Monday, June 27, 2016

The Two Islams meme

https://cinemaknifefight.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/jekyll-hyde-poster.jpg

Apropos of a new video discussion with Brigitte Gabriel published on Jihad Watch, a long-time Jihad Watch regular who calls himself "Alarmed Pig Farmer" got right to the heart of what's the matter with Brigitte:


First, quoting Brigitte --

… speaking about the elephant in the room, and it is radical Islam.

Alarmed Pig Farmer commented:
No it ain’t. It’s Islam. The use of the adjective radical, apparently mandatory even for those who are knowledgeable and correct on Islam, will one day be proved a key to Sharia taking over the free world. The truth about Islam has to be publicly confronted sooner or later, so why not now?

When someone can show me how Islam is moderate and thus is a thing that can be radicalized, then I’ll accept the adjective radical.

[END QUOTE]

Nearly eight years ago, in my essay here titled Asymptotic vs. Holistic Analysis: a clarification, I analyzed the Brigitte Gabriel problem in more detail.

And lest I be pointing out the obvious, the term "radical" is not the only qualifier used by various & sundry analysts out there (both in the Counter-Jihad and out, as well as numerous folks sort of straddling the boundary with one foot in, one foot out).  "Islamism" is another one favored by Sam Harris (because his Muslim partner Maajid Nawaz has whispered it in his ear as sweet taqiyya); while "Wahhabist" and "Salafist" are other equivalents.  "Extremist" of course is yet another.  Oftentimes one analyst or another will string together two or more qualifiers, just to ensure extra padding by which to insulate Islam and most Muslims from our condemnation.

More broadly, what all these qualifiers do (whether or not it's the intent of the respective user) is split Islam into two.  Why would anyone want to split Islam into two?  The simple answer is, to protect the mainstream Islam of all the seemingly harmless Muslims of the world, by relocating all problems borne of "extremism" -- of human rights violations, geopolitical disorder, and terrorism -- into some "extremist" truncation, thus sparing Islam per se from condemnation.  The deeper motivation, then, is readily visible: to protect innumerable Muslims.  How many Muslims are being protected remains vague, but for many (including some in the Counter-Jihad) it seems to be a majority.  The point is, there is an anxiety to avoid condemning vast numbers of Muslims who seem to be innocent (i.e., they aren't currently exploding, stabbing, shooting, etc.).  

The psychological motivation behind this is powerfully fueled by two fears:
  
1) A fear of the colossal dimensions of a problem of hundreds of millions of fanatics all over the globe, and increasingly inside the West, including seemingly nice people in our midst assumed to be akin to espionage agents aiding and abetting the terrorists. 

2) A fear of our own innate white Western "bigotry" and "racism" becoming aroused and activated by the massive circumstance of having to suspect, criticize, condemn and consider violating the rights of innumerable Brown People.

For many, this prospect of these twin fears is simply too frightening to contemplate; so better to construct an alternative explanation -- that whittles the problem down to manageable proportions -- and that, thus, is more comforting and less alarming.

This Two Islams meme (in its various forms) remains perhaps the most common and most resilient way for people (whether in or out of the Counter-Jihad) to resist the paradigm shift from Islam to Muslims.

9 comments:

Egghead said...

Mohammed himself started the two Islams meme with Mecca versus Medina.

The key is to teach non-Muslims that Muslims believe in abrogation whereby the last violent verses overrule the first 'peaceful' verses - forever - because Mohammed declared himself the final prophet.

Hesperado said...

Yes, as Bill Warner has pointed out, the Mecca/Medina aspect is a crucial "dualism" at the heart of Islam -- but it's not a real split, since the seemingly less rapacious half is only a mirage masking the other half.

Egghead said...

Yes, I agree. I was wondering if Mohammed 'marrying' six year old Aisha is in the Medina or Mecca verses?

Hesperado said...

It's not in the Koran; it's in Bukhari hadiths and I think alluded to in the Sira. Scholars say Mohammed was supposedly 54 when she was 9, so one could calculate whether it was during Mecca or Medina period.

Anonymous said...

Mohammed wrote the marriage contract with Aisha when she was six and he was said to be fifty-one, and the marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine and he was therefore presumed to be fifty-four. This is stated, in varying forms, in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunnan Abu Dawud and Tabari, about thirteen in all.

Egghead said...

Yes, but I would like to know if Mohammed 'married' Aisha during his 'peaceful' Medina - or violent Mecca - period?

Also, I read an interesting comment once that said that Arabs have shorter years so Aisha may have only been five years old in Western years.

Egghead said...

Oops. Reverse that to 'peaceful' Mecca versus violent Medina.

https://beyondthecusp.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/which-quran-mecca-or-medina/

Anonymous said...

Egghead: Since Islam owes its origins, including some original converts from former rabbis, and approximately 90% of its Sharia Law to Talmudic Judaism, it would not be surprising if Aisha was even younger than the presumed 9 years old when her marriage to Mohamed was consumated: in the Talmud, a female child aged 3 years and 1 day old is regarded as 'mature' for marriage and the text refers specifically to the act of 'coition' (sexual intercorse). And a male child aged 9 is regarded as mature for marriage. In both sexes, those aged less than these stipulations are not regarded as mature in the sense of equally participating in the sexual act, and can not therefore be deemed as able to 'throw guilt' onto the adult committing the sexual abuse. And in the case of Aisha, she would have been restricted by the reality also of how those resisting Mohamed were treated. As always, such abuse is largely dependent on the greater silence, and cowed agreement, of the larger 'community' and this is especially potent where there is textual or hierarchical 'justification' for it (in Talmudic Judaism, the issue arises when concerning marriage of Jewish priests and then Rabbis) but will of course permeate the entire society, in due course.

Egghead said...

Here is a fascinating Muslim apologetic for Mohammed molesting and raping Aisha - that presents Sharia Law as an improvement to Talmudic Law.

http://www.muhaddith.org/islam_answers/earlymarriage-part2.doc