Interfaith Doofus Wants Us To Stop Referring to "Moderate" Muslims Because Doing So Empowers "Islamophobia"

Silly me. I thought it made excuses for Islam's doctrines of jihad and supremacism.

Just goes to show what I know.

Nathan Lean, on the other hand (loved you in La Cage aux Folles, Nate), who's the Research Director at Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (which, tellingly, excludes the Jews), finds the "moderate" word most "troubling":

The idea of a “moderate Islam” or “moderate Muslim” is intellectually lazy because it carves the world up into two camps: the “good” Muslims and the “bad” Muslims, as Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani has noted...Until proven good, or in this case “moderate,” all Muslims are perceived as “bad,” or potentially extreme. We certainly don’t spend our time searching out “moderate” Christians or Jews, but rather reckon that the Westboro Baptists, Jewish Defense League, and others are aberrations. And sure, Muslims give us plenty of bad examples, but it’s our own fault if we allow those examples to constipate our ability to perform basic logic.

"Constipate": what an odd--and dare one say offensive and anally retentive--way to put it.

But how would Lean characterize, say, ISIS and Hamas? Would he call them "good" Muslims (because they follow to the letter the commands in Islam's holy texts to fight the infidel and spread the one true faith)? And are we, non-interfaithy kafirs, not allowed to say they're bad even though they do demonstrably bad things--like, say, slicing off people's heads and turning toddlers into rocket fodder? Or would Lean see that, too, as a function of our "Islamophobia"?

As it happens, I'm not so hot on the "moderate" label either. Oh, not because it sets up a "false" dichotomy between "good" and "bad" Muslims, but because it is not at all accurate. There are many different kinds of Muslims. Some of them go in for that jihad/supremacism business; some do not. I think that instead of focusing on labels like "moderate" and "radical/extremist," we should look at what's inspiring so many Muslims to behave in harmful and savage ways. Because unless we are free to talk about that, we might as well all say "Uncle!" right now.

The word that's really troubling, of course, is "Islamophobia." It is intellectually lazy because it carves up the world into two camps: the "good" infidels who accept the problematic aspects of Islam and problematic actions of Muslims without cavil, and the "bad" infidels (some of whom are mentioned by name in Nate's screed) who rail against "jihad is the way, sharia is the goal" (which, by no coincidence, is the motto of the folks--the MuBros--who coined the term "Islamophobia" in the first place).

Update: FYI, the full and proper name of Nate's employer is "The Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding."

Funny how the New Republic left out the first part of the title, no?

Update: Discover the Networks has a write-up on Nate's employer.

Update: Oooo, scary:

WITH THE RISE OF “stealth jihad,” “creeping Sharia,” “Islamofascism,” and “terror babies” in places like “The United States of Islamica,” “Eurabia,” and “Londonistan,” who wouldn’t be scared?

Fear sells and the Islamophobia Industry — a right-wing cadre of intellectual hucksters, bloggers, politicians, pundits, and religious leaders — knows that all too well. For years they have labored behind the scenes to convince their compatriots that Muslims are the enemy, exhuming the ghosts of 9/11 and dangling them before the eyes of horrified populations for great fortune and fame.

Their plan has worked.

Bwahahahaha!

Update: Poor David Cameron. He's such an "Islamophobe."