Cory Robin, author of the fascinating book The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin, has an interview at Salon with Moustafa Bayoumi, Professor of English at Brooklyn College Professor and a practicing Muslim.
Here I’ve jotted down few thoughts I had to in reaction to some of Bayoumi’s statements. There is much more that could be said of Bayoumi’s dubious politics:
ROBIN: …What are the images or colors of War on Terror culture?
BAYOUMI: A lot of screaming beards. And hijabs. It’s comprised of images of Muslims as either victims or villains, and really nothing in between.
Screaming beards and jihabs. Those, according to Bayoumi are images of the “War on Terror culture” in Robin’s bizarre phrase.
But are those images of a “War on Terror Culture”? Or are they images of Islam?
Screaming beards and hijabs are features of Islam itself. They are features that are found everywhere in societies suffused with Islam. This is because in Islam, wearing beards is required for men, as is head covering for women. How severe these restrictions are in practice depend on the circumstances, but the worst of it is now seen regularly in places like Paris, London, Amsterdam and Stockholm.
BAYOUMI: Take myself as an example. I have nothing to do with terrorism. Nobody I know has anything to do with terrorism.
Even if this is true (he could simply be practicing taqiyya – ‘dissimulation’), this doesn’t mean that Bayoumi’s practice of Islam, however apparently peaceful, is unproblematic.
Jihad is not just “terrorism” – acts of violence which in Islam are called “qitaal” (fighting). Jihad is a hydra-headed, multi-pronged instrument of warfare, involving a wide range of activities that work to expand the rule of Islam, the rule of the ummah (the Community of Believers) and Sharia law.
Those activities include, but are not limited to:
- campaigns of religious propaganda
- campaigns of deceptive political speech and writing Jihad-of-the-tongue / Jihad-of-the-pen
- campaigns of Da’awa (prosyletization). Da’wa goes like this: Knock, knock. Door opens. “Hi, my name is Azim, and I’d like to tell you about the Holy Qur’an. Don’t mind my scary looking friends over there. They’re harmless.”
- the Wealth Weapon. Financial muscle flexing of uncountable kinds. See the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
- Jihad-by-demographic conquest. In this mode of Jihad, Muslims will try to out-breed Infidels in their own lands. They can do this by Muslim couples merely having more children than the Infidels around them tend to, or they can do this by through the practice of polygamy.In Islam non-Muslim women can marry Muslim men, but Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men. If these rules are enforced (and they will tend to be enforced, as Muslim communities enlarges and self-segregates as Islam requires them to do), then the result will be a Islam demographic shift, with Infidel wombs joining the ummah, but Muslim wombs generally not joining the Infidels.The result is, as Allah, the Greatest of Planners willed beforehand, that the Muslim population is always increasing, the Infidel population always decreasing. This process of Jihad-by-demographic-conquest is already well under way in Britain and Europe, and has in recent decades taken over Lebanon by demographic conquest. See here for more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lebanon#Religious_population_statistics
But Bayoumi is not going to tell the readers of Salon about any of this. Terrorism is merely a tactic, merely a prong in that hydra-headed, multi-pronged instrument of warfare that is the Jihad. Bayoumi’s language “all Muslim life in America is seen through the lens of terrorism. So either you are a victim of this war or you are villain who is responsible for it” carefully avoids these other less immediately violent aspects of Jihad. The false dichotomy of either terrorist or not keeps the reader unaware of the other tools of Jihad. Bayoumi’s language keeps the reader focused on the false notion that acts of Jihad terror are the what his Infidel audience has most to worry about. Indeed it is these latter aspects of Jihad, particularly the Wealth Weapon, campaigns of Da’wa and Jihad-by-demographic-conquest that are the most dangerous tools of Jihad, not terrorism. Bayoumi doesn’t want his readers to know about any of this. And of course, his task is made all the easier by the supine posture of his interviewer, Corey Robin. Supine because ignorant, because lazy-minded, about Islam.
Moving on, we find some highly suspicious language from Bayoumi. Read carefully:
BAYOUMI: It’s important to recognize that Muslims were in the United States since the colonial era. Sizable numbers of Muslim Africans were brought here and enslaved.
Whats that Moustafa? Muslim Africans were “brought here and enslaved” ?
The way this is phrased gets the sequence of events exactly backward. Black Africans, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, were not “brought here and enslaved”. They were enslaved first THEN brought here. Those who enslaved the black Africans first were … Arab Muslims, who then sold them to European slave traders.
They way that Bayoumi phrases the enslavement of black Africans is highly suspicious. The readers of Salon.com, if they are unaware of the history, will read this line and the image invoked is of blacks being brought across the Atlantic and then enslaved upon arrival. This glosses over the horrors of both the Middle Passage AND the of Islamic slavery in Africa, about which much has been written.
By phrasing the chronology of enslavement in this backward way, Bayoumi carefully misdirects the reader into thinking that it was Europeans who first enslaved black Africans, rather than Arab Muslim slavers.
Why would Bayoumi want to suggest this backward chronology of enslavment? Could it be that he is keen for the readers of Salon to remain ignorant and un-alert to the history and current reality of Islamic slavery?
Islamic slavery, including the enslavement of black Africans continues to this day, in Sudan, in Mauritania, and in Saudi Arabia. In addition, some Muslims the wealthy Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, UAE – all of those horrific countries – buy up young boys of about 5 years of age off the streets of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh and smuggle them into their oil sheikhdoms, where they are used as sexual playthings and camel jockeys, about which more here and here.
But Bayoumi doesn’t want to talk about any of this, and Robin is too dumb to ask him. Rather, he wants to tell us of the horrors of “Islamophobia” – that imaginary thought crime that mesmerizes the ignorant fools of the hard Left.
If Robin wants to maintain his credibility on the topic of slavery, he should bring up these points with Bayoumi, to see if he will correct the record.