On dishonest quote mining and false accusations of bigotry

It’s been brought to my attention that I’m being attacked by a couple of far-left blogs. One of these blogs seems to be run by a George Galloway fanclub, while the other is run by a member of a historical reenactment society called the SWP, whose members like to pretend they’re taking part in a Communist revolution. About the only modern idea they seem to embrace is recycling – in their case, recycling the ideas of Trotsky. I won’t bother wasting time replying to their facile ‘arguments’ at any great length as I’ve already done so before. Should you wish, you can read those responses here and here.

There is one thing that is worth pointing out about attacks such as these, as there have been quite a few of a similar nature that make use of a few quotes from a four part study of the Qur’an I wrote for the rationalist website Butterflies & Wheels. The Gallowayite site states:

Standing’s views on Islam are just as forthright. He describes the Qur’an in the following terms: “I hope to demonstrate to the reader quite what a divisive, primitive, and insulting book it actually is “; and he condemns ” the hateful attitude it takes towards those who do not accept Islam”, and demands: “how can texts like those I have just cited do anything but instill a negative or contemptuous attitude towards non-Muslims? ”

As the link leading up to the quotes is dead, I can only assume this section was copied and pasted from some other website. The article in question can now be found here.

‘Critiques’ such as these engage in quote mining that seems so blatant that it is hard to see it as being accidental. Let’s take the first quote, for example, which is almost certainly deliberately taken out of context to create the impression that I’m trying somehow to attack Muslims. Here is the full quote, with the missing text in bold:

In this article, I shall look at exactly what the Qur’an says, and I hope to demonstrate to the reader quite what a divisive, primitive, and insulting book it actually is; not to provoke hostility towards Muslims, nor to be deliberately and gratuituously offensive, but for the important reasons outlined above.

They never quote the reasons I gave either, which is unsurprising. I wrote:

It seems to me vitally important in a time in which this book [the Qur'an] and this religion [Islam] are proclaimed so widely and so loudly to be the Truth and to be beyond criticism that those of us who value the fruits of the Enlightenment – rational, secular thought and discourse, freed from the often horrific superstitions of ignorant men of the past – should endevour to both examine and critically evaluate Islam and its much vaunted ‘holy book’.

The Enlightenment and the huge social changes it ushered in are precious gifts that it is our duty to protect against the forces of resurgent irrationalism in the world today. The values and achievements of the Enlightenment are things which should be open to all, regardless of skin colour or ethnicity: in short, they are not simply a luxury for white Western elites. In seeking to ‘understand’ Islam and in offering an unthinking and servile ‘respect’ for the Qur’an, many feel they are championing the cause of minorities and protecting them from bigotry and Western ‘cultural imperialism’. This is utter condescending nonsense. There is no reason why brown skinned people should be left in the chains of superstition and there is no reason why the things many of them hold dear should be beyond rational criticism. Beliefs have consequences, and in the case of this particular religion one of those consequences is that many of its followers feel duty-bound to attempt to roll back the Enlightenment and to ‘Islamify’ the West. This is an unpopular statement to make, considered in the minds of many self-proclaimed liberals and progressives to border on ‘bigotry’ or to actually constitute a form of ‘racism’. But bigotry and racism are enemies of Enlightenment rationalism – they belong to precisely the same realm of irrational, petty, provincial thinking that produced competing religions, all proclaiming to be bearers of the Truth without a shread of real evidence, and all quite unsatisfactory if we are to be serious about developing further together as a global community in the years to come.

Hardly the statements of someone seeking to launch ‘bilious attacks on Muslims’, as the SWP blogger claims.

Then there are the following quotes: ‘the hateful attitude it takes towards those who do not accept Islam’ and ‘how can texts like those I have just cited do anything but instill a negative or contemptuous attitude towards non-Muslims?’

That quote is again given no context. It actually appears at the end of a list of quotes from the Qur’an about those who refuse to accept Islam. Quotes such as:

Have you not seen those who dispute with respect to the communications of Allah: how are they turned away? Those who reject the Book and that with which We have sent Our Apostle; but they shall soon come to know, when the fetters and the chains shall be on their necks; they shall be dragged into boiling water, then in the fire shall they be burned (Qur’an 40.69-72).

And:

Has not there come to you the news of the overwhelming calamity? (Some) faces on that day shall be downcast, laboring, toiling, entering into burning fire, made to drink from a boiling spring. They shall have no food but of thorns, which will neither fatten nor avail against hunger (Qur’an 88.1-7).

And my conclusion reads in full:

These are clearly not the writings of a rational mind. Deranged by religious delusions, the author or authors of these passages would no doubt be considered mentally ill or psychologically unbalanced were this ‘holy’ book to be written today. Yet, as a religious text, the Qur’an is all too often given a special exemption from normal criticism, and we are told that we must show it ‘respect’, despite the hateful attitude it takes towards those who do not accept Islam. Around the world, children are taught to revere the Qur’an as the very words of the creator of the universe, as a perfect book with a timeless message, yet how can texts like those I have just cited do anything but instill a negative or contemptuous attitude towards non-Muslims? And why would anyone in their right mind claim that this book should be held up as the most important book ever written, or even as a great work of literature?

Later, in part four of the same article, I wrote:

We need to stop cowering in fear of being accused of ‘bigotry’ or ‘Islamophobia’, or ‘racism’, or any of the other labels that are all too often attached to those who dare to critically examine Islam, and we also need to be firm in our rejection of far-right political parties and organisations that are attempting to make problems related to Islam ‘their issue’ and who are seeking to slide a racist agenda in under the guise of ‘defending the West’. As a committed anti-racist I will not be told by genuine bigots that they ’speak for me’, because they most certainly do not.

In this article I wrote that ‘anti-Muslim bigotry is undoubtedly a problem that needs to be confronted’, ‘anti-Muslim bigotry is often appalling and must be opposed’, and that we must ‘promote the values of the Enlightenment, oppose racism, and seek to stand up against genuine anti-Muslim bigotry’.

The fact is, when it comes to my positions on criticism of Islam and Islamism and opposition to anti-Muslim bigotry, I have been consistent and crystal clear. I can only assume that those who level pathetic accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ against me have either not read my articles in full, have the reading comprehension skills of a primary school child, or are deliberately and maliciously quoting me out of context in order to present me as someone who promotes bigotry towards Muslims.

I think the latter is most likely, and this says a lot about the intellectual honesty and credibility of the writers in question.

The Taliban and Revolutionary Victory

A quick reminder as to why posts like Gene’s on the plight of Afghan women are unlikely to give the ‘anti-war’ Trots any sleepless nights. You see, ultimately, supporting the Taliban will lead to Socialism. An article by Jonathan Neale in the SWP’s pseudo-intellectual journal International Socialism explains how.

While he acknowledges that the so-called ‘resistance’ in Afghanistan is led by ‘the right wing Taliban’ (I wasn’t aware they advocate free markets and individual liberty, but anyway), Neale nonetheless hopes for ‘a victory for the resistance’ – after all, ‘[t]he Taliban have walked the walk and earned their place at the table’. Towards the end of the article, Neale’s delusions are fully expounded. According to this SWP ideologue, supporting the Taliban will somehow bring about a victory for Socialism:

For too long most of the left in Pakistan has identified the jihadis and the Taliban as the main enemy. There is likely to be a moment of rebellion against the Americans in Pakistan in the next few months or years. When that comes, if the left is strong and passionate and enraged on the streets, that could change politics in Afghanistan too.

In other words, then, Neale is fully aware of the fact that the Afghan ‘resistance’ is led by theocratic maniacs who kill British troops, throw acid in the faces of girls who try to go to school, and train children to become suicide bombers, but sees that as a trifling matter compared to his fantasy that somehow their hatred for the West will ultimately lead to the establishment of a Socialist utopia.

The same bizarre ‘reasoning’ of course underlies the far-left’s approach to various Islamist groups in the UK. You see, according to John Molyneux of the SWP, also writing in International Socialism, given enough time, Islamist radicals will come to see that what they actually want is Socialism, not the Islamism they currently espouse:

The vast mass of workers will be liberated from their religious illusions not by arguments, pamphlets or books, but by participation in the revolutionary struggle, and beyond, in the building of socialism. In such a situation it is incumbent on the party to ensure that religious differences, or differences between the religious and the non-religious, do not obstruct the unity of working class struggle. Moreover, insofar as the party becomes a truly mass party, leading the class in its workplaces and communities, it will inevitably find in its ranks a layer of workers who remain religious or semi-religious. To reject such workers because of their religious illusions would be sectarian and non-materialist. It would be to share the religious/idealist mistake of regarding religion as the most important element in consciousness and consciousness as more important than practice. At the same time, the party must not become a religious party, or party whose policy, strategy or tactics are shaped by religious considerations. Revolutionary victory requires that the party should be guided by the theory that expresses the collective interests and struggle of the working class, namely Marxism. Therefore the party must ensure that on this matter it educates and influences its religious members rather than vice versa.

For the SWP and their ilk, the fact that they find themselves standing shoulder to shoulder with theocrats who oppose almost everything they stand for is of no importance. What matters  is that these Islamists are fellow ‘workers’ who are, whether they realise it or not, participating in a ‘revolutionary struggle’. Such participation will supposedly lead the Islamists to be ‘liberated from their religious illusions’ and ultimately result in a ‘revolutionary victory’.

So, don’t expect them to be moved by the plight of women like Aisha. What’s a missing nose here or a burnt off face there when the day of Socialist victory draws ever nearer?

Further Reading for White Liberals

Nirpal Singh Dhaliwal, ‘How wet white liberals became the ultimate black joke‘:

Groovy white liberals can pose serious problems to ethnic minorities in this country. They contributed to some of the most enjoyable and least productive moments of my childhood. I went to an all-boys comprehensive school in Ealing; the pupils were overwhelmingly black and Asian. Some, like me, were the children of Indian immigrants, others, refugees from Somalia, Iran, Armenia . . .

We’d often get a fresh-faced, idealistic teacher who had no doubt read Marx and Malcolm X and done an elective in post-colonial theory at polytechnic. We ate those suckers alive.

Desperate to empathise with our persecution, they were knocked dead by our indifference and rampant misbehaviour. At the first sniff of guilt-ridden middle-class weakness, the feral instincts of teenage boys were unleashed and the class descended into anarchy. They thought we’d been crazed by oppression, so didn’t want to come down too hard on us. They wanted to understand instead. When it did get too much for them and they threatened to march one of us to the headmaster’s office, our immediate protest would be: “You’re a racist!”

[...]

A stalwart gang of diehard traditionalists prevented us from leaving school illiterate. Chief among them was Mr Garrett, my form tutor. He was an imposing behemoth of a man, who couldn’t have cared less about our ethnicity and historical subjugation. He had high expectations of how we should behave and apply ourselves, and flew into thunderous, terrifying rages whenever we failed to meet them.

He was the kind of guy who’d never get a job in education today. For some kids he was the most solid male presence they had in their lives. Whenever I bump into former classmates in my old neighbourhood, he’s the teacher we remember most fondly, wondering how he’s doing now. He didn’t always have our affection, but he commanded our respect. He saw enough innate worth in us to set us standards and be bitterly disappointed when we fell short.

Things are very different today. I have a friend who teaches, and he says it’s normal for teachers not to reprimand badly behaved black kids because “they suffer enough oppression as it is”. The soft bigotry of wet liberals is as insidious as the racism of white supremacists. Lowering the bar for children because you consider them oppressed has the same effect as expecting little of them because you think them inferior.

Lloyd Marcus, Open letter to white liberals from a black American:

Thank you very, very much. You see us poor helpless inferior blacks, oh forgive me, I must be politically correct, “African Americans,” and you want to help us using your superior intellect. After all, we could not possibly succeed in this racist, homophobic and greedy country without your assistance.

[...]

Oh, and thanks for encouraging schools to accept black kids speaking Ebonics rather than English. It would be racist to expect us simple minded colored folks to learn to speak English correctly. And besides, we don’t want our black kids sounding too white. Authentic blacks must sound like the hood, love rap and Kentucky Fried. I would never trust any black that eats “sushi”; which is probably what those traitors, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas eat. If Justice Thomas would have answered his phone with a “What up!” and a heartfelt “A-muri-ka sucks,” the NAACP would have championed him as a true brother faithful to his blackness. Sadly, Rice and “Uncle Thomas” as we call him, chose the character, education and hard work route to success. How disgusting!

And a quick personal anecdote: I was recently talking to a friend of mine who refers to herself not as mixed-race, ‘biracial’, or ‘dual heritage’, but rather as half-caste (‘always have been half-caste, and always will be’). Her boss is a white liberal who, upon hearing my friend use the term ‘half-caste’ got rather upset and told her off, informing her that she was using racist language and it was unacceptable for a mixed-race person to use the term ‘half-caste’, even when describing herself. You see, my poor little friend (being a shade darker an’ all) doesn’t understand racism like white liberals do. Thank goodness her boss was around to ‘explain’ things to her…

Islamophobia Watch continues to promote Bunglawala

Fake moderate Muslim Inayat Bunglawala of the fake moderate Muslim Council of Britain has written this week in support of a fake moderate Muslim cleric who thinks Allah sent Hitler to punish Jews and hopes for another Holocaust, this time at the hands of Muslims.

How does ‘Islamophobia Watch’ – a site run by far-Left non-Muslims – choose to write about Bunglawala’s article?

Witch-hunt against UK Muslim organisations over Fort Hood

Writing at Islam Online, Inayat Bunglawala examines how Anwar Al-Awlaki’s support for the Fort Hood killings has been used to promote “a modern version of a McCarthyite witch-hunt against leading UK Islamic organizations and Muslim individuals”.

Incredible.