Monday, December 03, 2007

Izlam

One of the most striking things about To Kill A Mockingbird is the image the reader gets of completely powerless black people having their fate decided by white folks. A young black man is accused of rape by a white woman, arrested by white police, put in a white-run jail house. A white judge appoints a white lawyer to represent him against the white prosecutor. Some of these people are good-hearted and unhappy with this state of affairs, but that's what it was like.

I was reminded of this by the recent Sudanese arrest and imprisonment of a schoolteacher who allowed children to name a teddy bear 'Mohammed'. A Muslim regime imprisoned a non-Muslim and it took two Muslim peers, Baroness Warsi and Lord Ahmed, to negotiate her release. Why did the negotiators have to be Muslims?

The answer is simple: Islam is a fundamentally supremacist system of thought and the pattern we saw in Sudan, of a submissive and powerless non-Muslim having her fate decided by Muslims, is deeply entrenched in Islamic tradition. The word has been abused so profoundly, including by me in the past, that I have made a conscious effort to stop using it, but the schoolteacher in this case found herself in the position of a Dhimmi (emphasis added):

The term connotes an obligation of the state to protect the individual, including the individual's life, property, and freedom of religion and worship, and exclude them from the payment of zakat only paid by muslims; in exchange for "subservience and loyalty to the Muslim order", and a poll tax known as the jizya.
This apparent contract is nothing of the kind. It exchanges one tax for another (one that is to be collected in a way that is deliberately humiliating for the non-Muslim), but as for the rest the extension of the rule of law to cover non-Muslims is not a concession, it's a given for any decent and civilised society. All we're left with is the imposition, by force, on the non-Muslim of "subservience and loyalty".

It is quite conceivable that politicians including the two Muslim peers are being diplomatic until the teacher, and they, are safely out of Sudan. But somehow I doubt it. I strongly doubt anyone will publicly criticise the requirement that the negotiators be Muslim. It would have been easier for a black advocate to go to South Africa during apartheid than for a non-Muslim to sway the Islamist rulers of Sudan.

Eight and a half centuries ago the crusades brought the violent, misogynistic, priest-ridden culture of Europe into contact with the Islamic world, and the result was a renaissance. The Egyptian blogger Nah·det Masr wishes for a renaissance in Egypt today. In a recent post, he suggested a new term: Izlamist:
It's not a typo; the new term is the best description of people who are trying to impose their religious point of view, jump to power, and impose their strict interpretations and Shariy'a law on the rest of us who don't subscribe to the same ideas or even don't belong to the same religion.

The new term comes from Izlam إظلام which means loosely imposing darkness
The influence of Islam on the West today is almost wholly regressive, the opposite of renaissance. There are a number of reasons for this, and they cannot all be lain at the feet of Muslims themselves. Successive British governments followed the example of Michael Howard in recognising as representative only Izlamic extremists. Indeed, it is vital that we draw a distinction between Islam and Muslims, most of whom make the sorts of contributions everyone else does, and thereby help enrich us all. But regrettably their traditions and countries of origin are dragging us back into the darkness, even though most of them do not wish this to happen.

I recommend my Egyptian friend to you all, and commend his new term. I shall adopt it myself from now on. It even contains, in the unexpected letter 'z', an appropriate visual echo of the word 'Nazi'.

Some of the most active Izlamists in Britain today are the Deobandis of Tablighi Jamaat. A struggle in East London rages at the moment over their application to build a 'Mega Mosque' - a visible symbol of supremacism that is intended to dominate the site of the forthcoming Olympics and to send out a message of Izlamist triumphalism to the entire world.

The campaign against these disgusting and disgraceful proposals - the moral equivalent of erecting a giant burning cross on the site - has just launched a website. 2,500 mainstream Muslims in the locality have signed a petition opposing the mosque.

The organisers of this campaign have been threatened with death by extremists. They have shown great courage and deserve our support.

5 comments:

wildgoose said...

That's a great idea, neatly distinguishing between the sociopathic jihadis and the genuinely peaceful.

I hope it catches on.

Sir Percy said...

Good idea Peter!

I've added this thoughtful piece to the relevant thread on the UK Commentator political discussion forum.

SirP.

Ismaeel said...

Liberalizm and the Libro-Fascists

I think it’s time for us to recognize that we are facing a very serious threat to civilization and our values and that it’s not just the work of a fringe group, a few fanatics, but it’s actually based on an evil ideology. I’ve termed it Liberalizm, changing the “s” to the Nazi “z” because it’s quite clear to me that Liberalism and Fascism are very closely associated with one another and that our whole way of life is under threat from these Libro-Fascists.
We can see there are clear links between this enforced liberalism and fascism, by looking at Professor Robert O. Paxton’s definition:
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
Paxton further defines fascism's essence as:
"...a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination."
In Fascist societies all the members of the society must conform to the will of the state and work to build a strong sense of nationalism based on a shared set of beliefs and values. This is clearly seen in the activities of the Libro-Fascists and the continued banging on about the importance of Muslims integrating and accepting “our national values”. The Libro-Fascists are like the classic Fascists obsessed with the decline of the West and see themselves as victims whose way of life is being subjugated by foreign ideologies. The Libro-Fascists have been quite happy to forgo democratic freedoms and national and international laws in their advocacy of the Iraq war, treatment of terror suspects and passing of laws which attack many personal liberties. Also in every liberal country you are allowed to join and support fascist parties but also expound on their views, read their books and even march in their public rallies. Isn’t this enough evidence of the complicity of Liberalism with Fascism?

People have argued with me and said “no it’s not liberalism that’s to blame, rather it’s the extremists- the Neocons, Bush and Blair, and they’re the ones trying to impose liberal democracy and liberal freedoms on Muslim countries and the Middle East by force”. They tell me there is a large silent majority of moderate liberals who don’t agree with the terrorist actions of their governments. But I’m afraid that is just not good enough, these Liberal leaders must speak up unequivocally in condemnation, why have only a few like Chakrabati spoken out? When we look across the various countries in the Liberal world it’s quite clear that the so-called Extremists are actually in the majority, we have 28 days without trial in the UK for “terror suspects”; others are shipped off to Eastern Europe under extraordinary rendition or to Guantanamo bay for torture and imprisonment. In France and Turkey the Hijab has been banned in all places of public education and public office. In Holland they are debating whether to ban the Niqab completely.


Many people argue with me and say “No, no, we mustn’t confuse the actions of these extremists with the beliefs and practices of the vast majority of Liberals whose core beliefs are that individuals should be free to do as they wish as long as they don’t harm others.” I used to accept this rather rosy picture of Liberalism until I studied the history of Liberalism and the writings of some of its early ideologues. I discovered that Liberalism took power in the US and most of Europe through bloody revolutions and civil wars which were encouraged by early Liberal Thinkers like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Patrick Henry said “Give me Liberty or Give me Death.” I’m sorry I don’t know about you but to me that’s extremism, and yet if you ask most of these so called moderate liberals today what they think of Patrick Henry, well they think he’s a hero. It’s quite clear that Libro-Fascism isn’t some sort of departure from Liberal ideals but is deeply rooted in the Liberal Tradition. There is also far too much equivocation by many of these so called liberals about the statements of the extremists amongst them and they say things like “well I disagree with what he says but I’ll defend the death his right to say it.” Well not only is it not good enough that the so called moderate liberal will not condemn the speech of the extremists but it is frankly outrageous that they should be willing to die in defense of it. We must recognize that many of these so called moderate liberals are actually just devious PR people there to disguise the true fascistic nature of their message. Also we must be clear to distinguish between Liberalism and Liberals. Some Liberals are truly good people, often having being born into Liberal families, not able to leave the Liberal identity for fear of recrimination and ostracisation by friends, family and society at large.

This is a call to arms, we must say no more, Liberalism is at heart a violent fascist ideology and we must all work to rid our world of the threat of Libealizm and the Libro-Fascists.

Peter Risdon said...

looking at Professor Robert O. Paxton’s definition:
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."


You might be scoring an own-goal here, Ismaeel.

Sir Percy said...

Merry Christmas to one and all and let's hope that 2008 is not as gloomy as the doomsters predict!

BTW Ismaeel - I enjoyed your contribution immensely and have posted it far and wide! :)