Thursday, February 24, 2011
All seriousness aside (as Steve Allen would have said), this essay is meant only to sketch in some basic ground rules for how the West should frame the remarkable domino effect of popular revolts against government going on in the Middle East and Africa.
First, we should take care to avoid certain glib assumptions that ignore the profound singularities of each polity currently undergoing popular uprisings: each nation we hear about in the news is not just a sandlot next door to the next, each one more or less a copy of the next, but a cultural microcosm in its own right with a rich and unique history of its own -- even if a large chunk of that history and culture involves the torturously diseased stranglehold of Islam for centuries after initial bloody conquests by Muslims in the century after Mohammed throughout the region. Thus, Algeria is not more or less the same as Tunisia; nor is Tunisia more or less the same as Egypt; etc. Each is, in certain important respects, a cultural world of its own with a multifaceted history, cultural identity and cultural diversity, of its own.
That said, however -- and here comes the Islamic "but" (which should be, for those of us Unbelievers denied Paradise, as big as the mile-wide female butts promised Believers granted said Paradise) -- there is among these countries a unifying factor: Islam and the consciousness among all these agitating revolters of being Muslims. This is not a perfectly airtight unity (pace those PC MCs who immediately set up the straw man of "Islam is not a monolith"), but that unremarkable fact does not give license to the analyst to deny all Islamic continuities and cohesion that subsist in Islamic societies across geopolitical, cultural and even doctrinal boundaries.
This relatively unifying factor then leads to the third of our guidelines as we observe this disquieting transformation of a crucial swath of modern Islam.
Let's break it down:
a) Most Muslims support Islam, and all Muslims enable Islam.
b) Islam and Sharia law cannot be separated, for Sharia law is the expression of the Do's and Don't's of Mohammed, who is so important to Muslims they want to kill people who they think insult him.
c) Aside from outrageously regressive and anti-liberal laws for Muslims, Sharia law also envisions and mandates the conquest and submission of all non-Muslims and the killing of those who refuse to submit (preceded by the killing of many as a tactic of terror to bring about strategic advantage), however long that may take, and accomodating situations of temporary political and military weaknesses through the allowance of deceptive strategies -- which include lying about (c) by denying such a desideratum exists in Islamic law.
d) Any popular movement among Muslims therefore augurs more Islam, and because of a-c, that is obviously bad for non-Muslims.
e) The "freedom" which all these revolting Muslims may seem to be seeking is not freedom from the anti-liberal totalitarianism of Islam, but a freedom from the tin-pot tyrants who, in their various deals with the Western Devil in this modern era of Western global hegemony, have in one way or another delimited the scope and practice of Sharia law. These revolting Muslims are merely jumping out of the frying pan of the tin-pot dictators, into the fire of Islamic totalitarianism.
There may well be a "diversity" of degrees of the Sharia which these roilingly variegated Muslims from Tunisia to Yemen desire to see realized in the birth of their new nation. To a great extent, this reflects the historical fact that Sharia as represented from country to country has acquired a semblance of a piecemeal appearance through the forced exigencies of Western Colonialism and after that of Post-Colonialist Western hegemony.
As we Islamoliterate Infidels have learned to our grim dismay, however, there is no acceptable degree of Sharia for the non-Muslim, for it would be like an acceptable degree of Nazism or Satanism. The whole kit and kaboodle is rotten and evil. And, contrary to the dissembling sophistry of Islam apologists (both Muslim and non-Muslim), Sharia law is not a supermarket from whose shelves this or that Muslim can choose what to take: it is a systemic whole whose sole variety subsists in its division into "schools" (madhahib in Arabic), and in the deceptive appearance of complexity in its obsessive-compulsive jungle of internal minutiae.
To put this clearly with one specfic example out of thousands which could be adduced: it matters little to us Infidels if three different Muslim clerics have a quibbling disputation over what constitutes the lawful grounds for offensively attacking Infidels. What matters, and what is not acceptable in the modern world, is that clerics of any major religion should be seriously (let alone fanatically and demagogically) delineating such a concept at all.