By VILLEM MAHERSTEIN
July 6, 2017 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - In an article published yesterday by the Gatestone Institute [Giulio Meotti, Is Radical Islam Horrifying the West into Paralysis?] the author poses a rhetorical question that we will use as a platform from which to make several observations regarding the current state of journalistic confusion pertaining to Islam.
Mr. Meotti has, after sorting through previous columns and responses to them by knowledgeable people, a very good grasp of the cultural crisis Islamic immigration is posing to the Continent.
Pregnant pause…however, he does seem to flail around a bit in explaining the underlying dynamic. This is by no means a criticism, it’s a problem that all national security writers recognize but deal with in different ways, probably none of them ideal.
At the risk of being terse, though it has become something of a standardized grammatical form, the term “radical Islam” has no meaning…among Muslims at least.
Islam is what it is, which is why it’s common for imams to respond to the question, “what is Islam,” with the seemingly obtuse but nonetheless correct response “Islam is Islam.” This means that there is no such thing as varying degrees of being a Muslim, either one is or isn’t. If there is a “radical” Islamic Alpha then there are certainly other shades with perhaps “peaceful” being the “Westernized ideal” as the Omega.
But what does this really mean? Could it be that maybe both flavors taste the same?
But if so, then what?
Well, as per the above usage, “radical” really equates to “violent.” But since we are making something of a show of the limits of linguistic precision, couldn’t such a person also be called a practicing or observant Muslim? And given that many of us know “devout” Muslims who are indeed kind, loving people [some of whom we have, tongue-in-cheek, referred to as Unicorn hunters, but I digress] then why aren’t they all strapping on bomb-belts?
Item back-ordered at al-Raqqah’s version of Wally World?
It shouldn’t take the reader long to realize this methodology, such as it is, will never resolve the question.
Allow us to proffer a bold conjecture: All Muslims are “radical,” a pronouncement made noting that all rely upon the same doctrinal foundational sources, Qur’an, Hadith, etc. Some [actually the norm as far as Islamic institutions are concerned] choose to “fight in the way of Allah” to make certain “that Allah’s religion is supreme” and others do not.
Scripturally, some Muslims are exempt from waging jihad, the old and the infirm primarily as well as Islam’s internal second class citizens, women [except in the most dire of circumstances, such as when ISIS decides to use an mentally challenged young girl as a shahid] but for the overall majority and especially Islam’s young men, jihad is so important it’s often thought of as the sixth pillar of Islam [the recognized five being, the pronouncement of faith, ritual prayer five times a day, almsgiving [zakat], fasting and the journey to Mecca [the hajj].
So now though we know a bit more about the centrality of jihad within Islamic doctrine, proceed with caution because jihad is even closer to the core of the ideology, we having undersold it a bit.
That contention becomes verifiably accurate upon understanding that absent jihad and the tremendous contribution that slave soldiers played in the process [please refer to the excellent treatise, Slave Soldiers and Islam , by Daniel Pipes, PhD] Islam likely might not have survived.
Since jihad is at the core of Islam then it logically follows that “radical” and “peaceful” Muslims must be the same doctrinally, meaning that “radical Islam” IS Islam because it is in the driver’s seat, defining the nature of its attributes in the real world.
This places “peaceful” Muslims in a precarious dilemma as they seem to merely be along for the ride, benefitting or suffering as the case may be from the decisions made by those who take Mohammed at his word, that the Qur’an is the revealed [non-metaphorical] word of the Divine, and that Allah is a really angry and vengeful kind of guy who insists that “his” world will be entirely non-diverse.
It might occur to some at this point that maybe the real problem pertains to perceived deficiencies in the English language, that it may be incapable linguistically of defining the type of nuance called for in this matter. Refuting that however is the widely understood belief across many cultures and societies that English is exquisitely gifted in being a communicative medium.
Alas, poor reader…if you doubt that, re-read Hamlet and report back…
This makes it difficult not to conclude that the definitional problem lies with the defective thinking behind the terminology, rather than some modern unseen, idiomatic fissure in the English language.
Let’s consider what might be called the inertial center of Islam, i.e. Islam as it is practiced in Muslim majority nations where it is uniformly wedded to some form of theocratic, Shari’a based government. In this kind of system, there are only Muslims and non-Muslim, second class citizens who conduct their lives at the sufferance of the emir.
At the opposite end are societies that have comparatively few Muslim citizens…which surprisingly [not] have no problems.
Then there are countries like those in Western Europe who have admitted a demographically unsafe number of Allah’s disciples and here a very interesting thing happens.
But before we go there let’s examine the issue of Islamic dogmatism.
This derives from two sources, first the triumphal aspects of the doctrine itself and second the way Islam is taught, usually by rote memorization in some form of madrassah, a self-contained environment which generally features aspects of pan-Arabic supremacism, a cultural affectation which when combined with inflexible scripture is causing the problems we see on the Continent and yes, coming to these very shores.
Doubling back, what do we mean by “an unsafe number of Muslims?”
Paraphrasing, philosopher Naseem Nicholas Taleb defining just what might be considered a demographically “unsafe” number of Muslims; it would be the quantity sufficient to upset the social equilibrium and foundations of a culture…hint…think intransigence and intolerance.
As Taleb himself puts it:
“The best example I know that gives insights into the functioning of a complex system is with the following situation. It suffices for an intransigent minority - a certain type of intransigent minorities - to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority. If it seems absurd, it is because our scientific intuitions aren’t calibrated for that…they don’t work and your standard intellectualization fails with complex systems…” [Naseem Niholas Taleb, The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority , Incerto]
In a breaking update; as if designed as an accompanying document in support of this piece, today, Gatestone published an article about a newly opened German mosque [see, Vijeta Uniyal, Germany's Quest for 'Liberal' Islam , Gatestone Institute].
Despite the obviously fervent hopes of the German Federal Republic’s bright lights, the facts surrounding the event read like a macabre comedy caught in a Felliniesque time warp. That the mosque’s opening was feverishly hyped by Germany’s uniquely smug state run, Deutsche Welle only heightens the nauseous sense that Europe is far past the point of ever possibly restoring the ancient order.
“The newly unveiled 'liberal mosque' in Berlin was supposed to showcase a 'gentler' Islam. An Islam that could be reformed and modernized while it emerges as the dominant demographic force in Europe. German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle touted the opening of the mosque as a "world event in the heart of Berlin…Everyone is welcome at Berlin's Ibn Rushd-Goethe Mosque…Women and men shall pray together and preach together at the mosque, while the Koran is to be interpreted 'historically and critically,’ crowed DW…”
Multiculturally stunted Euro reporters were trampling over each other in their glee to prove that the “critics of Islam” were indeed, guilty as charged…Islamophobes. The icing on this strange cake however is what takes the matter beyond the ironic; the mosque’s “imam” is…of course…a woman who buoyantly proclaimed:
"For me there is no contradiction in being a Muslim and a feminist at the same time," Seyran Ates, the mosque's female imam told the German reporters.
When news of the heterodox German mosque “project,” leaked outside the confines of Berlin and Brussels, and started filtering into the Middle East, what any rational observer of things Muslim could have told the central planners far in advance, were borne out - things have gone entirely sideways:
“…The liberal utopian dream quickly turned into an Islamist nightmare. Islamic fanatics from near and far started flooding the Berlin mosque with death threats. Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the foremost authority on Sunni Islam, issued a fatwa forbidding the 'liberal mosque.'
Leaving the befuddled “imam” stammering and unable to fashion a reasonable but “culturally sensitive” response:
"…[though]…300 emails per day [encouraged her] to carry on"…but also "3,000 emails a day full of hate", some of them including death threats. Egypt's Dar al-Ifta al-Masriyyah, a state-run Islamic institution assigned to issue religious edicts, issued a statement on Monday declaring that the Ibn Rushd-Goethe mosque's practice of men and women praying side by side was incompatible with Islam.”
What is most tragic about the matter is not that the entirety of Europe’s cultural elite were again proven to be dead-wrong on the most serious security issue ever to wash up on the shores of modern Europe, it’s the realization that despite the equivalent of being smacked in the face with a dead Mackerel, nothing…nothing will ever stop the EU leader’s mad dash rendezvous with civilizational suicide.
Please excuse the brief digression, but, final point and we must again stress that we are not beating up on Mr. Meotti, but rather using him as a springboard to force the discussion towards the consideration of places most do not want to go.
According to the author, freedom of expression is what separates civilization from uncivilization:
“Democracies are, or at least should be, custodians of a perishable treasury: freedom of expression. This is the biggest difference between Paris and Havana, London and Riyadh, Berlin and Tehran, Rome and Beirut. Freedom of expression is what gives us the best of the Western culture.” [source, Giulio Meotti , How Much of our Culture Are We Surrendering to Islam? ]
Noble words for sure, but an ordering of freedoms with which we must disagree.
The defining attribute of Western Civilization - and from which all other rights flow - is the concept of private property. In the expansive use of the term this must invariably include ownership of one’s self and what one earns by the sweat of his brow. A state of unfreedom [slavery] exists when others can make inordinate claims against another’s private property. Freedom of speech means nothing if the intended recipient doesn’t have the basic right to grasp and own it.
So in extending that point; in the West, though Muslims can be classified in myriad ways, stripes and flavors, no amount of word-smithing is capable of redefining the relationship between Islam and our most basic freedoms.
This means that whatever tense state of accommodation currently exists between Europe’s Islamic communities and those of the non-believers be totally destroyed, nearly overnight, by the tyranny of a bellicose minority, at which point the West ceases to be the West, as does the notion of “peaceful” Muslims.
Final point, Mr. Meotti says something to the effect that Angela Merkel didn’t have the emotional composure necessary to place German troops at the borders, battle rifles at the ready to repel those engaged in jihad by hijra.
We believe that not to be the case.
Chancellor Merkel was born in East Berlin and as a young member of the Communist Party, she was conditioned to brutality at an early age. So, no, the reason Merkel’s internal policies are suicidal, is that her actions are dictated not by a rational weighing of what nasty mental images people might draw from a resurgent “jackbooted” German army protecting its culture but rather in her abject debasement before Europe’s post-modernist secular religion - moral relativism.
©2017 PipeLineNews.org LLC., William Mayer. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.