Wednesday, May 21, 2014

It's the Violence, Stupid

The blurry, ragged (or in hifalutin terms, "amorphous") entity called (mostly only by me, apparently) the Anti-Islam Movement coalesced momentously, if momentarily, in Paris in the last month of the last decade, as -- as its own manifesto put it --

... orators coming from the whole of Europe shared one same platform to denounce the Islamic conquest at work on our continent.

The result of this symposium was that:

... the thirty-two parties, organizations, associations, websites and news blogs which supported this initiative agreed... on a common manifesto.

While I applaud any efforts and events of congregation in the West on the problem of Islam, I cannot sit still when to me important aspects of the problem seem to remain either unclear or inadequately defended by this manifesto.

For now, the glaring defect I see in this manifesto I have seen crop up in the writings and comments of many others in the Anti-Islam Movement, whether vaunted analysts or lowly civilians. It is a concern whose articulation seems predicated upon a strange disconnection between Sharia and Violence. The way this concern is framed, one gets the distinct impression that they think Muslims will be able to take over the West by sheer osmosis, as though the vast majority of Westerners will just stand by like sheep and allow Muslims, craftily but non-violently, to replace our progressive legal systems -- and therefore political systems and societies -- with Islamic Law.

Anyone who thinks this through will realize this is a preposterous scenario. The only reason that "creeping Sharia" is encroaching at all in incipient and tentative toeholds, in varying degrees, in various locations and contexts in the West, is because the Muslims promoting it are putting a false face on Sharia.  Their claim is that Sharia is so wonderfully diverse one cannot reduce it to the crude subtypes practiced by the Taliban, Al-Shabaab, or Boko Haram.  They have never proven this claim, probably because they can't.  Then they add luster to this by reminding the Guilty White West that Sharia is "multicultural" and surely you Westerners wouldn't want to be "intolerant" of other cultures, would you now...?   So whatever Sharia has been creeping its tendrils into the West has not been Sharia Straight -- it has been Diet Sharia, decaffeinated, no sugar, no fat, no headchopping, no handchopping, no stoning, no public flogging for sexual immorality, etc.

I.e., the rubber has not met the road yet, not by a long shot. With the exception of a tiny handful of psychotic Leftists in the West, the vast majority of "liberals" and even of Leftists in the West would not accept for one minute full-blooded (i.e., normative and mainstream) Sharia. The main reason they are being so stupid about it is because they don't have to accept it concretely -- they can continue to have their cake of "tolerance of diversity" while eating too the surrounding dominance of Western laws which continue to protect their liberties and, ipso facto, keep at bay Sharia in any massively intrusive -- let alone dominating (i.e., normative) -- sense.  And meanwhile, the obfuscation of the issue through the false distinction between normative Sharia and some fantasy Sharia Lite gives PC MCs plenty of room to indulge their stupidity on the matter while earnestly believing they are on the side of the angels, doing the right thing, rather than being "haters".

In the meantime, innumerable Muslims pullulating out of the Muslim world are seeking, through various forms of terror, to jump-start the mayhem and misery that, in their minds, will serve to soften up the tegument of this vast "Roman Empire" they see the West as, and prepare it for the desideratum of the final conquest Mohammed predicted in a vision as recorded by Ibn-Ishaq (the Vision of the Third Spark -- see my essay expatiating on this).

Muslims know that they can't institute normative full-blooded Sharia in the West as it stands. They also know it won't happen by sheer osmosis. Some Muslims may boast that the West will succumb to Islam, and they may frame this in ostensibly non-violent terms; but it would be imprudent of us to take such counter-factual asseverations at face value. It is more reasonable to assume that they are deceptive formulations, calculated to reinforce the Good Cop/Bad Cop split which continues to fool the majority of Westerners who persist in believing that, somehow, not all Muslims are dangerous. Muslims know that given the relative sophistication of this monumental and obviously powerful Empire called the West (with America at its vanguard), their desideratum will never become a reality without the use of violence. And after all, this has been the modus operandi of Muslims from day one and throughout the centuries; so why change now, and start doing something that is Bida'ah (dreaded "innovation")?

Indeed, the superiority of the "Great Satan" is so great, Muslims currently are unable to mount a formal military invasion against it. The last time they were able, it was 1683. Thus, the need for various modes of terror attack, in a clever symbiosis with a stealth jihad of false moderation.

So far, a Muslim would not be unreasonable to conclude that this strategy is working. As I have analyzed in a few essays, terror attacks work a paradoxical effect to the advantage of the cause of Islam: the more that Muslims attack in various places in the West (and on its periphery, such as in Bali or Mumbai), the more the West bends over backwards and salaams forward to show more, not less, anxious deference to Muslims. The aforementioned toeholds of "creeping Sharia", indeed, gain traction and lubrication precisely by virtue of the dynamic which Muslim terror attacks create in the Western PC MC psyche.


Egghead said...

Westerners QUITE mistakenly believe ('think' would be too generous a word here) that if Westerners are 'nice' to Muslims, then Muslims will be 'nice' to Westerners. PC MC Westerners have distilled Christianity into a suicidal and homicidal version of the 'Golden Rule' that both simultaneously omits the PRIMARY commandment (1) of the 'Golden Rule' - and artificially elevates the secondary commandment (2):

1. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength: this is the first commandment.

2. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.

P.S. I believe that I am the inventor of the term 'Islam Lite' which I have been using to describe American Islam for years (particularly in the sense that modern black American Muslims have been practicing Islam Lite - for example, without FGM, burqas, etc.).

Westward Ho said...

Alarmed Pig Farmer, an astute commenter at JW, used to say that the "sixth pillar" of Islam is the implicit threat of personal murder. (And the "seventh" is the victim pose.)

I think this "sixth pillar" is an especially clarifying formulation of the takeover's dynamics. It's not the violence itself, it's the implicit threat, which is conveyed not by directly making a threat, but by being only seldom violent, or by being terribly violent perhaps in Africa, which subliminally informs every average Westerner of The Message of what Islam's "conciliatory" adherent is very capable of. And unmentioned, it's always there, like a specter, haunting the non-Muslim. That's the special sauce.

The human imagination, and the desire to avoid opening a can of trouble that you keep assuring yourself is not *really* lurking - Right?! Right?! Right?! The need to maintain this assurance influences our actions much better, and as it enlists ourselves, we have a *self-maintained* blind spot about it.

And staggering inroads are made without a shot, and roadblocks are not put up. Actual kinetic violence has none of this power and leverage.

"Osmosis", you mock? The lefties aren't so wrong!

It subtlety defies clear recognition even while we acquiesce to it. I think people had this blind spot back in Mo's day when they appeased his threatening bargains, too.

Hesperado said...

How's this for a "belated" response? This one to Westward Ho above who wrote his comment on May 28, 2014. The obvious response is that a threat of violence is not non-violent, since a threat of violence only works in a context where actual violence has occurred, to telegraph the clear message that, in effect, the Muslims mean business.

Secondly, Westward Ho isn't really factoring in my point about full-blooded Sharia, which is not present as a law anywhere in the West, and it is reasonable to suppose, can't, until after that part of the West is forced at gun- and swordpoint. Those who propose the "Creeping Sharia" thesis only have the data of incipient tips of an iceberg, some of which is seemingly benign or only aesthetically objectionable, others of which are objectionable, but not existentially dangerous absent the large-scale violence that could ruin a society (including ours).