My only surprise is that there hasn’t been more of this.
Despite the disingenuous hype on the right-hand side of the aisle, “the Left” and Islamism have precious little in common, other than maybe a dislike of American influence in the world. But most of us are able to rise above a simplistic “enemy’s enemy” approach to geopolitics, and recognize that the values of Islamism are antithetical to almost everything we progressives stand for.
I use the term “Islamism” in the conventional way, to describe an extremist, intolerant, politicized form of Islam. Its values are predicated on intolerance—of women who want to be more than chattels, of gays and lesbians, of trade unions, of secular education, of science, of anyone who doesn’t think like an Islamist. It’s a pro-war ideology, pro-subjugation, utterly anti-democratic.
Islamists are big on “family values,” to the point that adultery and homosexuality are punishable by death. Like the extreme versions of that other Abrahamic religion, Christianity, “Thou shalt not” is everywhere; and there’s enough hellfire and torment in store for sinners to satisfy the most jaded member of the Westboro Baptist Church.
What’s not to like? It’s an accident of history, perhaps, that the extremists on the Right and the foaming Islamists have not made common cause—one could conceive of a possible Islamo-Christianism, seeking to impose a common patriarchal Abrahamic morality on the majority of the world’s population. A fine “alternate worlds” novel might be based on just such a notion.
Instead, thankfully, we have rancorous divisions: the Right in North America and Europe dislike their swarthy cousins, not realizing that, objectively, they should be allies. “Creeping Sharia” is considered a threat rather than a simpatico outcome of the clash of civilizations.
Arnoud Van Doorn is here to build some bridges. Will he remain alone?
[H/t AbdulJabbar Suhail, b/c]