Thou Shalt Meddle
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes an informative and important piece in the Wall Street Journal regarding the "informal fatwa" against South Park Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Besides filling in a few details you might have missed -- like the fact that Zachary Chesser/Abu Al-Amrikee published the home addresses of the men he "predicted" would "probably end up" like Theo Van Gogh -- Hirsi Ali explains why this threat should be taken seriously and how it should be countered.
My own integration of what I know about the nature of religion in general and Islam in particular with the past behavior of Moslem fanatics had already raised my hackles. Nevertheless, Hirsi Ali definitely improved my knowledge of the enemy and the threat it represents with this column:
There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture--unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims--called "commanding right and forbidding wrong." It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.Regarding the murder of Theo Van Gogh, I noted years ago that, "[f]or the religious fanatic, opinions that differ from his will shake his confidence ... as they [challenge the] very foundations of his own worldview." But, in case this -- and the cognitive dissonance of seeing the "evil" West prosper -- aren't enough to provoke a murderous rage, Mohammed (pictured) has made sure to tip the balance in this direction with a combination of authority and unearned guilt.
By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are aminority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard's home in January carrying an axe and a knife.
I did not know this, but it doesn't really surprise me coming from what I long ago concluded to be, "the ideology most nearly the opposite to that which man needs to live a proper and fulfilling life."
Just having to think about things like this makes me want to bathe, but if knowledge of an enemy can be unpleasant, its reward is that it illuminates a means to fight back. Hirsi Ali suggests ways to supplement (replace absent?) government protection of freedom of speech and reminds us that defiance is the order of the day. All involve the strategic use of solidarity against the threat.
Another idea is to do stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible. These stories do not have to be negative or insulting [How can they be otherwise? --ed], they just need to spread the risk. The aim is to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with.One way or the other, we will come out of this clash with barbarism as a nation of laws. Whether these are secular, objectively-determined laws designed to protect our rights and thereby help us live -- or they are the dictates of a long-dead barbarian -- is up to us.
Another important advantage of such a campaign is to accustom Muslims to the kind of treatment that the followers of other religions have long been used to. After the "South Park" episode in question there was no threatening response from Buddhists, Christians and Jews--to say nothing of Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand fans--all of whom had far more reason to be offended than Muslims.
-- CAV
Updates
4-29-10: Added missing hyperlink.
5 comments:
>the fact that Zachary Chesser/Abu Al-Amrikee published the home addresses of the men he "predicted" would "probably end up" like Theo Van Gogh
I think such statements should be regarded by law enforcement as the same as a specific threat, as should the fatwas of lunatic clerics when they apply to a specific person or could reasonably be interpreted as such.
It's not advocacy of an idea (i.e. an opinion expressed in principle -- which is bad enough), it's advocacy of violence against a specific person. Anyone who materially aids such violence is an accessory.
Furthermore, if among Islamic fundamentalists it is regarded as an imperative to enforce scripture; this is effectively a standing army of thugs awaiting orders.
I see no justification for such statements under a legitimate interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Its purpose is to protect freedom, not endanger it.
"I think such statements should be regarded by law enforcement as the same as a specific threat, as should the fatwas of lunatic clerics when they apply to a specific person or could reasonably be interpreted as such."
I completely agree, especially now that I know about this cute little injunction.
Oops! Mental wires crossed here.
To be clear: Publishing an address in such a context cannot be interpreted in any reasonable way other than as a threat.
But I now think that even without the addresses, what al-Amrikee said is a threat, given the admonition to dole out Koranic punishment.
Furthermore, if among Islamic fundamentalists it is regarded as an imperative to enforce scripture; this is effectively a standing army of thugs awaiting orders.
Wouldn't this suggest very restrictive immigration rules applying to Muslims? Also, wouldn't it suggest that the practice of Islam be placed under really strict scrutiny? Dr. John Lewis has written about the way in which America prohibited political Shintoism in Japan. I think the same thing should be done for Islam here.
But this raises an issue for me that I don't have an answer for. Anti-Jihad conservatives stress as their number one proposal to fight this war that we should prohibit Muslim immigration. They say that if there were no Muslims in the West we would not have these problems and we would have downtown Manhattan to boot.
If you know that there are going to be significant numbers of Islamic literalists that will take "commanding right and forbidding wrong" seriously, then why let any of these people in the country? They are all potential zombie warriors. That's their argument.
If you reply that anti-Muslim immigration laws would violate individual rights their response is "see, that's why libertarianism is a suicide pact." Put aside here that O'ists are not libertarians, I don't have an answer for them. So long as Muslims are among us we are going to get more Fort Hood massacres and more fatwas.
Perhaps the answer really is to quarantine the Islamic Middle East and separate it from non-Muslim humanity. Islam is just not compatible with the rest of the world.
"Wouldn't this suggest very restrictive immigration rules applying to Muslims?"
Only for Moslem countries at war with us. Had we a rational foreign policy, that could be all of them, or they might have been pacified by now.
Also, don't let the pinheads from the racialist right fool you. Open immigration is NEITHER open borders NOR open citizenship for all who show up.
"Also, wouldn't it suggest that the practice of Islam be placed under really strict scrutiny?"
Yes. Today, law enforcement are frightened off by multiculturalists who squeal, "Profiling!" But in a more reational world, if some idiot like Chesser makes threats, and he's an avowed Islamic fundamentalist, the police would rightly take that into consideration.
"Dr. John Lewis has written about the way in which America prohibited political Shintoism in Japan. I think the same thing should be done for Islam here."
It's called "separation of church and state."
"But this raises an issue for me that I don't have an answer for. Anti-Jihad conservatives stress as their number one proposal to fight this war that we should prohibit Muslim immigration. They say that if there were no Muslims in the West we would not have these problems..."
See above.
"If you know that there are going to be significant numbers of Islamic literalists that will take "commanding right and forbidding wrong" seriously, then why let any of these people in the country? They are all potential zombie warriors. That's their argument."
If we waged actual wars, repealed criminal-coddling and multiculturalist laws, enforced the legitimate laws we had, and weren't afraid to "profile" people who practically tell us they're criminals, we would not have any of these problems.
And don't forget: Chesser is an American convert to Islam. What do these pinheads say to that? Outlaw Islam?
What will they outlaw next? And isn't it funny that they don't see how similar they are, in fact, to the islamists?
This answers the rest of your comment, so I'll stop here, except to note that a rational foreign policy would have so weakened and terrified the Middle East by now that wewouldn't have this problem.
These "anti-jihad" conservatives do not understand how to properly protect individual rights, so, domestically, they see "libertarians" as weak based on what they imagine "us" to be like, and they don't see how to formulate a proper foreign OR how one would ameliorate the situation at home in more ways than just cutting the kneew out from under terrorists.
Post a Comment