Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Islam Breaks Down
City Journal ^ | Spring 2004 | Theodore Dalrymple

Posted on 04/02/2006 12:53:12 PM PDT by KDD

My first contact with Islam was in Afghanistan. I had been through Iran overland to get there, but it was in the days of the Shah’s White Revolution, which had given rights to women and had secularized society (with the aid of a little detention, without trial, and torture). In my naive, historicist way, I assumed that secularization was an irreversible process, like the breaking of eggs: that once people had seen the glory of life without compulsory obeisance to the men of God, they would never turn back to them as the sole guides to their lives and politics.

Afghanistan was different, quite clearly a pre-modern society. The vast, barren landscapes in the crystalline air were impossibly romantic, and the people (that is to say the men, for women were not much in evidence) had a wild dignity and nobility. Their mien was aristocratic. Even their hospitality was fierce. They carried more weapons in daily life than the average British commando in wartime. You knew that they would defend you to the death, if necessary—or cut your throat like a chicken’s, if necessary. Honor among them was all.

On the whole I was favorably impressed. I thought that they were freer than we. I thought nothing of such matters as the clash of civilizations, and experienced no desire, and felt no duty, to redeem them from their way of life in the name of any of my own civilization’s ideals. Impressed by the aesthetics of Afghanistan and unaware of any fundamental opposition or tension between the modern and the pre-modern, I saw no reason why the West and Afghanistan should not rub along pretty well together, each in its own little world, provided only that each respected the other.

I was with a group of students, and our appearance in the middle of a country then seldom visited was almost a national event. At any rate, we put on extracts of Romeo and Juliet in the desert, in which I had a small part, and the crown prince of Afghanistan (then still a kingdom) attended. He arrived in Afghanistan’s one modern appurtenance: a silver convertible Mercedes sports car—I was much impressed by that. Little did I think then that lines from the play—those of Juliet’s plea to her mother to abrogate an unwanted marriage to Paris, arranged and forced on her by her father, Capulet—would so uncannily capture the predicament of some of my Muslim patients in Britain more than a third of a century after my visit to Afghanistan, and four centuries after they were written:

Is there no pity sitting in the clouds That sees into the bottom of my grief? O sweet my mother, cast me not away! Delay this marriage for a month, a week, Or if you do not, make the bridal bed In that dim monument where Tybalt lies. How often have I been consulted by young Muslim women patients, driven to despair by enforced marriages to close relatives (usually first cousins) back “home” in India and Pakistan, who have made such an unavailing appeal to their mothers, followed by an attempt at suicide!

Capulet’s attitude to his refractory daughter is precisely that of my Muslim patients’ fathers:

Look to’t, think on’t, I do not use to jest. Thursday is near, lay hand on heart, advise: And you be mine, I’ll give you to my friend; And you be not, hang, beg, starve, die in the streets, For by my soul, I’ll ne’er acknowledge thee, Nor what is mine shall ever do thee good. In fact the situation of Muslim girls in my city is even worse than Juliet’s. Every Muslim girl in my city has heard of the killing of such as she back in Pakistan, on refusal to marry her first cousin, betrothed to her by her father, all unknown to her, in the earliest years of her childhood. The girl is killed because she has impugned family honor by breaking her father’s word, and any halfhearted official inquiry into the death by the Pakistani authorities is easily and cheaply bought off. And even if she is not killed, she is expelled from the household—O sweet my mother, cast me not away!—and regarded by her “community” as virtually a prostitute, fair game for any man who wants her.

This pattern of betrothal causes suffering as intense as any I know of. It has terrible consequences. One father prevented his daughter, highly intelligent and ambitious to be a journalist, from attending school, precisely to ensure her lack of Westernization and economic independence. He then took her, aged 16, to Pakistan for the traditional forced marriage (silence, or a lack of open objection, amounts to consent in these circumstances, according to Islamic law) to a first cousin whom she disliked from the first and who forced his attentions on her. Granted a visa to come to Britain, as if the marriage were a bona fide one—the British authorities having turned a cowardly blind eye to the real nature of such marriages in order to avoid the charge of racial discrimination—he was violent toward her.

She had two children in quick succession, both of whom were so severely handicapped that they would be bedridden for the rest of their short lives and would require nursing 24 hours a day. (For fear of giving offense, the press almost never alludes to the extremely high rate of genetic illnesses among the offspring of consanguineous marriages.) Her husband, deciding that the blame for the illnesses was entirely hers, and not wishing to devote himself to looking after such useless creatures, left her, divorcing her after Islamic custom. Her family ostracized her, having concluded that a woman whose husband had left her must have been to blame and was the next thing to a whore. She threw herself off a cliff, but was saved by a ledge.

I’ve heard a hundred variations of her emblematic story. Here, for once, are instances of unadulterated female victimhood, yet the silence of the feminists is deafening. Where two pieties—feminism and multiculturalism—come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence.

Certainly such experiences have moderated the historicism I took to Afghanistan—the naive belief that monotheistic religions have but a single, “natural,” path of evolution, which they all eventually follow. By the time Christianity was Islam’s present age, I might once have thought, it had still undergone no Reformation, the absence of which is sometimes offered as an explanation for Islam’s intolerance and rigidity. Give it time, I would have said, and it will evolve, as Christianity has, to a private confession that acknowledges the legal supremacy of the secular state—at which point Islam will become one creed among many.

That Shakespeare’s words express the despair that oppressed Muslim girls feel in a British city in the twenty-first century with much greater force, short of poisoning themselves, than that with which they can themselves express it, that Shakespeare evokes so vividly their fathers’ sentiments as well (though condemning rather than endorsing them), suggests—does it not?—that such oppressive treatment of women is not historically unique to Islam, and that it is a stage that Muslims will leave behind. Islam will even outgrow its religious intolerance, as Christian Europe did so long ago, after centuries in which the Thirty Years’ War, for example, resulted in the death of a third of Germany’s population, or when Philip II of Spain averred, “I would rather sacrifice the lives of a hundred thousand people than cease my persecution of heretics.”

My historicist optimism has waned. After all, I soon enough learned that the Shah’s revolution from above was reversible—at least in the short term, that is to say the term in which we all live, and certainly long enough to ruin the only lives that contemporary Iranians have. Moreover, even if there were no relevant differences between Christianity and Islam as doctrines and civilizations in their ability to accommodate modernity, a vital difference in the historical situations of the two religions also tempers my historicist optimism. Devout Muslims can see (as Luther, Calvin, and others could not) the long-term consequences of the Reformation and its consequent secularism: a marginalization of the Word of God, except as an increasingly distant cultural echo—as the “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar” of the once full “Sea of faith,” in Matthew Arnold’s precisely diagnostic words.

And there is enough truth in the devout Muslim’s criticism of the less attractive aspects of Western secular culture to lend plausibility to his call for a return to purity as the answer to the Muslim world’s woes. He sees in the West’s freedom nothing but promiscuity and license, which is certainly there; but he does not see in freedom, especially freedom of inquiry, a spiritual virtue as well as an ultimate source of strength. This narrow, beleaguered consciousness no doubt accounts for the strand of reactionary revolt in contemporary Islam. The devout Muslim fears, and not without good reason, that to give an inch is sooner or later to concede the whole territory.

This fear must be all the more acute among the large and growing Muslim population in cities like mine. Except for a small, highly educated middle class, who live de facto as if Islam were a private religious confession like any other in the West, the Muslims congregate in neighborhoods that they have made their own, where the life of the Punjab continues amid the architecture of the Industrial Revolution. The halal butcher’s corner shop rubs shoulders with the terra-cotta municipal library, built by the Victorian city fathers to improve the cultural level of a largely vanished industrial working class.

The Muslim immigrants to these areas were not seeking a new way of life when they arrived; they expected to continue their old lives, but more prosperously. They neither anticipated, nor wanted, the inevitable cultural tensions of translocation, and they certainly never suspected that in the long run they could not maintain their culture and their religion intact. The older generation is only now realizing that even outward conformity to traditional codes of dress and behavior by the young is no longer a guarantee of inner acceptance (a perception that makes their vigilantism all the more pronounced and desperate). Recently I stood at the taxi stand outside my hospital, beside two young women in full black costume, with only a slit for the eyes. One said to the other, “Give us a light for a fag, love; I’m gasping.” Release the social pressure on the girls, and they would abandon their costume in an instant.

Anyone who lives in a city like mine and interests himself in the fate of the world cannot help wondering whether, deeper than this immediate cultural desperation, there is anything intrinsic to Islam—beyond the devout Muslim’s instinctive understanding that secularization, once it starts, is like an unstoppable chain reaction—that renders it unable to adapt itself comfortably to the modern world. Is there an essential element that condemns the Dar al-Islam to permanent backwardness with regard to the Dar al-Harb, a backwardness that is felt as a deep humiliation, and is exemplified, though not proved, by the fact that the whole of the Arab world, minus its oil, matters less to the rest of the world economically than the Nokia telephone company of Finland?

I think the answer is yes, and that the problem begins with Islam’s failure to make a distinction between church and state. Unlike Christianity, which had to spend its first centuries developing institutions clandestinely and so from the outset clearly had to separate church from state, Islam was from its inception both church and state, one and indivisible, with no possible distinction between temporal and religious authority. Muhammad’s power was seamlessly spiritual and secular (although the latter grew ultimately out of the former), and he bequeathed this model to his followers. Since he was, by Islamic definition, the last prophet of God upon earth, his was a political model whose perfection could not be challenged or questioned without the total abandonment of the pretensions of the entire religion.

But his model left Islam with two intractable problems. One was political. Muhammad unfortunately bequeathed no institutional arrangements by which his successors in the role of omnicompetent ruler could be chosen (and, of course, a schism occurred immediately after the Prophet’s death, with some—today’s Sunnites—following his father-in-law, and some—today’s Shi’ites—his son-in-law). Compounding this difficulty, the legitimacy of temporal power could always be challenged by those who, citing Muhammad’s spiritual role, claimed greater religious purity or authority; the fanatic in Islam is always at a moral advantage vis-à-vis the moderate. Moreover, Islam—in which the mosque is a meetinghouse, not an institutional church—has no established, anointed ecclesiastical hierarchy to decide such claims authoritatively. With political power constantly liable to challenge from the pious, or the allegedly pious, tyranny becomes the only guarantor of stability, and assassination the only means of reform. Hence the Saudi time bomb: sooner or later, religious revolt will depose a dynasty founded upon its supposed piety but long since corrupted by the ways of the world.

The second problem is intellectual. In the West, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, acting upon the space that had always existed, at least potentially, in Christianity between church and state, liberated individual men to think for themselves, and thus set in motion an unprecedented and still unstoppable material advancement. Islam, with no separate, secular sphere where inquiry could flourish free from the claims of religion, if only for technical purposes, was hopelessly left behind: as, several centuries later, it still is.

The indivisibility of any aspect of life from any other in Islam is a source of strength, but also of fragility and weakness, for individuals as well as for polities. Where all conduct, all custom, has a religious sanction and justification, any change is a threat to the whole system of belief. Certainty that their way of life is the right one thus coexists with fear that the whole edifice—intellectual and political—will come tumbling down if it is tampered with in any way. Intransigence is a defense against doubt and makes living on terms of true equality with others who do not share the creed impossible.

Not coincidentally, the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death: apostates are regarded as far worse than infidels, and punished far more rigorously. In every Islamic society, and indeed among Britain’s Muslim immigrants, there are people who take this idea quite literally, as their rage against Salman Rushdie testified.

The Islamic doctrine of apostasy is hardly favorable to free inquiry or frank discussion, to say the least, and surely it explains why no Muslim, or former Muslim, in an Islamic society would dare to suggest that the Qu’ran was not divinely dictated through the mouth of the Prophet but rather was a compilation of a charismatic man’s words made many years after his death, and incorporating, with no very great originality, Judaic, Christian, and Zoroastrian elements. In my experience, devout Muslims expect and demand a freedom to criticize, often with perspicacity, the doctrines and customs of others, while demanding an exaggerated degree of respect and freedom from criticism for their own doctrines and customs. I recall, for example, staying with a Pakistani Muslim in East Africa, a very decent and devout man, who nevertheless spent several evenings with me deriding the absurdities of Christianity: the paradoxes of the Trinity, the impossibility of Resurrection, and so forth. Though no Christian myself, had I replied in kind, alluding to the pagan absurdities of the pilgrimage to Mecca, or to the gross, ignorant, and primitive superstitions of the Prophet with regard to jinn, I doubt that our friendship would have lasted long.

The unassailable status of the Qu’ran in Islamic education, thought, and society is ultimately Islam’s greatest disadvantage in the modern world. Such unassailability does not debar a society from great artistic achievement or charms of its own: great and marvelous civilizations have flourished without the slightest intellectual freedom. I myself prefer a souk to a supermarket any day, as a more human, if less economically efficient, institution. But until Muslims (or former Muslims, as they would then be) are free in their own countries to denounce the Qu’ran as an inferior hodgepodge of contradictory injunctions, without intellectual unity (whether it is so or not)—until they are free to say with Carlyle that the Qu’ran is “a wearisome confused jumble” with “endless iterations, longwindedness, entanglement”—until they are free to remake and modernize the Qu’ran by creative interpretation, they will have to reconcile themselves to being, if not helots, at least in the rearguard of humanity, as far as power and technical advance are concerned.

A piece of pulp fiction by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, first published in 1898, when followers of the charismatic fundamentalist leader Muhammad al-Mahdi tried to establish a theocracy in Sudan by revolting against Anglo-Egyptian control, makes precisely this point and captures the contradiction at the heart of contemporary Islam. Called The Tragedy of the Korosko, the book is the story of a small tourist party to Upper Egypt, who are kidnapped and held to ransom by some Mahdists, and then rescued by the Egyptian Camel Corps. (I hesitate, as a Francophile, to point out to American readers that there is a French character in the book, who, until he is himself captured by the Mahdists, believes that they are but a figment of the British imagination, to give perfidious Albion a pretext to interfere in Sudanese affairs.) A mullah among the Mahdists who capture the tourists attempts to convert the Europeans and Americans to Islam, deriding as unimportant and insignificant their technically superior civilization: “ ‘As to the [scientific] learning of which you speak . . . ’ said the Moolah . . . ‘I have myself studied at the University of Al Azhar at Cairo, and I know that to which you allude. But the learning of the faithful is not as the learning of the unbeliever, and it is not fitting that we pry too deeply into the ways of Allah. Some stars have tails . . . and some have not; but what does it profit us to know which are which? For God made them all, and they are very safe in His hands. Therefore . . . be not puffed up by the foolish learning of the West, and understand that there is only one wisdom, which consists in following the will of Allah as His chosen prophet has laid it down for us in this book.’ ”

This is by no means a despicable argument. One of the reasons that we can appreciate the art and literature of the past, and sometimes of the very distant past, is that the fundamental conditions of human existence remain the same, however much we advance in the technical sense: I have myself argued in these pages that human self-understanding, except in purely technical matters, reached its apogee with Shakespeare. In a sense, the mullah is right.

But if we made a fetish of Shakespeare (much richer and more profound than the Qu’ran, in my view), if we made him the sole object of our study and the sole guide of our lives, we would soon enough fall into backwardness and stagnation. And the problem is that so many Muslims want both stagnation and power: they want a return to the perfection of the seventh century and to dominate the twenty-first, as they believe is the birthright of their doctrine, the last testament of God to man. If they were content to exist in a seventh-century backwater, secure in a quietist philosophy, there would be no problem for them or us; their problem, and ours, is that they want the power that free inquiry confers, without either the free inquiry or the philosophy and institutions that guarantee that free inquiry. They are faced with a dilemma: either they abandon their cherished religion, or they remain forever in the rear of human technical advance. Neither alternative is very appealing; and the tension between their desire for power and success in the modern world on the one hand, and their desire not to abandon their religion on the other, is resolvable for some only by exploding themselves as bombs.

People grow angry when faced with an intractable dilemma; they lash out. Whenever I have described in print the cruelties my young Muslim patients endure, I receive angry replies: I am either denounced outright as a liar, or the writer acknowledges that such cruelties take place but are attributable to a local culture, in this case Punjabi, not to Islam, and that I am ignorant not to know it.

But Punjabi Sikhs also arrange marriages: they do not, however, force consanguineous marriages of the kind that take place from Madras to Morocco. Moreover—and not, I believe, coincidentally—Sikh immigrants from the Punjab, of no higher original social status than their Muslim confrères from the same provinces, integrate far better into the local society once they have immigrated. Precisely because their religion is a more modest one, with fewer universalist pretensions, they find the duality of their new identity more easily navigable. On the 50th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, for example, the Sikh temples were festooned with perfectly genuine protestations of congratulations and loyalty. No such protestations on the part of Muslims would be thinkable.

But the anger of Muslims, their demand that their sensibilities should be accorded a more than normal respect, is a sign not of the strength but of the weakness—or rather, the brittleness—of Islam in the modern world, the desperation its adherents feel that it could so easily fall to pieces. The control that Islam has over its populations in an era of globalization reminds me of the hold that the Ceausescus appeared to have over the Rumanians: an absolute hold, until Ceausescu appeared one day on the balcony and was jeered by the crowd that had lost its fear. The game was over, as far as Ceausescu was concerned, even if there had been no preexisting conspiracy to oust him.

One sign of the increasing weakness of Islam’s hold over its nominal adherents in Britain—of which militancy is itself but another sign—is the throng of young Muslim men in prison. They will soon overtake the young men of Jamaican origin in their numbers and in the extent of their criminality. By contrast, young Sikhs and Hindus are almost completely absent from prison, so racism is not the explanation for such Muslim overrepresentation.

Confounding expectations, these prisoners display no interest in Islam whatsoever; they are entirely secularized. True, they still adhere to Muslim marriage customs, but only for the obvious personal advantage of having a domestic slave at home. Many of them also dot the city with their concubines—sluttish white working-class girls or exploitable young Muslims who have fled forced marriages and do not know that their young men are married. This is not religion, but having one’s cake and eating it.

The young Muslim men in prison do not pray; they do not demand halal meat. They do not read the Qu’ran. They do not ask to see the visiting imam. They wear no visible signs of piety: their main badge of allegiance is a gold front tooth, which proclaims them members of the city’s criminal subculture—a badge (of honor, they think) that they share with young Jamaicans, though their relations with the Jamaicans are otherwise fraught with hostility. The young Muslim men want wives at home to cook and clean for them, concubines elsewhere, and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. As for Muslim proselytism in the prison—and Muslim literature has been insinuated into nooks and crannies there far more thoroughly than any Christian literature—it is directed mainly at the Jamaican prisoners. It answers their need for an excuse to go straight, while not at the same time surrendering to the morality of a society they believe has wronged them deeply. Indeed, conversion to Islam is their revenge upon that society, for they sense that their newfound religion is fundamentally opposed to it. By conversion, therefore, they kill two birds with one stone.

But Islam has no improving or inhibiting effect upon the behavior of my city’s young Muslim men, who, in astonishing numbers, have taken to heroin, a habit almost unknown among their Sikh and Hindu contemporaries. The young Muslims not only take heroin but deal in it, and have adopted all the criminality attendant on the trade.

What I think these young Muslim prisoners demonstrate is that the rigidity of the traditional code by which their parents live, with its universalist pretensions and emphasis on outward conformity to them, is all or nothing; when it dissolves, it dissolves completely and leaves nothing in its place. The young Muslims then have little defense against the egotistical licentiousness they see about them and that they all too understandably take to be the summum bonum of Western life.

Observing this, of course, there are among Muslim youth a tiny minority who reject this absorption into the white lumpenproletariat and turn militant or fundamentalist. It is their perhaps natural, or at least understandable, reaction to the failure of our society, kowtowing to absurd and dishonest multiculturalist pieties, to induct them into the best of Western culture: into that spirit of free inquiry and personal freedom that has so transformed the life chances of every person in the world, whether he knows it or not.

Islam in the modern world is weak and brittle, not strong: that accounts for its so frequent shrillness. The Shah will, sooner or later, triumph over the Ayatollah in Iran, because human nature decrees it, though meanwhile millions of lives will have been ruined and impoverished. The Iranian refugees who have flooded into the West are fleeing Islam, not seeking to extend its dominion, as I know from speaking to many in my city. To be sure, fundamentalist Islam will be very dangerous for some time to come, and all of us, after all, live only in the short term; but ultimately the fate of the Church of England awaits it. Its melancholy, withdrawing roar may well (unlike that of the Church of England) be not just long but bloody, but withdraw it will. The fanatics and the bombers do not represent a resurgence of unreformed, fundamentalist Islam, but its death rattle.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: dalrymple; islam; theodoredalrymple
And the problem is that so many Muslims want both stagnation and power: they want a return to the perfection of the seventh century and to dominate the twenty-first, as they believe is the birthright of their doctrine, the last testament of God to man. If they were content to exist in a seventh-century backwater, secure in a quietist philosophy, there would be no problem for them or us; their problem, and ours, is that they want the power that free inquiry confers, without either the free inquiry or the philosophy and institutions that guarantee that free inquiry. They are faced with a dilemma: either they abandon their cherished religion, or they remain forever in the rear of human technical advance. Neither alternative is very appealing; and the tension between their desire for power and success in the modern world on the one hand, and their desire not to abandon their religion on the other, is resolvable for some only by exploding themselves as bombs.
1 posted on 04/02/2006 12:53:15 PM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KDD

He is such a remarkable thinker and writer. I can never pass by anything he writes without stopping to read it.


2 posted on 04/02/2006 1:00:53 PM PDT by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD
-- If they were content to exist in a seventh-century backwater, secure in a quietist philosophy, there would be no problem for them or us;--

--that apparently describes pre-Russian invasion Afganistan--I know an individual whose wife spent her high school years there (her parents were teachers in an Embassy school) thoroughly enjoying the experience--

3 posted on 04/02/2006 1:07:02 PM PDT by rellimpank (Don't believe anything about firearms or explosives stated by the mass media---NRABenefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Bookmarked for later reading, when I have time.
4 posted on 04/02/2006 1:19:30 PM PDT by the anti-liberal (Hey, Al Qaeda: Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD

bump for later


5 posted on 04/02/2006 1:23:12 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal. this would not be a problem if so many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD
This article was reprinted in Dalrymple's Our Culture - What's Left Of It, a book chock-full of such observations. Highly recommended.
6 posted on 04/02/2006 1:24:01 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Does anyone have a Dalrymple PING list?


7 posted on 04/02/2006 1:33:13 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day ("Yo, Mike, you vant us to unpimp zis ting lemme hear you say 'vat.'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD

bump


8 posted on 04/02/2006 1:35:43 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Their death rattle is mighty loud.


9 posted on 04/02/2006 1:53:17 PM PDT by tkathy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD; All

A very Good read. BTTT


10 posted on 04/02/2006 1:53:37 PM PDT by eazdzit (Vote AGAINST All NWO PuboCrats !! DO NOT re-elect the least of two evils!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson; fieldmarshaldj; Coleus

This is a facinating outlook on a phenomenon. Very worth reading.


11 posted on 04/02/2006 2:05:35 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Bob Taft for Impeachment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal

another good read:
"The Islamist Challenge to the U.S. Constitution"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607608/posts


12 posted on 04/02/2006 2:14:08 PM PDT by FBD (surf's up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; ...
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking the keyword or topic Israel.

---------------------------

13 posted on 04/02/2006 2:21:00 PM PDT by SJackson ([Iraq] Reconstruction isnít news is it? Chris Matthews)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal

ditto


14 posted on 04/02/2006 2:26:53 PM PDT by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: the Real fifi

There is the suggestion that in time Islam might find its own way to a major reformation as Christianity and other major religions have done. I agree. Islam is, after all, a much younger religion then Christianity or most other major religions. The flaw in this optimism is time, which is not to Western Civilizations advantage. The fruits of our technical prowess are available on the open market to any entity that has the means to afford them...Just ask Bernie Schwartz at Loral Corp. So given A. the money. and B. the means, one can't help but wonder...when?

It is time to amplify the speech coming from the Mosques and expose and CONFRONT the religious political Mullahs and Inmans hate speech against the West. The political religious authority of Islam which encompasses most of the ME refer to America as the "The Great Satan" while the secular government of the United States of America calls Islam "A religion of peace"

An obvious disconnect on our leaders part.
Possibly a fatal one for us.


15 posted on 04/02/2006 2:35:16 PM PDT by KDD (A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Good Article Bump


16 posted on 04/02/2006 2:37:13 PM PDT by BunnySlippers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

"Where two pieties—feminism and multiculturalism—come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence."

Such a simple truth.


17 posted on 04/02/2006 2:49:40 PM PDT by KDD (A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KDD

The problem is Christian reformation is to lead the faith to remove corruption to get back to the true form. Islam IS true to its original form with the hommicide bombings and killing and lying.

In order to have Islam "reform" it must fist stop being islam.


18 posted on 04/02/2006 2:53:20 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: the Real fifi

It is articles and commentary like this one of Theodore Dalrymple's that make "Free Republic" so valuable for me.
It also makes it easier for me to pry loose a donation.


19 posted on 04/02/2006 3:12:49 PM PDT by firewatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KDD; neverdem

I first mentioned Dr.Dalrymple's essay "When Islam Breaks Down" in a post of 3/5 and wish to again thank neverdem for posting the full essay. Long before that (during the massive Islamic riots in France) I cited another of Dalrymple's essays - "Barbarians at the Gates of Paris" - to demonstrate how prophetic and insightful he was. That,too, was posted. Both these essays and many others are in his book "Our Culture, What's Left of It." By the way, David Brooks of the N.Y.Times named "When Islam Breaks Down" as the best journal article of 2004. Another fascinating collection of his essays is found in "Life at the Bottom." Although Dalrymple, like all psychiatrists, is an M.D. he actually practices medicine! He's widely traveled and all his essays reflect not just his clinical experience but his intimate first-hand knowledge of other peoples and cultures. If anyone wants to become acutely aware of the very dangerous social situation in Britain, read the essays in "Life at the Bottom." Again, my plaudits and thanks to neverdem.


20 posted on 04/02/2006 3:18:33 PM PDT by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Outstanding. Thanks for posting.

p.


21 posted on 04/02/2006 3:24:20 PM PDT by Paul_B
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD

bflr


22 posted on 04/02/2006 4:15:41 PM PDT by JDoutrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Islam can't reform because it is designed and engineered not to be reformable. Dalrymple doesn't seem to reflect much on the possibility that Islam is different because what the Koran says is different from what the Bible says. Because the Muslims he encounters do not talk about the text of the Koran themselves, Dalrymple directs his considerable analytical talents elsewhere in search of the problem, but I think this is a mistake. Even though they may be unaware of the Koran's text, young Mulsim men still absorb its precepts and attitudes by osmosis. If you ask a young Muslim man in prison which verse in the Koran is it wherein Allah through Mohammed stipulates that non-Muslim women in wartime can be taken as "temporary brides," i.e. raped, he will have no idea what you are talking about. If however you ask if Western women are whores and if it is not a big deal if they are raped, I believe you would encounter a response fully in concert with the spirit of the Koran. Such is the origin of tournante, which Dalrymple has written about. The fact that the Koran nearly explicitly licenses tournante doesn't seem to be interesting to Dalrymple. You don't have to be a scholar in Koranic hermeneutics to walk away with the impression that Koran offers to Muslims a free pass to do anything you want, no matter how cruel to people who do not self identify as part of the tribe of Muslims, especially women. This is simply not true of the Bible. The spirit of the Bible (mostly the New Testament) is to be kind to unbelievers. The spirit of the Koran is to be cruel to unbelievers.

Thus it is not a matter of merely time for Islam to temper itself. Islam can only 'reform' by becoming the opposite of what its core text mandates, i.e. by becoming vigorously un-Islamic. Given that this is the case, what is the point of even using such terminology?

I am beginning to think Islam will be 'reformed' the way Shinto was.

23 posted on 04/02/2006 4:30:06 PM PDT by caspera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

But the Mohammedans who mindlessly chant "Death to Christians" might find your comment "insensitive," and the ACLU certainly will not allow that!!!

Better to arm yourself, and get in some target practice. The war is coming.


24 posted on 04/02/2006 8:22:30 PM PDT by Emmet Fitzhume ("It is better to be alone than in bad company.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Great piece. Thanks for posting.


25 posted on 04/02/2006 11:10:23 PM PDT by Defiant (Muslim Unitarian:There is no God but Abraham's, and Mohammed said he was his prophet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Thank you. I hope little hope for the "modernizing" or "moderation" of Islam, unless by some miracle millions of Middle Easterners began to copy the secularist Turks. I visited Istanbul about six years ago, admittedly the most secular area in Turkey. The attitude of many Turkish people I met towards Islam was similar to the attitude most Japanese have towards Shinto --- religion as purely spiritual and cultural --- not political and militarist.

Unfortunately, most Japanese arrived as this attitude after atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.


26 posted on 04/03/2006 2:45:20 AM PDT by griffmorpho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: caspera
Fine remarks by you. This thread is from a Dalrymple essay of two years ago. His more recent thinking is here
27 posted on 04/03/2006 2:54:26 AM PDT by dennisw (If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles-Sun Tzu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

Theodore Dalrymple:

...The Muslim immigrants to these areas were not seeking a new way of life when they arrived; they expected to continue their old lives, but more prosperously. They neither anticipated, nor wanted, the inevitable cultural tensions of translocation, and they certainly never suspected that in the long run they could not maintain their culture and their religion intact. The older generation is only now realizing that even outward conformity to traditional codes of dress and behavior by the young is no longer a guarantee of inner acceptance (a perception that makes their vigilantism all the more pronounced and desperate). Recently I stood at the taxi stand outside my hospital, beside two young women in full black costume, with only a slit for the eyes. One said to the other, “Give us a light for a fag, love; I’m gasping.” Release the social pressure on the girls, and they would abandon their costume in an instant.

Anyone who lives in a city like mine and interests himself in the fate of the world cannot help wondering whether, deeper than this immediate cultural desperation, there is anything intrinsic to Islam—beyond the devout Muslim’s instinctive understanding that secularization, once it starts, is like an unstoppable chain reaction—that renders it unable to adapt itself comfortably to the modern world. Is there an essential element that condemns the Dar al-Islam to permanent backwardness with regard to the Dar al-Harb, a backwardness that is felt as a deep humiliation, and is exemplified, though not proved, by the fact that the whole of the Arab world, minus its oil, matters less to the rest of the world economically than the Nokia telephone company of Finland?

I think the answer is yes, and that the problem begins with Islam’s failure to make a distinction between church and state. Unlike Christianity, which had to spend its first centuries developing institutions clandestinely and so from the outset clearly had to separate church from state, Islam was from its inception both church and state, one and indivisible, with no possible distinction between temporal and religious authority. Muhammad’s power was seamlessly spiritual and secular (although the latter grew ultimately out of the former), and he bequeathed this model to his followers. Since he was, by Islamic definition, the last prophet of God upon earth, his was a political model whose perfection could not be challenged or questioned without the total abandonment of the pretensions of the entire religion.

But his model left Islam with two intractable problems. One was political. Muhammad unfortunately bequeathed no institutional arrangements by which his successors in the role of omnicompetent ruler could be chosen (and, of course, a schism occurred immediately after the Prophet’s death, with some—today’s Sunnites—following his father-in-law, and some—today’s Shi’ites—his son-in-law). Compounding this difficulty, the legitimacy of temporal power could always be challenged by those who, citing Muhammad’s spiritual role, claimed greater religious purity or authority; the fanatic in Islam is always at a moral advantage vis-à-vis the moderate. Moreover, Islam—in which the mosque is a meetinghouse, not an institutional church—has no established, anointed ecclesiastical hierarchy to decide such claims authoritatively. With political power constantly liable to challenge from the pious, or the allegedly pious, tyranny becomes the only guarantor of stability, and assassination the only means of reform. Hence the Saudi time bomb: sooner or later, religious revolt will depose a dynasty founded upon its supposed piety but long since corrupted by the ways of the world.

The second problem is intellectual. In the West, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, acting upon the space that had always existed, at least potentially, in Christianity between church and state, liberated individual men to think for themselves, and thus set in motion an unprecedented and still unstoppable material advancement. Islam, with no separate, secular sphere where inquiry could flourish free from the claims of religion, if only for technical purposes, was hopelessly left behind: as, several centuries later, it still is.

The indivisibility of any aspect of life from any other in Islam is a source of strength, but also of fragility and weakness, for individuals as well as for polities. Where all conduct, all custom, has a religious sanction and justification, any change is a threat to the whole system of belief. Certainty that their way of life is the right one thus coexists with fear that the whole edifice—intellectual and political—will come tumbling down if it is tampered with in any way. Intransigence is a defense against doubt and makes living on terms of true equality with others who do not share the creed impossible.

Not coincidentally, the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death: apostates are regarded as far worse than infidels, and punished far more rigorously. In every Islamic society, and indeed among Britain’s Muslim immigrants, there are people who take this idea quite literally, as their rage against Salman Rushdie testified.

The Islamic doctrine of apostasy is hardly favorable to free inquiry or frank discussion, to say the least, and surely it explains why no Muslim, or former Muslim, in an Islamic society would dare to suggest that the Qu’ran was not divinely dictated through the mouth of the Prophet but rather was a compilation of a charismatic man’s words made many years after his death, and incorporating, with no very great originality, Judaic, Christian, and Zoroastrian elements. In my experience, devout Muslims expect and demand a freedom to criticize, often with perspicacity, the doctrines and customs of others, while demanding an exaggerated degree of respect and freedom from criticism for their own doctrines and customs. I recall, for example, staying with a Pakistani Muslim in East Africa, a very decent and devout man, who nevertheless spent several evenings with me deriding the absurdities of Christianity: the paradoxes of the Trinity, the impossibility of Resurrection, and so forth. Though no Christian myself, had I replied in kind, alluding to the pagan absurdities of the pilgrimage to Mecca, or to the gross, ignorant, and primitive superstitions of the Prophet with regard to jinn, I doubt that our friendship would have lasted long.

The unassailable status of the Qu’ran in Islamic education, thought, and society is ultimately Islam’s greatest disadvantage in the modern world. Such unassailability does not debar a society from great artistic achievement or charms of its own: great and marvelous civilizations have flourished without the slightest intellectual freedom. I myself prefer a souk to a supermarket any day, as a more human, if less economically efficient, institution. But until Muslims (or former Muslims, as they would then be) are free in their own countries to denounce the Qu’ran as an inferior hodgepodge of contradictory injunctions, without intellectual unity (whether it is so or not)—until they are free to say with Carlyle that the Qu’ran is “a wearisome confused jumble” with “endless iterations, longwindedness, entanglement”—until they are free to remake and modernize the Qu’ran by creative interpretation, they will have to reconcile themselves to being, if not helots, at least in the rearguard of humanity, as far as power and technical advance are concerned.

...And the problem is that so many Muslims want both stagnation and power: they want a return to the perfection of the seventh century and to dominate the twenty-first, as they believe is the birthright of their doctrine, the last testament of God to man. If they were content to exist in a seventh-century backwater, secure in a quietist philosophy, there would be no problem for them or us; their problem, and ours, is that they want the power that free inquiry confers, without either the free inquiry or the philosophy and institutions that guarantee that free inquiry. They are faced with a dilemma: either they abandon their cherished religion, or they remain forever in the rear of human technical advance. Neither alternative is very appealing; and the tension between their desire for power and success in the modern world on the one hand, and their desire not to abandon their religion on the other, is resolvable for some only by exploding themselves as bombs.

People grow angry when faced with an intractable dilemma; they lash out...

...But the anger of Muslims, their demand that their sensibilities should be accorded a more than normal respect, is a sign not of the strength but of the weakness—or rather, the brittleness—of Islam in the modern world, the desperation its adherents feel that it could so easily fall to pieces...


29 posted on 04/03/2006 11:35:35 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: KDD; Lando Lincoln; quidnunc; .cnI redruM; Valin; King Prout; SJackson; dennisw; monkeyshine; ...
Theodore Dalrymple:

...the problem is that so many Muslims want both stagnation and power: they want a return to the perfection of the seventh century and to dominate the twenty-first, as they believe is the birthright of their doctrine, the last testament of God to man. If they were content to exist in a seventh-century backwater, secure in a quietist philosophy, there would be no problem for them or us; their problem, and ours, is that they want the power that free inquiry confers, without either the free inquiry or the philosophy and institutions that guarantee that free inquiry.


Theodore Dalrymple Nailed It !  

Read the complete article or an excerpt in the post 29. Don't miss the excellent commentary by  caspera in the post 23

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

30 posted on 04/03/2006 11:43:05 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GBoettner

Immediately. No point in prolonging the inevitable.

Out of 6 billion people in the world, 1 billion are Muslims. Apparently a large percentage of that 1 billion are crazy enough to think they can dominate the rest of us and return their "golden age" of Islam Empire, and would love to use nuclear weapons on us.

Let's say it's only 10 percent crazies out of 1 billion Muslims (though I fear it's much more). That's still a lot of Islamofascists with a thirst for fission.

These folks are crazier than the Nazis or Fascist Japan.

Such crazy people must NEVER be permitted to get their hands on nukes --- which they are desperately working to do.


31 posted on 04/03/2006 5:53:05 PM PDT by griffmorpho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Outstanding.


32 posted on 04/03/2006 6:26:56 PM PDT by quesney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: Thanx A. Lott
Thanks a lot --- for pointing out the excellent website "Prophet of Doom" - by Craig Winn.

One of the most damaging effects of political correctness & multiculturalism is the refusal by many people, including President Bush, to name the enemy of reason, democracy and individual rights --- Islam.

It's as if the Allies went through WWII without ever once mentioning the Nazis or the Fascists of Italy & Japan. Or the Cold War without saying the word "communism". Absolutely ridiculous.

I will definitely recommend "Prophet of Doom" to others.
34 posted on 04/05/2006 6:25:10 AM PDT by griffmorpho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: griffmorpho

The crazies already have the Bomb. Pakistan set one off in the late 1990s. Pakistan is far less stable many another ME nation tottering on the brink.


35 posted on 04/09/2006 4:24:01 PM PDT by attiladhun2 (evolution has both deified and degraded humanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Bump.


36 posted on 05/05/2006 6:04:20 AM PDT by SuperSonic (Bush "Lied", People Dyed.....their fingers Purple.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tkathy
Their death rattle is mighty loud.

My first thought as well.

37 posted on 05/05/2006 6:18:22 AM PDT by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: caspera

GREAT points!


38 posted on 05/05/2006 6:22:07 AM PDT by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Fine remarks by you. This thread is from a Dalrymple essay of two years ago. His more recent thinking is here

I went to "here" and didn't find any links to anything specifically regarding Islam. Little came up however in one link or another. Is there anything in specific that he's written in the meantime that is significantly different than the above?

39 posted on 05/05/2006 6:23:20 AM PDT by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: KDD

bump to read later


40 posted on 05/05/2006 6:26:01 AM PDT by EternalHope (Boycott everything French forever. Including their vassal nations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Choose Ye This Day

If you find one, please ping me.

He's pretty amazing.


41 posted on 05/05/2006 6:28:29 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Thanks for posting. Am working through now.


42 posted on 10/20/2006 4:21:58 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KDD
Here, for once, are instances of unadulterated female victimhood, yet the silence of the feminists is deafening. Where two pieties—feminism and multiculturalism—come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence.

Rank hypocrisy. Why is it so easy to drive leftists into complete moral paralysis? If it is really this easy, liberal domination in America means dark days for liberty.

43 posted on 10/20/2006 4:31:55 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson