Radio
New Zealand National Nights’ Pundit – Religion, 15 March 2016. Dr Douglas Pratt.
Dr Douglas Pratt published a paper titled Reactive Co-Radicalisation: Religious
extremism as mutual discontent.
Bryan Crump interviewed him about the concept. Regrettably the paper is only available at a significant
cost, so I’m grateful to RNZ for bringing us the interview.
SUMMARY
Bryan asked an excellent set of questions
which very subtly undermined Dr Pratt as an expert witness. But the New Zealand world-view is such that
the poor reasoning employed by Dr Pratt and exposed by his questioning is
likely to go unnoticed.
COMMENTARY
One of the problems of being a good
interviewer in a contentious area is that questions need to be elliptical, something
Bryan has mastered well. But in almost
every such question he asked, Dr Pratt ignored the subtlety. To his question, “Is that fear based on
anything rational,” Dr Pratt responded by saying that it was quite irrational
for New Zealand, yet the country is letting in undocumented refugees from an
area which the evidence shows is exporting militants. So Dr Pratt is unable say whether it’s
irrational or not. What we do know is
that grounds for such fear exist, as evidence from the rest of the world attests. His reference to Trump’s rhetoric about shutting
the borders to all Muslims has to be seen in the light firstly that it followed
the San Bernardino Muslim terrorist shooting, and secondly in the light of the
United States attitude to Islam, in his words, “until our country’s
representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” Given the split narrative of Islam that affects
Western discourse, and given that Al Qaeda and IS are explicitly at war with
the US, that does not seem an unreasonable challenge.
Dr Pratt went wide of the mark in answering
the question, “Is Islamophobia … [a] fear of Islam” when he referred solely to
Muslims instead of their religion, then said that it’s the modern-day
equivalent of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism
is an extraneously-created hatred of Jews for being Jews, not for their
religion and particularly not for an explicit self-identified and actively
supported ideology such as Islam’s. ‘Islamophobia’ is equated with radical
Islam, where the cause of this ‘fear’, such as it is, is one created internally by Islam’s own ideology, by
its doctrines, its rhetoric and its actions. For someone with a doctorate in
theology to think in that way is an indictment of his reasoning or his
learning.
Again, Dr Pratt avoided an explicit answer
to the question regarding use of ‘Islamophobia’ to shut down debate, by
creating a straw man – the “Islamophobia industry.” I keep my eyes wide open for anti-Islamic
sentiment, but never have I seen anything that remotely qualifies as an
‘industry’ antagonistic to Islam. What I
do see is an “Islamic migration industry” emanating from Middle Eastern and
North African states, I see an “Islamic proselyting industry” emanating from
Egypt, Islamic State and Saudi Arabia, and an “Islamic normalisation industry” pervading
the entire Western world.
But here’s what Dr Pratt is not telling
us. There is an industry that exists as ‘Islamophobia
studies’ which clearly provides him with his raison d'être. Google gives 571,000 results to the term, and
lists huge quantities of journals, conferences, lectures, academics, resources,
networks, documentation, papers, surveys – the list goes on and on. All aimed at critics of Islam, none at its
cause. This is truly despairing.
‘Islamophobia’ is an ad hominem attack targeted
mainly at people who are knowledgeable about the arc of Islamic history, its ideology,
its actions and its goals, but more particularly those who see the danger it
poses to the West. ‘Industry’ needs
proof, but Dr Pratt only provides the example of a demented Norwegian and a
Swiss minaret ban. Dr Pratt seems to be advocating
either changing the characteristics of the Swiss skyline against the will of
the Swiss, or supporting Switzerland’s deculturation. Good question, inadequate and dissembling
answer.
Bryan asks, “I sometimes wonder whether if the extremists
from both sides are in league, ISIS would love to have a holy war, I’m sure,
and there are people here who want to give ISIS exactly what it wants, more
people in the West, which is just dumb” surprised me because it is so close to
my own thinking that I suspect I might have misinterpreted it1. Dr Pratt most certainly did since he wandered
off in the direction of Armageddon. No
problem for the geographically-challenged finding it in the Islamic State, but
in ‘Islamophobic’ extremists? It simply
doesn’t exist. His use of Armageddon
rather than ‘apocalypticism’ again discredits his academic credentials. It’s the better word, fundamental to all
Abrahamic religions, passive for Christians, preparative for Jews, and an
active goal for Islamic State and a necessity for most if not all Islamic sects.
Dr Pratt goes on to the theme of his paper,
the way in
which a religious community was being targeted by the West for the actions of
its extremist wing, but that we ignore the similar extremist rhetoric coming
from “secular, fundamentalist and other forms of religious fundamentalism, Christian ones.” Another straw man, which comes in the
regrettable shape of Anders Breivik. But
only him, he is the sole example of violent ideological opposition to
Islam. Here’s something that has gone
barely noticed about Breivik’s actions – they were entirely in line with
Islamist tactics. From the extraordinary
detailed and successful planning, the diversionary bomb, wearing military
clothing appropriate for the cause, through indiscriminate killing of innocents
to the plan to behead the Prime Minister, everything came from an Islamist
militant’s handbook and not from any other type of combat. He knew what created fear in the West. Deaths due to Islam – in the millions. Given Bryan's comment that Breivik’s target
was liberals, deaths due to ‘Islamophobes’ can be virtually counted on the
hands of one finger.
There
are real-world examples of reactive co-radicalisation,
but short of finding out from Dr Pratt’s paper, which I’m not willing to pay
for, they don’t exist in the West. It
can be found principally in India with Sikhs and Hindus, upset that their
coreligionists are being forced to convert through marriage with Muslims.
It could happen in Europe if nothing is
done to change the present situation.
There are very few active extreme2 right wing parties, but
many with centrist or socialist policies which are being designated Right or
far-Right simply on the basis that they wish to preserve national values
against an obvious threat. The question
I would ask is, "why are such parties being denigrated for it?" By such a definition Left-wing parties seek
to destroy national values. Which is
worse? As Left-wing as I am, I know
which I would better off with.
In sum, the, Dr Pratt seeks to normalise
Islam in the West by diminishing and ridiculing opposition to it with flagrant
insults. He raises a valid construct but
applies it to a non-existent entity of his own creation, for purposes which do
not serve Western civilisation.
CONCLUSION
‘Islamophobia’ is a classic straw man
argument. Anyone who opposes Islam is
classified thus, as Bryan so rightly says, to shut down debate. Radio New
Zealand has on several occasions raised ‘Islamophobia’ as a topic of discussion
but never once sought or interviewed a member of the ‘Islamophobic industry.’ Could be they don’t exist, since straw men
can be guaranteed not to talk back.
*********************************************************************************
1.
I have long held that there is
a coalition of Islamists and the extreme Left that goes beyond mere Muslim
support for Left-wing electoral candidates.
Both parties are communitarian, both want global domination, both want
the abolition of the current cultural landscape and both will use any means
possible to obtain it. Evidence
abounds. What happens after one or the
other side gets to dominate doesn’t bear thinking about since their ideologies
conflict at almost every level.
2.
‘Extreme’ and ‘far’ need to be
differentiated. I do so here: http://dyspeptic-lucubrations.blogspot.co.nz/2015/10/far-from-extreme.html
No comments:
Post a Comment