Articles

Monday, March 23, 2009

Mohammed's Ghost and the Incompatibility of Islam and the West

A clash of civilizations is at the heart of it a clash of allegiances, for a civilization is defined by its pattern of allegiances. Therefore the clash between Islam and the West, is also the clash between what we give allegiance to and what they give allegiance to. It is also one of the best demonstrations of why Islam is incompatible with Western democracies.

Western nations expect Muslim immigrants to live by a code that separates civil and religious laws. The Western system assumes that Muslims will accept a division between the political and the religion, relegating religion to the mosque, while otherwise being Englishmen, Frenchmen and Americans. This concept however is innately foreign to the Muslim mind.

Nationalism in the Muslim world remains a far weaker force than religion and tribal kinship. That is why the post-Saddam Iraq so easily unwound into extended bloody bouts between Sunnis and Shiites. Most Muslim nations are in any case artificial, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, the Kingdom of Jordan and their like were the products or the afterbirth of European colonialism. Their rulers may cultivate nationalism, but such nationalism is only skin deep.

That is why when Israelis point out that Palestine is an artificial entity, the average Arab will only shrug. He knows quite well that just about any country in the Muslim world is an artificial entity, a set of borders drawn out by England or France or a UN mediator with an ancient name thrown into the bargain. The Muslim has only a short term national history, often under Western backed dictators, or a very long one to the romanticized glory days of ancient history. He does not care nearly as much for his nations, as he does for his religion.

Mohammed's real achievement was to take the Arab tribal system and transcend it with a higher identity, that of Muslim. The resulting wave of bloody conquests would not have been possible without that Muslim identity. And that is the problem now facing the West.

Nationalism among Muslims is a very shallow thing at best, as Iraq has shown. And that nationalism is primarily based on tribal kinship. Yet Western countries seriously expect to convince their Muslim immigrants to give equal weight to being French, English or Dutch or American, as to being Muslim. The idea is all the more absurd, because tribal kinship, the family relationships that underlie political loyalties in the Muslim world, are absent here. Muslim immigrants have no familial ties to the political structures of Western countries. Which means that the prospects of expecting them to identity with those countries are virtually nil.

In trying to integrate Muslim immigrants, Western countries find themselves pitted against the Mohammed's Ghost. Mohammed's supreme idea was that Islam demanded complete submission, transcending all tribal and political bonds. Our supreme idea is that political representation allows law to coexist with human freedom.

The two supreme ideas of Islam and the West are naturally incompatible. Muslims view all political laws as corrupt and Allah's law alone as transcendent. The West preserves political and civil rights by separating civil and religious laws into separate spheres. That is not a compromise that Muslims can truly understand or respect. For all intents and purposes, both sides are speaking different political languages that represent two radically different viewpoints.

Our relationships with Muslim countries are based on tribal ties. When we ask one Muslim country to side with us against another Muslim country, we try to outweigh religious ties with tribal ones, something that naturally touches off a domestic backlash from the general Muslim population. The leaders of the Arab world generally understand the necessity of driving out a Saddam or opposing Iran's nuclear development program, in their own self-interest. But tribal bonds within a country are narrow because only a small portion of the population has direct ties to the government, religious ones however are very wide because most of the population is Muslim.

The same problem recurs in the West with Muslim immigrants, except this time our political system, to which they have no allegiance, is pitted against the network of Mosques and their various Imams and religious leaders. It's no surprise that the West will always lose their showdown for the hearts and minds.

The problem is simple enough. The West provides opportunities for Muslims in the West to find jobs, homes, schools and everything that's considered part of the good life. It assumes that this will produce a natural loyalty. That assumption, like many others, is dead wrong. Political tribalism in the Muslim world ladles out employment and other opportunities based on familial connections and as a reward for loyalty. We "give away" the currency of political tribalism, and in turn wind up treated with contempt by the people we've given everything to, with no loyalty asked for in return.

Yet even were we to do things the way they're done in the Third World, it would only make a limited difference. To give up our political system for political tribalism would only further diminish us, and it would not deal with the problem of Mohammed's Ghost. The Islamic Will to Power is rooted in embracing the "transcendence" of Mohammed's perfect law, over the corrupt political laws of governments. Since we cannot declare our political laws to be religious, not without creating our own Mohammeds', and we cannot sell the freedoms that we have already given away to win their tribal loyalty, the problem remains an irresolvable one.

And each time we insist that there is no contradiction between being a Muslim and being a Frenchmen, a Brit or an America-- we make it that much worse. For Islam insists that there is a contradiction, even as we insist that there is none. Having given up our claim, the Western Muslim naturally moves to appease the cleric by resolving any contradictions between Islam and Western society; in Islam's favor. And thus the moderate Muslim becomes a Jihadist enabler, if not a Jihadist himself.

Given enough centuries of residence, the problem might resolve itself. If Islam did not insist on conquering infidels by the sword, but merely on separatism, the problem would be mainly a social one. If Muslims were not swiftly moving from minorities to majorities across Europe, there might still be time. Unfortunately there is very little time left before Europe becomes Eurabia, and much of the rest of the world will follow. The toxic combination of Saudi wealth, a booming birth rate, a decaying West and the industrialized secularism of the First World colliding with the fanatical determinism of the Muslim world, leaves only two ways for this clash of civilizations to end.

One idea, one way of life must win. The other must lose. The great question being decided now in our words and deeds, is which will stand and which will fall.

21 comments:

Lemon said...

nice post

Anonymous said...

Another brilliant exposé by Sultan!

"... which will stand and which will fall." (Sultan)

I think the West will stand. But we will have to be much more affirmative.

- FIRST: We absolutely have to get rid of Obama.

- SECOND: Then we need to find strong leaders. The fate of freedom rests precisely on the decisions that will take the United States and Israel. A failure of America and Israel would be a victory for Islam. The entire Western world must remain vigilant and intransigent, and above all not to give an inch to Islam.

- THIRD: We have to reinforce our immigrations laws. We have to be more selective and more restrictive; especially with religious accommodations of any kinds. For instance, we should ban the veil for Muslim women in the West. It is a MUST. The wearing of headscarves for Muslim women is more of a political symbol than a religious symbol. It represents the submission and inferiority of women. By doing so, we eliminate a lot of Muslims who will chose not to come to our countries; the more radical ones, anyway. For the ones who are already here, they will have the choice to leave or to compel. That is a good start IMHO.

We made the laws of our countries and we can change them if necessary. I believe that If we take these three steps, the next generations of Muslim immigrants will be more compatible with Western Civilization. And the children of their children should be completely integrated. If we don't, if we give them what they want, we will fall miserably and they will stand.

(French Canadian)

Keli Ata said...

At the end of the day I do believe Americans (I'm not so sure about Europeans) will stand up and fight Islam. The very things Muslims hate about the US--our freedoms, liberties, love of life and all that entails--will be the thing that wakes people up.

There's only so much a people can take and there will come a point at which Islam infringes on our liberties, simple things like a glass of wine or listening to music, and we'll say basta. enough.

(heard that phrase on an Iranian rap video on You Tube. They've had enough of Islam and many young Iranians are saying basta. enough. They want nothing more to do with Islam.)

Languille Lady said...

Excellent piece, as always. While many of us know your facts, nevertheless, very well written, and worth passing on, particularly to those who have heads in the sand. thank you!

Keli Ata said...

French Canadian--I agree with everything you wrote except for one. If the US were to become more restrictive and ban Muslim women from wearing headscarfs it could backfire on us, and open the door to restrictions of any expression of religion. A Jewish man might be banned in certain circumstances from wearing a kippah, for example, and wearing a knitted kippah could brand him as being some sort of subversive.

It's a slippery slope.

Sultan Knish said...

Banning the veil is a Sarkozy style half measure and accomplishes nothing, except to irritate Muslims. You either deal with the problem or you don't, which means closing the door to Muslim immigration and evicting those who attend pro-terrorist mosques, live on public assistance, have been convicted of criminal offenses, etc

Banning the veil is a European tic that allows them to pretend that the religious-secular split works in their society, when in fact it does not. It's like taking an Aspirin when the pain is a warning sign that you're standing on hot coals.

Anonymous said...

"You either deal with the problem or you don't, which means closing the door to Muslim immigration..." (Sultan)

That was my first opinion and it is the one I prefer. But wouldn't that create a bigger chaos? This way, WE are the ones who ban them. But by refusing the veil in our countries, THEY are the ones who will ban themselves. Smart, no? The most radicals will chose not to come here. You say it has been tried in Europe. Yes it was, but they never really applied it. Everywhere in the streets you see women wearing their headscarves.

"... and evicting those who attend pro-terrorist mosques, live on public assistance, have been convicted of criminal offenses, etc" (Sultan)

I agree completely with the second part of your statement. They MUST return to their countries.

"If the US were to become more restrictive and ban Muslim women from wearing headscarves it could backfire on us, and open the door to restrictions of any expression of religion." (Keli Ata)

You have a good point here, I didn't think of that. Although it could be argued. A woman wearing a headscarf shows her inferiority. A man wearing a kippah shows no inferiority. The headscarf is a political symbol (Sharia law); the kippah is a religious symbol... quite different IMHO.

Both of you are right. It is not an easy problem. The best solution would be of course the radical solution of Sultan... but you imagine the hue and cry? And what about the American Muslims, it would be impossible for them to get their relatives to immigrate here.

I don't know what the best solution is. But something must be done... and done fast. These people reproduce themselves at an incredible speed.

(French Canadian)

Sultan Knish said...

If you close the door, you end the argument. If you try to ban particular rituals, you wind up playing a drawn out engagement domestically with civil rights and religious issues. And Muslims have shown that they can exploit our culture and legal system quite well to make their case.

The radicals will be even more drawn with the hopes of having access to a radicalized population. And the real issues will go unaddressed, and that is the conquest

Anonymous said...

You are right Sultan. Muslims are like Obama, they get away with everything. They are great manipulators of our laws, they find the weakness in it and they rush thru... and win.

I guess the radical solution is the best so far. But, because there is a but... what if the Muslim immigrants that are already on our soil decides to fight within? And educate their children to become radicals to be able one day to overthrow that law? That could also backfire on us.

Anyway, let's try the radical solution for now and we will see what happens. It will take very strong leaders to pass that law... do we have them?

(French Canadian)

Anonymous said...

O boy! It is not on Obama's presidency that we will find the solution with the Islamic world, that's for sure... lol

AP reported today:
Obama Will Stay on Offense in Afghanistan.

The Daily Times reported today:
The US Wants an Exit Strategy in Afghanistan

(French Canadian)

Sultan Knish said...

Muslims in the West are already teaching their children this, and we don't have leaders who will pass either set of laws.

France's approach simply pushed aggressive secularization, banning crucifixes, kippas and a number of other things. And it's an approach that accomplished nothing except headlines. Violence in France continues.

It's like the laws banning gang colors, as opposed to say prosecuting gang members under RICO laws.

Anonymous said...

"Muslims in the West are already teaching their children this, and we don't have leaders who will pass either set of laws." (Sultan)

Hum! Are you saying we are doomed?
(French Canadian)

Sultan Knish said...

I'm saying we don't have the luxury of putting band aids on the problem, sarkozy style

Yobeeone said...

I vote for shipping muzlims and their supporters to north dakota and nuking the place. :) genocide? no. for it to be genocide you have to be nuking humans. (second big smile)

Lemon said...

Jewish women wear head scarves and cover their hair just like Muslim women.

Nicolas Krebs said...

"Unfortunately there is very little time left before Europe becomes Eurabia, and much of the rest of the world will follow." (sultanknish)

There is no such thing as Eurabia except in the mind of conspiracy theorists and Europeans-haters.

Sultan Knish said...

Just as there's no such thing as Turkey. It's still Byzantium.

Anonymous said...

Conservatism is having a resurgence in the USA from my observations and in the younger generation ( yes the youth ) ... I'm 17 and not American but I am a Christian and while mixed I identify with Western civilization too

The best thing right now is the reformation Christianity is going through right now :)

Besides that is seeing all of the young Jewish , young Christian , young atheist and young agnostic conservatives

The USA will survive ... sure it has a lot of debt but it won't go the way of Europe

You'll see

Anonymous said...

Can't agree on the young voters. They have not been taught to think, and until they mature (if they do) and realize the consequences of voting for whoever's the "rock star," they cause nothing but problems. I could see raising the voting age to 25.

Anonymous said...

We have seen much evidence of Muslim devotion on a violent scale. Think back to the mohammad cartoons a few years ago and the outrage towards the west it created. Which also leads me to the question; Who is the muslim man portrayed in your 2nd picture? Also they haven't banned headscaves in the EU, only full face cover burkas.

Diana Bainbridge said...

I would like at least one politician here in Australia brave enough to propose/enforce banning Muslim immigration without being hauled into the courts for being a 'racist' or inciting racial hatred (i know Islam is not a race, but try telling the powers that be !) Unfortunately Australia is going the way of Eurabia, UK, USA, Canada in all these western countries, alas - we have the same problem. I am very concerned for the future of Australia, we have Mosques being built in a lot of small country towns like Bendigo with 400 Muslims they want a mosque despite the objections of a fair few of it's residents. Our Multiculturalism ideology embraces the Muslims like any other immigrant and refuses to acknowledge the danger of this embrace.

Post a Comment