August 16, 2006
NYC Letter: The Caliphate, It's Gonna Be Great!
If you are new to the world, you will soon be alerted by a jihadist in your theater of existence to your first obligation, the recitation of the Shahada. All religions proselytize themselves, but Islam has a compelling proposition: Convert or be enslaved or be killed, all done lawfully according to Islamic scriptural and case law, the Sharia, which rather puts the fix in for Islam.
Once you are a fully fledged Muslim the rest is easy. A gaggle of religious deep-thinkers will instruct you in the minutiae of daily living. Please be mindful. The gaggle is a very serious crew and failings and trespasses may be judged with finality.
For example, the shepherd who neglects the necessities of modesty or the greengrocer who displays salacious produce.
[Hat tip: Hervé]
Yes, well, once everyone you know is a Muslim co-religious or a slave or murdered, it will be time for the caliphate, the one-world Islamic government.
Last year Osama Saeed, spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain, made the case for the caliphate over at the Guardian:
THE RETURN OF THE CALIPHATE
There Is No Reason Why The West Should Set Its Face
Against The Vision Of A Reunited Islamic World
November 1, 2005 (Guardian) - The institution they [scil., Western leaders] attack is the idea of a united political leadership of the Muslim world, which was destroyed in 1924 after about 1,350 years. Following the death of the Prophet Muhammad, caliphs were appointed to the leadership of the Muslims. In the ensuing centuries, the centre and nature of this power moved around, resting in Istanbul at the time of its destruction.In its dynamic period, the Islamic caliphate was at the heart of a great civilisation, leading the world in science, philosophy, law, maths and astronomy.
History's assessment of the various caliphates -- contrary to Mr. Saeed's suggestion, the caliphate was not a continuing nor uniform institution -- is not as glowing as Mr. Saeed's. Caliphates certainly threatened the world, but it is highly debatable whether the closed Islamic society of the caliphates ever "led the world". Other than its arts and the appurtenances of its religion, the Islamic world has produced little that is original to it. It has borrowed, preserved, and stolen much from the civilizations it has sought to destroy. It is these borrowings, preservations, and thefts that constitute the greater part of Mr. Saeed's claim of Islamic world leadership.
But what about the issue of sharia? ... The aim of Islamic law, contrary to popular belief, is not punishment by death or amputation of body parts. It is to create a peaceful and just society, with Islamic scholars over centuries citing its core aims: the freedom to practise religion; protection of life; safeguarding intellect; maintaining lineage and individual rights. This could be the basis for an Islamic bill of rights.These principles don't seem dramatic and far-flung, or even dissimilar to those in the west, so Bush, Blair and Clarke should explain why they oppose them so vehemently.
If only Islam were as Mr. Saeed would have us believe. We would qualify Mr. Saeed's Islamic principles thusly: The freedom to practice religion is exclusive to the practice of Islam. Paying for the practice of your non-Muslim religion (scil., jizya, جزْية) is hardly freedom. The protection of life is an exclusive to the good Muslim. Safeguarding the intellect pertains to the intellect tightly hedged by Islam. Maintaining lineage rights reduces women, Muslim and kaffir both, to chattel. Maintaining individual rights is again exclusive to the good Muslim who has surrendered these rights to Islam.
Mr. Bush & co. oppose these Islamic principles for the same reason we, and perhaps you, do: We are not Muslim and have no plans to become Muslim.
[The stances of Bush, Blair, and Charles Clarke, then British home secretary] belies their claim that they differentiate between al-Qaida and Islam as a religion, giving added credence to those who believe they are conducting a war against Islam itself, not just terror. In their meddling in other people's affairs they have forgotten it is for people themselves to decide how they are governed.The lack of legitimate [Islamic] leadership, coupled with a sense of humiliation, has led to widespread political instability in the Muslim world with its consequences for the wider world. The naked self-interest of divide and rule has backfired.
We would argue that it is not Mr. Bush & co. who have confused Al-Qaida and Islam, but Islam that has made an accommodation for terrorism in its theology. When terrorists constantly announce themselves as Muslims in the employ of Allah and do their evil with religious sanction, well, we are not stupid. We can make the connection. When Islam's response to the evil done in its name is to plead historical defeats and political humilation at the hands of the West, you are no longer dealing with a religion. You are confronting a pissed and incapable political body.
The vision of any kind of new caliphate, shared by Muslims worldwide, is a distant one. ... But it is a vision that is needed, and one that should actually be supported by the US and Britain if they are sincere about the development of the Muslim world. The revival of a strong Muslim civilisation would be for the betterment of the whole world. ... A restored caliphate is entirely compatible with democratically accountable institutions.
One need look no further than Iran for a model of Mr. Saeed's democratically accountable caliphate.
The Islamic caliphate -- it's gonna be great! And according to Mr. Saeed, you'll hardly notice the difference.
If you're a Muslim.
Posted by Damian at August 16, 2006 07:30 PMI can't wait for public stonings and religious police.
Posted by: moi at August 16, 2006 11:15 PMSalacious produce? No wonder I always get turned on in that section of the supermarket (I had thought it was that cute stock girl).
Posted by: Jay at August 17, 2006 05:35 PMWell, part of Europe had glimpse of a similar heaven-on-earth... the East, namely. Only the Commies weren't as decided in enforcing their own version of Sharia, so their Heaven was somehow faulty... could this be the reason Commies went down the history chute?
Posted by: Quetzal at August 17, 2006 10:22 PMI have a question for y'all.
If a european country that possesses nukes and ICBMs appears likely to succumb to conquest by islam, either passivly or by assualt, what do you see as the likely action to be taken by the US?
Posted by: Grimmy at August 17, 2006 10:43 PMMr. Grimmy,
By assualt is the easy answer, beat them back.
Passively is the hard answer. Western democracies have no provisions in law to stop a particular group from procreating itself into a dominant political force. And given even the barest nod to democratic ideals, such a provision could never be allowed. These are the rules of the game.
European democracies can restrict entry to their countries. But this is too little too late now. Low-birth aboriginals are already marked for extinction -- this is not a linear extrapolation, it is a potent mix of the weight of numbers and time.
There is nothing to be done about Islamic fecundity that would not do violence to democratic principles.
The frightening thing about Europe is that though it is old it has never been perdurably stable. The past 65 years is perhaps the longest stint of relative stability in a history of thousands of years. And its populaces have been seduced by "strong man" solutions. Hitler came to power legally. As did Mussolini. As did Philippe Pétain. Then there are those who simply stepped up: Lenin, Stalin, Miguel Primo de Rivera, Ahmet Bej Zogu, Józef Piłsudski, Antanas Smetona, António de Oliveira Salazar, Engelbert Dollfuss, Konstantin Päts, Kārlis Ulmanis, Ioannis Metaxas, Francisco Franco, Jozef Tiso, Ion Antonescu, Ante Pavelić, Szálasi Ferenc, to name a few.
M. Le Pen in France has opportunity and only wants his break to become France's strong man. And then there'll be a holy mess.
Western democracy has worked across a broad mix of states because of a commonly shared foundation in Judeo-Christian traditions. There simply may be no defense against Islam's ascendency other than exposing its limited utility as a social model and its incompatibility with basic rights and freedoms enjoyed in the West.
DGB
Posted by: Damian Bennett at August 18, 2006 12:52 AM"There is nothing to be done about Islamic fecundity that would not do violence to democratic principles."
I disagree with you here. Principles are what guide us but should never prevent us from acting in a manner to ensure our survival. But, I'm not a "thinker". All my training and inclination has been in the field of Soldeir and I intended this as a question more military than philosophical. I do apologise for the lack of clarity on my part.
So, the question put, hopefully, more clearly:
If it becomes evident that France is in eminent danger of falling to the new caliphate, and with France, so goes her nukes, ICBMs, and targeting systems, do you believe the US will have the will and ability to pre-empt? Or do you believe that the US will sit by and "hope for the best"?
Posted by: Grimmy at August 18, 2006 01:31 AMsomeday, I will learn to spell. If I knew there'd be this innernet thingy when I was a kid, I'd have paid much better attention in grammar classes, honest.
Soldeir, of course was meant to look more like Soldier. Any other misspellings, which I assume are rife, didnt jump out as bright so will remain .
PS. These postings are not intended as trolls or to be insulting or as threats. I am curious as to whether such a senario has been considered by y'all.
Posted by: Grimmy at August 18, 2006 01:35 AMMr. Grimmy,
Perhaps it is not so difficult to answer your question.
Pakistan, an Islamic nation, went nuclear on May 28, 1998 with technology and assistance from China. Iran, an Islamic nation, will go nuclear soon with technology and assistance from Pakistan and North Korea.
The West sits around shaking its head.
Iraq, a secular Islamic state, was going nuclear with technology and assistance from France. Israel unilaterally (with a quiet assist from the CIA) destroyed the Iraqi operation on June 7, 1981. The United States went on to publicly condemn the raid and voted for UNSCR 487 condemning Israel. Of course, UNSCRs are like farting for attention -- the trick works but it is an embarrassment nonetheless.
We think it a safe bet that a future Islamic France will safely wave her nuclear paddle much like today's France. It is hard to imagine radical Islamites coming to power in France, but then again, the unthinkable is always just around the corner with Islamism.
DGB
Damian:
Interesting analysis sir. Do you think that maybe the constraints of the old cold war ie possible nuke exchange with a still strong USSR, might have had some impact on the US response to Pakistan's acquisition of nukes?
Another issue to consider is the range to targets and the ability to accurately target. It would be assumed, I believe that the French systems would be superior to those of Pakistan or even newly developed Iranian issue, would that not be a consideration in whether or not to remove such a potential threat from an overtly hostile entity as an islamic France would be?
If I am becoming a bore with these questions, please say so and I'll cease.
I am just wondering though, if the peoples of Europe in general have really thought through just what might happen if islamic or seriously islamic friendly governments were to take power in their countries?
Posted by: Grimmy at August 18, 2006 03:45 AMMr. Grimmy,
The cold war is considered to have ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was well in advance of Pakistan going nuclear. Iran and Iraq and North Korea have all not too secretly pursued nuclear weapons programs since then.
The West's response has been to wring its hands and dash off the occasional valentine.
Nuclear precision is actually a mitigating factor. Unpredictable "feeling lucky" targeting is the greater danger. Missiles lobbed in the general direction of a target are harder to defend against than missiles accurately targeted. For example, the missile defense of, say, Paris (105.398 km²) is a doable proposition, the defense of the Île-de-France (12,011 km²) is vastly tougher proposition, and the defense of the whole of the Métropole(551,695 km²) is beyond the French imagination and resources. Yet who knows where a Paris-bound Iranian missle might land? Maybe Paris. Maybe Italy.
Have Europeans given this much thought? Old Europe thinks and cowers. New Europe thinks and scrambles to get tucked under the protection of NATO, that is, the United States.
However, consider this. Islamites prefer "direct action" (i.e., terrorism) to politics on the hustings (i.e., getting voted into office). If the future leaders of France are Islamic, they will most likely come to power by the ballot not the bullet. As such they will be more Republican than Islamite and none to likely to take marching orders from Tehran or Riyadh. Will an Islamic France be pro-Western? Well, today's France is hardly that.
DGB
Posted by: Damian Bennett at August 18, 2006 10:44 AMPretty sure I read elsewhere france no longer has land based nukes, they're all on subs now. The day Muslims take over france, I'd suspect the french subs will defect to the US. Of course they'd still have the technology to rebuild.
Pakistan built it's bomb for one particular reason - India. Iran on the other hand has a different reason - somebody in the west (likely Israel but not necessarily, france for example would be a much safer target).
Posted by: Jay at August 18, 2006 06:17 PMCan't stop them from reproducing? But, you can stop paying them to reproduce in your country, keep more from coming in, and kick out those that offer the least trouble.
Besides about four nuclear capable subs, France still has tactical nukes and bombs deliverable by aircraft.
Posted by: interventor at August 18, 2006 07:15 PMDamian: I believe you are confusing the dates that the world was forced to recognize that Pakistan had "gone nuclear" with the probable date of actual acquisition. Here's some info, I cant actually verify any of it as gospel, but it seems to jive with what I remember being the basic assumptions in the early to mid 80's.
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja92albright
I do know that as a young enlisted Marine, with no special access to deep secrets, it was accepted as probable that the Pakistan's had a deliverable nuke by the mid -80s.
Also, I do not believe there is much to support the concept of a more Republicanism form of islam becoming ascendant through either peaceful or forced means in France or elsewhere.
The current ascendancy of the most radicalized forms of islamism point more to old lands that are re-conquered being put under the more harsh versions of shariah.
I also tend to question any potential for technical and/or strategic warfare personnel of France to flee toward the US in such circumstances. The general French population seems much more content in supporting the islamists in this war, rather than the US and her allies. Matter of fact, in many ways, the French are the heaviest weapon the islamists have been able to deploy, due to the French holding a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and the elected government of France's endless willingness to overtly engage in any action that is expressly designed to harm or damage the US or to aid those fighting against the US.
In many ways, the French have made themselves to be the enemy most difficult to counter.
Posted by: Grimmy at August 18, 2006 08:27 PMThere is always the Mer Al Kabir option!
Posted by: interventor at August 19, 2006 02:13 AMMr. Grimmy,
We are aware that nuclear acquisition antecedes a demonstrated nuclear capability. We are addressing your conjecture that American policy toward Pakistan's nuclear capability was determined by the Cold War.
First, any country with a nuclear energy program is understood to have a de facto nuclear weapons program. They are indistinguishable except in their intended ends. Second, the dynamic on the Indian sub-continent was one of
"an undeclared mutual nuclear capability without the visible deployment of ballistic missiles on both sides. This state of ambiguity had helped to preserve military equilibrium in the region resulting in 27 years of continuous peace in South Asia."Third, the 1998 nuclear testings ended this ambiguity, superceding your informed scuttlebut with certain knowledge (the established capability). American policy had been to abide the ambiguity to maintain defense parity between India and Pakistan. The established capability changed the sub-continent and international dynamics. Fourth, unlike Iran and DPRK (ratified 1985; withdrawn 2003), neither India nor Pakistan have ever been signatories to the NPO and had a free hand in developing their programs.
In all of this the Cold War provides context -- as it did to everything between 1945-1991 -- but not the policy dynamic.
Regarding France. We appear to agree that an Islamic France is in the offing. Beyond that, it is improbable that radical Islamism will come to power via the ballot in France (though it was denied a ballot victory in Algeria). It is also highly improblable that radical Islam will come to power by force. It is simply not the nature of the beast. Look to the PNA to see how incapable a re-tooled terrorist organization (scil., PLO) governs. Terrorist groups do not, cannot, maintain a bureaucracy as this (1) makes them large targets, (2) makes them accountable through processions of documents and records, (3) and gums up "direct action" (scil., terrorism). So when a terrorist group tries to transform itself into a government it fails for lack of an administrative infrastructure, a lack of bureaucratic talent. Well, it also fails because terrorists make poor parliamentarians, it being unnatural to their calling. To think that al-Qaida or its public-serving agents could master the super-bureaucracy that is France, dear boy, that is a vision worthy of Monty Python.
As for French attitudes toward America -- and our reciprocation -- come visit us over here for more of that.
DGB
Posted by: Damian Bennett at August 19, 2006 10:22 AMIslamic fascism, like fascism doesn't can be instituted in settled nations, see Iran and the developing Hezbollah in Lebanon. State sponsored terror is the true enemy. Hezbollah supported by Iran and Syria, Hamas by the PLO, and Al Queda by Iran, Saudi, and Afghanistan (previously.
Posted by: interventor at August 19, 2006 10:02 PMI'll concede your point regarding the time-line of Pakistan's acquisition of nukes and the general attitude of US policy makers at the time. I'm not knowledgeable enough to argue those points, nor is it my intention to argue at all.
Also, I hope I did not come across as hoping that France either falls to islamism or that such a thing would result in the US deciding to "neutralize" the possibility of the current French arsenal being deployed against us or an ally.
I am simply curious as to whether or not the scenario had been considered by those who'd suffer most if it ever came to pass.
Regarding how a currently democratic and civilized nation might fall or be brought under the sway of this current resurgence of islamism, I would like to caution against an overly codified view of cause and effect.
In this war, as it evolves each nation/state currently under pressure may be brought down by mass internal uprisings much like the original French Revolution. Remember how radically different the government was that came from that, than what had been in place prior and that was all done by natives born.
Or, maybe a nation/state will be brought down after a mass depopulation, such as what might occur after a biological wmd event.
Or, it might be due to an organized military campaign. This war is very nearly all encompassing and wont be over any time soon so the potential for force/threat evolution is still an unknown.
One thing I would argue as certain though. If a civilized western nation/state is brought under the rule of islamists, by what ever means, the resulting government and legal system will have nothing at all in common with any kind of democracy.
Anyway I do not intend to be expressing "anti-Frenchism" here. I'll admit openly and honestly to possessing such feelings and beliefs, but I do understand that this is not the place nor are you deserving of such expressions. So, any that comes through is accidental and unintended but I'll own up to it if you see it as such and do sincerely apologize.
Posted by: Grimmy at August 20, 2006 05:07 AMMr. Grimmy,
We agree with much of what you hold in theory, but we have a less dramatic view of history on the move.
Here are the broad tenets of our outlook: First, history appears as a series of big events, but the truth of history is that tomorrow will most probably be very much like today. Second, large historical forces tend to fail over time. If Islam supplants the large historical force of Christianity, it is because Christians did not tend their watchfires. There is nothing to suggest that Islam ascendant won't fold. Historically it already has several times. Third, prosperity usually trumps ideology. A conquering force tends to keep in place what profits the commonweal, refitting it to ideology -- or refitting ideology to it.
However, we are braced for historical exceptionalism upsetting all our pretty notions.
We have looked into the enemy, his thought, his strengths, his attractions and we are not much impressed, which is not to say we do not believe in his outsized threat. The most important weapon in the terrorist's arsenal is luck. It is also the most unreliable, the most easily spent, and hardest to come by. We do not believe that Islamism possesses sufficient luck to prevail against a resolute West -- or since the West seems so wobbly, a resolute America and a small circle of like-spirited allies. When terrorist cells are busted, contrary to the prepared public propaganda, internal terrorist communications are found to be dispirited and pessimistic about their prospects. If Islamism prevails it will be because the West has offered its neck.
The question is what is the West willing to do, willing to endure, to survive culturally intact?
As for France, we do not wish her the comeuppance she deserves, but she is a train wreck in the making.
DGB
Posted by: Damian Bennett at August 20, 2006 04:16 PM
