Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Let's do a little imaginative concretizing

Robert Spencer in an
article on Jihad Watch today suggest that we “... call upon Muslims in the U.S. to repudiate and teach against Islam’s traditional apostasy law, or face stiff penalties up to and including deportation...”

Let’s do a little imaginative concretizing: How exactly would this work? Let’s say by the time the U.S. is even ready to begin implementing Spencer’s advice here, some 25 years from now, there will be at least 5 million Muslim in the U.S.
Is the U.S. going to call upon all 5 million to “repudiate and teach against” the death penalty for apostasy?

If so, let’s take the “repudiation” part first: how would that be implemented? Would we require all 5 million to report to some government office in their region to sign a form that stipulates such a repudiation? Or perhaps they could just repudiate on-line, at
repudiate-ridda-hadd/depofjustice.gov ? The bureaucratic red-tape nightmare is easy to imagine, involving also the problem of enforcement—what do we do when Muslims do not report to the office in time or do not register online in time, etc.

This is not to mention the flimsiness of verification and trust that would afflict the whole enterprise: would the fact that Muslims simply sign a form mean that we can trust them? This of course applies to any and all stipulations we would require of them—not merely repudiation on the apostasy issue, but also the jihad issue, the loyalty issue to non-Islamic governments, etc.

If, however, we would not require all 5 million to formally register their repudiation, which Muslims would we choose to represent them? Only their clerics? Their clerics and their “community leaders”? This would be more bureaucratically manageable of course than requiring all 5 million, but it would be afflicted with an even worse verification/trust problem—for not only can we not reasonable trust any given Muslim cleric who simply rubber-stamps his repudiation, we would in that circumstance not even have any repudiation from the Muslim masses at all. The same verification/trust problem pertains to Spencer’s second part of his suggestion—the “teach against” part. Just because some imams happen to “teach against” the death penalty for apostasy, this doesn’t mean they really believe it. And, of course, this would require pervasive monitoring of mosques and other Islamic centers, to make sure they are following this rule.

This brings us to another problem involved here: Such a comprehensive policy would formalize a mass posture and display of hostility and distrust against our own Muslim population: and again, by the time our society (thoroughly deformed by PC MC as it currently is) has become ready to even begin to implement such procedures (let alone even contemplate them), our Muslim population will have increased greatly, likely by two million or more. Such a policy would officially bring out into the open an antagonism between our society and millions of Muslims within our borders. And we all know how mass Muslim populations behave when they feel antagonism against them—hell, too many of them act up treasonously even when they are
mollycoddled, as they are now throughout the West.

Now, I admit, there might be an up side to this problem—i.e., it would be like bringing a boil on your skin to a state of inflammation the better to lance it and cure it—i.e. if I must spell it out, if it would trigger mass anti-social and criminal behaviors of Muslims; and then our government could then take the next logical step and crack down on them and deport them etc. Nevertheless, I still maintain that instead of steering our society toward this kind of reconfiguration that would bring in its train all these headaches and potentials for insurrections and military crackdowns by our National Guard, etc., we should instead work to steer our society toward the much better, more efficient, more logical, and ultimately more humane measure: D.A.M.N.—Deport All Muslims Now. For us to continue to agitate for piece-meal measures (whether Spencer’s rather mild approach or Lawrence Auster’s seemingly bolder but ultimately no less incoherent and insufficient approach) is to tend to have the effect of actually counter-productively working against the process of sociopolitical reconfiguration toward the more logical approach of D.A.M.N.

No comments: