Dean's World

In other news, a far more rational writer, Armed Liberal, a.k.a. Marc Danziger, has some thoughts.

I'd like to ask Marc to update his link to point to this. And I'd say that some of the comments left by others to his article illustrate just how deep a problem Islamophobia has become in certain segments of the right and/or hawkish community.

So here's what I'll state again:

I believe Islamophobia is real. I think Marc Danziger would agree that it is. Am I right, Marc? And if so, how do you identify it, and what do you do about it? I know what I do: I'm rude about it when I see it.

That's my choice. You can choose other approaches. But a few years ago I started arguing with Islamophobes with cool reason and logic and references. Their response was to get nastier and snottier and meaner. I was challenged to find some Muslims who might come to Dean's World to show that they were rational, decent, modern human beings, and I thought that was a simply terrific idea, so I found a couple of terrific writers who had lots to say--not just about Islam, but lots of things that they might want to write about besides that--and they often got treated like utter garbage and as if they could fix the problem of terrorism all by themselves. I started semi-regularly finding good news stories, about progress and hope and reform, about Muslims making a difference, only to see that crapped upon regularly, usually as "taqiyyah" or some other such rubbish.

I even posted inspiring stories of Muslims serving in our armed forces, with valor, only to have that dismissed and ignored as utterly irrelevant to anything.

At some point I stopped being nice about this. And I will not start being nice about it again.

Because the fact is that American forces are fighting side-by-side with Muslims to defeat terrorism--all over the world. There are Muslim nations asking for help to stamp out terrorism. There are Muslim organizations worldwide trying to fight the cause. Treating all of this with contempt is utter insanity.

Not to mention that it's just plain bad behavior.

I cannot make anyone think anything. I can, however, set editorial policies for this web site. Which is, as anyone who really reads it knows, pretty much as hawkish on terrorism as you can get without advocating nuclear annihilation.

But: this is an Islamophobe-free zone.

That does not mean there can be no criticism, by the way. That's just another straw man. It means that if you cannot agree in principal to all five editorial principles I laid out right here, you don't belong here and will not be welcomed or treated politely.

That doesn't mean we can't be friends. But this is what I insist upon on this blog.

And that's really all there is to it.

I'm curious to know if Marc and the fine folks at Winds of Change find all that reasonable. Because I don't find it unreasonable at all.

I recently lost my temper after two years of trying to be temperate (sometimes successfully, sometimes not at all) on the subject of religious hatred. But I hereby withdraw my previous demand for "ideological purity," which was snotty and sarcastic and not sincere. I used it because I knew that if I put down any editorial policy, I'd be accused of that anyway. So I snottily said, "yeah!!" Because I didn't think it necessary to say that we don't put up with religious bigots or racists. But apparently, we do need to say it.

But: this is the new editorial policy at Dean's World, stated concisely:

"This is an Islamophobe-free zone."

I will not engage in lengthy parsings and arguments over exactly what that means. If you cannot tell the difference between "I believe Islam is a false faith" and "I believe Islam is the cause of terrorism and repression in the Middle East and wherever else it goes," then you don't belong here.

If you think the problem in the Middle East is primarily a Muslim Problem rather than a problem with a region plagued with a legacy of fascism, communism, and brutal dictatorships stemming from the Cold War and colonial eras---along with the ethnic strife and of course the religious matters that usually add to such things--then you do not belong here.

Heck, if you think the Middle East is "The Islamic World," you probably don't belong here.

It is henceforth the editorial policy that if you cannot write with the following as your presumptions, you do not belong here:

1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent upon destruction of the Christian world.

2) There is no 1,400 year old "war with the West/Christianity" being waged by "The Muslims" or anyone else.

3) Islam as a religion is no more inherently incompatible with modernity, minority rights, women's rights, or democratic pluralism than most ancient religions.

4) Medieval, anachronistic, obscure terms like "dhimmitude" or "taqiyya" are suitable for intellectual discussion & analysis. They are not and never will be appropriate to slap in the face of everyday Muslims or their friends.

5) Muslims have no more need to prove that they can be good Americans, loyal citizens, decent people, or enemies of terrorism than anyone else does.

If you have any further questions about the policy, direct them to me.

By the way, this also applies to people who hate Christians, or Jews, or other Major World Religions ("Major World Religions defined right here). Or even secular non-theists.

I am entirely certain that some will claim that this is still "ideological purity," which is why I caustically embraced the phrase in the first place. But I'm not putting up with having the front page or any more discussion threads derailed by Islamophobic garbage.