Description
This 16000-words essay provides a complete and definite answer to the challenges raised by the use of the duplicitous concept ‘islamophobia’.
The first part, A Battle Cry, deals with the concept of islamophobia, its epistemology, its history, its offensive character and the people and institutions that use it: from activists posing as scientists in the West to the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Because of the amazing lack of media- and scientific attention for this organization, this part elaborates on the perfidious character of the OIC and the change it went through since a watershed occurrence in Turkey of 1996: the reburial of Enver Pasha. A momentous event, the consequences of which were ruled very unlikely by Samuel Huntington in his Clash of civilizations, the reason why this part includes a paragraph Samuel Huntington totally flunked. There is a staggering difference between the ‘definitions’ of the concept used by Runnymede, the British organzation that made the use of the term commonplace and the EU on the one hand, and the OIC on the other hand. The essay zooms in on this difference.
Part two, Protecting the innocent, starts with the statement that exposing and rejecting the notion of ‘islamophobia’ neither increases nor decreases the need to protect the people who call themselves Muslims. To guarantee their safety nothing has to be added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or to western constitutions or laws. However, we must realise that facing a potential head-on collision of civilizations, we can not simply rely on the law: in the final analysis the political and ideological fight is of greater importance. The biggest, although not most acute danger for Mohammedans in countries not dominated by their ideology, is being accused of constituting a fifth column and treated accordingly. That is why surveys are included on what happened to the Japanese Americans in WW II and two other groups, the Volga Germans and the Bihari Mohammedans, that were brutally confronted with this accusation. A reference is included to the exemplary behaviour of the 100th battalion: while composed entirely of Japanese Americans this ‘purple heart battalion’ carried the slogan ‘Remember Pearl Harbour‘.
Part three is called Answering the threat. ‘Defusing of mohammedanism’ is what is called for by the author and an alternative formulation of Clausewitz’s famous assertion about politics and war is introduced: “Those who refuse to fight the ideological and political struggle to cope with a hostile ideology, increase the risk of (civil) war”. In this part it is further emphasized that a clash of civilizations can not be dealt with along judicial lines and most certainly not by rulings on intentions or ‘hate-speech’. It contains considerations on the trial in 2011 of the most famous member of parliament in the Netherlands: Geert Wilders.
