2010 August 25 Wednesday
Clash Of Civilizations In NYC

Christopher Hitchens both takes issue with the opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque and and warns of the beliefs of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

From the beginning, though, I pointed out that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was no great bargain and that his Cordoba Initiative was full of euphemisms about Islamic jihad and Islamic theocracy.

Well, if even moderate Muslim leaders favor Islamic theocracy then shouldn't we view Islam as incompatible with what America stands for (or at least used to stand for)? Hitchens seems more interested in scoring points than telling us what we really need to do to save our political culture from destruction.

I mentioned his sinister belief that the United States was partially responsible for the assault on the World Trade Center and his refusal to take a position on the racist Hamas dictatorship in Gaza. The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets. For example, here is Rauf's editorial on the upheaval that followed the brutal hijacking of the Iranian elections in 2009. Regarding President Obama, he advised that:

He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law.

Coyly untranslated here (perhaps for "outreach" purposes), Vilayet-i-faquih is the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe the idea that all of Iranian society is under the permanent stewardship (sometimes rendered as guardianship) of the mullahs. Under this dispensation, "the will of the people" is a meaningless expression, because "the people" are the wards and children of the clergy. It is the justification for a clerical supreme leader, whose rule is impervious to elections and who can pick and choose the candidates and, if it comes to that, the results.

The rule of law in this context is the rule of Islamic law. That's religious law, not secular law applied to people of all religions. I am opposed to a foreign religion that has a large body of religious law and a founder that was a military conqueror and political leader. I think anyone who values their freedom should be too.

Liberal commentators defending the Ground Zero Mosque are doing a lot of bonding with each other and reaffirmation of liberal secular faith by attacking the opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque. This issue has helped strengthen their commitment to national suicide. They still have unshaken faith in the universal appeal of liberalism. This delusion spells ruination for the West.

Andrew McCarthy argues that the split between moderate and radical Islamists is about timing and methodology, not eventual outcome.

The single purpose of this jihad is the imposition of sharia. On that score, Gingrich made two points of surpassing importance. First, some Islamists employ mass-murder attacks while others prefer a gradual march through our institutions — our legal, political, academic, and financial systems, as well as our broader culture; the goal of both, though, is the same. The stealth Islamists occasionally feign outrage at the terrorists, but their quarrel is over methodology and pace. Both camps covet the same outcome.

Second, that outcome is the death of freedom. In Islamist ideology, sharia is deemed to be the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society — for Islam is not merely a religious doctrine, but a comprehensive socio-economic and political system. As the former speaker elaborated, sharia embodies principles and punishments that are abhorrent to Western values. Indeed, its foundational premise is anti-American, holding that we are not free people at liberty to govern ourselves irrespective of any theocratic code, that people are instead beholden to the Islamic state, which is divinely enjoined to impose Allah’s laws.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali warns of the West's universalist pretensions.

The West's universalist pretensions are increasingly bringing it into conflict with the other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China. Thus the survival of the West depends on Americans, Europeans and other Westerners reaffirming their shared civilization as unique—and uniting to defend it against challenges from non-Western civilizations.

The funny thing is that universalist pretensions of liberals are both used to justify US foreign interventions (to free people to all join the one liberal way) and to enable the demographic invasion on the United States. Invade the world, invite the world, as Steve Sailer puts it. I see the universalist pretensions of liberals as making the West defenseless. Liberals effectively deny that any conflicting and enduring value systems compete with our own values. They think as long as they stick to their principles it'll all come out well in the end.

Update Why Corboba House for the name of the Ground Zero Mosque? Cordoba is the name of the Spanish city where Muslims established the first Islamic Caliphate in the West. Cordoba is a symbol of Muslim conquest. Make no mistake: Muslims would love to conquer the West. Why should we let them in? Keep them out. They are our enemies.

Update II: Islam's useful idiots in the West are trying to pretty up its image. But the facts about Islam's effects upon human development are sad and tragic. See Fjordman's post Islam and the Decline of Greek Culture: A Critical Look at John Freely's Book “Aladdin’s Lamp”. Also see his post “The House of Wisdom” by Jonathan Lyons: A Brief Review by Fjordman and Fjordman: The Legend of the Middle Ages. Also see his Fjordman Essay: A Critical Look at The House of Wisdom by Jonathan Lyons.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2010 August 25 11:48 PM  Civilizations Clash Of


Comments
Robert said at August 26, 2010 1:29 AM:
The funny thing is that universalist pretensions of liberals are both used to justify US foreign interventions (to free people to all join the one liberal way) and to enable the demographic invasion on the United States. Invade the world, invite the world, as Steve Sailer puts it. I see the universalist pretensions of liberals as making the West defenseless. Liberals effectively deny that any conflicting and enduring value systems compete with our own values. They think as long as they stick to their principles it'll all come out well in the end.

Amen

Sgt. Joe Friday said at August 26, 2010 6:39 AM:

A little O/T, but last night on O'Reilly they had the Manhattan burrough president on, a guy named (I think) Stephen Stringer, to talk about the mosque. Laura Ingraham was sitting in as host, and the interview got pretty contentious, but over all the shouting I was pretty sure that was I was hearing was "blah blah blah "Tea Party" blah blah "Sarah Palin" blah blah "anti-semites."

So here's (another) secular Jew who's more afraid of Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers than he is Islam. Sarah Palin's not my cup of tea, but I don't understand what it is about the woman that makes people on the left so nutty. All I can figure is that she must be landing some punches, otherwise they'd just ignore her.

One of these days, some ballsy talk show host is going to pose a question that goes like this: "if people who oppose the mosque are such horrible people that you obviously want nothing to do with, why not just kick them out of the country? Maybe give them some of those worthless states where there's nothing but desert, but then you'd be rid of them and their attitudes that you consider to be such a stumbling block to the kind of society you want. How about it?"

Black Death said at August 26, 2010 7:19 AM:

Sgt. Joe -

I too am puzzled by secular Jews who favor more immigration, especially of the Muslim variety. I do know some Jews who are dismayed by the idea of letting more Muslims into this country, but they tend to be in the minority. Any discussion with Jews who favor letting more Muslims in soon elicits a rejoinder such as, "Well, my great-grandfather came here from Poland (or Germany or Russia or wherever), so how can we block immigration?" Of course, the irony is that said ancestor usually came to the US, at least in part, to escape anti-semitism. So why let in more Muslims, who tend to be viscerally anti-semitic? I have yet to hear a good answer.

Also, I believe that an honest discussion of splitting up the country is overdue. We had a good chance in 1860, but we blew it. Suppose we agreed on two nations, USA-Red and USA-Blue, and then each state could vote on which one it wanted to join. The Blues would probably get the west coast, the Northeast and a few spots in the Midwest. Everything else would likely go Red. Then the liberals could have their own country and implement every sort of left-wing fantasy without any righties to obstruct them. High taxes, big government, lots of bureaucracy, everything unionized, a huge underclass, racial/tribal set-asides, open immigration, "eco-friendliness" - it would be every liberal's dream. I'm ready to start now.

geschrei said at August 26, 2010 7:56 AM:

I've been attempting to implant an idea in the minds of progressives of my acquaintance.

Whenever a discussion of the 'hateful, nativist, racist, Neanderthal right wingers' and their opposition to All Things Good comes up, I try to work the conversation around to the concept that those who oppose the liberal agenda are simply not to be trusted in a liberal society, and therefore must be excluded somehow. After all, these people are totally irrational, 'clinging to their guns and their religion', and there's absolutely NO way they will ever be persuaded to change their mindset - so why not carve them out a country of their own in flyover territory? Sure, we'll need to give them autonomy, but we won't subsidize them in any way. Let 'em fend for themselves - that will prove that we are better than they are, but still give them a taste of their own medicine, just like when their ancestors pushed all the Indians/Native Americans/indigenous peoples into reservations. We could call it Crackerland.

So far I've gotten mostly, "eh, it would never work, besides, how would we get around the Constitution?" type reactions, but I can tell the idea has some appeal.

I'm hoping the progressives themselves will take up the concept and start promoting it. I call it Project Briar Patch.

sestamibi said at August 26, 2010 8:31 AM:

"The West's universalist pretensions are increasingly bringing it into conflict with the other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China."

True enough, but once the West is gone, don't think that Islam and China are going to tolerate each other either, and the Chinese have the numbers and the utter ruthlessness required to deal with Islam then--just as they are doing now with the Uighurs in Xinxiang Province. Eastasia has always been at war with Eurasia.

Too bad we won't be around to watch the show.

Dave in Seattle said at August 26, 2010 6:39 PM:

Universalist pretensions are just there to disarm the target population. This is group evolutionary strategy in action.

SF said at August 26, 2010 7:34 PM:

Maybe we should give the pro-mosque people a copy of Huntington's book. Or at least point them to it in the library. Randall, it sounds like you have obviously read it.

Randall Parker said at August 26, 2010 8:21 PM:

Guys,

Yes, by all means start promoting to liberals the idea that America should be partitioned for their precious sakes. Tell them they need to be protected from white right-wingers. Tell them they have an urgent need to be protected from the Right.

Snouck said at August 27, 2010 12:44 AM:

Randall,

why did you call Hamas racist? I am curious.

Regards,

Snouck

Randall Parker said at August 28, 2010 11:38 AM:

Snouck,

Actually, that was Christopher Hitchens describing Hamas as racist. I'm quoting Hitchens in first 2 indented sections.

To me that comment of his is a distraction from what I find interesting here. I think Hitchens' response to Islam is inadequate because Islam isn't going to change. It isn't enough to describe problems with it or with leading figures in it. We need to admit it is incompatible with our values and get it out of the West.

Shame he's dying of cancer though.

Mike said at August 29, 2010 2:22 PM:

"High taxes, big government, lots of bureaucracy, everything unionized, a huge underclass, racial/tribal set-asides, open immigration, "eco-friendliness" - it would be every liberal's dream. I'm ready to start now."

Long term, high taxes and multiculturalism are incompatible, since people don't like to subsidise other ethnicities. In the short term though, support for government is increasing in most western countries because people are getting less services for their taxes, and fewer people are contributing to the tax base, so to those on low to moderate incomes it feels like government is actually decreasing.

For example, an aging population and underperforming minorities and underclass students, mean education and health spending are increasing overall, yet most people aren't benefiting from this increased spending. Similarly, government spending on tertiary education remains high, yet the costs for students are continuing to increase. Spending on law and order is high, yet crime levels are also relatively high. And in most countries, spending on transport infrastructure, sewerage and power stations is decreasing as money is chanelled into other areas.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©