About that “growing” anti-Muslim sentiment

The MSM is bewildered.  How is it that nine years after 9/11, people are more hostile to Muslims than they were the day of 9/11, when 20 Muslims murdered thousands of Americans, and sought to decapitate the American government?  This article from the San Francisco Chronicle nicely presents the liberal confusion:

Anti-Muslim sentiment grows 9 years later

Nine years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, one thing remains certain: Some politicians and media types can stir the nation’s darker impulses to tar all Muslims with the same hatred most people feel toward the 19 fanatics who killed nearly 3,000 people in New York and Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon.

The experts are pretty sure that the primary reason for this is because Americans are paranoid scapegoaters:

The roots of America’s continuing “ambivalence” toward Muslims and Islam is rooted in larger forces shaping the culture, said John C. Green, a professor of political science at the University of Akron and expert on the relationship of religion and politics.

“Part of it is the continuing threat of terrorism – not just in this country but around the world,” Green said. “A lot of it has to do with the economy. There is a sense that life is unstable. The American public is under siege. So, foreign threats are magnified. In a lot of people’s minds, there is this sense that this religion is associated with violence.”

Did you get that? Sure, there’s terrorism, but the real problem is that we’re scared, so we have “this sense” that Islam is “associated” with violence.

The article hastens to assure is that this sense is, to quote the article, “faulty.” Apparently the fault lies with Glenn Beck, but I have to admit to have gotten bored with the usual anti-conservative, pro-Muslim pabulum, so I kind of stopped reading about the time Glenn’s name came up.

Here’s the deal: The majority of Americans are more than smart enough to understand that the majority of Muslims worldwide are people who have no desire to bomb buildings or decapitate people.  Like us, they just want to live their lives.  We wish them well.

But we, the American people, have learned something in the last nine years, something that, prior to 9/11, only hyper-aware people knew: There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. A small percentage of them are jihadists, who are actively engaged in war against the United States and against Western culture generally, and have been so, with varying degrees of success and intensity since the early Middle Ages.

Given the 1.3 billion starting point, this small percentage point adds up to well more than a million Muslims around the world who actively wish us ill.  Actively.

They fight American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, they blow up our cultural allies in Israel, England, Spain, Bali, and other places around the world.  They gleefully decapitate their perceived enemies wherever they find them, whether in the Philippines, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world.

They are also engaged in a concerted effort to use the threat of violence to blackmail Western culture into abject capitulation.  Free speech within the boundaries of Western nations  = death threats or, if you’re Theo van Gogh, actual death.  Women appearing in public per the norms of Western culture, within the boundaries of Western nations = death threats, rape, acid attacks, etc.  Open debate about Islam = death threats.

What Americans have also figured out is that the remaining billion or so non-violent Muslims are utterly passive.  With remarkably few exceptions, beyond saying “we’re not violent,” they are doing nothing whatsoever to stop the cancer that lies at the heart of their religious affiliation.  Frankly, that’s not good enough.  Fine, I understand that they’re deathly afraid too, but they certainly cannot expect Americans to respect them unreservedly if they (a) keep repeating, contrary to available evidence, that Islam is not connected to violence; and (b) do nothing to stem the violence.

So the reason Americans are more anti-Islamic now than they were on 9/11 is that, in the ensuing nine years, they’ve learned more about Islam.  What they’ve learned is that Islam, in active mode, is indeed a violent and threatening religion; and that Islam in passive mode, despite being the majority of Muslims, is useless at stemming the tide of millions of murderous Islamists.  This has nothing to do with American ignorance, paranoia and economic fear, and everything to do with paying attention.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    Book, a correction: There are about 1.2 billion Muslims, not 3 billion. (Allah knows how many of them are willing adherents.)

    I have no beef against Muslims. As you’ve correctly pointed out, the majority of them have no desire to behead, rape or slaughter anybody. On the other hand, they belong, however loosely, to a monstrous affront to decency and human dignity. That is why I despise Islam.

    Islam delenda est.

    • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

      Thanks, Charles. As soon as I’m at my computer, I’ll correct that.

  • http://khemenu.blogspot.com Ari Tai

    re: Recent acid attacks against women in the U.S.  Have any of these been attributed yet?  Is the press “protecting” us?

    • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

      Ari Tai, I was thinking of attacks in Sweden and other Western countries, not the US.

  • Gringo

    So the reason Americans are more anti-Islamic now than they were on 9/11 is that, in the ensuing nine years, they’ve learned more about Islam.  What they’ve learned is that Islam, in active mode, is indeed a violent and threatening religion; and that Islam in passive mode, despite being the majority of Muslims, is useless at stemming the tide of millions of murderous Islamists.  This has nothing to do with American ignorance, paranoia and economic fear, and everything to do with paying attention.
     
    Nails it. As if “mistrustful” is a bad attitude towards Sharia law, or towards  the KSA, a country that, while forbidding any non-Muslim houses of worship within its borders, actively funds the construction and staffing of mosques throughout the world.
     
    I recall one lib who wrote that discussing the bad points about the Wahabis was inappropriate because Wahabis  were but a minority in Islam. Yes, but a minority that spends billions to construct and staff mosques throughout the world.
     
    The more we learn about Muslims , the more we distrust them. Taxi drivers in Minneapolis who refused to carry passengers who had liquor or dogs. Honor killings within the US. Imams who think Sharia law would be a good thing for the US.
     


    From a Rauf interview on CNN:
    RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation–
    O’BRIEN: What’s the risk? When you say “national security,” what’s the risk?
    RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides — you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides.The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.
     
    There are already about 80 mosques in NYC. According to Rauf. “moderate” Christians support building another mosque in NYC at Ground Zero. There are no non-Muslim religious buildings in Saudi Arabia. Does Rauf mean that “moderate” Muslims would support building a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia ? Or  a Hindu or a Buddhist temple?
     
    This conflict isn’t over, not by a long shot.
     
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html

  • suek

    “So the reason Americans are more anti-Islamic now than they were on 9/11 is that, in the ensuing nine years, they’ve learned more about Islam.”
     
    Exactly right.  Before 9/11,  considered islam to be a religion – sort of roughly a variant of Judaism and Christianity.  Or a mixture of the two.  Yes, I knew there was animosity.  Yes I knew they had unacceptable attitudes about women – but I considered islam to be a religion.  What I’ve learned since 9/11 is that acceptance of sharia law means that islam is not “just” a religion, it’s also a political system.  I’ve said before – you need two standards of behavior – the religious idealistic standards, and the legal minimum standard a society will tolerate.  Sharia combines these and makes the ideal also the minimum.  Religion and political are one and the same.  They make inroads into our culture though use of our religious tolerance, then impose the political as a requirement of the religion.  And voila…we become another muslim country.
     
    On Flopping Aces, every time this comes up, the main authors insist that there are moderate muslims who are trying to change islam.  They hold the hope that the freedom and standards of the US and the western culture will enable that change to occur, and we have to be patient and support them – and not frighten them off by our intolerance.   I think they’re wrong.  If they’re right about the moderates and their intent, then we need to support them by resisting those who wish to be sharia compliant – not tolerate the unacceptable practices of sharia.  I’ve gotten involved in some of the discussions there, but so far have been unable to make any headway – just can’t seem to get a grip on the right balance.
     
    On the koran burning, for example – it would endanger our troops, they say.  I don’t know if that’s true – I’m not sure it isn’t the ROE that put our troops in danger.  Yet Petraeus says this is the way to success (the ROE, etc) …is he right?  It has been pretty successful in Iraq.  So I’m placing my faith in him.  I do truly hope it isn’t misplaced.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    “On Flopping Aces, every time this comes up, the main authors insist that there are moderate muslims who are trying to change islam. ”
     
    Like the Iranians the Leftists eagerly cheered the death of when the Mullocracy of Iran cracked down on them?
     
    Even if there are any Muslim potential allies, the Left has been busy leaking their names and getting them killed. Period. They ain’t got a horse to stand on concerning this issue. We should not let them pretend otherwise.

  • jj

    Still waiting.  Waiting for “moderate” islam to open its billion strong mythical mouth, denounce the problem children – and mean it.  Been waiting for years.  No serious sign of it.  Expect to wait for more years.  No end in sight.

  • http://ritestuff.blogspot.com/ Karl

    When I was in college, I would tell one of my friends about the awful Asian drivers in one of the local suburbs.  He would tease me about being “racist and prejudiced”.
     
    Then one day he drove through that suburb.  After that, I was “racist, prejudiced, and very observant.”

  • Pingback: » In Remembrance of 9-11-2001 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter()

  • SADIE

    Book, one more correction [nice to nicely]
    This article from the San Francisco Chronicle nice presents the liberal confusion:
     
    Amina & Sarah Said (sisters) are dead. Their father shot them to death. Where was the rage and reporting? Where were the ‘moderate’ voices of islam?


    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,598689,00.html
     

    I’ll tell ya why there’s a new meme in town .. it’s Zerobama. He doesn’t want us to be tolerant, he wants us to embrace islam.

  • SADIE

    p.s.



    “The Audacity of Hope” [pg. 261]: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

  • Danny Lemieux

    The moment somebody starts telling me about “Islam means Peace” or all Muslims want to do is to live in peace blah-blah-blah, I ask them if they have read the Koran. Then I ask them if they know the meanings of words like “Taqqiyeh (misleading the infidel), kafir (infidel), Dar es salaam (the world of Peace aka Islam), Dar al Harb (the world of War aka infidels) and sharia. Of couse they don’t, so I ask them, wouldn’t it be a good idea to study up on Islam first before pronouncing on its intentions?
     
    Maybe this is what has been happening. Somebody should pose these questions to the lame-asse media.
     
    One point the Liberal/Lefties try to make that drives me nuts is the claim that we were attacked because of our interference in the Middle East (saving Kuwaitis from Saddam, I suppose). My response is then to ask how that explains (to your point, Book) all the attacks in other countries like Russia, Nigeria, India, Thailand…etc., the so-called ring of fire that emanates from Islam. However, the bulk of those attacks occur within the Dar es Salaam of Islam itself: Algeria, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. How do they explain that?
     
    I suspect that much of the denialism that we hear from the Liberal/Left is pure cowardice. They do not have the intellectual honesty to be able to grasp that there are people that want to kill them simply for existing, so they need to force-fit the square pegs of these realities into the round holes of their physical constructs in order to rationalize away the threat.
     
     
    What has to be counterbalanced, though, is that if we define the threat as “Islam”, we really do fall into the trap of fulfilling Bin Laden’s goal, which was to set up a clash between Islam and the rest of the world. As has been pointed out numerous times on this blog (peace be upon it), the majority of Muslims simply want to get on with their lives. However, they are not the ones calling the shots and therefore should not factor into discussions of the Muslim threat. So, whenever I get into these discussions, I hammer on the point made by Charles in distinguishing between individual Muslims and Islam: love the sinner, hate the sin.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com David Foster

    Much of this is about status. Academics, journalists, writers etc seem even more status-obsessed than humans in general…and in times of war, the status of military people generally increases–which means the status-anxious individual sees his own relative status decreasing. And he is also already very jealous of what he perceives as the higher status of businesspeople, athletes, etc. (Oddly, the high status of airhead entertainers seems to bother many academics much less than might be expected–why?)
    It is just a hypothesis, but there may also be a sexual dynamics angle to this, in which men who are concerned about their status level and their attractiveness to women may (probably subconsciously) resent any status increase among potential rivals.

  • Mike Devx

    David Foster said in #14
    in times of war, the status of military people generally increases [...] there may also be a sexual dynamics angle to this, in which men who are concerned about their status level and their attractiveness to women may (probably subconsciously) resent any status increase among potential rivals.

    As the saying goes: women love a man in a uniform!

    All concerned academics should take note: Halloween is approaching. Rent yourself a uniform and have some fun that evening, ok?  Quit hating on the military.

    Ah, what the heck, we all already know that its more of the war between our cultural elite and the rest of us.  “Everyone knows the military is nothing but a bunch of jingoistic, flag-waving, knuckle-dragging troglodytes who just want to bomb us all back to the stone age.” sniffed the metrosexual humanities professor disdainfully,  in his tweed jacket, sipping his merlot from his tiny little wine glass.  “I simply *cannot* believe all the unfair criticism our president Obama is taking from those people,” he continued in his whining tone. “Can you?” ;-)

  • http://thoughtyoudneverask.blogspot.com/ zabrina

    What an excellent essay. You voiced my thoughts exactly, too.

  • Gringo

    Sadie: putting together what your two posts implied: Zerobama speaks out for a mosque on Ground Zero,  and against any alleged mistreatment of Muslims as a result of  9/11 [Hard stares are really mean. And there are few times when the FBI questions blindly. Where there's smoke...]. Why doesn’t Zerobama, a.k.a. Oilbama, speak out against honor killings?
    After all, he could have kept silent about the mosque, but chose not to.
    Freedom of religion…freedom to live…
     
    Mike Devx: back in the day, most of those tweed-jacketed profs had served in the military, including combat duty. That was then. This is now. Unfortunately. With the professorial tweed jacket bridging both eras.
     
    As the military has been fairly silent, your tweed-jacketed prof’s rant would more correctly directed at those atavistic knuckle-draggers who both supported the military AND had the unmitigated gall to criticize THE WON. There is definitely a correlation there.[It was difficult to tell whom your prof meant by "those people." But unclear speaking is a mark of clowns such as your prof. When you feel you are right, clarity and logic fall by the wayside.]

  • SADIE

    Danny pieces it together – the so-called ring of fire that emanates from Islam.
     
    I hasten to add to that it’s much more than a ring of fire, it volcanic and unpredictable in nature. Seared in my memory… the Beslan massacre of children on the first day of school in September 2004. The culprits, muslims. Did we hear the outrage from their ‘brothers’ in the sandy part of the world? How about Sgt. Akbar, who murdered his fellow soldier by rolling a hand grenade into their tent?  suek has reminded us that islam is not “just” a religion, it’s also a political system. It’s not as though soldiers have not killed their own in other places and times, but it is because the likes of Akbar or Nidel Hasan point to the obvious reason IMO.
     
    Gringo, if a president is to lead by example, this one has gone out of his way to set a bad one by cherry picking when, where and how we should respond.

    “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”
     
    Beauty and Ugly are subjective – the truth is not.

     
     
     

  • suek

    I think there’s also the feeling that “they’re very ignorant and their cultures are primitive.  If we just educate them and bring them up into the 21st century, all will be sweetness and light.  We’ll all live happily ever after.”  One thing the left never will admit is that intelligence and education do _not_ determine character.  Character has a moral component that is inculcated from infancy.  Like it or not, muslims have a different definition of morality, and they are not going to be “educated” out of it.
    The  19 bombers were middle to upper class men, and educated.  They had all (I think) been exposed and lived in the 21st century culture of the United States, and in their moral judgment, the US needed to be bombed back to the stone age.
     
    The left needs to grow up and deal with reality.  But we’ve already agreed on that point…

  • SADIE

    If we just educate them and bring them up into the 21st century…
     
    Sorrowfully, we did. They all got their flying lessons here – a ‘little knowledge is a dangerous thing’.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    “egs of these realities into the round holes of their physical constructs in order to rationalize away the threat.

     
    They also like watching the weak suffer. So for entertainment alone, they go after those that are fighting Islam, just to hamstring em and watch em fall.
     
    That’s their reason for life almost. Where else are they going to find reason, in God? Nope.

  • SADIE

    What’s in a name or what’s in a number? GZM, Cordoba House or 51 Park. The property on Park Place is actually two buildings, to be merged into a single address. The purchased property at 45-47 is one half, the other address is 49-51, which is owned by Con Edison and to be leased for 70 years. To help with the passage below, I did a little research. Sa’iqah – thunderbolt Nuh – muslim prophet farish – prayer rug

    Sura 51:   41-48 (44. But they insolently defied the command of their Lord, so the Sa`iqah overtook them while they were looking.) (45. Then they were unable to rise up, nor could they help themselves.) (46. (So were) the people of Nuh before them. Verily, they were a people who were rebellious.) (47. With Hands We constructed the heaven. Verily, We are able to expand the vastness of space thereof.) (48. And We have made the earth a Firash; how excellent spreader (thereof) are We) My rhetorical question: What is more objectionable Cordoba House or Park 51

  • Danny Lemieux

    Suek proposes, “If we just educate them and bring them up into the 21st century…”

    SADE responds, “Sorrowfully, we did. They all got their flying lessons here – a ‘little knowledge is a dangerous thing’.”
    As people pointed out, the world of Islam has never been able to create things. All the weapons and technology they use against us are the creations of infidels. That must really burn them to no end, feeding their sense of inferiority and social failure. To the Democrat/Left, I suspect, this fact is patently unfair and our fault also.

    I have no problem with pointing out to people that the world of Islam is a world of failure and that their religion/political system has everything to do with this.

  • Danny Lemieux

    David Foster writes, “Much of this is about status. Academics, journalists, writers etc seem even more status-obsessed than humans in general…”.

    I think that David Foster is on to something and one form of “status” is p-envy. I remember as a student living in Colorado hearing a California Liberal/Lefty tell a group of us (one of whom was from a ranch family) that he absolutely hated cowboys. Now, of course, he had never even met a cowboy. What became evident, eventually, was that cowboys intimidated him. I think to Mike D’s point, Liberal/Lefties in academia know they totally intimidated by people who carry the real weight of the real world on their shoulders – cowboys, soldiers, policemen, firemen…real men in other words.

    I just got back from my recently enlisted son’s military unit’s “family day”. Looking around, I saw all kinds of people from all ethnic backgrounds and walks of life, well-adjusted, self-confident, happy, capable, take-charge people. And, yes, the military guys do get the pretty girls and I don’t think that it is just the uniform. This has to burn the Liberal/Lefties no end, so they fight back the only way they can by ridiculing, pouting, backstabbing, trash-talking, undermining…..

     

  • suek

    Sadie…
     
    So you’re saying that the imam can’t move because obviously the address is a clear indication that allah has willed that location?  The number itself has significance??  Interesting.
     
    It’s also interesting that anything that falls in their favor is willed by allah, anything that gets in their way – for example something that might prevent them from doing whatever it is that they want is _not_ insha’allah.

  • SADIE

    It’s also interesting that anything that falls in their favor is willed by allah, anything that gets in their way – for example something that might prevent them from doing whatever it is that they want is not insha’allah.
    It certainly eliminates self responsibility.
     
     
     
    suek…how many coincidences are there in life. When I read verse 51 all I could think of was September 11.
     
    The ‘thunderbolt’[exploding planes] made them unable to rise up or help themselves and were able to expand the vastness of space [that they did].
     
    No, we both know who/what wanted to destroy so much and so many. They’re opportunists and maybe it is a coincidence that one of the two addresses has a 51 – but ‘using’ it is not . I used to read Amir Taheri on Benador Associates. I don’t think they’re online anymore. They were way ahead of the times on content and coverage from a variety of speakers. Taheri always had very decent articles. I pulled this one from 2004.
     
    Amir Taheri’s remarks during the debate on ” Islam Is Incompatible With Democracy”
    There are 57 nations in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
    Not one is yet a democracy .
    The more Islamic the regime in place the less democratic it is.
    Democracy is the rule of mortal common men.
    Islam is the rule of immortal God.
    Politics is the art of the possible and democracy a method of dealing with the problems of real life.
    Islam, on the other hand, is about the unattainable ideal.
    All of it here… http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1138942/posts
     
    His closing comment:
    “Ladies and gentlemen: Islam is incompatible with democracy”.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com David Foster

    Danny L…it is very interesting how “cowboy” has become a term of opprobrium. As recently as the 1950s, Westerns could be made by liberals in a non-ironic, non-cynical way—the film “High Noon” was apparently intended as a metaphor for the need to resist McCarthyism.
    There’s a story about an English gentleman on tour in the Old West who met a cowboy and asked him, “And where is your master, my man?”
    “Son-of-a-bitch ain’t been born yet,” was the cowboy’s reply.
    I think many of today’s “progressives” are seriously disturbed by the existence of masterless men.
     

  • Mike Devx

    Yeah, my comment on the saying “Women love a man in a uniform” was just a comment about the SAYING itself.
    I agree that it means more than just the uniform.
     
    And Sadie’s point about tweed jackets is well taken!  I actually hesitated on my “tweed jacket” part of my insulting paragraph.  But I couldn’t come up with anything better.  I’m too isolated from that milieu to know what *they* are wearing these days.
     

  • Texan99

    David F — using the word “cowboy” as an insult always makes me think of the sneering Alan Rudd terrorist character in “Die Hard,” and John McClaine’s reply, “Yippy-kiy-yay, m***-f***.”

  • Gringo

    Mike Devx: it wasn’t Sadie, but I who  discussed your “tweed jacket” screed. While jeans and oxford shirt are more common these days, tweed /herringbone can still be found among the professoriate.
    Last year I was a witness in a civil suit involving my HOA and a wealthy investor. [BTW, the wealthy investor lost. And lost his appeal.] I wore a herringbone jacket to court, and got some comments about my “professorial appearance.”