In the New
York Times last week,
columnist Nicholas Kristof officially became an Islamophobe. More precisely, he
finally adopted somewhat the same stance toward Islam as the Cassandras whom
Kristof and his ilk relentlessly demonize as Islamophobes – all the while
trying to distance himself from them.
“In country after
country,” a concerned Kristof begins, “Islamic fundamentalists are measuring
their own religious devotion by the degree to which they suppress or assault
those they see as heretics, creating a human rights catastrophe as people are
punished or murdered for their religious beliefs.” No, really? Surely it is no
surprise to him that writers such as those of us at FrontPage have been
expressing our concern about Islamic fundamentalists for many years. We’ve
noted repeatedly that the most numerous victims of Muslims are other Muslims,
many of whom are ostracized (at best) or killed (at worst) precisely because they
aren’t sufficiently hardcore believers.
But Kristof
dismisses such writers as “Islam-haters in America and the West,” who “denounce
Islam as a malignant religion of violence, while politically correct liberals
are reluctant to say anything for fear of feeding bigotry.” It’s not bigotry or
hate to point out that orthodox Muslims themselves demonstrate its malignance
and violence every day around the world. Moreover, “politically correct
liberals” aren’t silent only because they don’t want to feed bigotry; the most
radical are silent because they see Islam as an ally in their multiculturalist siege
of the West.
“Yet there is a real
issue here of religious tolerance,” Kristof continues, “affecting millions of
people, and we should be able to discuss it.” No kidding. As I mentioned above,
the freedom fighters that the left dismisses as Islam-haters have been trying to discuss the Islam problem for decades,
but have been relentlessly attacked and delegitimized for it. Now however,
Kristof decides we need to have an open discussion, as if it’s his idea.
He was apparently
prompted to address this topic by the murder of a Muslim friend at the hands of
his friend’s co-religionists. “Such extremists,” he posits, “do far more damage
to the global reputation of Islam than all the world’s Islamophobes put
together.” This is his grudging way of admitting that orthodox Muslims
themselves are the ones responsible for Islam’s dismal reputation. Now if only
he would connect the dots and acknowledge that perhaps the world’s
“Islamophobes” have legitimate concerns.
But Kristof hedges
his newfound realistic perspective on Islam with an historical aside: “The
paradox is that Islam historically was relatively tolerant… Anti-Semitism runs
deep in some Muslim countries today, but, for most of history, Muslims were
more tolerant of Jews than Christians were.” He cites the Holocaust and “the
killing of Muslims by Christians at Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina” as
evidence for this. First, anti-Semitism has always run deep in Muslim lands,
not just today, because Jew-hatred is endemic to Islam itself. Secondly, Islam
has not been “tolerant” for most of its history, and whatever its historical
sins, Christianity has evolved and Islam has not; the pressing issue is that
Islam remains violently intolerant today.
Kristof asserts that
“some of the bravest champions of religious freedom today are Muslim” – for
example, Iranian lawyer Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, who successfully defended a
Christian pastor from charges of apostasy, but suffered for it by being jailed
himself. This is genuinely commendable. Unfortunately, this example does not
demonstrate that Islam itself champions religious freedom.
He goes on to note
that Saudi Arabia and Iran “are twins in religious repression. Saudis ban
churches; it insults Islam to suggest it is so frail it cannot withstand an
occasional church.” Actually, the fundamentalists know full well that Islam
cannot withstand an occasional church, which is why apostasy is punished by
death and Christians are brutally persecuted. They are keenly aware that the
freedom of conscience to choose one’s religion would mean a vast exodus from,
and possibly the end of, Islam.
“I hesitated to
write this column,” Kristof concedes, “because religious repression is an
awkward topic when it thrives in Muslim countries. Muslims from Gaza to Syria,
Western Sahara to Myanmar, are already enduring plenty without also being
scolded for intolerance.” The only reason it’s “awkward” for Kristof and other
leftists is their defensive sympathy for Islam; if Christians around the world
were massacring Muslims, putting mosques to the torch, and executing apostates,
you can bet Kristof and his fellows would have no trouble “scolding” them.
Kristof is also
uncomfortable addressing worldwide Muslim atrocities because he believes that “we
in the West live in glass houses, and I don’t want to empower our own
chauvinists or fuel Islamophobia.” Excuse me? The West has no moral high ground
on the issue of religious intolerance? That is frankly a crock. A January 2014 Pew
Research study which Kristof himself describes as “a sad index of rising intolerance”
notes that the world’s only region essentially untouched by religious
repression is the Americas, and that the worst regions for it, as in previous
years, are the Middle East and North Africa. Kristof himself concedes that “some
of the worst abuse actually takes place in Muslim-dominated countries.” Indeed,
and things are getting worse there and
in Western countries with burgeoning Muslim minority populations.
“Some
heroic Muslims,” Kristof closes, “like my [murdered] friend Rashid in Pakistan,
have sacrificed their lives to protect religious freedom. Let’s follow their
lead and speak up as well, for silence would be a perversion of politeness.” What
gall. Again, those he derides as “Islam-haters” are the ones who have been and
still are leading the way in speaking up against the rising tide of Islamic
supremacism, only to be met with vicious smears from progressives such as Kristof.
Apparently it’s not bigotry if the left does it.
(This article originally appeared here on FrontPage Mag, 7/18/14)
