2015 January 10 Saturday
Vigilante Jihadists In Paris Kill Blasphemers
Piers Morgan seens eager to support The Narrative's standard talking points after any Jihad terrorist attack: killers not real Muslims, Islam hijacked by fringe. But he's feeling quite petulant that Muslims aren't doing more to help him defend the talking points: "If I can accept that the Paris murderers aren’t real Muslims why won’t the MUSLIM world say so too?" Hey, he's feeling frustrated. Delivering The Narrative's talking points should not cause frustration!
Further to the Left other writers will add even more talking points: repressive racist hegemonic Euro native population is mean mean mean to those outsider others and the immigrant Jihadists have perfectly legitimate grievances and it is all so understandable, poor dears.
Well, I really think we should bring real data to bear on this question. Why do Jihadists kill blasphemers? Are they fringe elements? Hijacking a religion? Out of step with the mainstream(s) of Muslim feelings? Um, no. Muslims in many countries have been polled on their attitudes on various pertinent questions. For example, a double digit percentages of Muslims favor death for apostasy in just about every Muslim country polled (Albania's 8% is the odd man out). Some of the percentages are incredibly high: Malaysia at 62%, Pakistan at 76%, Palestinian Territories at 66%, Jordan at 82% and Egypt at 86%.
Leave your religion and die. Imagine a Christian denomination embracing this idea today. Among secularists and the vast majority of Christians they'd be considered barbaric. The outrage would be deafening. But this widespread view among Muslims is not taken seriously by those who control The Narrative in the West today.
You have to figure that among those not favoring the death penalty for leaving Islam a sizable percentage of them still favor something pretty severe for apostasy. Flogging, jail time, other unpleasantness. The pollers need to ask more questions to let us see how many Muslims would meet the definition of classical liberal or libertarian. My suspicion: very few.
People who favor death for anyone who leaves their religion are really really illiberal (in the 19th century meaning of the word liberal - not the welfare state meaning). Left liberals, neoconservative liberals, libertarians, and assorted other factions in the West ought to be worried about these very illiberal groups in our midst. I say ought. But in practice I do not expect majorities of Western peoples to believe any time soon that they have a threat to their way of life growing in their nations. The belief in Liberal Manifest Destiny is so deep that its believers can't imagine how a whole religion could possibly oppose it. So the Narrative is going to beat drum for the "okay people, move along, there's nothing to see here" and it will use the occasion to lecture us about our own moral inadequacies.
That Pew link with polling data on Muslim attitudes reports even higher percentages favor Shariah Law. As a legal system it is brutal by western standards and not at all favorable to non-Muslims. Among Muslims living Western countries double digit percentages want Shariah Law.
Then there's blasphemy which is outlawed in more Muslim countries than apostasy. Blasphemy against Islam can get you a death sentence in Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. That's probably not a complete list but what I found on a Wikipedia page on blasphemy.
To a Muslim internationalist who thinks Shariah law should apply everywhere and who thinks death penalty is deserved for blasphemy the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris are vigilantism. The killers took Shariah Law into their hands just as a mob killed a Christian couple in Pakistan for alleged blasphemy. The difference in Paris is that it happened in Paris and it happened to Parisian reporters. But it was vigilantism in both cases.
What we are witnessing is Samuel Huntington's Clash Of Civilizations. Rival models of reality and morality are clashing where two incompatible cultures meet. Vigilantes from one culture attack violators of some of their culture's major tenets of faith. The leaders of our own culture do not want to admit to this clash. They want to keep growing their empire by absorbing more people. Their denial will only cause the problem to grow worse.
By Randall Parker at 2015 January 10 09:06 PM
Speaking of the narrative, one thing I’ve noticed with this particular go round of the media trying the hide the meaning of the news they’re reporting on is that there are some people who have a direct pipeline to the media and have full access to counter the no-Islam-to-see-here narrative are dissident leftists. Bill Maher is probably the most prominent of those currently. He can from his show or from other shows (like Jimmy Kimmel a few days ago) go on and say “hey it is Islam that’s the problem.” No one on the right could ever get access to say such things before a large public audience.
You've misinterpreted those polls; the "death for apostasy" etc. questions only poll those who have already answered "yes" to the "sharia should be the law of the land" question. So the percentage of "death for apostasy" Muslims in Egypt isn't 86%, it's 86% times 74% = 64%, for example.
Doing the math we still find about a few hundred million Muslims worldwide support a death penalty for apostasy.
The Narrative: The view of the world made normative by media and academia through the group dynamic emergent from each individual attempting to avoid confrontation with the group by assuming that media and academia set standards of conceptual and mythic vocabulary.
In European derive countries, The Narrative is typically dominated by the diaspora Ashkenazi Jewish "swing vote" in media and academia. Therefore, you can expect events, that directly threaten diaspora Jews will shift The Narrative accordingly. In the present instance, the default posture of The Narrative for open borders is maintained until there is a direct threat to diaspora Jews -- in this case in France. The Narrative then starts to admit, on a case-by-case basis, rationality to penetrate its default posture.
"In European derive countries, The Narrative is typically dominated by the diaspora Ashkenazi Jewish "swing vote" in media and academia. Therefore, you can expect events, that directly threaten diaspora Jews will shift The Narrative accordingly. In the present instance, the default posture of The Narrative for open borders is maintained until there is a direct threat to diaspora Jews -- in this case in France. The Narrative then starts to admit, on a case-by-case basis, rationality to penetrate its default posture."
This certainly seems to accord with the facts. Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic writes:
"French Prime Minister: If Jews Flee, the Republic Will Be a Failure
Manuel Valls: "If 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France."
"The massacre at a kosher supermarket in Paris on Friday reinforced a fear, expressed openly and with distressing frequency by many in France’s half-million-strong Jewish community, that Islamist violence is compelling large numbers of Jews to flee. Already, several thousand have left over the past few years. But it is not merely the physical safety of France’s Jews that is imperiled by anti-Semitic violence, the country’s prime minister, Manuel Valls, argues, but the very idea of the French Republic itself. In an interview conducted before the Charlie Hebdo and kosher supermarket massacres, Valls told me that if French Jews were to flee in large numbers, the soul of the French Republic would be at risk.
“The choice was made by the French Revolution in 1789 to recognize Jews as full citizens,” Valls told me. “To understand what the idea of the republic is about, you have to understand the central role played by the emancipation of the Jews. It is a founding principle.”
Valls, a Socialist who is the son of Spanish immigrants, describes the threat of a Jewish exodus from France this way: “If 100,000 French people of Spanish origin were to leave, I would never say that France is not France anymore. But if 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure.”"
One thing to keep in mind here in comparing Western values and norms with Islamic values and norms is that it is Westerners who are thw WEIRD people more than Moslems. We are the strange people - individualistic with weak kinship ties and low in ethnocentricity. Moslems are more typical of the general world population.
Its one thing to want a theocracy, its another thing to kill people who try to escape it -- which you can do, of course, by making escape risky/impractical enough. So, in a way, political correctness is pretty far along the road toward execution of apostates from its de facto theocracy. Indeed, this is one of the biggest attractions of Islam and Sharia Law (including the execution of apostates) to disaffected Westerners:
If you're going to be part of a theocracy that de facto kills apostates, why not join a theocracy that is at least humane enough to be sexist and not quite so committed to enforcing violation of natural geographic consanguinity?