|
An exchange with Melanie Phillips about Islam
Melanie Phillips replied to my article critiquing her approach to Islam and I wrote back to her. Here, with her permission, is her e-mail. Below it I repeat her entire e-mail, with my replies to her (which I’ve slightly revised) interspersed. Miss Phillips writes:
You have misunderstood and misrepresented my position. It is simply not true that I think “there are no real enemies.” I have written precisely the opposite. I do not think jihadism is a recent phenomenon and nothing I have written suggests that I do. I am well aware that it is rooted in Islamic theology and history, and have written as much in direct terms. However, to write off the whole of Islam and all Muslims as therefore irrevocably wedded to violent jihad, and for all time, leaves no way whatever to describe those Muslims, like the Sufis, who have a very different interpretation of their religion. They may be a small minority, but they exist. I have heard it said that such people are not “real” Muslims at all. I do not think it is for me or anyone else to say who is or is not a “real” Muslim, not least because this smacks of wrenching the evidence to fit a theory.Here is Miss Phillips’s e-mail again, with my replies. MP writes:
You have misunderstood and misrepresented my position. It is simply not true that I think “there are no real enemies.” I have written precisely the opposite. I do not think jihadism is a recent phenomenon and nothing I have written suggests that I do. I am well aware that it is rooted in Islamic theology and history, and have written as much in direct terms.LA replies:
But you said this:MP writes:
However, to write off the whole of Islam and all Muslims as therefore irrevocably wedded to violent jihad, and for all time, leaves no way whatever to describe those Muslims, like the Sufis, who have a very different interpretation of their religion. They may be a small minority, but they exist. I have heard it said that such people are not “real” Muslims at all. I do not think it is for me or anyone else to say who is or is not a “real” Muslim, not least because this smacks of wrenching the evidence to fit a theory.LA replies:
Your basic position is that we cannot make any general statements about Islam, because such statements will perhaps not be fair to a small and insignificant number of genuinely moderate Muslims whom you admit may not even exist. Your concern to avoid the possibility of an unfair statement about a small and insignificant number of people who may not even exist, trumps your willingness to form an understanding about the main and dominant thrust of Islam. Liberal anti-discrimination remains your highest value and guide. Thus, in the name of liberal pluralism and inclusion, you support the continuing mass immigration of Muslims into Britain.MP writes:
Your dismissal of the duty to tell the truth in the face of the lies being told by the Islamists is the most deeply alarming part of your argument. The fact that people are irrational should not mean that one should remain silent in the face of the lies they tell. One has an absolute duty to put truth into the public domain and challenge and expose propaganda. There are certainly some Muslims—maybe many—who are listening. They have only heard the propaganda; the truth gives at least some of them pause. That is worth doing.LA replies:
I have no idea what you mean by saying that I’m dismissing the duty to tell the truth in the face of lies. If you mean that I am not primarily concerned about persuading Muslims that the West is not a bad guy, that is true. This is because it is not what Muslims believe that really matters; it’s what WE believe. We ultimately cannot have any real influence over what Muslims believe. Our belief that we do is an illusion. For example, you think that if we present evidence to the Muslims that we are not attacking them, that will convince them that we are not attacking them, and so they will give up their hostility. Your whole assumption is that their hostility is based on some false belief about what we are doing. That assumption is false. Their hostility is based on the fact that we are infidels. And nothing we do, other than converting to Islam, can change that.MP writes:
But there are other more urgent reasons for telling the truth to mendacity. The reason the Islamists are making the running in Britain is precisely because of the silence that greets the lies they tell which are colonising public debate as a result. It is not a matter of persuading them; it is more a tactical check on the power of their ideas to spread. The lies are infectious; they spread hysteria. Once they are directly challenged, those who tell them rapidly deflate and have to move on to other grounds altogether. What you are missing completely is the effect they are having on public discourse generally.LA replies:
Yes, of course, I understand that you want to prosecute or expel the Muslims directly committing incitement to hate and terror. Fine. But all the other Mulims, who basically support the incitements to hate and terror, you want to persuade using sweet reason.MP writes:
Your sneering at my analysis of the part played by alienation is unwarranted and, I’m, afraid, crass and ignorant. Just as with any cult, there are people whose circumstances make them particularly vulnerable. There is a growing number of young Muslim professionals in Britain—not many, true, but once again they exist—who are impervious to the siren song of the Islamist recruiters because they have a more solid sense of their own identity. We should surely pay close attention to the circumstances which make certain young Muslims, by contrast, prime jihad fodder. Brushing aside the lethal intersection of cultural alienation and predatory jihadism, as you do, on the grounds that the only analysis to be allowed is that “Islam is the problem” both ignores the actual routes to extremism and once again wrenches the evidence to fit a theory.LA replies:
I dismiss your alienation analysis (1) because it’s small potatoes compared to the Muslim phenomenon as a whole, and (2) because it’s typical of a certain Western approach I’ve discussed many times, the tendency to explain Islamic radicalism in terms of some discrete socio-economic phenomenon understandable in Western terms, rather than in terms of ISLAM ITSELF. Muslims have been waging jihad war against non-Muslims for 1,400 years. There are minor variations from time to time and place to place in the exact manner of this jihad war. But it all follows the same basic, Islamic-authorized pattern and comes down to the same thing. Yet Western intellectuals refuse to admit this and look for some cause, any cause, other than Islam, to explain it. Leftists explain it in terms of Muslims being upset about evil Israel oppressing the poor Palestianians. Sociologists explain it in terms of alienation attendant on immigration into the West. Bernard Lewis explains it in terms of an inferiority complex caused by the Muslims being “left behind.” I could go on and on. What all these fancy theories have in common is that they ignore Islam itself as the cause of Islamic radicalism. And if I used a sneering tone, that is why I used it.MP writes:
You have a crude, black and white approach to this problem. I think it is much more complex than you allow. But what is worrying is the way you have misrepresented my argument by stripping it of that complexity.LA replies:
Miss Phillips, I understand that Islam is our adversary and that it is our mortal enemy. If that to you is a crude black and white approach that you disdain, then you are admitting that you will never see the truth about Islam and that, like a liberal, you will keep diddling while the West burns. The fact that you refuse to say that Muslim immigration into Britain should be stopped is proof of your ultimate lack of seriousness about the issue. Anthony D. writes:
You blew her out of the water. I think this was one of your finest rebuttals. Ms. Phillips’s metaphysical approach to the Islamic problem is actually aiding the Moslems’ agenda. By failing to see—as she so condescendedly charged you with—the very simple black and white nature of Islam’s existential threat to the West, she is missing the very big and obvious picture. Liberalism demands that the very notion that the savage can and may be anything other than noble, be banished to the furthest reaches of the self, beyond the frontiers of reason. Why, is a mystery. One observation is that despite all evidence that the ideology of Islam is awful, and stands against absolutely everything liberals stand for, liberals refuse to attribute collective responsibility to the millions standing in solidarity with its violence and global aspirations. Instead, the focus is placed on the minority of Moslems who may not demonstrate obvious hostilities against the rest of the non-Moslem world. So for the tiny minority of Moslems who don’t outwardly subscribe to jihad, we have to ignore tens of millions of Moslems who for example make up the bulk of jihadi fervor in Pakistan each and every Friday sermon.Ben writes:
It’s amazing how your arguments were so clear but she just cannot grasp it. Very simply (see this is the sin right here) you were saying Islam is the problem. But for the liberal this issue must be complex and not black and white.LA replies:
Right, if Melanie represents the “conservative” side of this debate, then that means there is NO serious response to the Islam threat on the horizon for the foreseeable future, and the only way the British might turn around is by the worst coming to pass.Jeff in England writes:
This is great stuff. Would Melanie have accused you of black and white thinking regarding opposition to the followers and teachings of Hitler or Stalin?…i doubt it. Melanie’s problem is that like Robert Spencer, she has a very deep liberal psychology to defend…. She wants us all to live together in one happy world, and will in the most deceptive way pretend to be dealing with the threat of Islam in a “complex” way when she is really appeasing it. I say deceptive not to insult her but because she will never take an issue to its logical conclusions because of her liberal agenda, even if she seems to be “conservative.” As I’ve said recently, we are getting this scenario a lot.Anthony J. writes from England:
You wrote:J. writes:
Note that Phillips is more concerned about Islam “colonising public debate” than colonizing Britain. Typical liberal worldview: satisfied to hold the imaginary high ground of liberal principle in the world of debate, while refusing to defend themselves in the real, physical world. It’s not a battle of concrete cultures or countries, but only a battle of ideas, and the only threat is “the power of their ideas.”LA replies:
J. has just discovered something key about Phillips that I’ve noticed before but never articulated. Her main complaint about both the Muslim influence in Britain and about PC is that debate has been stifled. She wants free and open debate. She wants people to be free to criticize Islam. But, as it turns out, that’s the main thing she wants. It is, as J. says, a typical liberal position. She’s not defending Britain substantively. She’s defending a liberal value of free speech. And, being a liberal, she cannot recognize that if the substantive British society that she refuses to defend from the Islamic invasion goes down, her liberal values will go down with it. (See the preface, “A Word to the Reader,” in The Path to National Suicide.)Karen writes from England:
An excellent critique of Melanie’s article, which proves that, in essencem she is a liberal. She formerly wrote for the Guardian until she had too many disputes with the editor and thought they were too left wing. I wonder if she will answer you and what she would think about stopping all Moslem immigration. She has never said this and I expect that if she did, her articles would not get published as she is already considered by many to be beyond the pale. She is brave in continuing to write as she does at least bringing this problem to public attention and she had major problems getting her last book published. However, she is still in denial about the real problem i.e., Islam itself.Matt H. writes from England:
I wondered when you and Ms. Phillips were going to “have a go” at each other. I have had a few brief email exchanges with her, poising the question of “Islamist” or Islam itself as the root problem with Britain. She doesn’t view any of this in “black and white” terms simply because to confront it publicly as such, would see a swift end to her journalistic career in this country. Having said this, I do have to admire her bravery in standing up to some of the ultra-liberal intelligentsias that corrupt the public debate on this issue. She is like the “black sheep” of the liberal flock of lambs that are lining up for the slaughter, and she is at least semi-conscious of this reality. If she were to take the VFR position on Islam, she would be writing leaflets for BNP. (Some BNP members have publicly acknowledged her writings and criticisms.)Charles G. writes:
That was a superb “deconstruction” of Phillip’s argument. I have found that when you expose the essential “liberalness” of a people’s ideas, they tend to escalate the dialog into a contentious framework.LA writes:
Two different explanations have been offered, that Miss Phillips takes the positions she takes out of liberal conviction, and that she takes them because she reasonably fears being closed out of British newspapers if she stated her true, more conservative, views.Jeff writes:
I don’t have the time to say anything more in detail about Melaniegate in VFR. But Karen and Ben and maybe others seem not to realise that Melanie openly declares she is a liberal. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t have internal psychological /political contradictions that press her but she is a liberal by admission. This is an important distinction to make and if you can point this out it would be helpful. There certainly are serious UK conservative (non-BNP) thinkers on the Muslim issue: Anthony Browne, Leo McKinstry, Minette Marin, Barbara Amiel, Michael Gove to name five. Douglas Murray, whatever bracket you put him in, is worth reading.LA writes:
Jeff has more or less answered my question. It’s clear that Miss Phillips wears her liberalism on her sleeve and that she is saying what she says out of conviction, not out of fear of how saying otherwise would affect her career.Andrea writes:
About your reply to Melanie Phillips, two words: Well done! And see how she “swerved”: “your sneering…” “You have a crude…?” It makes me want to say “ouch” when I read it. But, alas Melanie, the truth is unpleasant! She mistakes the awfulness of the truth for rudeness. These are indeed awful truths that will require tough, unpleasant measures. Not the least of which, if I may say so, is the courage to say what is true and endure name-calling and insulting language and possible marginalization as you have done. Let us hope that she will really be able to see what you mean. Your replies were excellent. And thank you, yet again, for all of this!Scott B. writes from England:
Great job with your email exchange!LA replies:
That’s a good argument. If one can make generalizations about “Islamists,” why not about Muslims? I think the answer from Melanie’s liberal point of view would be that Islamism is a distinctive ideology, like Communism, while Islam is a vast religion with over a billion members, a people, a civilization, a way of life. Therefore to make a severe negative generalization about Islam would be illegitimately discriminatory. But what Melanie (along with almost everyone else today) doesn’t realize is that, notwithstanding the great size of the Islamic population, there are basic unchangeable facts about Islam that justify general statements about Islam.Yesterday I wrote a follow-up note to Melanie Phillips:
In the blog entry with our exchange, I made two additions that were not in my original reply to you, indicated in bold:* * *
Miss Phillips, I understand that Islam is our adversary and that it is our mortal enemy. If that to you is a crude black and white approach that you disdain, then you are admitting that you will never see the truth about Islam and that, like a liberal, you will keep diddling while the West burns. The fact that you refuse to say that Muslim immigration into Britain should be stopped is proof of your ultimate lack of seriousness about the issue.Miss Phillips wrote back:
Once again you misrepresent my views to a startling degree. I do NOT say moderate Muslims may not even exist. I. say they do exist but are relatively few in number. I do NOT prioritise anti-discrimination: on the contrary, I devote much of my book to explaining why I think this doctrine has driven British society off the rails I do NOT say mass immigration should continue: on the contrary, I say in terms it should be stopped. I’m afraid you clearly have not understood what I have written.I replied:
Here is your comment on which I based my comment that you acknowledge that moderate Muslims may not even exist. You wrote:Melanie Phillips replies: I stated clearly that moderate Muslims DO exist. You have simply reversed what I said. People can judge for themselves how you have interpreted what I wrote. This discussion is now closed.LA to Melanie Phillips:
I’m sorry that you are closing the discussion. But before it is closed, a clarification is needed.A parallel exchange with Melanie Phillips that took place simultaneously with the above: MP to LA:
I do NOT prioritise anti-discrimination: on the contrary, I devote much of my book to explaining why I think this doctrine has driven British society off the rails I do NOT say mass immigration should continue: on the contrary, I say in terms it should be stopped. I’m afraid you clearly have not understood what I have written.LA to MP:
I’m excited to hear that you have said this. I’ve never seen you say this in your columns. Do you have any quotes of yours you could send in which you argue that mass Muslim immigration should be stopped?MP to LA:
For goodness sake, read the book.LA to MP:
Since I don’t have your book at hand, and many people are following this discussion at VFR right now, it would be very helpful to the debate if you would provide at least one passage from your book for me to post in which you argue that mass immigration should be stopped, since that is not an impression that people have of your views.Jeremy G. writes:
Larry,LA replies: Miss Phillips has answered my query and I am glad to learn that has indeed advocated a halt to immigration into Britain. Like Jeremy, I had never seen her say this in her columms. Miss Phillips writes:
There is a difference between advocating a halt to mass immigration, which is my position, and advocating a halt only to Muslim immigration, which is not. You appear not to grasp the difference. Here is a passage from the conclusion of my book:A “pause to immigration” means no immigration. I note again that, while I am very much heartened to learn that she has said this, at the same time, if this is her position, she has not exactly been consistent in stating it. I’ve already mentioned the discussion she and I participated in recently, in which she shot down any notion of stopping or reversing Muslims immigration, sternly characterizing it as a violation of Britain’s liberal pluralistic values. A correspondent of mine in England has questioned her repeatedly on her views on stopping Muslim immigration, and she has not replied to him. She did not take the opportunity on those occasions to say, as she does here, that she favors a halt to all immigration, not just the immigration of Muslims. But that means that she does favor a halt to Muslim immigration, and I don’t know why she has not been more clear about that. ______________ NOTE: It turned out, as I’ve explained in later entries, that the passage in the published version of Londonistan of which Miss Phillips had sent me her manuscript copy did not call for a “pause” of immigration, as the manuscript did, but only for unspecified “tough controls” on immigration. Thus, based on her own published writings, her angry claim, made to me in the above discussion, that she had called for immigration to be “stopped,” and that I was misrepresenting her on this point, was blatantly untrue. ______________ Here are follow-ups to this present thread as well as later entries on the same subject.
Phillips on Muslim immigration Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 06, 2006 07:56 PM | Send Email entry |