Liberals are more concerned with “Islamophobia” than with the content of Islamist doctrine. It is they who are guilty of a profound failure of empathy.
The results of the 1996 Dizengoff Center suicide bombing.(photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)BySAMUEL J. HYDEI have long struggled to understand how intelligent, well-educated liberals fail to recognize the unique dangers posed by Islamism. Elsewhere, I’ve argued that such people often don’t grasp what it means to genuinely believe in God or paradise and therefore assume that no one else truly does. At best, they believe that such convictions couldn’t possibly be the primary motivation behind the kinds of violent actions we’ve seen from Islamist movements in recent decades.
For instance, I stumbled upon anthropologist Scott Atran delivering an online lecture from 2013 on the origins of jihadist terrorism. According to Atran, those who decapitate journalists, filmmakers, and aid workers to cries of “Allahu Akbar!” or detonate themselves in crowds of innocents are not driven by deeply held beliefs about jihad or martyrdom. Instead, Atran argued, these behaviors arise from toxic male bonding in soccer clubs and barbershops within the broader Arab-Muslim world. When asked by an attendee, “Are you saying that no Muslim suicide bomber has ever blown himself up expecting to get into paradise?” Atran replied, “Yes, that’s what I’m saying. No one believes in paradise.”
It’s worth noting that Atran is no fringe figure. He’s the emeritus director of research in anthropology at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris, and author of several well-regarded books. Yet his assertion – that no one believes in paradise – is so detached from what can be reasonably inferred from the statements and actions of jihadists that it borders on the absurd. In fact, the idea that no one believes in paradise is far more irrational than any belief in paradise itself.
Rarely have I addressed the following, but whenever I criticize Islamism I’m accused of lacking empathy for Muslims worldwide – both for the peaceful billions who are blameless and for the radicals whose actions are often excused as responses to legitimate grievances or social pressures. But the truth is, it’s those rushing to defend Islamists who fail to demonstrate real empathy. They ignore the primary victims of Islamism: the millions of Muslim women, freethinkers, homosexuals, and “apostates” who suffer most under its taboos and delusions.
Consider Afghanistan. After 20 years of war, trillions of dollars spent, and thousands of lives lost, America abandoned the country – and those who had supported its efforts – to the Taliban. It was one of the most disgraceful retreats in US history, thinly veiled by shabby political expediency. Politicians and so-called empaths look away as Afghan women and minorities are plunged back into a medieval darkness. Few of the critics calling for empathy have bothered to address this – or the fact that over the past 40 years, there have been nearly 50,000 acts of Islamic terrorism, a figure widely considered an undercount. Ninety percent of these attacks have occurred in Muslim countries, targeting local Muslim populations.
People attend a rally to highlight Islamophobia, sponsored by the Muslim Association of Canada, June 2021. (credit: REUTERS/ALEX FILIPE)And yet, liberals are more concerned with “Islamophobia” than with the content of Islamist doctrine. It is they who are guilty of a profound failure of empathy. They fail not only to empathize with the millions of less devout Muslims treated as criminals by their own religion’s theocracies and regimes but also to comprehend the mindset of devout fanatics willing to die for their beliefs. Most secular people cannot fathom what it feels like to say, “I will happily die for this.” Unless you’ve experienced religious ecstasy – personally or up close, as living in the Middle East surely allows – you cannot grasp the danger of its being directed toward violence and destruction.
You see, I live in a country that is over 20% Arab, most of whom are Muslim, and almost none of whom are seeking to wage a holy war on their Jewish neighbors. To notice that this desire exists among other populations – let’s say, in Gaza, Lebanon, or Yemen – is neither a lack of empathy nor an expression of a “phobia,” which implies irrational fear. There is nothing irrational about recognizing the unique danger posed by religious militants on the other side of one’s border. Islamism combines religious ecstasy, sectarian hatred, and a triumphalist vision of world conquest in a way that few ideologies ever have.
And so, for the moment at least, we find ourselves at an impasse. More than 20 years after 9/11, and over a year after October 7, many are still refusing to face the facts. The irony is that not everyone struggles as in the West.
Saudi Arabia’s lesson: Islam vs. Islamism
Consider Saudi Arabia, Islam’s foundational home and the protector of Mecca and Medina, which has nonetheless banned the largest supply chain of Islamism: the Muslim Brotherhood. A host of other Muslim countries have managed something similar: Jordan, the UAE, and Egypt. This has been a startling transformation. Back in the last century, the Saudis welcomed the Brotherhood, put them in charge of schools and mosques, and funded the Islamists to spread their ideology across the region and beyond.
At first, the Saudis thought they were ideologically aligned with the Brotherhood. But the Brotherhood eventually turned against them, attempting to overthrow their regime. At that point, the Saudi princes – capable of ruthlessness, as well as generosity – rounded them up and expelled them from their schools, mosques, newspapers, and their soil.
What all this reveals is that the brilliant minds of the West have failed to distinguish between Islam and Islamism – between Muslims as individuals and the ideological machinery of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. This confusion has birthed a series of delusions: a lack of empathy for the true victims of Islamist ideology, and the direct or indirect shielding of fanatics willing to kill in its name.
Progressive paradox
The consequence has been a moral inversion within progressive circles. Over the past year, activist movements have plunged the Left into a moral black hole, where the principles of liberalism – once the foundation of progressivism – have been sacrificed at the altar of a grotesque “tolerance.” Those of us unwilling to make that trade are left searching for a way back – or at least a way out of the wreckage.
Thirty years ago, no one would have predicted that Islamist hijabis would one day head the most massive women’s liberation rights movement. I have no doubt as much as there is a calibration of values, there is also clear Islamist predatory tactic. Claiming a hijab and a vagina that are both symbols of female empowerment entails some very clear deception and confusion.
What remains of progressivism today is not a coherent ideology, nor a system of ethics and beliefs, but a patchwork of contradictions, held together by fear and a hollow sense of virtue. I don’t know how strongly I can state this, but progressivism in its current form is dead. It’s just that most within the movement haven’t realized it yet.■
The author is a writer and political researcher. He works at the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI).
