Saturday, July 01, 2006

The Problem of Islam

This post does not intend to plumb the welter of complexities that typify the history of Islam and its belligerent relations with the rest of the world. The intent of this post is to boil down the problem of Islam as it presents itself to the modern West, irregardless of whether one would conclude that Islam itself, or some central or relatively peripheral part of it, is the main source of the problem.

For those who like to get to the meat of the matter first, look at #9 below. You can always backtrack after that to take a look at the previous points on the list, if your life is not so sadly hectic, that is, that you cannot in that way spare a few minutes of it to engage your thoughts with a pressing issue of our day.

1. Islam is trying to conquer the world.

2. Islam has been trying to conquer the world since its beginning.

3. Its entelechy of world conquest is currently lacking, to significant degrees, in pan-Islamic cohesion.

4. The relative lack of pan-Islamic cohesion mitigates the problem, to be sure, but no so much as to support optimism for the near future (i.e., for the next 50-100 years, approximatelymore or less depending on how soon we dismantle our PC multiculturalist dominance).

5. One of its tactics in world conquest is terrorism.

6. Terrorism is not primarily designed to destroy the modern Westit is designed to provoke a response from the modern West that will help to further galvanize the Muslim world which, for the most part, seems to be not yet fully ready for a frontal military jihad against the modern West which is the spearhead of the Dar-al-Harb (literally, “the Realm of War”, and by extension, “the entire non-Muslim world which must eventually come under Islamic rule”).

7. Why the Muslim world is, for the most part, not yet fully ready for a frontal military jihad against the rest of the world, we have treated in previous posts (particularly my three-part Islam Redivivus posts).

8. The problem of terrorism is an important, urgent problem, because it has the potential for causing the deaths of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of our people, as well as the physical injuries and psychological trauma of thousands or hundreds of thousands more, in addition to the probability of significant damage to property and infrastructure.

9. The problem of terrorismi.e., of Islamic terrorismmay be spelled out in the following adumbration:

Muslims are committing terrorism

a) at an alarming rate

b) at an alarmingly increasing rate

c) in alarming numbers

d) in numbers that are alarmingly dispersed across the globe

e) attacking alarmingly disparate targets around the globe

f) in a trans-national sociological context of relatively camouflaged anonymity

g) in sociocultural contexts of relative support–ranging on a spectrum from passive enablement, to ambivalent support, to enthusiastic ideological support, to actual material support

h) in a sociological context in the West of a significant degree of a combination of taqiyya (‘clever deceit’, on the Muslim side) + PC multiculturalist whitewashingwhich aggravates the problem of our inability to tell the difference between the smiling so-called ‘moderate Muslim’ from the dangerous Muslim who may be 1) refusing to turn in dangerous Muslims and therefore is obstructing their identification and apprehension; 2) engaged in indirectly supporting the terrorists; 3) engaged in actively supporting terrorists; 4) engaged directly in planning and executing terrorist acts.

10. The Problem of Islam transcends the problem of terrorism, insofar as the latter is merely one tactic in the overall strategy to conquer the world. Other important tactics are Daw'a (the Islamic version of evangelism, but involving considerable amounts of deceit about the true nature of Islam as well as playing into the hands of our own PC multiculturalists all too eager to whitewash and sugarcoat the evils of Islam), as well as Demographics (immigration into non-Muslim lands to use their sheer numbers as ways to intimidate the PC West in a variety of socio-politico-legal ways, as well as using their women as baby factories to breed new jihadists).

11. However, I will end with a point that is crucial, but seems to be stubbornly lost on such otherwise eminent analysts as Hugh Fitzgerald and Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch: No amount of non-physically-violent tactics on the part of Muslims will ultimately achieve anything, unless they combine those tactics with physically violent tactics. These physically violent tactics have been predominately terrorist in recent history for the obvious reason that Islam is in such tatters (as a result of the past 300 years of the astonishing ascendancy to global superiority of the modern West) that it cannot muster a proper military conquest. Many Muslims may be hoping that a certain combination and concatenation of terrorist commando operations + more amorphous social violence (e.g., the rioting in Paris and other European cities, as well as crimes of rape and theft and violent intimidation of various types of critics of Islam, in addition to firefighters and medical emergency personnel noted in Scandinavia) may help to chip through the superior tegument of the Western Empire in order to faciliate some kind of invasionhelped at that pivotal point enormously by the millions of Muslims already within the gates of the Westwhich would begin to assume traditional forms of military conquest. The point maintained here is that, without the corrolary of military action, Islam will be unable to finalize its conquest of the West, no matter how much Daw'a and demographics it accomplishes. And even with that corrolary, it probably will not succeed.

12. Although Islam will not be able to conquer short of a proper military conquest; and although such a military conquest is not possible given the screaming disparity between the superior West and the pathetic state of the Muslim world–nonetheless, Muslims in attempting to do the impossible will be able to wreak untold havoc and misery and mass-murders. And these tragic consequences could be minimized in our future to the extent that we dismantle our PC multiculturalist idiocy.


El Tom said...

and what the hell is 'PC'? are you politically wrong or something? why would someone who wants to get elected purposefully offend segments of the population?

there is a space between cultural relativism and cultural imperialism. We call it logic and principle. And what faith you choose to practice does not have to influence that... the people that brought you seperation of church and state, for example, were deeply pious.

Ex-Centrist said...

el tom,

"and what the hell is 'PC'? are you politically wrong or something?"

The term PC ("politically correct") and its counterpart, "politically incorrect", are ironic terms, and have been quite commonly used for many years now. For someone to ask what PC means at this late date makes one wonder what their agenda is, or whether they've been living in a cave. The point being communicated with the irony is that what is "correct" in PC has been
DICTATED by those who are using (or abusing) language in order to stifle dissent and culturally ostracize those who dare to think outside the box.

"why would someone who wants to get elected purposefully offend segments of the population?"

If segments of the population follow a holy text they believe contains the literal commands of God, and if those commands tell them to hate and fight all non-Muslims in order to make Islam globally supreme, then an elected leader has the positive obligation to offend that segment -- if not more; but first of all, to open and free up critical questions about that segment's subculture.

Kab bin Ashraf said...


I just saw your post at DW, and thought I'd come over and check out your blog.

A couple of comments on this. First, re point 11, I believe that demographics (without terrorism) is a threat. I believe it is the biggest threat and will most strongly determine the future. No terrorism is needed, at all, for most of Europe to become Muslim majority. As long as present trends and social attitudes continue as such, this seems inevitable. If, or when, European countries such as France become Muslim majority (say, by between the years 2050-2075), there is the possibility of the election of an Islamic government. (Isn't it historically true that Muslims, as a rule, when in the majority, have elected Islamic governments?). Once an Islamic government is elected, then jihad becomes a major problem. (France is a major nuclear power). {The same problem arises in Russia and in India. They're nuclear powers, and there the Muslim birth-rate far outstrips the Russian and Hindu birth-rates, respectively}.

Second, even without physical jihad terrorism, demographics is a problem because of the social, political, and legal changes that will likely come into effect once an Islamic government is democratically elected. (We are even seeing some such changes in Europe now; imagine what would happen under an Islamic government, in addition to the accumulated concessions that would already have been won by Muslims). As sharia becomes established, whether gradually or abruptly upon an Islamic government being voted into power, non-Muslims will be in a much more disadvantageous position to say the least. (How do you feel about paying jizya, etc.?) Overthrowing an Islamic government that had the European infrastructure at its disposal might take decades, if not centuries, to achieve.

I believe that terrorists can be fought and defeated or at least managed. I am not at all confident that Europe can deal with the demographic problem; and demographics is the one, perhaps the only, means by which Islamists could ever seize power in the west and in Russia.

Kab bin Ashraf said...

...and just to be clear, it is demographics that is to be used as the step to get control over military and police forces--through Islamists being democratically elected and therefore obtaining governmental control. State ideologies can change (e.g., see Soviet Union -- Russia) while much of the infrastructure and equipment remains.

Kab bin Ashraf said...

...another point re demographics: The presence of even, say, 5% Muslims in a Western country can have a big impact politically. It can, for example, decide the outcome of an election. If Muslims vote generally in unison in regard to some foreign policy issue, this could adversely affect our politicians' willingness to enact such policies. In addition, we can already see that even a small percentage of Muslims in a western country drastically alters the public discourse, what can or cannot be said. Frank criticism of Islam might be frowned upon by the anti-western PC types, but with Muslims actually present in the west, such frank criticism is practically verboten---not to mention utterly dangerous.

Ex-Centrist said...

kab bin ashraf,

I understand what you are saying, but as spineless as we may think some Western governments are, they would not stand still for a majority of the population actually voting to overturn their laws. Chances are, Europe will not become Muslim majority as a whole, but country by country. If, let us say, Holland became Muslim majority first, and then within a couple of years it enacted an overturn of Dutch laws and an overturn of the Dutch constitution, etc., I think other European countries and the USA at that point (and more terrorist attacks in various parts of the West would have occurred by then, most likely) would not stand for this, and an Allied invasion would be thinkable.