Comments on: Calling the Threat for What it Is: Not “Islamo-Fascism,” “Koranic Literalists” http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/01/26/calling-the-threat-for-what-it-is-not-islamo-fascism-koranic-literalists/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jd http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/01/26/calling-the-threat-for-what-it-is-not-islamo-fascism-koranic-literalists/comment-page-1/#comment-81648 Jd Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:30:48 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7311#comment-81648 We know the name of the enemy; indeed it is Islam. We know Islam's intent to gain power in America and to eventually dominate. But the question that is never asked in these articles is "What do we do about Islam?". It is high time that, if the West is to be saved from Islam, we begin to turn the Islamic tide back to whence it came. It is time that we clearly state that Islam is absolutely incompatible with our way of life and that Muslims in large numbers do not belong in the West. We must stop allowing them into our countries. We must cease all immigration of Muslims and begin sending them back to their Muslim countries. And we must cease and desist our involvement in Muslim lands as well. Here is a sensible policy: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012935.html We know the name of the enemy; indeed it is Islam. We know Islam’s intent to gain power in America and to eventually dominate. But the question that is never asked in these articles is “What do we do about Islam?”.

It is high time that, if the West is to be saved from Islam, we begin to turn the Islamic tide back to whence it came. It is time that we clearly state that Islam is absolutely incompatible with our way of life and that Muslims in large numbers do not belong in the West. We must stop allowing them into our countries. We must cease all immigration of Muslims and begin sending them back to their Muslim countries. And we must cease and desist our involvement in Muslim lands as well.

Here is a sensible policy:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012935.html

]]> By: Gestell http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/01/26/calling-the-threat-for-what-it-is-not-islamo-fascism-koranic-literalists/comment-page-1/#comment-81550 Gestell Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:20:52 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7311#comment-81550 For many Americans, it is very difficult, even impossible, to entertain the idea that believers in a religion would think in terms of waging war against those who do not believe in that religion. "Religion" is for most Americans, regardless of ideology, almost by definition focused on peace, love, and other virtues. Americans can think this way because, both in this country and across much of Europe, religion has been thoroughly domesticated. There was, of course, a time several centuries ago when Protestants and Catholics waged brutal war against each other, depopulating parts of Europe in the wars that resulted from the Reformation. Supporters and opponents of infant baptism killed each enthusiastically over what a modern American would regard as a triviality, to put it mildly. Conservatives do not often understand that political liberalism emerged in large part as a reaction against the 'holy wars' this period in Europe. Thoughtful men who sought peace developed the idea of (1) separating religious authority from political authority and (2) trying to persuade Christians to understand their religion as essentially personal and private, a matter, as Americans love to say, between the individual and his God. I call this the "privatization" of Christianity, because Christianity had been a public religion, permeating all aspects of society, including government, as Islam still does. The 'public' character of Christianity has not died, of course, as the religious Right's agenda makes clear, but even these religious conservatives do not embrace jihad against nonbelievers. Islam and Christianity, however, have waged war for centuries. Muslims often cite the Crusades today, but conveniently overlook their own centuries of expansion by means of war that brought them to the frontiers of France and the gates of Vienna at various points in their efforts to conquer Christian Europe for Islam. Of course it is correct that there other ways of understanding Islam that do not require war against nonbelievers, but it is important for Americans to understand that what we call "Islamic fundamentalism" or "Koranic literalism" simply is Islam as that religion has been traditionally understood by its adherents. It is also necessary for Americans to understand that Islam has neither a "church" nor a "state," and we absolutely should not expect Islamic societies to develop and believe in concepts that arose over lengthy periods of time in European history. Governing, for a devout Muslim, is inseparable from his religion. That's why we should not expect all Muslims to even understand why Westerners think that the Dutch cartoonists were exercising some sort of basic right of free speech or expression. NO such right can be framed intelligibly within Islam. As for shari'a, the devout Muslim sees no reason why he should be required to live under the merely man-made law of the country to which he has moved when he has available to him the law of God in the form of shari'a. At a very basic level, the nominally Christian world is at war with the Islamic world. Not all Muslims are, or will be, committed to winning this war, but we should not delude ourselves into thinking of our enemies as some small coterie of fanatics. I have taught about Islamic political philosophy for nearly 40 years, and find a concept drawn from Machiavelli especially useful in understanding it. Machiavelli's concept of "effectual truth" is that what often matters in politics is the inner core or essence of a position, and not simply the public expression of that position. The "effectual truth" of Islam is precisely what confronts us now, and almost all shades of ideology, left and right, still don't want to see this. Some knowledge of history might help, but few Americans, and--what continues to astonish me--even relatively few conservatives, who should be saturated in history,--don't want to think outside their own boxes. I believe we no longer have that luxury. For many Americans, it is very difficult, even impossible, to entertain the idea that believers in a religion would think in terms of waging war against those who do not believe in that religion. “Religion” is for most Americans, regardless of ideology, almost by definition focused on peace, love, and other virtues. Americans can think this way because, both in this country and across much of Europe, religion has been thoroughly domesticated. There was, of course, a time several centuries ago when Protestants and Catholics waged brutal war against each other, depopulating parts of Europe in the wars that resulted from the Reformation. Supporters and opponents of infant baptism killed each enthusiastically over what a modern American would regard as a triviality, to put it mildly.
Conservatives do not often understand that political liberalism emerged in large part as a reaction against the ‘holy wars’ this period in Europe. Thoughtful men who sought peace developed the idea of (1) separating religious authority from political authority and (2) trying to persuade Christians to understand their religion as essentially personal and private, a matter, as Americans love to say, between the individual and his God. I call this the “privatization” of Christianity, because Christianity had been a public religion, permeating all aspects of society, including government, as Islam still does. The ‘public’ character of Christianity has not died, of course, as the religious Right’s agenda makes clear, but even these religious conservatives do not embrace jihad against nonbelievers.

Islam and Christianity, however, have waged war for centuries. Muslims often cite the Crusades today, but conveniently overlook their own centuries of expansion by means of war that brought them to the frontiers of France and the gates of Vienna at various points in their efforts to conquer Christian Europe for Islam. Of course it is correct that there other ways of understanding Islam that do not require war against nonbelievers, but it is important for Americans to understand that what we call “Islamic fundamentalism” or “Koranic literalism” simply is Islam as that religion has been traditionally understood by its adherents.
It is also necessary for Americans to understand that Islam has neither a “church” nor a “state,” and we absolutely should not expect Islamic societies to develop and believe in concepts that arose over lengthy periods of time in European history. Governing, for a devout Muslim, is inseparable from his religion. That’s why we should not expect all Muslims to even understand why Westerners think that the Dutch cartoonists were exercising some sort of basic right of free speech or expression. NO such right can be framed intelligibly within Islam. As for shari’a, the devout Muslim sees no reason why he should be required to live under the merely man-made law of the country to which he has moved when he has available to him the law of God in the form of shari’a.
At a very basic level, the nominally Christian world is at war with the Islamic world. Not all Muslims are, or will be, committed to winning this war, but we should not delude ourselves into thinking of our enemies as some small coterie of fanatics.
I have taught about Islamic political philosophy for nearly 40 years, and find a concept drawn from Machiavelli especially useful in understanding it. Machiavelli’s concept of “effectual truth” is that what often matters in politics is the inner core or essence of a position, and not simply the public expression of that position. The “effectual truth” of Islam is precisely what confronts us now, and almost all shades of ideology, left and right, still don’t want to see this. Some knowledge of history might help, but few Americans, and–what continues to astonish me–even relatively few conservatives, who should be saturated in history,–don’t want to think outside their own boxes. I believe we no longer have that luxury.

]]>