Reincarnated in Flesh
A culture besieged, a civilisation threatened.
baron has this post over at the engaging Gates of Vienna that draws from Martin Luther's vociferous criticism of Islam in 1528 in the wake of what seemed to be a Turkish rampage across Europe, threatening the existence of Christendom. It is perhaps telling in itself that baron has chosen to revivify such an antediluvian piece of literature in so contemporary a context, and yet surprisingly echoes with eerie resonance in the present. What does it say about Islam as a religion, its progress and its obsession with the past? In the second place, the Turk’s Koran, or creed, teaches him to destroy not only the Christian faith, but also the whole temporal government. His Mohammed, as has been said, commands that ruling is to be done by the sword, and in his Koran the sword is the commonest and noblest work.
We are all familiar with the brutality of Islamofascism - the parasitic culture of death and jihad that permeates these regimes, infusing them with the sole knowledge of the currency of murder and blood. Through such ideological monopolisation via convincing the populace of the necessity of sharia law, tyrants and megalomaniacal despots seek to establish their legitimacy through the brutal enforcement of religious doctrines hearkening to this glorious, blood-stained legacy of the Turks.
Thus the Turk is, in truth, nothing but a murderer or highwayman, as his deeds show before men’s eyes. St. Augustine calls other kingdoms, too, great robbery; Psalm 76:4 also calls them “fastnesses of robbers,” because it is but seldom that an empire has come up except by robbery, force, and wrong; or at the very least, it is often seized and possessed by wicked people without any justice, so that the Scriptures, in Genesis 10:9, call the first prince upon earth, Nimrod, a mighty hunter. But never has any kingdom come up and become so mighty by murder and robbery as that of the Turk; and he murders and robs every day, for it is commanded in their law, as a good and divine work, that they shall rob and murder, devour and destroy more and more those that are round about them; and they do this, and think that they are doing God service. Their government, therefore, is not a regular rulership, like others, for the maintenance of peace, the protection of the good, and the punishment of the wicked, but a rod of anger and a punishment of God upon the unbelieving world, as has been said. The work of murdering and robbing pleases the flesh in any case, because it enables men to gain high place and subject everyone’s life and goods to themselves; how much more must the flesh be pleased when this is a commandment, as though God would have it so and it pleased Him well! Therefore among the Turks, too, they are held the best who are diligent to increase the Turkish kingdom and who are constantly murdering and robbing round about them.
Such defiled grounds where wellsprings of nihilism and self-victimisation reside in continue to breed this virulent virus within communities and societies - the narrative of humiliation and subjugation by the West is an easy pill to swallow in order to divert attention from the true systemic failures of their religious doctrine that has permeated and subverted every aspect of public and private life under the omnipotent gaze of the state. Totalitarian in nature, Islamic regimes of the Middle East have sought to indoctrinate in its peoples the necessity of jihad, and the greater unspoken need to suffer while the government and its elites profit from the disintegration of society, which plays in nicely with its totalitarian grip.Where the spirit of lies is, there is also the spirit of murder, though he may not get to work or may be hindered. If he is hindered, he still laughs and is jubilant when murder is done, and at least consents to it, for he holds it right. But good Christians do not rejoice over any murder, not even over the misfortunes of their enemies.
Surely if moderate Muslims are truly outraged and concerned about the deleterious impact such acts of terrorism and dehumanisation, they should speak out against their co-religionists? Why the silence - which when left as a bottomless pit, a void that is simply screaming to be filled with accusations from the populace: that Islam is an intolerant faith that glorifies murder of non-believers (kuffar) and practices taqqiya - that the Koran acknowledges and encourages Muslims to lie about their intentions and motives in order to wage jihad?
If these accusations are indeed false, many of us have yet to see moderate Muslims speak out forecefully in unequivocal condemnation of their extremist co-religionists and actually do something about it - shun them from society, exclude them from religious practices and rituals, rat them out and stop providing them with sanctuaries where they can harbour in and launch deadly operations against innocent civilians. Aid in apprehending and persecuting these outcasts, discredit their cause and disparage their means.
Otherwise, intransigent silence means unspoken condoning of their crimes. We will not accept anything less than concerted action against these Muslim jihadists.
francis w. porretto of Eternity Road offers a timely summary of their intentions in the same thread:[...] there are highly intelligent men, including such noteworthies as Glenn Reynolds, who claim that Luther's interpretation of the Qur'an and the teachings of Muhammad is a tragic oversimplification.
--The creed teaches violence and subjugation.
Frankly speaking, oversimplification has been a festering malaise of the left since the Vietnam War (follow the link to read about the anti-ideological paradigm of the Defeatocrats), and it still continues to plague the nation to this day. To put it simply:
--Where Islam is dominant, the practice of other religions is forbidden, and its shari'a law code is ruthlessly and barbarically enforced.
--The history of Islam's relations with other faiths and ways is drenched with blood.
--The present day attitude of Islam toward "Dar al-Harb" is hostile and sporadically quite violent.
--Muslim spokesmen worldwide have admitted that their intention is to make Islam the only authority, religious or temporal, on Earth.
So where are we oversimplifying? Equally to the point, does the onus of this tragedy fall on us...or on them?
allen, at the EB, points towards the lack of principles as the cause of our shortcomings:Habu lists the three principles of Islam: conversion, slavery, or death.
What choice do we have when faced with an adversary who accepts, even glorifies and embraces, death as a necessary measure to advance his or her cause? No form of threat we make will intimidate and deter them. No form of concession we make will prevent them from exploiting that as a weakness on our part.
Professional negotiators are quite clear on the fixed, immutable, existential nature of principles, i.e. they cannot be negotiated.
Can anyone here list three principles for the West? And let me be clear about this. A principle is an integral part of one's existential perspective, which cannot be changed without changing what one is. In short, when a person abandons a principle, he becomes, at that instant, a new person.
The West confuses goals with principles and, therefore, always comes up short of Wretchard’s "Red Lines." Quite rightly, Muslims see this as a profound weakness, not as some sort of perfectly reasonable negotiating technique. To be frank, when Muslims see Western governments modifying free speech, for example, to impress Muslims, they see cowards.
Of course, Muslims have the three principles cited by Habu. They will not change them unless faced with an existential crisis, and even then millions will prefer death to change. Simply put, the West has nothing to offer Islam, unless it is the time by which the West will submit to conversion, slavery, or death.
So, unless the West can find true principles worth dying for, the only Red Lines drawn will be by the other side.
While we view accommodation and integration as part of establishing multiculturalism, they see it as a zero-sum game writ large in the "clash of civilisations". That battle for existence has been ongoing for centuries, and our enemies have recognised the essential need for brutal, uncompromising cruelty against dissidents within their own, and kafir who refuse to be subjugated under Islamic rule.
Without technology, they only have their own bodies to offer to the altar of religious ideology - a sacrificial act as primitive as one could imagine, hearkening back to Western pre-civilisation. We, on the other hand, have the means to avoid such forms of sacrifice, but we choose not to employ them.
We have compromised too much on principles for the sake of Transnational Progressivist concepts like multiculturalism, cultural and moral equivalence, relativism, to name a few subversive memes. Our enemy employs these tools because he has observed, for a very long time, that we are not willing to muster the resolve and will to defend what we hold dear - and therefore it must be of little value to us, so why preserve it? As more of his fellow jihadists are massacred, he should be discouraged, but why is he not? These memes take on a life of their own within nations - peoples become apathetic and indifferent to the invidious nature of their intentions, accommodating intolerance because it makes themselves look tolerant - carrying out the jihadists' work for them.
This emboldens them, and further vindicates their struggle against Western civilisation. As he sees that we are capitulating with each concession that is made, it further amplifies his appetite instead of sating it. He will want more and more until Western civilisation is no longer existent.
In 1939, Allied propaganda sought to demonise the Germans as savage brutes obsessed with the spoils of reckless military adventurism - a dominant theme that stuck with Prussia in its wars with Austria-Hungary and France, and post-Bismarck Germany in 1914 - who threatened to impose an anti-Semitic, xenophobic, anti-democratic, totalitarian, militaristic and intolerant kultur on all of Europe - and possibly the world: the Hitlerian signature seared into the consciousness of all peoples, the Third Reich's imprint on civilisation.
Our oldest enemies have been resurrected, and like Hitler, they have thrown down the gauntlet - a blatant challenge to our culture and existence that we ignore at our peril. Until we are willing to state what our principles are, and stick to them, we will always be one step behind our adversaries.
Postscript: tiger points us towards a much-needed sobering up on jihad.
Labels:
Islam
6 spoke up:
Harrison,
Kudos to an excellent, thought-provoking post.
I would suggest reading Terror and Liberalism, by Paul Berman; it ties into the theme of this post very well; it also explains the origins of modern day Islamic terror, and the West's past failure to address totalitarian ideaologies when confronted with them (via France in the wake of the German invasion).
Keep up the good work!
FYI, I wrote a linking post over at Wilsonizer on this post; I found another good anti-nazi propaganda poster, too, so check it out!
That's a lot of Possum to chew on, Harrison, but I managed to finish my plate.
Throughout the whole piece I was reminded of the "spiritual" nature of the W.O.T.
We truely are fighting "spiritual" warriors in the sense described.
The West's problem is we're not spirtual enough, and therefore do not fully understand.
Lee Harris had a good piece on al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology which does a very good look at the way they look at the world and helps to give understanding of how that view is only loosely associated with the actual world. den Beste also posted up an article by Hariri on the Arab/Islamic view of the world.
All of that is in play in Iran, as well as other places, like Indonesia... the militarization of Islam in the SE Asian seas is highly troubling in both its happening and vehemence with which it is becoming inculcated there. There is a heavy movement by Islam to move from petroleum based terror to trade based terror as a funding source. That latter, by being so highly globalized and distributed offers Islamic terrorists entree to steady, albeit low, cash streams. The further melding of terrorism with organized crime as cooperating networked components is also highly troubling as it offers a way to a low volume, high cash flow monetary stream for terrorism. That territory has already been paved by numerous Arab families, including the bin Laden family. At this point militant Islamic groups are far too technically incompetent to pick up the other cash-cow that Aum Shinrikyo did with actually owning and running stores that have legitimate business and unpaid labor.
The greater the intergrowth of transnational terrorism with organized crime, the worse both become as the ability to switch roles allows either to operate in ways indistinguishable from pure terrorism. FARC is already doing that with the narcotics trade, and Shining Path to a lesser extent with emerald gangs and narcotics. Hezbollah in N. America has already been seen operating with the eastern Triads and with Mexican drug gangs, so the loose affiliations are already present and will grow stronger the longer they are ignored. Removing outlaw regimes is only a part of the problem... the ability to ensure the viabililty of trade that does *not* supply terrorists will *also* go against organized crime. And the West still has no way to do *that*. Throw in fantastical elements with view to Empire and things get very, very rough in the future.
bob, thanks for the recommendation! I shall see if I can find it at Borders soon.
That poster over at your site is indeed poignant. But the hammer and sickle insignia flying in the background seems ominous, does it not? How long did that alliance against the Germans last?
tiger, I've always been reminded since young to clean up whatever was on my plate - seems like it determines how pretty your future wife might be. Old wives' tale or otherwise, I don't want to take chances. But I'm glad you managed to polish your plate off too!
Spiritual warriors. I like that.
a jacksonian, thanks for the links. I'll get to them soon, and address your comments later.
harrison,
Once more you shine!
I was disappointed, although unsurprised, by the lack of responses to the question of fundamental principles. That supposedly well informed and obviously vocal commentators are so devoid of moral fiber may explain much of the meandering plight of the West. It has been correctly observed that, for a journey without an end, any direction will do.
As you are no doubt aware, until very recently, the struggle of the West (Christendom) with Islam has been civilizational. Of course, in such hopelessly naïve times, civilization was indistinguishable from religion. To be sure, Luther was unencumbered by the baggage of relativism and could not have imagined things otherwise. Unless and/or until the West can rediscover those principles worth dying for, life will remain imperiled.
Post a Comment