourse.

Modern, (self-)critical historiography, for example, has repeatedly challenged its own culture’s self-serving (and face-saving) narratives of the past (our side is right). They have shown particular vigor and success in “documenting” sacred texts and thereby desacralizing the religions that claimed them as divinely inspired/dictated.

Modernity represents a very painful experience for any culture (France in the Dreyfus Affair), but the benefits of this public self-criticism – sharp learning curves – make that pain worthwhile. For those who resist this aspect of modernity, however, today’s globalizing world makes it especially painful because in “saving face,” they also relegate themselves to a significantly inferior place among the (productive and powerful) nations.

This is particularly true for Islamic religious culture. In Dar al Islam, a Muslim’s contradiction/criticism of Islam was punishable by death, a fortiori did this hold true for infidels. A (relatively free) public discussion depended entirely on the good will of Muslims not to exercise their prerogative to punish those who criticized Islam. “Fundamentalist” episodes (e.g., the Almoravids in 11th century Spain) represent a vigorous reassertion of this kind of honor-shame Islam.

Modernity has been a Nakba (psychological catastrophe) for Islam, starting with Napoleon’s victory in the Battle of the Pyramids in 1798, and Islam in all its variegated currents has yet to successfully negotiate these demands of modernity. Few if any of the major currents of a currently highly innovative Islam have found a form of that religion that a) genuinely renounces the dreams of dominion and b) has success propagating in the Muslim world.

On the contrary, the loudest and most vigorous voices in contemporary Islam reject vehemently the kind of self-criticism modernity requires. Muslims the world over often resort to violence at (perceived) insult, and many others excuse these deeds as perhaps deplorable, but certainly understandable. Such comments are unbearable assaults on the manhood of Muslims. Butcher those who mock Islam.

Indeed, global Jihad and the apocalyptic prophets who nourish it with their rhetoric of hatred and massacre, represent a particularly virulent form of abreactive modernity, in which the powers of modern society (especially technology) are turned to the task of destroying a modern culture of public, free debate about what is fair. For these religious zealots, Christianity has already been castrated by modernity (the Jews), and they are defending their religion/culture from annihilation.

Thus the Jewish slap on the faces of the Christians continues, who apparently enjoy and allow this sort of humiliation and attack, and give them their other cheek so that the Jew can continue to slap the Christians—just as we see—ruling them in Europe through the Masons who dig the grave of Western civilization through corruption and promiscuity. The Crusader West continues like a whore who is screwed sadistically, and does not derive any pleasure from the act until after she is struck and humiliated, even by her pimps—the Jews in Christian Europe. Soon they will be under the rubble as a result of the Jewish conspiracy. (Cook, Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic, 210).

These men have already reached the most dangerous dimension of apocalyptic thought: “exterminate the other or be exterminated.”

Secularism demands more maturity, it requires that religions be civil, that they not use force (the state) to impose their beliefs on others. The open market of religious discourse (and the demands of a diverse and peaceful global community), means that religious communities have to give up their need to be visibly superior as a sign of being right/true, that they renounce religious libido dominandi. According to rules by which all may live in peace, one may not resort to violence (and other forms of vengeance) in order to save the face of one’s God(s). This involves high levels of tolerance for public contradiction.

Secularism is not by definition, hostile to religion. On the contrary, while it opposes coercive religion, it favors voluntaristic religion. On the most profound level, secularism is the best friend of a religion of freely chosen commitment.

For Islam this is a particularly difficult challenge, because for most of Islam’s formative period (including the formation of its legal schools), it was if not a majoritarian, nonetheless always the dominating political presence. The laws of the Dhimma spelled out the principles: infidels were “protected” from violence and death at the hands of Muslims as long as they accepted a visibly, indeed specifically humiliating, inferiority. Like medieval Christianity, it sought to assert its supersessionism over its monotheistic predecessors, Jews and Christians, by constructing an elaborate “public transcript” of superiority. And among the key demands made on dhimmis, was that they not challenge, criticize, or in any way “insult” Islam or Muslims.

Contemporary manifestations of Islamic revival tend to handle the infidel “other” poorly. Whether religiously motivated (Islamist locales like Gaza), or culturally (tribal/religious locales like Iraq), minorities are physically imperiled throughout the world where Muslims are the majority. This includes expanding enclaves in Europe, the famous zones urbaines sensibles, where the state’s writ no longer runs.

Thus, Islam’s – Muslims – relationship with the “other” (kufr, infidel, lit. one who covers [the truth]), is the great problem to resolve in this coming generation, and at the heart of that problem lies the ability of Muslims to tolerate criticism from outsiders.

We in the modern (and post-modern) West, who first forged these remarkable rules of self-restraint and created so rich, so variegated, so tolerant a culture, have a right to demand that Islam renounce these principles of coercion, certainly those who live in and benefit from the civil polities we have created. Indeed, if we treasure these values of tolerance, and freedom, and generosity towards the “other,” we owe it to ourselves and to the Muslims in our midst, to make this demand. Anything else, including the fantasy that this is not a problem, is cultural suicide.

And yet, so far, we are doing very badly. The West has not figured out how to deal with this problem. In part this is because we avoid it. The proverbial “thin skin” of Muslims to any kind of criticism is proverbial – especially Arab Muslims, to whom modernity has dealt the most painful Nakba, that of Zionism. Much diplomacy, and much public and even academic discourse tacitly acknowledges and tries to find ways to accommodate that cultural reality, to avoid confrontation. When Western positive-sum principles meets Arab zero-sum principles – we do everything we can to “get to yes,” win-win, while they have no problem playing by rules in which they can only win, if we lose – we most often lose (Oslo “Peace” Process).

In the last decade (the aughts, ‘00s) this has gotten much worse: the Muslim public voice has become far more, indeed aggressively, demanding in ways that even in the ‘90s would have been considered unthinkable; and the Western response has become increasingly dedicated to placating these demands for “respect.” In the bruising encounter of Islam with modern demands for public tolerance and public self-criticism, the behavior of the self-identified “progressive” “left” – traditionally the bastion of stinging public criticism of abuse of power, misogyny and belligerence – has been overwhelmingly placatory. Repeatedly they step in – sometimes very aggressively – to prevent anyone (fellow infidels) from saying something that might bruise Muslims feelings. Indeed, they seem more worried about “us” provoking Muslim violence than about exploring the sources Muslim violence. And often they attack those defending democratic principles with a shrill and contemptuous tone that they would never dream of using with Muslims.

The case of Pope Benedict quoting Emperor Manuel II (ca. 1400) claiming Islam was inherently violent illustrates the situation in (what should have been) its most absurd dimensions. In response, Muslims rioted around the world, killing dozens (mostly Muslim), screaming, in effect: “how dare you call us violent.” And the response of the Western public sphere was to pressure the pope to apologize for provoking them.

The code word here has been Islamophobia, a widely used term designating those so identified with racism, xenophobia and paranoia. While I have no doubt that this kind of Islamophobia exists and deserves condemnation, it is often applied to people with legitimate criticisms not only of Islamism, but of Islam. Ironically, for critics who have no hesitation calling Zionists who object to demonizing Israel the “Israel right or wrong” crowd who want to shut down any criticism of Israel, they do not hesitate to use Islamophobia as a way of preventing legitimate criticism of Islam. Indeed, they use their definition of Islamophobia as racism far more often than the other meaning of the word, itself a far more widespread phenomenon, the fear of criticizing Islam.

If paranoia/xenophobia is an irrational fear of someone or something, then what term do we use for the irrational lack of fear of something genuinely menacing. We don’t have a word for it yet, but if free and democratic culture is to survive in this troubled century, we will have to find a term and identify those afflicted with this irrationality.

31 Responses to Islam, Modernity, and Honor-Shame Dynamics: Reflections in the Wake of Breivik

  1. Hans Watson says:

    What an excellent article,brave,erudite and refreshinh.

  2. Cathy Benson says:

    I read your website fairly regularly. Many of your articles about honor/shame and the comments are difficult for me to read and follow not being academic, or having knowledge of all the references. This article was clear, put together alot of what I have gleaned from your writings in what seemed like simple english to me. Thank you.

  3. nelson ascher says:

    Well, there’s not just fear and shyness in the West. There’s opportunism too and the (even more) malignant mutation of old leftist doctrines.

    Up to WW2, the international left still considered itself to be leading the “workers of the world” toward revolution and the communist paradise. Then, they could also think they were leading the so-called anti-colonial fight.

    But, during the 60s, in Western Europe and the US, many leftist intellectuals were already suspecting that the working classes would be happy with better living and material conditions, with the welfare state etc., and would cease their fight for radical, revolutionary change. Thus they started looking for different revolutionary masses: criminals, ethnic, sexual etc. minorities, even women and so on.

    This worked (for them) up to a point, but no further. So, if there had to be a revolution for the intellectuals to lead, who should be the masses that would do the heavy lifting?

    And, voilà, suddenly, in 1979, these masses appeared in Iran. They deposed the Shah and his hated secret police. They were a mass movement conspicuously out there, on the streets. Even better: they defied the bugbear: the USA.

    Iranian leftists soon discovered (just in time to attend their own execution) that a good working relationship with the Islamists wasn’t coming anytime soon, but their comrades elsewhere thought that was a sacrifice worth making.

    Just about that time Eric Hobsbawm had been talkin about “primitive rebels”, and the only ones who were seriously rebelling “en masse” against Western capitalism/imperialism were the radical Muslims — for god’s or Marx’s sake!!! even the USSR, China and their satellites had given up the holy struggle. Soon, their rebellion spread everywhere, and the leftist intellectuals believed and still believe that, under their guidance, their rebellion can be transformed into the real thing: the apocalyptic revolution.

    I’d suggest that, in the West, people who are afraid of criticizing Islam and the Islamists are less concerned with the revenge of radicalized Muslisms than with their public and concerted demonization by intellectuals who think they can ride the tiger for their own benefit — and who also believe that, even if what comes afterwards is not the communist workers’ paradise, even so the evil West and its corrupt, greedy, ethnocentric, phallocratic, opressive and abusive culture and civilization based on the exploitation of the weak and of poor, defenseless Mother Earth is worth destroying by itself.

    I suggest that our main problem is not so much revolutionary Islam, as nasty as it can be, but rather the modern or recent appearence in the West of a whole new group of clerics with their own apocalyptic creed and agenda: the intelligentsia.

    • Sérgio says:

      “I suggest that our main problem is not so much revolutionary Islam, as nasty as it can be, but rather the modern or recent appearence in the West of a whole new group of clerics with their own apocalyptic creed and agenda: the intelligentsia.”

      Yes, these people are the at the front of promotion of western suicide. They spread their bankrupt “postmodernist” BS, a disgusting mixture of psychoanalysis, marxology and lit-crit, that already took hold of major positions at the humanities departments in western universities. They tried to attack the “hard” sciences too (“ethnomathematics”, “feminist physics” and other such pearls), but failed miserably as scientist generally don´t give a s*it to their nonsense. Moral relativists disguised as sociologists of science also tried a major attack on science in general, that just revealed their utter lazyness, ignorance and resentment of scientific creativity.
      So, they concentrate on soft fields, akin to pseudo-science, like journalism, lit-crit, “media studies”, etc, which, however, have a huge impact exactly because their lack of conceptual rigor and control.

      • nelson ascher says:

        You’re right, but I think there’s a further dimension to the problem. If this worldview were confined to the Humanities departments of the universities or to state-sponsored art, literature, drama & movies, it would only concern a small minority of people quite isolated from the mainstream population. As it is, however, this minority plays a huge role both in basic and secondary education and in the MSM.

        Nobody is forced to enroll, say, in gender studies courses at college, but nobody and/or nobody’s kids are free from the Western school system, and in most schools that worlviews and those kinds of orthodoxy rule. And they rule as well in the MSM, either because their owners agree with them or because they couldn’t care less and, since they won’t pay for competent professionals, they’d rather pay much less and compensate for it by allowin the “kids” to run the show.

        A century or even 50 years ago there was not much in common between school teachers and, say, movie makers, and most members of each group wouldn’t even have acquaintances belonging to the other. Since then, however, this huge incestuous group or class has been born, the intelligentsia, and it has been finding ever new ways to impose its dogmas on the majority of the people. (Actually it already existed in a limited way since the classic age of nationalism in certain European countries or nations, but that’s another story.)

        For instance: in normal conditions, the green agenda would attract only a small number of followers, while the rest of the population wouldn’t even aknowledge its existence. Not so nowadays, because teachers in each and every school keep repeating it over and over, hammering it into innocent children’s little heads.

        And I don’t think that non-ideological teachers can be found anymore. Maybe, for the time being, the best that could be done would be to abolish the Humanities from the school system, making it stick to Math, language and the natural sciences.

        Anyway, as thing are right now, most of the educational system in the West as well as the MSM, the arts and a large part of the entertainment industry are megaphones freely given to one worldview, one ideology, one agenda. Obviously, everybody should be free to proclaim and propagate his/her own views, but not to impose them, and surely not with other people’s money.

        • Sérgio says:

          Maybe, for the time being, the best that could be done would be to abolish the Humanities from the school system, making it stick to Math, language and the natural sciences.

          I don´t think this is the best strategy. The Humanities are part of the legacy of the West and of…humanity! They have to be cultivated at universities IF universities sticked to their primary aim which is disinterested search of truth, serious scholarship and advancement of knowledge. This surely includes history, philosophy, literature, languages, anthropology,
          sociology, etc, but not journalism, “communications”, “gender studies” and such non-sense. Problem is that the people from the 60´s generation infiltrated the humanities departments bringing with them the politicization of everything. Check Minogue´s “A concept of a university”. This is not exactly new: the nazis had a huge support from university students, though few from scientific areas. And recall that Heidegger, the master charlatan, is the source of much of today´s postmodern BS.

          Problem is that universities are under great stress and going through a major identity crisis. I´m not sure what will result from that.

          • nelson ascher says:

            Sure the Humanities are part of the West’s legacy and quite important — too important, I’d say, to be forced upon innocent kids by ideologically motivated teachers who don’t know much about the subject…

            Teaching history in schools now means basically indoctrinating children into believing in their and their parents’ guilt by association with all those atrocities their civilization is said to have commited against minorities (except, of course, the Jews) and other peoples, all of them pure and innocent.

            Teaching Geography is repeating endlessly to them that man, mainly Western man, is a malignant virus destroying pure and innocent Mother Earth — and that all non-Western peoples, without exception, were and are able to live in peace with her, so, besides repenting and paying for the damage we have caused, we should learn with them, live like them and be like them.

            Literature classes are an opportunity to read all those non-Western or minority authors (say, black Vietnamese lesbians or Rigoberta Menchu) in order to discover that the highest artistic and aesthetic value consists in complaining loudly about having been oppressed for thousands of years.

            And so on.

            Sorry, but I’m not making all this up.

            If kids or their parents want kids to listen to all this thrash, they can enlist them in free courses, things like that. And if they want to learn this stuff at colleges, they should be free to do it, but paying for it with their own money, not the taxpayer’s.

            Kids emerge from high school unable to write in their own or other languages, ignorant about basic math, never having heard about the principles of the hard sciences, but eager to save the planet or to fight for “social justice”.

            Thus a whole worldview is imposed on them. It’s not the case they shouldn’t be exposed to it, but that’s the only worldview they are exposed to.

            Without its monopoly of the Western school system, this worldview would have to compete with all other in the marketplace of ideas. The point is: kids who have been exposed only to that singles worldview will approach any other with suspicion, because, for them, the one they got at school has become the “natural” one, a default worldview against which any other is measured. Thus, for instance, “social justice” (meaning redistribution) is for them not only something absolutely good and desirable, but the point of all public policies and any political action. Well, how did the idea of “social justice” (which may or may not –or not always– be good and desirable) attain such an unquestionable status?

            Of course, most parents give their children over to the shcool and teachers and then go about their own business sure that they don’t have any role in supplying them with a different set of ideas. But this is another consequence of how unquestionably reliable the idea of the school’s and teachers’ role has become.

            I know that what I’m saying sounds rather obssessive and I’m open to any other suggestion as to how the influence of intelligentsia’s hegemonic worldview could be questioned and weakened.

        • Rich Rostrom says:

          Nobody is forced to enroll, say, in gender studies courses at college…

          Leaving aside the extent to which politically correct nonsense is incorporated into required “core” courses…

          The last thirty years have seen a colossal expansion of adminstrative staff at American colleges. Much of this added staff is devoted to “diversity” and “sensitivity” activities, which include mandatory training sessions for students.

          At many schools, this activity constitutes an entire parallel curriculum, and woe betide the student who refuses to attend or questions the “wisdom” on offer.

          See, for example, the University of Delaware, which required all students in dormitories to undergo a “residence life education program” which included “training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants”, who themselves had received “Diversity facilitation training”.

          See http://thefire.org/index.php/article/8555.html

  4. [...] The disconnect referred to in the article constitutes one of the most worrying developments in Western culture over the last decade: between a elite that controls much of the discussion in the public sphere (journalists, academics, talking heads, mainstream politicians) and who fear being called Islamophobes and racists more than they fear Islamist racists, and a population of people who, whenever they voice concern about the behavior of the Muslim neighbors, are told not to be Islamophobic racists. The problems are knotty and painful to disentangle. Here’s my outline of an approach. (For a longer version of the following essay, see my blog, The Augean Stables.) [...]

  5. Lorenz gude says:

    I think that Islamophobia needs to be read literally, not as fear of criticizing Islam, but as simply fear of Islam. I think those that display an irrational lack of fear of Islam are actually using projection as a defense mechanism to avoid being conscious of their own fear. We do have a descriptive name for the apparent lack of fear as it occurs among hostages: Stockholm Syndrome – were the fear is repressed and the source of terror befriended in an attempt to survive. Personally I am aware that I am afraid of some Muslims and not others. I just spent some time inside an American Muslim convert community and did not experience fear although I noticed that they complained regularly of Islamophobia. If I find myself in an area where Muslims are openly hostile to Westerners, I am afraid, just as I am afraid of certain Mexicans when I visit the troubled border regions around Ciudad Juarez. I want nothing to with delusional people who think I am a Crusader. They are dangerous because they are living in apocalyptic time- to use a term from your book Heaven on Earth. Sufis, on the other hand, I value because of their mystical knowledge and willingness to share it.

  6. Howard Schulz says:

    Wow, how to side step the real issue with a long rant on labelling a religion as pshchologically messed up. Quotes from one person in 1400 to describe today, really?!

  7. [...] The disconnect referred to in the article constitutes one of the most worrying developments in Western culture over the last decade: between a elite that controls much of the discussion in the public sphere (journalists, academics, talking heads, mainstream politicians) and who fear being called Islamophobes and racists more than they fear Islamist racists, and a population of people who, whenever they voice concern about the behavior of the Muslim neighbors, are told not to be Islamophobic racists. The problems are knotty and painful to disentangle. Here’s my outline of an approach. (For a longer version of the following essay, see my blog, The Augean Stables.) [...]

  8. ErisGuy says:

    “Secularism demands more maturity, it requires that religions be civil, that they not use force (the state) to impose their beliefs on others. ”

    Unfortunately, ‘scientific socialism’ and its successors undermined secularism by demanding the state and society conform to its code of conduct. By imposing its morality by force and massacring millions who disagreed with its morality while simultaneously claiming that it isn’t a religion and is opposed to legislating morality, modern secularism abolished its own foundations.

    Like Islam, modern secularism regulates all aspects of society and personal conduct, but does it in the name of scientific experts* who are acting to save the planet or to relieve oppression instead of in the name of Allah.

    Modern secularism has to pretend Islam isn’t a threat, because if it acknowledged that it’s wrong to use force to compel people to adhere to Islamic morality, it surrenders the justification for its own omnipresence and its current war on the West.

    Modern secularists kowtow to Islam because Islam, unlike scientific socialism, hasn’t lost its nerve: Moslems are willing to slay thousands and millions to achieve their goals, while the mass murders of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et. al. failed embarrassingly.

  9. [...] to disentangle. Here’s my outline of an approach. (For a longer version of the following essay, see my blog, The Augean Stables.) .nrelate .nr_sponsored{ left:0px !important; } // August 18, 2011 Live Wire Fellow Islam [...]

  10. An excellent article! I’m reminded of something Andrew Sullivan wrote not too long ago in his Dish column. He said, basically, that genocidal ‘religious’ extremism comes not from overflowing faith but is a highly deranged (he actually said ‘neurotic’) response to a profound LACK of faith which the would-be Hitlers refuse to face honestly. Hence they, not we, are ‘covering truth’, wouldn’t you say? What a thing to say to Islamists (and, for that matter, our Christianist fringe which is stupid enough to also want to desecularize Western society): “Because you wish, or seek, to cover the lack of faith in your own hearts with the blood of others, it is YOU, not they, who are the kufrs (kafirs?)! Yes, it is you! You know how empty of true faith your own hearts are; how can you think G-d Himself does not know? And you believe you can appease Him with the blood of those YOU call ‘kufr’?! O, how horribly little you know of Who G-d is! And is not then you calling G-d ‘merciful and compassionate’ a lie in your own hearts? Do you really believe G-d is a gigantic but still basically evil desert-chieftain who can be humbugged by your flattery? O, how horribly deep is your lack of faith and understanding! (With luck, they’ll be weeping by now!) Brethren, begin again! Begin by acting as if you are children of G-d the merciful and compassionate. What is that but to ask in your heart, what is that but to do justly–to all equally, including Jews, Christians, Hindus and so on? To love and practice mercy and compassion to all equally? And to walk with G-d knowing that what ANYONE knows of G-d in this life is an infinitely small fraction compared with the totality of G-d!” I hope that sermonette, or at least its content, proves useful for our common cause.

    • GRusling says:

      …”What a thing to say to Islamists (and, for that matter, our Christianist fringe which is stupid enough to also want to desecularize Western society):”

      To understand why modern “Christians” are up in arms, one need only look to the immediate past where those who call themselves “secular” (they’re not because they cannot tolerate religion in others) demand that all visible traces of Christianity be hidden from their view. Such a demand is INtolerant, not tolerant, and that’s exactly what has been occurring since (about) the 1960′s.

      Christians retreated as far as they could, then started to push back, and the “anti-Christians” can’t stand that so, lacking an intellectual argument to support their position they simply demonize their opposition, and “name-calling” is now their stock-in-trade. Observe your own term of “Christianist fringe” when statistics show that 70-80% of people in the U.S. identify themselves as Christian. That’s hardly a “fringe” group, and most are now pushing back.

      When any group seeks to “legally ban” the trappings of some religion (ie – removing manger scenes from the public square), they have crossed the line and are now seeking to use the power of “the state” to force their own views on those they disagree with. That’s precisely what “Islam” is now attempting to do here, in Western society. Personally, I am not intimidated by the Islamists, the anti-Christians or the Intelligentsia, all of which are simply proving themselves to be narrow minded…

  11. [...] The disconnect referred to in the article constitutes one of the most worrying developments in Western culture over the last decade: between a elite that controls much of the discussion in the public sphere (journalists, academics, talking heads, mainstream politicians) and who fear being called Islamophobes and racists more than they fear Islamist racists, and a population of people who, whenever they voice concern about the behavior of the Muslim neighbors, are told not to be Islamophobic racists. The problems are knotty and painful to disentangle. Heres my outline of an approach. (For a longer version of the following essay, see my blog, The Augean Stables.) [...]

  12. Charles Sproull says:

    Instead of expressing the negative concept of is islamophobia” I believe we should be protecting our American freedoms and culture with “Constitutional Republic love.” We aren’t afraid of Islam, but we love the rights (responsible limited freedoms) God gave us through the strong efforts of our Bible-believing Founders. We are like a gardener protecting his produce from being ruined by selfish and ignorant insects and weeds. Does he hate the enemies of his garden, or is he afraid of them (insect-phobia, weed-phobia)? No. But he loves his garden enough to feel protective and eradicate the enemies of his garden. I believe the best eradication of the dangers Islam poses to our American culture is strong legislation against their Sharia Law and Dhimmi, showing them that the love of God (treating all law-abiding people as 1st class citizens) is better than Dhimmi (treating non-believers as 2nd class citizens), giving them Bible studies, and prayer to God the Father “in the name of Jesus.

  13. [...] Islam, Modernity, and Honor-Shame Dynamics: Reflections in the Wake of Breivik by Richard Landes Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Blogroll [...]

  14. [...] The disconnect referred to in the article constitutes one of the most worrying developments in Western culture over the last decade: between a elite that controls much of the discussion in the public sphere (journalists, academics, talking heads, mainstream politicians) and who fear being called Islamophobes and racists more than they fear Islamist racists, and a population of people who, whenever they voice concern about the behavior of the Muslim neighbors, are told not to be Islamophobic racists. The problems are knotty and painful to disentangle. Here’s my outline of an approach. (For a longer version of the following essay, see my blog, The Augean Stables.) [...]

  15. GaryO says:

    The left is silent on Islam because it finds anti-Semitism within it quite congenial. It is a marriage made in heaven.

  16. [...] A cikkben említett szakadék az elmúlt évtizedek egyik legaggasztóbb fejleményének tekinthető a nyugati kultúrában: ezen szakadék egyik oldalán egy olyan elit áll, amely a nyílvános vita nagy részét ellenőrzése alatt tartja (újságírók, akadémikusok, mainstream politikusok,…), és akik jobban félnek attól, hogy iszlamofóbnak és rasszistának nevezik őket, mint amennyire az iszlamista rasszistáktól félnek, a másik oldalon pedig a lakosság áll, akiket ha szót mernek emelni a muszlim szomszédok viselkedése miatt, azonnal iszlamofób rasszistának nyílvánítanak. A problémák nagyon össze vannak gubancolva, és fájdalmas őket kibogozni. Itt található egy lehetséges megközelítés. (A következő esszé hosszabb változatáért látogasd meg a blogomat.) [...]

  17. [...] The disconnect referred to in the article constitutes one of the most worrying developments in Western culture over the last decade: between a elite that controls much of the discussion in the public sphere (journalists, academics, talking heads, mainstream politicians) and who fear being called Islamophobes and racists more than they fear Islamist racists, and a population of people who, whenever they voice concern about the behavior of the Muslim neighbors, are told not to be Islamophobic racists. The problems are knotty and painful to disentangle. Here’s my outline of an approach. (For a longer version of the following essay, see my blog, The Augean Stables.) [...]

  18. [...] The disconnect referred to in the article constitutes one of the most worrying developments in Western culture over the last decade: between a elite that controls much of the discussion in the public sphere (journalists, academics, talking heads, mainstream politicians) and who fear being called Islamophobes and racists more than they fear Islamist racists, and a population of people who, whenever they voice concern about the behavior of the Muslim neighbors, are told not to be Islamophobic racists. The problems are knotty and painful to disentangle. Here’s my outline of an approach. (For a longer version of the following essay, see my blog, The Augean Stables.) [...]

  19. I suggest the term ‘Xenomania’.

  20. [...] Necesitamos armas similares para defendernos. El término “dhimmi” ha demostrado ser útil en alguna medida, pero sólo es conocido por quienes ya están en este asunto. La persona normal de la calle probablemente no lo ha escuchado en su vida y necesita una explicación para entenderlo. El historiador Richard Landes discute la necesidad de un palabra como arma poderosa palabra en su blog aquí . [...]

  21. […] also referenced a lengthy opinion piece written by Richard Landes, from August 2011, which explored the issue of an honor-shame culture in Islam as contrasted to what he viewed as […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>