An AT rookie author and the commenters

I was pleased and a bit surprised that my very first American Thinker article, “Don’t Draw Mohammed, Debate the Origins of Islam,” published on May 11, drew 382 comments (and counting).  I understand from more knowledgeable people that this is a healthy amount of commentary.  Thanks to all of you who read it and who took the trouble to comment.

With a mixture of curiosity and trepidation, I read all 382 comments, and I learned quite a lot.  For starters, I picked up a couple of new terms to incorporate in my counter-jihad correspondence, such as “Dhimmicrats” and “Islama-naïve.”  That second one was applied to me, and was echoed by someone who wrote, “Mr. Chambers is confused and rationalizes his dhimmitude.”  Some of my long-suffering family, friends, and correspondents would find it hysterical to see me dubbed a dhimmi.  Evidently those who wrote that and similar comments didn’t Google me, or they would have found that I wrote a book and some prior articles that should have inoculated me from that particular epithet.

  • I am not sure what the author tries to prove with that article – maybe he shares what he sees as the “good in Islam.” That naivety reminds me of Alexander Dubcek, who wanted to build a “socialism with human face” in Czechoslovakia in 1968, only to be crushed by the Russians (and spend most of his life as a factory manager). Unlike the Russians, the Muslims will probably end Mr. Chambers’ career in Islamic empathy by cutting off his head.

    • Frau Katze

      He’s trying to reach a very small audience: believers in Islam who don’t believe the texts literally.

      This hasn’t worked out too well with Christianity. The number of such people is small

  • just a thought

    Interesting. And one could always make depictions of Muckmdd the perverse one topic of the discussion, and how it all came to be “forbidden” when it apparently originally wasn’t.

    Also, you write… “Such
    an event should be more akin to a panel discussion mediated by Jim
    Lehrer than a media circus presided over by Bill O’Reilly or Jon Stewart,…”

    Dare to dream, eh? But if it isn’t a “media circus” to advance the pseudo-credibility and careers of overpaid carnival barkers, what’s the point? And who would be interested in such an academic discussion? It would fly so far under the radar as to need subway tokens. Other than that, though, in theory it’s a good idea.

  • MyQHFilly

    The only way you are not a dhimmi is you are a koranimal.

    • just a thought

      “What should I do about that?”
      “Is it different?”
      “Then it’s evil. Destroy it.”

      Keep it simple, because simple and violent minds require simple and violent rules.

  • Tokenn

    While I would never say ‘Don’t draw Mohammed’ I think Chambers makes an excellent point in his essay.

    Islam is a vicious, aggressive, totalitarian ideology in bogus religious camoflage, and it must be seen as such throughout the Western world. The more widespread this view, the less ‘respect and tolerance’ Muslims receive for their effed-up religious and political and social views, the less influence they will have in the West.

    Freedom of speech events like Draw Mohammed certainly have their place, but they can’t be the only strategy. Muslims are waging ideological warfare, not just violent terrorism. They have to be opposed ideologically, and striking at the foundations of their religious views is crucial.