Category: Islamism

What Do We Have to Teach the Muslim World? Reflections Occasioned by the Death of Maria Schneider

Alg_maria_schneider I was one of those who saw "Last Tango in Paris" when it was first released, in 1972.  I haven't seen it since and I don't remember anything specific about it except one scene, the scene you remember too, the 'butter scene,' in which the Marlon Brando character sodomizes the Maria Schneider character.  Maria Schneider died last week at 58 and indications are that her exploitation by Brando and Bertolucci scarred her for life.

Islamic culture is in many ways benighted and backward, fanatical and anti-Enlightenment, but our trash culture is not much better. Suppose you are a Muslim and you look to the West.  What do you see? Decadence.  And an opportunity to bury the West. 

If Muslims think that our decadent culture is what Western values are all about, and something we are trying to impose on them, then we are in trouble.  They do and we are.

Militant Islam's deadly hatred of us should not be discounted as the ravings of lunatics or psychologized away as a reflex of envy at our fabulous success. For there is a kernel of insight in it that we do well to heed. Sayyid Qutb , theoretician of the Muslim Brotherhood, who visited the USA at the end of the '40s, writes in Milestones (1965):

     Humanity today is living in a large brothel! One has only to glance
     at its press, films, fashion shows, beauty contests, ballrooms,
     wine bars and broadcasting stations! Or observe its mad lust for
     naked flesh, provocative pictures, and sick, suggestive statements
     in literature, the arts, and mass media! And add to all this the
     system of usury which fuels man's voracity for money and engenders
     vile methods for its accumulation and investment, in addition to
     fraud, trickery, and blackmail dressed up in the garb of law.

A wild exaggeration in 1965, the above statement is much less of an exaggeration today. But setting aside the hyperbole, we are in several  ways a sick and decadent society getting worse day by day. On this score, if on no other, we can learn something from our Islamist critics. The fact that a man wants to chop your head off does not mean that he has nothing to teach you.  We often learn more from our enemies than from our friends.  Our friends often will spare us hard truths.

Companion post: What Ever Happened to Linda Lovelace?

Terror Attack at Moscow’s Main Airport

NYT account here.   "Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for Russia’s Investigative Committee, said the attack was probably carried out by a male suicide bomber, and that authorities were trying to identify him."

Was he a Confucian perhaps, a Buddhist, or a Christian? The Gray Lady provides no clue.  Maybe he was a generic faith-based bomber.  After all, everyone knows that all religions are equal and so equally likely to inspire terrorist acts.

Egyptian Muslims Serve as Human Shields at Coptic Christmas Mass

As things currently stand, Islam is uniquely violent among the world religions and a major threat to Western civilization. That is not to say that all or even most Muslims are violent or evil people.  It is to say that Islam is an ideological superstructure wherein acts of unspeakable violence can be easily legitimated.  To mention but one example, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for the destruction of the state of Israel while in frenzied pursuit of the means thereto.  Where do you think he gets his ideas?  Why don't Western statesmen make similar demands for the destruction of foreign states?

Islam in the 21st century can be usefully compared to Communism in the 20th.  Many intelligent, idealistic, and morally decent people were drawn to Communism in the last century because they believed that in the wake of war and economic depression it was the only way forward for humanity.  Whittaker Chambers and Douglas Hyde are two who come readily to mind.  (See Communism category.)  These decent people, who eventually saw the light, were sucked into a demonic ideology. 

There are many decent Muslims.  Perhaps there is hope that they can begin to reform and enlighten Islam from within.   Here are examples.

 

Report from Pakistan

As things stand at present, Islam is uniquely violent among the world religions and a major threat to Western civilization.  (And its own 'civilization,' such as it is, ought to be judged by its rotten and poisonous fruits.)  To make matters worse, radical Islam has found plenty of useful idiots on the Left to lend them witting and unwitting aid and comfort.  But blinded as they are by their political correctness, one cannot expect these useful idots to be moved by such evidence as is presented in the following report from a courageous Pakistani correspondent:
 
Dear Bill,
 
As you have expressed concern about Islam in the past before on your blog, I thought I should inform you about these developments in Pakistan.  A few days ago, the Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, was assassinated by his own security guard, because he had dared to criticize the "blasphemy law" in Pakistan, a law that is held sacred by the fundamentalist Muslims. The worrisome thing is that the whole country went into celebration at this murder and this murder was widely praised and justified. You can read about these reactions here, which have also upset me gravely:
I think these reactions have very significant things to say, and something that the West must be made aware of.
I have expressed my concerns in this blog post:
I would appreciate if you could mention something about this incident and the reactions on your blog. Islam is fast becoming a threat to humanity.  Just a humble request.
 
Regards,
Awais Aftab

Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic Moderate?

Spencer Case, on his way home from Afghanistan, e-mails:

I recently wrote a column on Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the supposed Islamic moderate.  It's been a long time since I've written a column that was really controversial, but this might break the dry spell. I hope you will share it with your readers not only for the sake of shameless self-promotion but also because your readers need to be warned about this guy. It says a lot about Islam that this guy is considered moderate! The link is here: http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/afghanistan/

I urge you to read Mr. Case's column.  This Nasr is obviously no moderate, and his views, at least as reported by Case, are plainly incompatible with Western values.   That Nasr has tenure at an American university is yet another demonstration of the complicity of the Left with radical Islam. Excerpts:

Nasr states in many places and in no unclear terms that he opposes both secular law and “freedom of speech”—placed in scare quotes—which allows for criticism of religion. Most moderates in western countries, Nasr asserts, want the same.

“In the Islamic perspective,” he writes, “Divine Law is to be implemented to regulate society and the actions of its members rather than society dictating what laws should be… to speak of Shari’ah as being simply the laws of the seventh century fixed in time and not relevant today would be like telling Christians that the injunctions of Christ to love one’s neighbor and not commit adultery were simply the laws of the Palestine two thousand years ago and not relevant today, or telling Jews not to keep the Sabbath because this is simply an outmoded practice of three thousand years ago.”

And again: “Since God is the creator of all things, there is no legitimate domain of life to which His Will or His Laws (antecedently stated to mean Qur’anic Shari’ah) do not apply.”

The problem  with Nasr's view as reported by Case should be obvious.  It is plainly incompatible with our Western liberal values — values whose defense, paradoxically enough, is being carried out by contemporary conservatives, the Left having abdicated due to its inherent political correctness. 

ONLY IF we know that God exists AND ONLY IF we know his will with respect to us and our well-being would it be plausible to argue that something like Shari'ah is justified.  But those two necessary conditions have not been met and most likely never will.   Only an uncritical fundamentalist who absolutizes what is relative and conditioned, namely, the scripture of a religion inferior to Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity, a scripture which, even if in part divinely inspired, is mainly a human product, could possibly think that we have in that scripture rules of behavior that should be imposed on everyone.

Read the whole of Spencer's column.  And then make sure you vote next Tuesday, bearing in mind that the Democrat Party is the party of the Left and that the Left does not have the will or the integrity to stand up to radical Islam.

 

Again on “Muslims Attacked Us on 9/11”

This just over the transom in response to a post from yesterday.

Your terminology is technically correct, but what is incorrect with the statement "Muslim extremists attacked us on 911"?

One does not have to be ‘politically correct’ to have a desire not to invite misunderstanding of a statement (that it equals: " Muslims-as-a-group attacked us" ) or to desire to avoid a perceived implication that there is something about the ‘essence’ of ‘Islam’ that is responsible for 911.

Nothing is wrong with 'Muslim extremists attacked us on 9/11.'  But there is also nothing wrong with O'Reilly's statement, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11."  After all, the first entails the second.  No one maintains that every Muslim attacked us on 9/11 or that Muslims as a group attacked us on that day.

My correspondent is missing the point, which is that inappropriate offense was taken by Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg when they stomped off the set in protest.  That inappropriate offense taken  at an objectively inoffensive remark is what shows that political correctness is at work.

This is just one more example among hundreds.  Remember the man who was fired from his job for using the perfectly innocuous English word 'niggardly'?  And then there was the case of some fool taking umbrage at the use of 'black hole.'  See Of Black Holes and Political Correctness and Of Black Holes and Black Hos.

And then there was the recent case of Dr. Laura who pointed out the obvious truth that some blacks apply 'nigger' to other blacks.  This got her in trouble, but it ought not have.  After all, what she said is true!  And let's recall that she had a reason for bringing up this truth: her remark was not unmotivated or inspired by nastiness.

Please note that I am talking about the word 'nigger,' not using it.  This is the use-mention distinction familiar to (analytic) philosophers.  Is Boston disyllabic?  Obviously not: no city consists of syllables, let alone two syllables.  Is 'Boston' disyllabic?  Yes indeed.  Confusing words and their referents is the mark of a primitive mind. In the following sentence

'Nigger' has nothing semantically or etymologically to do with 'niggardly'

I am mentioning both words but using neither.  "But what if someone is offended by your mere mention of 'nigger'?"  Too bad.  That's his problem. He is in need of therapy not refutation.

Islam and the West

It is certainly time that the West considered systematically whether it has irreconcilable differences with Islam. The belligerence of many Islamic spokesmen and the unassimilable quality of many Muslim immigrants in the West, as well as the spectacular terrorist provocations of extreme Islamic groups, make this a very legitimate question.

Read the rest.

Self-Censorship Among the Politically Correct

There is no chicken like a liberal chicken.  Here.  Prager's comment: "Secular + Liberal = Wimp."

UPDATE 10/14.  Reason magazine weighs in.  Just Admit it, Newspapers: You're Scared of Muslims.

Of course.  The self-censorship is motivated by fear.  And it is a rational fear, which is why 'Islamophobia' and cognates are idiotic constructions that ought to be shunned by the intelligent.  Must I point out once again that a phobia is an irrational fear? So why do our leftist pals sling this word?

Some leftists sincerely believe that the concern over radical Islam is alarmist.  But most leftists know that it is not alarmist.  It is just that they hate conservatives more than they hate the threat to their own values.  They hate conservatives so much that they cannot or will not admit that they have more in common with contemporary American conservatives than they do with radical Muslims.  Astonishing, but true.  Apparently, they think they can use the Islamists, as a species of 'useful idiot,' to help destroy capitalism and usher in the socialist worker's paradise, dismissing or converting the Islamists when their services are no longer needed.  It's a bad bet.  It is more likely that they will lose their heads before any dismissal or conversion or mollification or other normalization of Islamists occurs.

No Provision in Islam for Mosque-State Separation

John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion (Yale UP, 1989, pp. 48-49):

From the point of view of the understanding of this state of islam [submission to Allah] the Muslim sees no distinction between the religious and the secular.  The whole of life is to be lived in the presence of Allah and is the sphere of God's absolute claim and limitless compassion and mercy.  And so islam, God-centredness, is not only an inner submission to the sole Lord of the universe but also a pattern of corporate life in accordance with God's will.  It involves both salat, worship, and falah, the good embodied in behaviour.  Through the five appointed moments of prayer each day is linked to God. Indeed almost any activity may be begun with Bismillah ('in the name of Allah'); and plans and hopes for the future are qualified by Inshallah ('if Allah wills').  Thus life is constantly punctuated by the remembrance of God.  It is a symptom of this that almsgiving ranks with prayer, fasting, pilgrimage and confession of faith as one of the five 'pillars' of Islam.  Within this holistic conception the 'secular' spheres of politics, government, law, commerce, science and the arts all come within the scope of religious obedience.

What Hick calls a "holistic conception," I would call totalitarian.  Islam is totalitarian in a two-fold sense.  It aims to regulate every aspect and every moment of the individual believer's life. (And if you are not a believer, you must either convert or accept dhimmitude.)   But it is also totalitarian in a corporate sense in that it aims to control every aspect of society in all its spheres, just as Hick points out supra.

Islam, therefore, is profoundly at odds with the values of the West.  For we in the West, whether liberals or conservatives, accept church(mosque)-state separation.  We no doubt argue heatedly over what exactly it entails, but we are agreed on the main principle.  I regularly criticize the shysters of the ACLU for their extremist positions on this question; but I agree with them that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ."

This raises a very serious question.  Is Islam –  pure, unEnlightened, un-watered-down, fundamentalist, theocratic Islam — deserving of First Amendment protection?  We read in the First Amendment that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion.  Should that be understood to mean that the Federal government shall not prohibit the  establishment and  free exercise of a  totalitarian, fundamentalist  theocratic religion in a particular state, say Michigan? 

The USA is a Christian nation with a secular government.  Suppose there was a religion whose aim was to subvert our secular government.  Does commitment to freedom of religion enjoin toleration of such a religion?

 

Joseph Bottum on the Ground Zero Mosque

Here.  Excerpt:

Of course, the first thing that has to be said about the building of an enormous Muslim center so close to the destroyed towers is that it’s wildly offensive. And the second thing to be said is that it’s wildly constitutional.

The offensiveness looks like this: Regardless of how it is intended, it will be perceived by radical Muslims around the world as a giant monument, in the heart of the beast itself, to their success in attacking America. Indeed, it will be perceived by many Americans that way. The funereal and memorial emotion that embraces one on a visit to the Ground Zero site will be weakened—poisoned, just a little—by the presence of this new, grand construction.