Richard Dawkins (left), feted by left-wing scientifically-minded atheists, was recently banned from appearing on a Californian radio station for having made hurtful remarks about Islam. In itself this is all a bit passé. Liberal radio station in liberal California bans critic of Islam. However, Dawkins’ response was revealing.
This is from his open letter to the Berkley radio station KPFA:
If you had consulted me or if you had done even rudimentary fact-checking you would have concluded that I have never used abusive speech against Islam. I have called IslamISM “vile” but surely you, of all people, understand that Islamism is not the same as Islam. I have criticised the ridiculous pseudoscientific claims made by Islamic apologists (“the sun sets in a marsh” etc.), and the opposition of Islamic “scholars” to evolution and other scientific truths.
I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. Far from attacking Muslims, I understand – as perhaps you do not – that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women…I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that.
Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?[i]
By the way, we know the answer to this question. It is because they might kill you or bomb your radio station or, at the very least, whine you to death with insufferable, endless claims of “Islamophobia”. But look at what Dawkins is saying: Islam gets a pass when it comes to being the target of his invective. Islamism is the real evil. It was not always thus.
“I think Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today. I have said so, loudly and often,” tweeted Dawkins in 2013, according to the Daily Mail (10 August). So, which is it, Islamism or Islam, that should have us quaking in our boots? Which Dawkins do we believe? Surely an atheist warrior of such impeccable credentials is not bowing to religious pressure?
In any event, he got it right first time. It is pure sophistry to distinguish between Islam and an evil offspring called Islamism, unless you can point to a mainstream body of Islamic thought and scripture which disavows the vile aspects of Islam. But time and time again serious Islamic scholars embrace the whole kit and caboodle. After all, which of Allah’s words and Muhammed’s words and actions can be discarded?
Islamic apologists distinguish between Islam and Islamism to give Islam a pass. It makes no sense. For example, exactly how do you square the widespread application of apostacy laws thought the Islamic world and intolerance of other religions with Islam being on some kind of higher plane than Islamism. On the other hand, perhaps it makes convenient sense to those wanting to cosy up to Islam.
Interviewed about his banning on Fox News, Dawkins was asked why the left appears to side with Islam. He wasn’t sure but thought that it might be because some of those on the left, whom he described as ‘regressive’, associated Islam with a race and therefore in their eyes criticism of Islam was racist. This is rich.
We are meant to believe not only in a distinction between Islam and Islamism but also between progressive and regressive leftists. And, to boot, that so-called regressive leftists are such idiots that they don’t know the difference between religion and race. These are all Dawkins’ delusions. There is one Islam and only one modern left. Both despise Western values and traditions. This, and the pursuit of power, glues them together in a tawdry alliance.
Where this leaves people like Dawkins I don’t know. He’s likely to find more of his media leftist mates deserting him unless he reserves his anti-God stance for Christianity and, say, Hinduism. He can try to thread the needle all he likes between Islam and Islamism. It won’t wash.