BBC can't see the Islam wood for the trees, as usual
My father always used to say “Fight fire with fire,”
which is probably why he was thrown out of the fire brigade! ─ Harry Hill
Okay, so fighting fire with fire is not a universally
applicable maxim. But in the fight against radical Islam and its latest form
Islamic State (IS) it’s the only way to go.
Until 9/11 the West’s relations with the Islamic world
could be summed up by the FDR quote about the Nicaraguan dictator that “Somoza may
be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch”. We ignored the human rights
abuses going on across the Islamic world and in return the dictators in power
kept the oil flowing and the looney tunes on a short leash. In fact the only
time an American president deviated from this pragmatic course was when Jimmy
Carter disastrously failed to back the Shah of Iran. The consequences of which
we’re still living with. In short the mullahs have been the world’s primary
sponsor of terrorism ever since.
No policy works for ever though. Times change
and new strategies are called for. The spectacular failure of the “son of a
bitch” policy came on 9/11 when nineteen nationals of America’s closest Arab allies,
Egypt and Saudi Arabia, murdered 3,000 civilians on US soil. It turned out that
our pet dictators had kept their people’s resentment in check by directing
frustrations outwards at Israel, America and the West in general. Now we were
getting the blame for the sufferings of Muslims in repressive, stagnant societies
with anything but stagnant demographics. The growth of Saudi Arabia’s
population from less than 4 to 20 million between 1950 and 2000 was
representative of the entire Muslim world. How much worse would the situation
get as the population of the Muslim world doubled and doubled again?
This gave rise to the interventionist policy of the so
called “neoconservatives”. America
would bring hope and change to the Muslim world in the form democracy.
Democracy would kick start economic growth and give those vast numbers of angry
young men something else to think about than Allah. In short democracy would be
used as the primary weapon to destroy America’s enemies.
Iraq seemed the perfect choice as the test bed for the
idea. First and most conveniently it was already a visceral enemy which would
simplify the task of persuading the American people of the need to invade it. Then
after victory Iraq’s massive oil wealth would fund its own transition and very helpfully
it already had a partly secular population thanks ironically to the efforts of Ba’ath
party socialist, Saddam Hussein. And last but not least its central location
meant it would quickly infect the entire region if it the experiment was a
success.
It has to be said that the “Democratize them” policy
has not quite achieved the results claimed for it. After the sacrifice of many
thousands of coalition troops and a trillion plus dollar investment the Muslim
world is more chaotic than ever. Democracy of a sort came to the Arab world in
the form of the Iraqi elections and then the “Arab Spring” but sadly it turns
out that when Muslims get the vote they seem inclined to go for the swivel-eyed
koran-basher rather than the shifty-looking democrat in a suit. The last gasp
of the policy was the British and French led effort in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi by
allying themselves with the head-hackers. Curiously enough the resulting Islamist
anarchy seemed to take British PM David Cameron by surprise. But what can you
expect from a man who sees no connection whatsoever between Islamic State (IS)
and Islam. Here’s a clue, Cameron: their name.
So what now?
Fight Islam (or Islamism if you prefer) with Islam.
We are living in interesting times. Islam is currently
undergoing an historic transformation. Just like the Christian Reformation the
devotees of Islam disgusted by the corruption of their faith are returning to
the original sources, the koran and hadith (vast collections of tales about
Mohammad). The difference is that whereas reforming Christians rediscovered Jesus’
message of self-denial, sacrifice and love,
Muslims are rediscovering the Mohammad who ordered the murder of dozens of his
critics and personally oversaw the beheading of around 600 Jews. Over the
centuries Muslim countries had become relatively benign. They had learned to
coexist with their infidel neighbours, mainly because of the economic and
intellectual stagnation that always comes in the wake of Islam made them too
weak to do anything else. Now the decline of the West has got the old jihadi
juices flowing again. Al-Qaeda and IS are the result.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Oman and Syria have shown
that western intervention just doesn’t work. As soon as we show up even the
baseball cap wearing, hamburger munching, MTV watching fans of Britney start
taking pot shots at us. So unless you are intent on the annihilation of whole
Muslim populations intervention will never work. Incidentally, the Soviets came
pretty close to taking the genocidal strategy in Afghanistan where they killed
around 7% of the population in the 80s, but their defeat was even more
disastrous than Nato’s has been.
That’s why we’ve got to let Muslims sort out their own
problems. And if you take a look at those countries in the Muslim world that
have had the closest recent acquaintance with Mohammad’s vision of the perfect
society, you’ll see an interesting thing. They are the most western in real
objective measures of development.
The best example is the Islamic Republic of Iran. It
is the only country in the region to have a true mass democracy movement and the
demonstrating crowds that took to the streets in 2009 comprised both men and
women. It was one of the most disgusting betrayals of the ideals of American, when
Obama sided with the mullahs against the
young people who had begged him for support and their protests were subsequently
crushed by mass torture, rape, and murder.
Also get this about the Islamic Republic. We hear so
much about booming Muslim demographics that you may be surprised to learn that
Iran now has a lower fertility rate than decadent Britain (1.85 children per
woman against 1.9). There is no better indication of young Iranians’ rejection
of their Islamic rulers than that. The reason that Iran alone in the Muslim world
has a true democracy movement is that they’ve seen Islam in power and up close
and personal for more than three decades. Thirty five years of endless sermons,
repression, corruption and incompetence and they’ve had enough.
The best antidote to Islam is the imposition of Islam.
Because of its sheer murderous depravity IS should
prove the truth of this even faster than the slightly less maniacal Iranian
regime has. After the novelty of the beheadings, stonings and other mass
murders wear off, the more peaceful variants of Islam will take on a whole new
appeal and Muslims will fight back against the reformation. We can’t do
it as has been abundantly demonstrated. They can. They have the wealth, the
numbers, and the credibility to wipe IS off the face of the earth. The only
thing they lack is the will to do their own dirty work. That’s where IS itself
comes in. Let them run amok, the worse the better. And sooner or later their own
co-religionists will have their fill of Islam in action and sort them out.
At the same time we have to make it abundantly clear
to the Muslim world that IS and Al Qaeda are their problem. And also make it clear that it is their charitable duty to take in their Muslim brothers and sisters who
are fleeing Islamist violence and not ours. We should only accept the many Christian
victims of the genocides and pogroms under way across the Muslim world. We also have to run
up the drawbridge as much as we can to minimize the murders of our own citizens.
All immigration from the Muslim world must cease, all western Muslims who join
terrorist groups must have their citizenship revoked. But lastly and most
importantly we have to deploy the only weapon we usefully can against the Islamists:
freedom of speech. We have to subject Islam to the same sort of rational
criticism and mockery which has all but killed off the Christian faith in the
West.
Fight Islam with Islam.
Excellent John. I have just discovered your blog via Breitbart London and the shameful treatment of Sergeant Blackman. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. As you say it is shameful.
ReplyDeletei view the Iranian people as much like us the are not Arabs , The have misfortune to be ruled by a despotic form of Islam. Just as the people of Eastern Europe where ruled by communism. The west probably had a chance to back real democratic change but for some sinister reason choose not to.
ReplyDeleteIn fact its policy in the region seems to be motivated not by Machiavellian self interest.but insanity or evil.Iraq was a secular state and like Yugoslavia an artificial construct held together by a hardman. The US aided by UK toppled Iraq.using false pretext - meaning lies. Then using more lies the UK and France did the same thing in Libya . Then using lies again Cameron wanted to do the same in Syria. In fact he wanted to use RAF air power to topple Assad and enable ISIS to takeover.Syria..
We now have ISIS rampaging in Iraq and Libya such as training the Tunisia terrorists in part of Libya they control.. Tens of thousands of African boat people landing in Italy.
Was this insane folly like our 1914 declaration of war on Germany or a plan for evil hatched by the US .
The reason Obama didn't back the Iranian democracy movement was that he wanted a nuclear deal with the regime. As we can see now with the negotiations he will give anything to get the mullahs to sign. The really sinister thing is that he is obviously totally indifferent to the suffering of the democratic opponents to the theocracy. Here you see the abject result of the multicultural mindset. A Democrat siding with a nasty regime against democrats.
Delete"The difference is that whereas reforming Christians rediscovered Jesus’ message of self-denial, sacrifice and love,..."
ReplyDeleteI work with a ministry whose goal is to educate Christians on the true spirit of the Reformation which isn't a pretty picture. In fact, it's not a stretch at all to say that Islam and authentic Reformed Theology make comfy bedfellows. Martin Luther and John Calvin made sure that every one who didn't align with their doctrine was murdered in as cruel a fashion as they could imagine. Going back to Luther's virulent anti-Semitic writings, Nazi Germany was merely the harvest of his and subsequent philosophers' ideology. These so-called heroes of the faith were Gnostic Platonists before they were Christians, and going by their fruit, by which Jesus said we could know them, I have serious doubts on the latter claim.
All that aside, my jihad totally resonates with yours.
I did hesitate when I wrote those adjectives because lots of protestants were very intolerant. I'm thinking particularly about the Puritans who fled persecution in England by effectively founding our American colonies. They then proceeded to persecute each other more than the English authorities ever had. So you definitely have a point. I think the key difference is that there is a very firm basis in Muslim texts for cruelty and intolerance, whereas nobody very familiar with the four gospels could find any justification for it in the life of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteYou mean our adorable Pilgrims, whom we remember every Thanksgiving as these enduring symbols of liberty? What a joke. If they had their way, America would be one big theocratic Geneva, and still in the dark ages. It's bad enough that so many of us, particularly Christians, buy into that myth, but when Rush Limbaugh of all people writes a children's book cementing this lie into the Conservative mindset, well, that's simply inexcusable.
ReplyDeleteBut you're absolutely right pointing out the key differences of the Islamic founding texts vs the four gospels. And yet, even that's not enough. If only Protestants would stop resorting to self-appointed "Divines" and contemporary philosopher kings' long-winded interpretations (aka "Orthodoxy") and simply take scripture in its plain grammatical sense, as opposed to their warped redemptive-historical hermeneutics, their lives would take a 180 and the current, debauched Christian landscape wouldn't be such a shameful mess.
Incidentally, you're a very gracious host, Mr. Maloney. You could've shown me up for my careless hyperbolic language saying they murdered "every one" who didn't agree with them (not quite, though the intent of heart was sure there). Thank you.
I did think it was a bit of a stretch from Luther to the atheistic mass-murdering Nazis, but as I think you argue they didn't create the anti-Semitism out of thin air. Apart from that you made a valid point. Thanks for taking the time to do so. Good fortune with your ministry.
ReplyDeleteTaking my cue from the name of your blog, I ask that you not dismiss me entirely until you honestly consider the seemingly far-fetched points I've made. I wouldn't waste my time and rarely comment on blogs anymore mainly because most people have already made up their minds and enter the arena of ideas solely for the thrill of the intellectual fight, but you don't strike me as the typical blogger only content to bemoan bad behavior. I'd like to think you do what you do because you honestly believe you can make a difference. I stepped out here (albeit didactically - forgive me) in an attempt to get to the source of the madness, and unless that happens, all this is just more drama for the audience.
ReplyDelete1. All people act logically from their assumptions.
2. It does not matter how inconsistent the ideas or insane the rationale, they will act until the logic is fulfilled.
3. Therefore, when you see masses of people taking the same destructive actions, find the assumptions and you will find the cause.
That's a quote from John Immel, whose talk below makes the Luther/Nazi connection. I hope you will take the time to watch this one video; only 90 minutes of your life - well worth the investment I should think, as are all his other talks.
I also recommend the book "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's successor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgIBN_DzaSQ
If I'm honest I also have to admit that I've made up my mind about many things. But every now and then something comes along which overturns an assumption I had thought obvious. A recent example is Andrew Roberts' book on Napoleon.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the links. I will check them out.
"...overturns an assumption..."
ReplyDeleteExactly. Brilliantly put! I will look for Andrew Roberts' book...is this the one busting the myth of Napoleon's short stature? I'm kidding...and clueless as to its contents, but look forward to the experience of yet another assumption being overturned. Thank you, Mr. Moloney.
"The reason that Iran alone in the Muslim world has a true democracy movement is that they’ve seen Islam in power and up close and personal for more than three decades. Thirty five years of endless sermons, repression, corruption and incompetence and they’ve had enough."
ReplyDelete- and also, they still have the memory of what life was like under the Shah, so they can compare both systems within living memory.
Pterodactyl on discus from breitbart
"There is no better indication of young Iranians’ rejection of their Islamic rulers than that."
ReplyDeleteActually the picture appears to be a bit more complex. In fact, it was the "Islamic rules" of Iran who strongly supported the fertility decline, with family planning efforts approved by Ayatollah Khomeini as early as in 1979. There is much literature on that e.g. https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41501/4/88.pdf or http://www.jstor.org/stable/2991948?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents