With "Non-Haters" Like These ...

Appearing in the opinion section of today's Houston Chronicle is a very disingenuous piece by the executive director of the Houston cell -- er, branch -- of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), one Iesa Galloway. CAIR is an organization that, as I have pointed out before is suspected by many in our media and our government of having ties to terrorist organizations. (Oddly enough, Galloway does not, as far as I can tell from the article, have either a nom de guerre or any other alias.) But as the pen is mightier than the sword, this is one practicioner of the "religion of peace" who need not strap on a bomb (just yet anyway) to wage "holy" war. She need only write a mawkish editorial to whitewash her bloody religion with altruistic language that readers from both the multiculturalist left and the religious right will probably appreciate.

The article, "A Texan's Pilgrimage to Mecca," starts off straining the credulity of anyone who pays much attention to CAIR: It seems that Galloway -- who, remember, holds a leadership position in a national "civil rights" organization that files lawsuits on behalf of Moslems against mean, repressive Americans -- had doubts for her safety when considering whether she should attend the hajj!

Only two things stood in my way. First the issues of terrorism, Islamophobia and the State Department warning that Americans should not travel in the region.

Second, I wondered how I would be accepted. Yes, Muslims are supposed to be tied to one another in a bond stronger and nobler than other kinships. This bond is rooted in prayer and reflected through every aspect of Islamic life. But how would other Muslims performing Hajj treat me, an American? Would I be accepted, with my biracial background -- Anglo and Hispanic American -- as one of them, and one with them?

Would the bond that I enjoy here be felt among Muslims there, regardless of nationality, international conflicts and propaganda?

On her concern about "terrorism," was she concerned about sectarian violence, for which Islam is well-known? Or was she worried about Islamofascists killing her? In either case, she might want to reconsider the assertion that hers is a "religion of peace." Or was she using the term like leftists as a way to trash America's military concern for the Middle East? I'd like to know. Perhaps it is the last and serves to set up her next "concern": Islamophobia. Puh-lease! Aren't Moslems the only ones allowed to go on this pilgrimage? Who there was going to be Islamophobic -- besides maybe her, with her fears of terrorism and all. (And if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you.) This term is almost surely an appeal to left-wing readers for sympathy as it makes absolutely no sense here.

The multicultural tug at the heartstrings of the typical guilty liberal continues in the next paragraph: she expresses the absurd and self-contradictory worries that that she would (a) not be accepted because she is a American and (b) not be accepted due to her "biracial" background. I set aside for the sake of argument my impression that she was probably required not to show much of her face in public while on the pilgrimage. What of her fear of not being accepted because she is as an American citizen? If she really was afraid, what does that say, again, about her religion? If she was worried about "terrorism" (in the non-moonbat sense of the term), she should have remembered that terrorists want people who blend in well in the West. (Recall again: she wouldn't be on the hajj at all unless she's a Moslem!) Remember the kids from Buffalo? Remember John Walker Lindh? Lindh survived unscathed in Afghanistan of all places. He was surrounded by fellow Moslems (terrorists, in fact) all the time, though he was recognizably "American" and white as a sheet to boot. And that brings me to that bit of silliness about being "biracial." If anything, her particular racial mix would have made her stand out much less than Lindh did. This is preposterous. This sounds to me more like it is intended to elicit sympathy from a bunch of Volvo Democrats who will apologize at any opportunity for the sin of being born white..

And finally, there's the question of what she meant by "propaganda." Whose propaganda? Ours? She'd discount it as much as anyone with a modicum of sense would discount anything reported by Dan Rather. Propaganda about Americans from the state-run media in the Arab world? Isn't the big problem with the "Great Satan" that it is non-Moslem? Wouldn't her presence -- as a Moslem -- on the hajj redeem her? Her only legitimate concern would be terrorists, no? But they'd at least want to recruit her. She could join them or play the double agent. This would be a golden opportunity to tip off the CIA upon her return. And what of the "danger" from other Moslems? Again, what does that say about her faith being a "religion of peace." The whole excerpt I quoted above is codswollop intended to gain undeserved sympathy.

As an executive director of a CAIR chapter, Iesa Galloway is, in the most generous interpretation possible, someone who really believes that Islam is a peaceful religion and is trying to put its best face forward to the American people. Her expressed concerns for her own safety ring hollow to me. But if they do, why is she putting them into the article? To portray Moslems sympathetically as a persecuted minority. To do this she has, as we have already seen, used the language of multiculturalism.

As Mark Steyn once pointed out, multiculturalism is not a celebration of diversity, but a suicide cult for the West. The greatest sin of multiculturalism is that it is in essence what Ayn Rand would refer to as a package deal, where two things that differ conceptually are "sold" as if they belong together. Muticulturalism amalgamates goodwill and altruistic (i.e., self-sacrificial), anti-Western policy. In doing so, this ideology takes advantage of the goodwill of most Westerners to sell an anti-Western leftist agenda as part and parcel of the idea that we should live and let live. There is also an additional element. While toleration is in fact a political ideal the multiculturalist attempts to make it into a moral ideal: moral relativism. Never mind that in America, Moslems are in fact free to practice their faith (except for the parts about killing infidels and apostates), we are to evaluate every Moslem tabula rasa, ignoring the many atrocities that have been committed in recent years in the name of that religion, and ignoring the fact that the faith calls for our own servitude or execution. (See below.)

But Galloway is not done. The non-liberal part of her readership will probably react much as I did to the multicultural part of her column -- unless they are so jaded by everything in our mainstream media being tainted with multiculturalism that they ignore it. For this segment of the Chronicle's readership, the religious portion, she shifts to the language of religion.

I was soon on my way halfway around the world to Mecca, the heart of nearly 1.9 billion believers of the one, and, as we believe, only God, the God of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus [emphasis added] and Mohammed.

Of course! She's really one of us! Texas being a fairly religious state, she can segue very nicely into driving this point home.

Over the days, a pattern in the conversations quickly developed. It started with, "Where are you from?" meaning, "What country?" My answer was always "Texas." Then again, "Where are you from?" this time meaning, "What is your origin?"

My answer proudly this time [emphasis added], was again, "Texas."

Next came any one of the following: "How long have you been Muslim?" "Are your parents Muslim?" "Were you born Muslim?" I answer them accordingly: "Fours years." "No." "God willing, they will be guided," and lastly, "Well, brother, all mankind is born in innocence."

So now that she has established herself as a good Texan who believes in the Christian God, she feels safe claiming the moral authority to attack her countrymen as bigots. So she does.

My answers [about life as a Moslem in America] were like an IV that pumped hope into their veins.

I represented hope hope that Islam's true face [emphasis added] can be uncovered despite the current events and media distortions [emphasis added]. Hope, that we as Americans know that Muslims do not hate us. And hope that we do not hate the followers of the true teachings of Islam [emphasis added].

I was more than accepted. All the people I met wanted and almost needed to see someone like me.

Given the surfeit of anti-American propaganda pumped out by despotic governments all over the Middle East, and delivered as sermons by Imams all over the Islamic world (including at the hajj), I can see that many Moslems might be suspicious of America and might benefit from meeting Americans. But many already get to meet Americans daily in Afghantistan and Iraq! In fact, the ones who aren't trying to kill our soldiers get to meet them in much more favorable circumstances than at the business end of a gun. It's too early to tell for certain, but many seem grateful for the fact that we liberated their countries. Hamid Karzai and the man who was famously captured on film kissing a picture of George Bush in Iraq come to mind. So, yes, I can see how some Moslems might benefit from knowing what Americans are really like.

But the question is this: how accurate was Galloway's portrayal of America? I wonder. Her focus on "hate" certainly has heavy multicultural overtones. Well, she brought up hate, so let's look at what "hate" is, shall we? Hatred is an emotional response to something perceived as a threat to something we value. In her piece, Galloway takes the responses of Moslems to her (a fellow Moslem) as representative of how they view Americans (who are not Moslems on the whole) in general. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument. How might Moslems express this non-hatred? If they accept the words of the Koran literally, they will adhere to the following tenets as reported by Frosty Wooldridge.

It specifically states in the Koran to kill all “Jews and Pagans.” Regarding infidels, Jews, Pagans and non-believers, they are the Muslim's "inveterate enemies." (Sura 4:101) Muslims are to "Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere." (Sura 9:5) They are to "Seize them and put them to death wherever you find them, kill them wherever you find them, seek out the enemies of Islam relentlessly." (Sura 4:90) "Fight them until Islam reigns supreme." (Sura 2:193). "Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers." (Sura 8:12)

How am I, as a non-believer, to take this? Am I to be "not hated" only if I convert? I'm sorry, but the best I could do is pretend. So is my subsequent servitude or death an expression of "non-hatred?" Or might a given Moslem "not really believe" this passage of the Koran? There is plenty else like this: which others are to be ignored? This is shaky ground: the penalty in Islam for apostasy is death. Is "non-hatred" by Moslems really all that good a thing? These are serious and legitimate questions. My life and yours, gentle reader, depend upon their answers.

And on the flip side: There is a difference, doctrinaire multiculturalism to the contrary, between tolerance and love. As I mentioned before, tolerance is a political concept: So long as my rights aren't violated, I tolerate the fact that other people in my society do not share my beliefs. This is not the same thing as my moral approval, or love, of those beliefs. When one loves something, one experiences an emotional response to it because he values it. Hatred, the opposite of love, is an emotional response to something that threatens that which one values. The tenets of the Islamic faith I cited above at the very least would prevent me from living my life as I see fit. As far as I am concerned, living according to the dictates of Islam would be worse than being killed outright, the only alternative these tenets offer me. I may tolerate someone who holds such beliefs living in my society, but I hate these beliefs. And that goes for anyone who intends to practice them at the expense of my liberty or life.

Rather than preaching to Americans about tolerance, which we practice daily; or racism, which most of us eschew; or her own well-being, which probably really was safer here than on the hajj; I suggest that Galloway take a look at her own beliefs and how contrary to the principles of our founding fathers they really are. And if she already has, I would ask her to at least be honest about where she stands with respect to America. This is a nation founded in revolt against others telling us what to do. If she is sincere about her desire to practice Islam, "[t]he first meaning [of which] is the total submission to God," then she is not an "American" in anything but the narrowest legal sense of the fact that she has citizenship.

There are doubtless many secularized Moslems who do not wish to kill or convert me, but given the widespread and growing threat of Islamofascism, I have to be suspicious even of these. When Moslems profess to take the Koran literally, they voice a threat to my life and liberty by implication. And when they say they do not, I still have to be suspicious: It is in fact a tenet of the Koran that they can lie to non-Moslems, in "self-defense". What conclusions am I to draw? How can I trust a Moslem and still expect to live as I see fit? These are the kinds of issues people like Iesa Galloway should be addressing, not the supposed religious intolerance and bigotry of Americans. It's time that people like Iesa Galloway quit insulting us and start reforming their troubled religion.

-- CAV