|
|
|
Jewish World Review April 11, 2005 / 2 Nisan, 5765 Conservative mag capitulates to controversial Muslim group's pressure tactics By Diana West
What may be most damaging about National Review's act of reference-cleansing is that it helps legitimize CAIR's drive to tar all criticism of Islam as "hate speech" and, thus, squelch it.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
If Kafka met Monty Python, and George Orwell edited their
collaboration, they might have come up with something like the
following real-life exchange.
It took place in an Australian court where two Christian pastors
were found guilty of "religious vilification" of Muslims by
lecturing to their flock on Islam — a set-up that right away
projects grimly satirical possibilities. At one point during the
trial, defendant Daniel Scot began to read Quranic verses in his own
defense. The Pakistani-born pastor hoped to prove to the judge that
his discussion on the inferior status of women under Islam, for
example, had a specific textual basis in the Quran.
As he began to read, a lawyer for the Islamic Council of Victoria,
the plaintiff in the case, objected. Reading these verses aloud, she
said, would in itself be vilification. Scot, ultimately convicted,
put it best: "How can it be vilifying to Muslims when I am just
reading from the Quran?"
Like a frustrating dream, the Australian experience echoes a
depressingly similar situation in this country. Not in a court, not
at a church-sponsored seminar, but in journalism. In the
marketplace, literally, of ideas. I'm talking about an online
bookstore run under the imprimatur of National Review magazine.
There, "The Life and Religion of Mohammed" (Roman Catholic Books,
2005) by J.L. Menezes, a Roman Catholic priest, used to be for sale.
So did "The Sword of the Prophet," (Regina Orthodox Press, 2002) by
Serge Trifkovic (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR.).
Suddenly, last week, they weren't. It seems that the Council on
American Islamic Relations (CAIR) decided National Review shouldn't
sell these books. The magazine could have told the, shall we say,
controversial Muslim lobby group — three of whose former associates
have been indicted on terrorism-related charges, and whose executive
director, Nihad Awad, has publicly declared his support for Hamas —
to run along and boycott books somewhere else. Instead, National
Review whipped those tomes off their e-shelves practically before
CAIR could get its "action alert" online. Just a little pressure —
including a CAIR letter about the books to Boeing Corp., a big
National Review advertiser — did the dirty trick. (CAIR promised to
copy its letter to ambassadors of Muslim nations that buy Boeing
planes.)
Here's the thing. I am not writing to mount a defense of these
eminently defensible books, nasty bits and all, including, according
to advertising copy, "the dark mind of Mohammed," his multiple wives
(among them a little girl), "rapine," "warfare," "conquests" and
"butcheries." Suffice it to say, as crack scholar-author of Islam
Robert Spencer has written, "Everything with which CAIR took issue
can be readily established from Islamic sources." (And if that
doesn't suffice, read his analysis, "CAIR's War Against National
Review," at www.frontpagemag.com.) He should know. Not only is
Spencer familiar with the books in question, he happens to have
written the ad copy for the Menezes book CAIR found so
objectionable.
Of greater concern is the philosophical battle National Review
declined to fight, and the reasons the magazine declined to fight
it. According to National Review editor Rich Lowry's post at
National Review Online, because the magazine's book service is put
together by an independent publisher, and since the CAIR-provoking
copy wasn't written by a National Review staffer, Lowry saw no
capitulation in removing the Menezes book at CAIR's behest.
(National Review recently returned "The Sword of the Prophet" to its
bookstore.) "In contrast," he wrote, "Robert Spencer and some others
on the right feel very strongly that it is important to discredit
Mohammed and Islam as such in order to win the war on terror. That's
certainly their prerogative, but it is not the tack NR has taken ...
."
This statement reveals an unnerving disconnect. The study undertaken
by Spencer and kindred Islamic scholars isn't calculated to
"discredit Mohammed and Islam" — as if "discrediting" Mohammed and
Islam would convince jihadis to make peace. The fact is, a thorough
examination of the expansionist, religious-cum-political ideology of
Islam is vital to any successful defense against its jihadist
expression. Ignoring facts about Mohammed and Islam, given their
role in animating terrorism, would be like ignoring facts about Marx
and communism in that earlier ideological struggle National Review
championed — worse, even, considering the inspiration Muslims draw
from the personal life of Mohammed.
But what may be most damaging about National Review's act of
reference-cleansing is that it helps legitimize CAIR's drive to tar
all criticism of Islam as "hate speech" and, thus, squelch it. This,
of course, was roughly what an Australian court ruled against
Preacher Scot. It can't happen here? Maybe not. But the only way to
preserve freedom of speech is to speak freely.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Diana West is a columnist and editorial writer for the Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.
© 2005, Diana West | ||||||||||
