55wing approach, but the “fellow- travelers,” or the
regressive leftists, have adopted it. Allow me to
elaborate.
If you’re a Muslim liberal speaking as I do, chal-
lenging Islamism, the “fellow- travelers” somehow
perceive you as being not a genuine conservative
Muslim. The “fellow- travelers” then promote “real”
voices as legitimate interlocutors, because they seek
“purity” and “cultural authenticity” in their orien-
talist desire to maintain a group identity. So of
course a downward spiral begins. The question be-
comes “Okay, what does being a Muslim mean?”
This quickly degenerates into “Well, he’s a purer
Muslim— let’s listen to him.”
Such an approach inevitably ends up empow-
ering fundamentalists as the most au then tic,
because of course the one who wins the game of
“Who’s a purer Muslim?” and outdoes others in a
piety contest is the stubborn, dogmatic fundamen-
talist. This is how “fellow- travelers” disempower lib-
erals and reformers. Without realizing it, they also
adopt the role of thought police by asserting that
liberalism isn’t au then tic to Muslims. Again, this is
reverse bigotry kicking in.
I want those in what I call the regressive left who
are reading this exchange to understand that the
Bereitgestellt von | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Angemeldet