The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Is the West's Enemy ALL of Islam?
(UPDATED) If the elites in the West are waiting for "moderate Muslims" to rise up and to bring their religion from the precipice of total war with the West, they may be in for a big dissapointment; at some point some charismatic Islamic leaders are going to have to step up and engender some sort of "Islamic Reformation"--and because of how Islam is organized, that seems unlikely at the moment. And after reading this fascinating column (via Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch), the prospects for that outcome seem even more remote.
Given this assumption is the case, a relevant question then becomes: on which side of this War to establish Islamic law worldwide will the Western secularists side? It seems from my perspectivce that Christians and Jews in the West can see this problem much more clearly than the non-religious. Do the secularists not recognize that--for all their bluster and fear of of what 'the religious right' stands for, Sharia law under Fundamentalist Islam would be exponentially worse--even according to the values of freedom and free speech and "open society" that Western secularism implies? Show me a Muslim "open society" and I will show you some beach front property in New Mexico for sale...
Too, the Marxist/Socialist doctrine that many of these secularists believe to be "the answer" will soon lead the a bankrupted Europe, and the US programs such as Social Security and Medicare are not in much better shape than their European counterparts. The dependence on big government for their every need cradle-to-grave is clearly an idea that flunks every test of basic economics--especially condisering the plunging birth rates in the west. There will be far fewer people to pay the enormous bills being incurred by their more prolific forebears. In short, continued high taxation and reliance on this model is a recipe for economic disaster.
Which leaves "civil liberties". I think many liberals, "anti-Christians", anti-Semites, and the Howard Dean Democrat fire-breathers are clueless about the long term ramifications of their short term scorched-earth beat-Republicans-at-any-cost mindset. Do they not understand that by torpedoing the West's War against Islamist fanaticism, they are playing right into the fanatics' hands--which is completely antithetical to EVERYTHING they stand for? The liberal values of womens rights (including the right to walk around with their head uncovered...), reproductive "rights", sexual freedom, or even the ability to go grab a beer at a local sports bar that we all take for granted--would all be out the window under sharia law--yet the fanatical anti-war left is playing right into the hands of the will and mindset of religious zealots who would eliminate all of those "freedoms" which we in the west take for granted seem to be favored by a majority of the non-religious in this country. Why?? Do they not understand the will and determination of our religious zealot enemies--determination that would cause men to crash airliners into buildings for Allah? Do they not see that their own appeasement is leading directly to them having fewer freeedoms, less money and more persecution? The left seems so petrified of the Western model of religion that it seems to have lost its perspective--because they are enabling a religious view of the world that is far more opressive. The real problem here is that Democrats and leftists do not yet realize that their vaunted ideals are under siege all over the world--and that siding with our enemies now is creating enormous long terms problems for the future of Western Civilization.
If you are one of those who thinks that Muslims will come to their senses if we only appease them and "play nice", then you should read and ponder out this post by a Muslim in Canada, courtesy of Jihad Watch:
An extraordinary column in the Toronto Sun (thanks to Nooze):
In a recent column, Michael Coren, my colleague here at the Sun, demanded Muslims apologize for wrongs too numerous to list.
Coren is right. I, as a Muslim, apologize without equivocation or reservation for the terrible crimes -- small and big -- committed by Muslims against non-Muslims and against Muslims, as in Darfur, who are weak and easy prey to those who hold power in the name of Islam.
I imagine, however, Coren is not seeking an apology from a person of Muslim faith such as I, who maintains no rank and cannot speak on behalf of the institutionalized world of Islam.
Like many others who share his frustration and legitimate anger, Coren is asking to hear a contrite voice from within institutionalized Islam -- to repent for Muslim misconduct, past and present, that is indefensible by any standard of civility and decency, and seek forgiveness.
But Coren and others might well wait indefinitely for such an apology from those representatives of institutionalized Islam convinced of their own righteousness, even as they are engineers of a civilization's wreckage and prosper in it by the art of bullying.
Muslims and non-Muslims often point to the fact there is no Vatican in contemporary Islam -- no figure like the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury who authoritatively represents the Muslim world....
And here comes a point with extraordinary implications:
Within the Arab Sunni world the Egyptian-born Sheikh Qaradawi, 80, of Qatar, is the face of institutionalized Islam. He is the closest to what might pass for a titular head of Muslims akin to the Pope. Qaradawi's words, now broadcast by television network al-Jazeerah, are taken as authoritative pronouncements of Islam. He is the "spiritual" leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement formed to repudiate freedom and democracy, and a defender of Islam's war against the West by any means, including suicide bombings.
For such representatives of institutionalized Islam, all things are political. They are the authoritative guardians of the ideology that in Islam religion and politics are inseparable, and jihad -- holy war -- is its defining aspect.
Hence, since this institutionalized Islam is at war with the West, for Coren or anyone else to expect an apology from its generals is rather naive.
Well, not naive at all really, given the repeated insistence from Muslim and non-Muslim authorities alike that the overwhelming majority of Muslims abhor jihad violence. But in any case, search for Qaradawi at Jihad Watch and at Dhimmi Watch. Find out what he has said about jihad, about martyrdom-suicide bombings, and about a host of other issues. And reflect for a moment on the implications, if Mansur is correct that he is "the face of institutionalized Islam."
Sobering, to say the least...
Given this assumption is the case, a relevant question then becomes: on which side of this War to establish Islamic law worldwide will the Western secularists side? It seems from my perspectivce that Christians and Jews in the West can see this problem much more clearly than the non-religious. Do the secularists not recognize that--for all their bluster and fear of of what 'the religious right' stands for, Sharia law under Fundamentalist Islam would be exponentially worse--even according to the values of freedom and free speech and "open society" that Western secularism implies? Show me a Muslim "open society" and I will show you some beach front property in New Mexico for sale...
Too, the Marxist/Socialist doctrine that many of these secularists believe to be "the answer" will soon lead the a bankrupted Europe, and the US programs such as Social Security and Medicare are not in much better shape than their European counterparts. The dependence on big government for their every need cradle-to-grave is clearly an idea that flunks every test of basic economics--especially condisering the plunging birth rates in the west. There will be far fewer people to pay the enormous bills being incurred by their more prolific forebears. In short, continued high taxation and reliance on this model is a recipe for economic disaster.
Which leaves "civil liberties". I think many liberals, "anti-Christians", anti-Semites, and the Howard Dean Democrat fire-breathers are clueless about the long term ramifications of their short term scorched-earth beat-Republicans-at-any-cost mindset. Do they not understand that by torpedoing the West's War against Islamist fanaticism, they are playing right into the fanatics' hands--which is completely antithetical to EVERYTHING they stand for? The liberal values of womens rights (including the right to walk around with their head uncovered...), reproductive "rights", sexual freedom, or even the ability to go grab a beer at a local sports bar that we all take for granted--would all be out the window under sharia law--yet the fanatical anti-war left is playing right into the hands of the will and mindset of religious zealots who would eliminate all of those "freedoms" which we in the west take for granted seem to be favored by a majority of the non-religious in this country. Why?? Do they not understand the will and determination of our religious zealot enemies--determination that would cause men to crash airliners into buildings for Allah? Do they not see that their own appeasement is leading directly to them having fewer freeedoms, less money and more persecution? The left seems so petrified of the Western model of religion that it seems to have lost its perspective--because they are enabling a religious view of the world that is far more opressive. The real problem here is that Democrats and leftists do not yet realize that their vaunted ideals are under siege all over the world--and that siding with our enemies now is creating enormous long terms problems for the future of Western Civilization.
If you are one of those who thinks that Muslims will come to their senses if we only appease them and "play nice", then you should read and ponder out this post by a Muslim in Canada, courtesy of Jihad Watch:
An extraordinary column in the Toronto Sun (thanks to Nooze):
In a recent column, Michael Coren, my colleague here at the Sun, demanded Muslims apologize for wrongs too numerous to list.
Coren is right. I, as a Muslim, apologize without equivocation or reservation for the terrible crimes -- small and big -- committed by Muslims against non-Muslims and against Muslims, as in Darfur, who are weak and easy prey to those who hold power in the name of Islam.
I imagine, however, Coren is not seeking an apology from a person of Muslim faith such as I, who maintains no rank and cannot speak on behalf of the institutionalized world of Islam.
Like many others who share his frustration and legitimate anger, Coren is asking to hear a contrite voice from within institutionalized Islam -- to repent for Muslim misconduct, past and present, that is indefensible by any standard of civility and decency, and seek forgiveness.
But Coren and others might well wait indefinitely for such an apology from those representatives of institutionalized Islam convinced of their own righteousness, even as they are engineers of a civilization's wreckage and prosper in it by the art of bullying.
Muslims and non-Muslims often point to the fact there is no Vatican in contemporary Islam -- no figure like the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury who authoritatively represents the Muslim world....
And here comes a point with extraordinary implications:
Within the Arab Sunni world the Egyptian-born Sheikh Qaradawi, 80, of Qatar, is the face of institutionalized Islam. He is the closest to what might pass for a titular head of Muslims akin to the Pope. Qaradawi's words, now broadcast by television network al-Jazeerah, are taken as authoritative pronouncements of Islam. He is the "spiritual" leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement formed to repudiate freedom and democracy, and a defender of Islam's war against the West by any means, including suicide bombings.
For such representatives of institutionalized Islam, all things are political. They are the authoritative guardians of the ideology that in Islam religion and politics are inseparable, and jihad -- holy war -- is its defining aspect.
Hence, since this institutionalized Islam is at war with the West, for Coren or anyone else to expect an apology from its generals is rather naive.
Well, not naive at all really, given the repeated insistence from Muslim and non-Muslim authorities alike that the overwhelming majority of Muslims abhor jihad violence. But in any case, search for Qaradawi at Jihad Watch and at Dhimmi Watch. Find out what he has said about jihad, about martyrdom-suicide bombings, and about a host of other issues. And reflect for a moment on the implications, if Mansur is correct that he is "the face of institutionalized Islam."
Sobering, to say the least...
