The Arab World: A New Mess
I wanted to respond to Sobek’s post on the recent troubles in North Africa and elsewhere. But I didn’t want to post such a long screed at Michael’s place and abuse his hospitality, so I’ll do it here.
Sobek hit on some very important things for us to keep in mind, things we should watch. >
On Mosques
So, a lot is being said about a mosque that someone wants to build on Ground Zero. Although we, this blogosphere community, do not believe in moral authoritah – truth is truth (“And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24)) – I suppose I have some things to say from my studies and experience.
1. Comparing building a mosque on Ground Zero is not equivalent to building a synagogue in Makkah. The reason is that Makkah (indeed, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) has laws in place banning such places of worship. No such laws exist in New York City. Furthermore, Ground Zero is not a qiblah (direction of prayer, perhaps more metaphysically understood as an axis mundi).
The closest comparison is building a Serbian Orthodox church in Srebrenica.
2. However, the plans to build the mosque at Ground Zero is absolutely reprehensible and, frankly, can be construed as un-Islamic. (I should disclose that I am, technically, a mureed or follower of Mowlana Shaykh Muhammad Nizam ‘Adil al-Haqqani (qaddasa-llaahi sirrahu), the leader of the Naqshbandi-Haqqani Sufi Order. He teaches a form of Islam that is very different from what we usually encounter – I will weave some of his perspectives below.
Let me explain. What is this proposal doing? It is causing immense negative publicity for Muslims. What strides certain Muslims groups have made in building relationships of trust, bridges of understanding, have been made futile with these acts. It is causing unrest and, verily, chaos, in other words, it is causing fitnah. And what does the Qur’an say? “Al-fitnatu akbaru mina-l-qatl” (2:217), “Fitnah is worse than killing.” So what these Muslims are doing is worse than killing because it’s causing unrest and chaos. From the perspective of Muslims, these Muslims are defaming and desecrating Islam, and are besmirching the honor of Islam. Such acts are utterly un-Islamic. (By the way – if the sentence according to sharee’ah for murderers (who do qatl) is execution, what should the punishment be for those who spread fitnah? The logical conclusion comes to only one decision.)
Now, make no mistake. It is more likely than not that the people behind this mosque believe Muslims have nothing to do with the acts of September 11, 2001. This is their attempt to assert their innocence – to prevent Ground Zero from commemorating Islamist terrorism.
3. Furthermore, Muslims cannot ram “freedom of religion” down our throats without accepting its full consequences that impact Muslims. Thus, they loose all right to demand the banning of blasphemy against Muhammad b. ‘Abdillaah, the prophet-founder of Islam. If they want to use the freedom of religion to build a mosque, others may use their freedom of religion to mock Muhammad b. ‘Abdillaah.
Mowlana Shaykh Hisham al-Kabbani, Mowlana Shaykh Nazim’s khaleefah or representative in the United States, has stated that most Islamic institutions in the United States are run by the Salafiyoon (fundamentalist radicals). I think this issue demonstrates this. Do not accept any innocence feigned by these causers of fitnah. Every self-respecting Muslim would denounce them. Every wise non-Muslim would tell them to drop their plans.
What grounds do we have?
1. Security. I guarantee – guarantee – that this mosque will be attacked or vandalized. This desecration of Ground Zero – sanctified by the blood of thousands of martyrs – will not go unnoticed. Of course, the Muslims will point that out as another sign of Western intolerance and will undoubtedly pin it as a conspiracy by Fox News and its ilk.
2. Decency. If the Muslims expect to make any progress in the United States, they must play by the rules that will win them friends. Their tactics in Europe – asserting their cultural and religious rights – won’t work here. It wins no friends. And thus the Muslims’ relations with the non-Muslims will worsen. Even if we are intolerant, the way to overcome our intolerance is to befriend us, not offend or attack us (figuratively or literally).
3. Need. There is no need for a mosque. Really, mosques are conveniences, not necessities. Catholics usually need certain accouterments in order to celebrate the Mystery of the Mass (altar (for which there are specific regulations, including the implantation of a first-class relic), crucifix). Jews, same thing (Torah, bimah, aron hakodesh). All Muslims need is a clean area and maybe a rug. A group of Muslims can (and do) gather in a room to pray. When they wanted to make a prayer room for Muslims at my alma mater, they didn’t erect a separate building. They just had a room where there were some books (Qur’an, etc.) and a chair or two. That’s it. There is nothing that makes a mosque a necessity, let alone necessary on Ground Zero.
As Muslims as fond of saying – just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. Oh, how the tables have turned.
The use and role of the UNO
On Friday, July 11, Geoff of Uncommon Misconceptions posted “How broken is the UN?“. I’d like to talk a little bit about the United Nations Organization (UNO). Read the rest of this entry »
More understanding = fewer freedoms?
In “More attacks on free speech”, while reflecting on the recent cases involving Mark Steyn and Brigitte Bardot, Geoff of Uncommon Misconceptions posed an interesting thought that is quite germane to the challenges the West and its defenders are facing:
It is one of my biggest frustrations that, as man is supposedly becoming more sophisticated in understanding himself and his societies, we end up with fewer and fewer freedoms, rather than more. That sort of regression is not only nonsensical, but dangerous.
Steyn the Man
As S. Weasel informs us in her post “Free Mark Steyn! (Relatively inexpensive Mark Steyn, anyhow)” Today starts the trial of Mark Steyn for offending Muslims. He did this by publishing a book, America Alone. The suit also is against the Canadian magazine Maclean’s for publishing an excerpt of the book and for not allowing Islamists to hijack the magazine to refute the article.
(See also: “Mark Steyn’s week long show trial begins today” by Five Feet of Fury.)
(Some talking points: “Demo Leaflet #1” by Covenant Zone.)
(Andrew Coyne of Maclean’s will be liveblogging the trial.)
They want Steyn silenced. And they may win. And I will be heartbroken. But I will have hope because Steyn is an American citizen, and he can’t be silenced here. But the Islamists’ victory in Canada will bode very ill for all of us.
The following is the entire article, “The future belongs to Islam”, published on October 20, 2006 in Maclean’s. Once I get home I’ll update the post to reflect what chapter and pages the excerpt is from. (Any errors in formatting are mine.)
The Muslim world has youth, numbers and global ambitions. The West is growing old and enfeebled, and lacks the will to rebuff those who would supplant it. It’s the end of the world as we’ve known it. An excerpt from ‘America Alone’.
Equality of the Third World with the West
I have always been mystified by people who seem to want to equalize the West and the Third World.
I’ve lived in the Third World. I know what it’s like. I know what Third World people are like. I know the utter despair and hopelessness that abounds simply because the hurdles to move forward are so immense. And so I truly wonder how anyone can rationally or while thinking clearly ever even come up with the notion that somehow or somewhere or somewhen the West and the Third World are equal. They most certainly are not.
Sure, plenty of people will accuse us of saying that the West is superior. But that is not a value judgment as much as it is a statement of fact. And facts are facts, whether they are unpleasant or not, and whether they fit a person’s ideology of the world or not.
And this equality does not do the Third World any favors. Every time we repeat the canard that we’re equal, the Third World loses incentives to improve. Or, rather, the will and drive within the Third World diminishes because what’s the use putting in all that effort if they’re equal to us? No, they will only pick up if they feel they need to catch up.
I mean, just look at the facts of the situation. If these countries improved themselves, there’d be greater prosperity and stability within each such country, provided and perpetuated by each country, without the people having the emigrate elsewhere. This will do nothing but spread prosperity and success to more people to more areas of the world.
Of course, one group of people that simply demands the Third World’s equality with the West are the Third World’s leaders, who go out of their way to blame all of their problems, regardless what it may be, on the West. Since it’s all the West’s fault, the West ought to pay up and flush these suffering pools of darkness with cash and more cash. If these people keep getting money without having to do anything, why should they put in the effort to build themselves up? Why give up on this free ride? They, thus, have little incentive to move forward. And all because of Western guilt (or the Third World’s success in guilt-tripping the West) for imaginary wrongs and imaginary responsibility.
The best thing we can do is affirm, strongly, that we, the First World, are better and superior, and that others ought to work up to our standard of living. Acknowledge the reality, and let the consequences follow. We should help, but not by throwing money at them.
Ismailis
In “Islam World’s Largest Religion”, Robert J. Jago of a dime a dozen blog writes:
If 80 percent of them were Ismailis then I’d say the world is now a much much better place – but if 80 percent were Wahhabi – well then I would legitimately worry about my fate.
He raises an interesting point: one which underscores the fact that various interpretations of Islam exist.
The Ismailis are non-violent and have been for a long time now. What is almost ironic is that the predecessors of the Nizari Ismailis were the dreaded Assassins of Alamut.
Live quietist Shiites (the Ismailis are, after all, Shiites), they await the arrival of a certain figure to deliver the world from its current state of sin and division. Until then, they blindly follow the teachings of their divinely-appointed hereditary leader (the Imam for the Nizari Ismailis, and the Da’i Mutlaq (Supreme Emissary or Supreme Missionary) for the Bohra Ismailis).
What is also interesting, if not a little sobering, is that whereas most Muslims don’t have anything against the Bohra Ismailis, many Muslims say they do not recognize the modernist Nizari Ismailis as Muslims. But Nizari Ismailism is the form of Islam that is most compatible with the modern world. Take that for what it’s worth.
An example of how modernist Nizari Ismailis are: the Imam Sultan Muhammad Shah (the imam before the current one) banned the hijab for Ismaili women.
It would be nice if Ismailism spread. It would go a long way in helping to ease the clash between Muslims and the West. Because the more fundamentalist Islam spreads, the more the West and modernist Muslims are threatened.
Clash of ideologies among Muslims
It cannot be denied that there is a veritable clash within Islam and between a certain aspect of Islam and the West.
The clash within Islam is between modernists and non-modernists. (Although Islamism is usually touted as the enemy, and whereas even modernist Islamists usually believe in and promote the superiority of Islam, the Islam that modernist Islamists believe in is usually modified to coexist with other religious and political systems or modified to adopt the values and standards of other religious and political systems, making that form of Islam more compatible.)
This debate used to be confined mainly among the higher levels of Islamic societies, among the thinkers and theologians and clerics, but because this debate has practical consequences for all Muslims, average Muslims are taking interest, speaking their mind, and campaigning for their preferred ideology. Read the rest of this entry »
Clash of ideologies in Islam
It cannot be denied that there is a veritable clash within Islam and between a certain aspect of Islam and the West.
The clash within Islam is between modernists and non-modernists. (Although Islamism is usually touted as the enemy, and whereas even modernist Islamists usually believe in and promote the superiority of Islam, the Islam that modernist Islamists believe in is usually modified to coexist with other religious and political systems or modified to adopt the values and standards of other religious and political systems, making that form of Islam more compatible.)
This debate used to be confined mainly among the higher levels of Islamic societies, among the thinkers and theologians and clerics, but because this debate has practical consequences for all Muslims, average Muslims are taking interest, speaking their mind, and campaigning for their preferred ideology. Read the rest of this entry »
On Infidels’ Critiques and Concerns regarding Islam
One of the central elements of the paradigms of Muslims is that Islam is perfect and, thus, may not be critiqued.
Infidels may not critique Islam for a number of reasons. One is that because they are non-Muslims, they cannot possibly understand Islam or even various aspects of it with which they might not agree. Furthermore, as non-Muslims, they do not understand the sacrosanct nature of Islam, being revealed as it is by Allah. Infidels have no understanding or impulse to reverence, it is believed. Besides, only Muslims can understand Islam, so infidels should not stick their noses in areas they do not belong. Any critique of Islam by infidels is irrelevant if not dangerous in that Muslims may be led astray. Read the rest of this entry »
A small number of fanatics…
[T]he idea that a small number of fanatics were driving the current major shifts in history was nonsense, perhaps they were responsible for terrorism but they are not the driving force behind the bigger strategic picture and shift in civilization’s evolution.
(Michael Cappi. A Never Ending War. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Trafford Publishing, pp. 9-10.)
In other words: we have more to worry about than just the terrorists.
Islam’s incompatibility with democracy and equality
Point the First:
The central problem of the democracy in Iraq is Islam. Islam has always had a political and social character, including a full program for government. In fact, the first year of the Islamic calendar does not mark the birth of dead of Muhammad, of the beginning of his prophetic ministry. It marks Muhammad’s flight from Mecca to Medina, where he became a political and military leader and Islam became a state.
(Robert Spencer. Religion of Peace? Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007, p. 165.)
This is most forcefully demonstrated by the fact that after Muhammad’s flight, Muhammad revelations take on a vastly more political tone (almost to the point of legal minutiae) and a much more intolerant tone (as, being the indisputed leader, he no longer had to tolerate or appease anyone).
Point the Second:
And of course there is no shortage of people who insist that Islam not only does not forbid, but in fact also actively fosters democracy. Abdulwahab Alkebsi of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, for instance, has declared that the essentials of democracy are “consistent with Islam’s clarion call for justice, equality, and human dignity. . . . According to the Qur’an, one of the explicit purposes of God’s messengers is to offer mankind liberty, justice, and equality.” Islam, he said, “lays the ground for the values of freedom, justice, and equality that are essential to democracy, more so than any other religion or dogma.” [Reference omitted.]
Not only as much as any other religion or dogma, but more so. Can this really be true? Iranian journalist Amir Taheri thinks not. Arguing in favor of the proposition that Islam is incompatible with democracy during a debate in 2004, he directly contradicted the assertions D’Souza would make three years later: “There are fifty-seven nations in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Not one is yet a democracy. The more Islamic the regime in place the less democratic it is.” He concluded, “Islam is incompatible with democracy.” [Reference omitted]
(Robert Spencer. Religion of Peace? Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007, p. 166.)
Subpoint the First, explaining Spencer’s reference to D’Souza:
So can Islamic countries be democratic? Some commentators think so. Dinesh D’Souza scolded conservatives in 2007 for “holding silly seminars on whether Islam is compatible with democracy. In reality, a majority of the world’s Muslims today live under democratic governments–in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Turkey, not to mention Muslims living in Western countries. There is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic tradition that forbids democracy.” [Reference omitted.]
(Robert Spencer. Religion of Peace? Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007, p. 166.)
I am glad Spencer called D’Souza out. I am still absolutely confused why D’Souza would turn on us and support our enemies.
Point the Third:
The fundamental problem, according to Taheri, is Islam’s rejection of the idea that all people have equal dignity, a Christian idea that was central to abolishing slavery. But in Islam, it’s a very different story. The very idea of equality, Taheri declared, “is unacceptable to Islam.”
(Robert Spencer. Religion of Peace? Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007, p. 166.)
Allow me to share an anecdote. Read the rest of this entry »
Of “racial” profiling
It is important for all of us to remain vigilant.
An issue that is somewhat thorny is that of so-called “racial” profiling. This is the belief (or practice) that certain “races” (that is, people appearing to be of certain ethnic origins) should or ought to receive especial attention and scrutiny to prevent or thwart criminal activity. With regard to Islamist terrorism, the “races” or ethnicities targetted are often said or considered to be those of the Arabs and South Asians (namely, Pakistanis).
On the one hand, this makes perfect sense. Read the rest of this entry »
A fallacy: we are tolerant
I believe a fallacy exists among the peoples of the world that Westerners are tolerant and permissive peoples. This is not true. We are quite a proud and intolerant people; so much so that rather than waste our indignation on others, we ignore them. Sure, we have our fringe elements that call the others out, but for the most part we are wont to ignore the others.
The progressives and so-called “liberals” do not represent The West’s people.
To the others who are malevolently disposed to us: Push us far enough — make us have to take notice of you — and we will utterly destroy you like we did the Japanese. Our hearts can harden enough that we will not shed a tear for your suffering.
I submit that the great sleeping giant has not awoken. The stinging bites of the Islamist insects have made the giant instinctively jerk and swat, but it has yet to awake.
If history has taught the world a lesson, it is that in the end The West is invincible.
The Third World and its proliferation amongst us
The prophetess of The West, Oriana Fallaci (of most blessed and revered memory), made a big deal about the population-based invasion and projected conquest of Third World peoples in the First World.
I have lived among Third World peoples. I am ethnically part of Third World peoples. In the logic of The West’s progressives and so-called liberals, this entitles me to announce with impunity that I have nothing but pity for Third World peoples. And this when I am not contemptuous.
It does not please me how some of these peoples have migrated en masse to The West and have sought, in their rejection of the land to which they have migrated, to recreate their Third World hellholes. Their Third World ways and societies are why they needed to migrate; their proliferation of their ways and societies makes no sense; their proliferation of Third World ways and societies in The West, and often at the expense of The West, is unacceptable.
Those immigrants have succeeded who have assimilated with the people to whose land they have migrated. Especially in America, we value hard-working and devoted people. We can look past a person’s origin and religion and ethnicity and values and even ways of life. Read the rest of this entry »
An idea and suggestion
So, Islamist terrorists are fond of blowing themselves up in efforts to spread terror. Their goal is “martyrdom”. It is their hearts’ and souls’ desire. We should help them, değil mi?
I hereby request all compassionate-hearted and humanitarian governments to engage in humanitarian missions to help the terrorists attain “martyrdom”. It is the least we can do. And the sooner the better, değil mi?
And how can anyone oppose The United States’ Humanitarian Mission to Iraq Helping Terrorists Attain Martyrdom?
Are we too afraid of Muslims?
Michael of Innocent Bystanders wrote a thought-provoking comment-post (technically, no one there posts: they all comment): Media Bias Against Muslims? In it, he quotes “Media Coverage of Muslims Bombs” by Lorraine Ali of Newsweek.
Now, I want to get this out of the way: I was little shocked to see Michael post such a post-comment. But this post-comment provides for me an excellent example of an otherwise well-meaning, erudite, educated, and admirable person may come to see the situation in a way that might not be entirely accurate. I don’t blame Michael for how he sees things, even though I see things in quite a different way. Read the rest of this entry »
Regarding the clash of civilizations
A recent incident, wherein a man killed his daughters and then himself over frustration over his daughters’ evident desire to pursue the Western way of things rather than the traditional way of life, underscores how the clash of civilizations is not simply a matter between states or areas of the world but is, indeed, a matter that transcends borders.
This man lived in the West. The clash between his civilization and that of where he was living should have been anticipated. And that he felt impotent to control his daughters further underscores the difference between key values of the clashing civilizations: whereas one remains committed to controlling lives and imposing upon people an antiquated way of life, one wherein one has few, if any, choices, and the other that grants to each person the freedom to make choices for oneself, whether for better or for worse. So if a silly-headed girl wants to marry that cameraman for a wedding video production company rather than some better off businessman, she may. She has the freedom to make or break her life.
What may be further nauseating is that still we, the West, are accused of devaluing people, of cheapening people’s worth and lives. They cannot see that the very fact a person may prostitute oneself in wanton sex if he or she so desires precisely underscores the value we place on a person and his or her life: so valuable is that person and his or her life that we dare not interfere in how he or she seeks enjoyment and meaning, even if it means doing completely idiotic things.
A child can do anything he or she wants: become an engineer, become an artist, become a dahipb designer, become an astronaut, even become President of The United States. His or her decisions are not determined by his or her parents or society. Unto each person is given a blank book to fill in, not a sheet within which to fill in the blanks.
This is the continuation of the age-old debate between individualism and communalism. We have seen that communalism does not help a society progress and rise: it keeps the society, and its people individually, stifled with antiquated systems and rules that cannot be questioned or changed. Stagnant and inferior, such societies simply cannot compete with Western civilization. We have seen that with the elevation of the individual, we prosper society itself.
This incident is quite alarming. We need to be more sensitive to the offspring of immigrants, ensuring they are safe. We must do more to pressure our immigrants to adopt our civilization, to embrace it, to honor it. We must impress on them that they cannot presume to shield their charges from the irresistsble draw of our civilization, that if they think their charges would be better off dead than autonomous, they should leave. Now.
We are becoming too soft about our civilization, too tolerant of attempts to lavish praise on every civilization except ours. Do we really need immigrants and the children of immigrants to remind you how great Western civilization is? Does America really need our pontificating before its people will stiffen their spines and make it clear that our civilization, your civilization, is something to be promoted, cherished, and defended?
If immigrants leave a civilization to enter ours so as to progress, it speaks volumes about the civilization they left behind. For the sake of our people, let is impress upon them that they must leave their civilization behind. Enough with the relativism. Enough with the patronization. Let is get started defending and cherishing our civilization.
For Thursday, February 22, AD 2007, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, the second day in Lent, the second penitential day of Lent.
Of civilizational values foreign and domestic
I do not mind immigration or immigrants. Especially in the case of The United States, immigration and immigrants are good. We are, after all and ultimately, a nation of immigrants. What I do mind–and I mind this very much–are people who come here but refuse to embrace their new home, refuse to embrace their new home’s civilization and values, and who insist that their foreign ways and civilizational values be tolerated if not embraced, accepted, or praised.
Our civilizational values are what make us what we are today; they are what make us great. If their civilizational values were worthy of praise, tolerance, or acceptance, they would not have to come here.
Considering they came here by choice, the least we can expect is for them to embrace, defend, and appreciate their new home’s civilizational values.
Wherein I make a million enemies
(Note: If I later regret writing this post, it may magically disappear.)
It is time that we realized that war is a part of human society. It is part of our very being. We humans have been fighting wars since our beginning. If one believes in evolution, we have been fighting wars even before we were humans, competing for resources and whatnot. This tendency to violence continued as our species evolved; indeed, violence is how we became dominant and is how any species becomes and remains dominant.
But this is, of course, not an issue of species. It is quite common for beings to fight with others of their kind, especially for resources (whether food, water, mate, children, area of dominance, recognition in or advancement in the pecking order, and so on) or defense (of one’s resources or one’s self, or one’s descendants and/or mate, and so on).
Since we have been fighting from the very beginning, I see no reason whatsoever why we should expect humanity today to be any different. That we fight does not change; why we fight does change. Read the rest of this entry »
Muslihoon 