Islamofascism as the nihilist sinkhole
Bookworm on Jul 09 2006 at 5:15 pm | Filed under: Islam
I am indebted to Laer, at one of my faves, Cheat Seeking Missiles, for leading me to a Gates of Vienna post about the attraction jihadist Islam holds for all the world’s nihilists. To fully appreciate the post, you have to pay close attention to the blog’s masthead, which is a beautiful picture of Vienna at the end of the 17th Century. The blog’s tag is “At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.” (To get a feel for how close Islam came to taking over Christian Europe, you need to appreciate that Europe’s whole cafe society developed because the Ottomans, who were within miles of Vienna, left their bags of coffee behind when they retreated.)
The post does a wonderful job of pulling together the disparate threads of modern Islam, and explaining (a) how they all hang together, (b) why they focus obsessively and murderously on destroying the West, and (c) why they are such a magnet for every American hating, Jewish hating wacko around. One of the things the post nails is something my cousin, a prision chaplain, has already commented about, which is Islam’s extraordinary success in prisons. This is, says my counsin and Gates of Vienna, because Islam, rather than taking a stand against violent criminal behavior, co-opts and applauds it. As my cousin put it:
It is not a contradiction to be a Muslim and a murderer, even a mass murderer. That is one reason why criminals “convert” to Islam in prison. They don’t convert at all; they similarly [sic] remain the angry judgmental vicious beings they always have been. They simply add “religious” diatribes to their personal invective. Islam does not inspire a crisis of conscience, just inspirations to outrage.
Gates of Vienna expands on this notion that a prison conversion is effortless, because the criminal gets to continue with the same old, same old, only this time with a religious imprimatur:
Islam has an impressive record of converting criminals, and this is where we find the key to unlock our mystery. The theology and ideology of Islam are eminently compatible with criminal behavior, and an operational jihad organization is functionally indistinguishable from a criminal enterprise. The Koran explicitly sanctions any method whatsoever to spread the faith, and forbids nothing when subjugating the infidel. Thus lying, stealing, rape, murder, torture, and genocide are not only acceptable, they are laudable and even mandatory when undertaken on behalf of the Ummah.
When a converted Muslim convict finishes his sentence, he not only returns to his accustomed lifestyle, he now has the protection, security, and camaraderie of his new brothers-in-jihad. In addition he has the assurance that his actions carry out the will of Allah! Who could ask for anything more?
The beauty of this mob mentality is that it functions in all societies, wherever there is a violent criminal class:
When an Islamic terror group moves into a lawless area, we can expect it to absorb existing criminal structures — as has recently occurred in Somalia. This doesn’t mean that Al Capone would necessarily convert to Islam and submit to a more powerful emir as his new capo; the head of a traditional criminal enterprise might well choose to go down with all guns blazing. But much of his organization could be converted to jihad operations; there’s no reason a low-level gunsel wouldn’t find life under the new sheikh congenial to his taste.
The centrality of the criminal element to Islam supports the post’s key point, which is about the attraction Islam holds for violence — all types of violence:
I had a friend in my college days who was attracted to radical politics. “Power to the People”, “Smash the State”, “Revolution Now” — it was always about sticking it to the Man, questioning authority, and resisting all instances of state power. Nowadays he’s studying the Koran and talking about the power of the Jews, and is seriously considering converting to Islam.
***
A century and a half ago the same person would have embraced Anarchism. Instead of Mohammed, my friend would have gravitated towards Mikhail Bakunin. The same behaviors and motivations are there: absolute lawlessness coupled with absolute ideology. Push nihilism far enough in that direction, and you get a zeal that exceeds all others in its ferocity.
That’s where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi comes in. Simple criminal impulses cannot explain his behavior — the ordinary criminal would never have endured the life he had to live. Only dedication to an all-encompassing ideology of destruction could have produced such monstrous behavior.
And so we have what might be called a Demonic Convergence, a confluence of destructive impulses that Islam gathers unto itself. In the terms of Chaos Theory, Islam is a “basin attractor”, an asymptotic solution to all the differential equations of nihilistic human behavior.
Any impulse that longs to destroy Western Civilization — which, for the modern world, means all civilization — will gravitate towards Islam. The criminal gets ideological justification for his behavior, the sadist gets to rape and murder to his heart’s content, and the hippie radical gets to stick it to the Man for all eternity.
This is what we’re up against: the Big Tent of ideological nihilism. The closer any given society gets to the behavioral sink, the more Islamic it tends to become. Just look at the death-cult that is “Palestine”, voluntarily living under the yoke of the sadistic murderers of Hamas. Or the chaos of Somalia, now turning from the rule of the warlords to the rule of Shari’ah.
None of this is surprising, of course, when you consider that Mohammed specifically gave his followers license to murder and kill, not only to “convert” people, but to support themselves. Thus, when Mohammad started his faith, money was a problem. He therefore essentially told his followers that God had informed him that, because they were the good guys, they had carte blanche to commit the worst kind of acts. By my understanding, that’s not a religion; that’s a mob shakedown that has resonated through history.
It’s true, of course, that good people, truly good people, will read the Koran and focus on the messages of faith, hope and charity. But for those with even the slightest criminal inclination, the book is the “E” ticket for satisfying violent urges.
Email This Post To A Friend
7 Responses to “Islamofascism as the nihilist sinkhole”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The thing is, the religion of the Book was all about military conquests of Moses’ tribe to somewhere else in the beginning. Mohammed and the other prophets were just men of their times. Christianity reformed itself, and it got a boost because it also incorporated the rituals of Mithras (popular to the Romans) as a base of support. Islam really didn’t get a boost and didn’t really reform. So now we have a pre-medieval mentality of conquest, rape, and destruction in the 21st century. Reminds me of that movie where a criminal from the 20th century gets cryo freezed and then released while 100 years into the future. All the crime had been eliminated and the cops didn’t know even how to arrest someone. So the criminal gets to beat the crack out of everyone. Violence exposed to a non-violent population has two results. Violence destroys everything, or the non-violent culture develops resistances before it is wiped out. Nature has laws that no human mortal can violate.
I was watching a history channel program on Moses’ exodus out of Egypt, and it was amazing how many military aspects it had. It was after all, in essence, a military commander (moses) leading his mercenary elect tribe to greener pastures. How this became the basis for a reeligion, I don’t know
There’s a lot of stuff in the bible and Koran of course and even the Jewish Talmud. But all in all, Judaism and Christianity has been exposed to modern reforms. It’s like bringing in a caveman and teaching him that force is a no no.
I mean come on, if you lived in 100 BC, and you had to command a bunch of bloodthirsty tribal humans, what would you use to maintain control? Religion and visions, of course. A commander maintained his rule because the menrespected him and were in awe of him. What more could a prophet get?
In the 21st century, this is not an excuse to break laws. “my religion made me do it, I’m innocent” doesn’t cut it. However, much of the West treats Islam in exactly that appeasing manner. This decreases the chance of Islam reforming. Iraq the Model’s latest post has some translated arabic, I suggest you read it. These are the people who NEED Islam reformed. But they are outnumbered by the billion something Muslims that are deluded and terrorized and shamed and etc.
I am often amused by the political correctness in which we all engage, highlighted by terms like “Islamofascism.” I’m not sure I know what it means.
I mean, I know what those who use it think it means, but I don’t think it’s a term that properly exists.
The second-last graf of Book’s comments is the key: Islam is itself a problem. Those we regard as “Islamofascists” or “extremists” aren’t, by the lights of Islam, being “extreme” at all: they’re merely being true to their base tenets.
We are going to need to recognize this honestly, and deal with it at some point. Or, we are going to lose.
After all, the rise of “fundamentalist Islam” would obviously not be a problem if the fundamentals of Islam were not themselves a problem.
This is, by the by, true of all monotheistic religions. All of you who are good Christians and Jews take a moment to read Deuteronomy chapters 12 and 13 - see how you’re supposed to be behaving toward those who fall away.
We just don’t speak about Deuteronomy much anymore, and politely ignore it - but it’s there; it hasn’t gone anywhere; it remains viable and “in the Book.”
And that’s how those of us who are Christian and Jewish get along, by ignoring some of our own basic tenets. If we didn’t, there’d be nobody left standing. And this is what we have to hope for: that Islam will, in a growing and smaller than ever world, grow to maturity sufficient to ignore some of their own basic tenets, for the sake of getting along on a small planet.
So far there isn’t much sign of that.
The foundations of Christianity were highly pacific in nature. Militariem was suspoect if not often condemned.
What would occur centuries later was an admixture of state and religion–along with a number of very complex reasons for more militant positions. One of them being the rise of a violent new religion in Arabia that ws sweeping across the known world.
Judaism never was bent on world domination–ever. What is being read into the military passages of scripture is a defensive position needed then in a sea of enemies on every side. Beyond its own survival in a limited geographic area, Judaism had none of the similarities of Islam.
Some of your commentors need to use to both context and closer readings before leaping to conclusions.
JJ:
You are technically quite correct about the word “Islamofascist.” I use the phrase to distinguish in my own mid those who call themselves Muslims, but who follow a moderate, Western style approach to religion (they’re not the Islamofascists), and those who call themselves Muslims and seek to impose radical Sharia on the world (they are the Islamofascists). It’s a mental shorthand for me, reflecting the fact that all don’t approach their religion with equal levels of fanaticism.
I am reminded of an article I read recently concerning a group of Muslims in London who are trying to reform Islam as it is practiced in Europe, so that it would conform more and be more tolerant of local authority. However, that group is being seriously undercut by the government in the UK’s attitude of appeasement toward the radicals.
I’m pretty sure I read about this on one of the Brit blogs. I’ll try to find the source.
The foundations of Christianity were highly pacific in nature. Militariem was suspoect if not often condemned.
That was the period when “Jesus CHrist” the savior of love came onto the scene. Christianity had existed a bit of time before him.
I prefer Bookworm’s English technique. English is great because there are a lot of synonymous terms that look like it means the exact same thing, but are actually examples of different shades of meaning for the same thing. Being more precise and more specific, is a good thing in communication.
If Islam had 10 words for Jihad, they might be more tolerant and better able to communicate with other cultures instead of using the sword all the time. Language reflects society a bit.
As for Christianity, it had two things going for it back in Roman Times. First, it allowed you to refuse to sacrifice your first born because you could use Christianity as an excuse. Second, it placed bans on human sacrifice, which was a good thing btw. I seriously doubt that Jericho was an example of Judaism’s “defensive minded” teachings.
Quite wrong, Jon. Deuteronomy is Moses’ valedictory address, given in Israel, after the trials and tribulations of getting there were over. It is quite specifically aimed at teaching correct practice in matters religious. Chapter 5 begins:
“And Moses called all Israel and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.”
What follows is all religious in nature, and not at all addressed to war, defensive or otherwise. He recounted the trip by which they got there (”Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years.” 8,iv), not omitting a second pass at instilling the ten commandments (Chapter 10); re-told the story of the flight from Egypt (Chapter 11) and then got into the meat of the matter, which was the adjuration to keep the commandments and laws, other wise bad things, VERY bad things would happen.
And keeping the commandments meant you killed anyone who decided not to - period. I shall quote from Chapter 13, for the benefit of anyone who doesn’t want to get up from the computer and go dig out a bible:
“If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2) and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them,
3)Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, of that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4)Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
5)And that prophet or that dreamer of dreams , shall be put to death, because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
6)If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers,
7)Namely of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
8)Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
9)But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10)And thou shalt stone him with stones that he die, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
11)And all Israel shall hear and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
12)If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,
13)certain men, the children of Belial are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
14)Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
15)Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
16)And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God; and it shall be an heap forever; it shall not be built again.”
There’s more, but you get the idea.
Verses 3, 4, and 5 deal with anyone who might wish to come along and found something different: kill him.
Verses 6, 7, 8 and 9 - forget dreamers and prophets; if it’s your kid, your spouse, your father, your mother, your brother; doesn’t matter: kill ‘em.
Verses 12 through 16 - if you judge that a whole city has gone wrong - one of your OWN cities: kill everybody and level it.
And by the way, read verse 7 with some attention, and note that it includes not only anybody here in front of us who behaves wrongly; it includes ANYBODY ANYWHERE, from one end of the earth to the other, if you can get your hands on them: kill ‘em all.
Now - in what way does this differ from Islam?
Simple, really. It differs from Islam because we don’t - in a literal sense - pay any attention to it any more. We selectively ignore it. And that was my point. Muslims so far refuse to ignore some of their basic tenets in the interests of living in the world.
But: Deuteronomy (and others, too) is there. Standing ready. If Christians and Jews wished to pay literal attention to it, there it is; pretty much justifying pretty much anything.
But we don’t. We have grown beyond it. (Or maybe not. Maybe when we die we’re in for a very rude awakening for having been so tolerant all our lives! That’d be a hell of a comeuppance, wouldn’t it? The God of Israel and Christianity may be just as intolerant as Moses says He is!)
Anyway, Deuteronomy certainly didn’t come along centuries after Jesus, it in fact predated him, and it wasn’t dealing with a war, defensive or otherwise. It was Moses telling his people: “this is what you do, period.”
Sorry to be so long, Book, but I thought it might be important to go right to the source and quote.