Decisions-Decisions-Which Rulebook to Follow.......

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Oct 13, 2010 at 19:28

As we see the escalation of engagement of divergent philosophies and consorting ideologies and have a good sense of where they are heading, it will be quite unlikely any (save one) will realize a fulfillment of a complete assimilation to the precepts of each, for there are no corroborating elements to be found from one to another them that will suffer a full dissection of a competing ideology. In other words, tolerance of competing ideologies is limited by the deficiencies of humanity's lack of understanding by human logic and /or reasoning.

There is fear in what is not understood. We can tell that Islam has been regaining a lost following in these modern times, for the ancient activities of Islam presented in history of the Muslim conquering vast territories of the Middle and Far East are legend, and the presence of Islam in that part of the world remains intransigent in the tenets of their beliefs for hundreds of years. Only in the constant struggles of a more determined older western form of society was the 'empire of Islam' contained to those parts of the original conquests. But in these modern times, the fear of Muslim conquest remains in the vein of the intransigence found in the fundamentalists' ideology. It is fear that allows the inherent belligerent form of any ideology to find ways to impose upon any society that cannot resist a strength of mind such as that found in Islam; and that gives Islamists an edge.

The question has been asked and now asked again, if the Muslim ideology is not compatible with Western societal mores, and in the face of a resurgent mentality that Islam must eventually replace all competing ideologies, what tact must Western societies take to survive the Islamic resurgence and remain socially vital in a world that would collapse under the weight of the conflict? (Beware-it is a trick question).

The so-called 'Rushdie Rules' are part of a campaign of psychological warfare, initiated against a socially weakened Western culture, which has been undergoing a transformation of values that has become so complicated by liberal theosophical and philosophical renderings of social issues, that none who engage in them can come to a common understanding, thereby having no inner strength to deal with any challenges to the core values. The core values are lost to a liberal rendering of humanist relativism, so there should be no misunderstanding of why Islam can achieve what Muslim fundamentalists claim they want to do.

Now it has been suggested that the world can embrace Islam if the more determined members of the fundamentalist Islamists factions that have threatened the peace and security of every sector of the globe would soften their position and engage in a more tolerant practice of their belief system, but why should they. They have the courage of their convictions (something that seems lost in many western societies), and have nowhere else to engage the energies of those convictions if they are somehow convinced they should moderate their stance. Furthermore, in their determination, they can no longer be marginalized by merely trying to consign them to the radical fringe. Even if one were to say that only one percent of the billion plus practicing Muslims were involved in promoting Islam by force, that is more than many standing armies have in their ranks. In that, they only lack in means.

Now here is a lesson in persuasion; that fundamentalist Islamists have resorted to force and threat of force in order to promote their ideology. In the parallel ranks of purportedly non-violent Muslims, we see a minimalist voice of concern as the drum roll of the determined Muslim rank and file who are advancing towards a shari'a conclusion to things do so with apparently little in the way to stop them. Little do the 'moderate' Muslims seem to realize they are targets as well for their apostasy; or do they wait for the conclusion to be accomplished by the others? That remains to be seen.

Now it has been asserted elsewhere in this post that if shari'a were to be 'moderated,' that if the parts considered an affront to the mores of western societies were eliminated and could therefore be assimilated into western societies, then there can be tolerance. But the fundamentalist Muslim will insist that western cultures do the opposite; to assimilate western society into the standing tenets of shari'a, for it would be less complicated. Further, as observed in the exchange, it is believed by the fundamentalist Muslim that the tenets of Islam are superior by sacred assertion and cannot be compromised as they assume western societal mores are.

So it must thereof be concluded that from a fundamentalist Muslim's perspective, there can be only one outcome, and that is what they all strive for, to the very last one of them. They are following their rulebook: which rulebook do the western societies think they need to follow if they do not wish to learn Arabic?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".