Dear Editor:
On Oct. 23, the Daily published my op-ed entitled, "Looking beyond the Islamofascism rhetoric." An excellent example of Islamophobic thinking appeared directly below it: an op-ed by junior Matthew Ladner entitled, "It's called 'jihad' for a reason."
The "Western world is fighting a religious war," wrote Matthew Ladner. "The line of demarcation separating moderate Muslims from extremists is fading into obscurity." Fundamentalist Islam, Ladner wrote, is "a volatile mix of religious politics and militarized self-pity." It's an ideology, wrote Ladner, "that condemns apostates to death," and "permits the stoning of 'adulterous' women, and stifles already stagnant societies." He refers to the Sharia (traditional Islamic law).
But the fact is that in most Muslim societies (including the most populous -Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.), Sharia law doesn't prevail. Women weren't stoned to death in Iraq before the invasion, or in Syria, targeted for "regime change."
Ladner's vilification of the Sharia disregards historical context. The Sharia is historically linked to the biblical laws of Moses. According to Leviticus 20:10, an adulteress must be put to death. But how many Jews or Christians want to implement such "laws" today? It'd be unfair to them (whom Ladner claims "have largely resolved" the "tensions between moderation and extremism") to throw that historical baggage in their faces in an effort to put them on the defensive. It's equally unfair to depict Muslims as misogynistic homicides because of things written 1,400 years ago.
Ladner claims that "Salafization of the Muslim world does not require any abstract discussion." But he misuses that term, "Salafism," conflating it with Iranian Shiism and betraying his own need for further study and discussion. He adds, "The most recent data is self-explanatory," listing the results of a recent Muslim world poll that show "the prevalence of a dangerous ideology."
What data? "Seventy-nine percent of respondents think it is likely the United States is trying to weaken and divide Islam." What's "Salafist" or "radical Islamist" about that perception? There are, in fact, a lot of high-profile Americans trying to do precisely that.
"Seventy percent at least somewhat agree that Sharia law should be strictly applied in every Islamic country." Even if true, how does that threaten the United States?
"Twenty-seven percent do not feel that groups using violence against civilians violate the principles of Islam ..." For perspective, how many American Christians would justify violence against certain civilians in some circumstances?
"Seventy percent support standing up to America and affirming the dignity of the Islamic people ... Sixty-four percent believe that the U.S. intends to spread Christianity in their regions." These are supposed to be "self-explanatory" evidences of a "dangerous ideology"?
Ladner boldly concludes, "Muslim accusations against the United States and the West do not speak to reality, history or legitimate fear."
I'd say, rather, that proponents of "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week" are themselves trying, in the absence of a realistic assessment of history, to spread fear.
Gary LeuppProfessor of History
