| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
A provocative new essay by Wolfgang Bruno. I'm not sure I agree with every point; for one thing, I'm sure I am not as sanguine as he is, given the oil billions that continue to stream into the Middle East, but he makes many points well worth considering:
Tariq Ramadan, the famed "moderate" Muslim who has made deception of non-Muslims into an art form, says the 21st century will see a second role reversal between Islam and the West: The West will begin its new decline, and the Arab-Islamic world its renewal and ascent to centuries of world domination. Princeton historian Bernard Lewis told Die Welt that Europe would be Islamic by the end of this century "at the very latest". Robert Spengler of the Asia Times agrees. What if they are all wrong? What if we state that Europe won't be Islamic at the end of the 21st century because Islam itself won't be a force of any significance a century from now?There are few people of any stature who dare venture such a bold assertion. Ali Sina, the Iranian ex-Muslim and founder of faithfreedom.org, is one of the few who do. Sina has consistently claimed that Islam is "a house of cards that will collapse if sufficiently pushed", and that we may see the end of Islam within the next few decades. He has compared Islam both to Communism and Nazism, claiming that it will either collapse as the former or be crushed as the latter. These analogies are imperfect, and have rightly been criticized by some. Communism was a recent invention, and a European, materialist ideology not concerned with the hereafter. Islam carries 1400 years of history with it, and is deeply tied to the cultural identity of hundreds of millions of people in a way Communism or Nazism never were. However, Ali Sina may be on to something. I have earlier predicted that what we are witnessing now is an era no less crucial to Islam than the Protestant Reformation was to Christianity. The difference is that Islam may not be flexible enough to handle the challenge, and will disintegrate as a result. For instance, the entire foundation of Islam is based upon female subjugation and male dominance. The movement to grant equality to females will essentially destroy Islam. Islam is quite simply too rigid to survive in a modern world.
It is true that the West at the onset of the 21st century shows signs of weakness and lack of direction. However, it is likely that the USA in particular will retain its leading position for a very long time. Europe does have deeper lying problems, and considering its many Muslim immigrants may indeed face a turbulent and violent period. But even Europe is far from incapable of renewal in the longer run. Perhaps this Islamic threat is precisely the slap in the face we need to regenerate and regain our sense of purpose. It is also true that our status as the leading civilization is not given by nature. We will be challenged during this century, but not by Islam. Our contenders are not Muslims, but Asian non-Muslims, who display a dynamism far beyond anything the Ummah can produce. The total nonfossil fuel exports from the entire Arab world amount to less than the total exports of Finland, a tiny infidel country of only 5 million inhabitants. A United Nations report warns that a majority of Arab young people want to leave their homelands in favor of the West. Is that the hallmark of a culture at the brink of world dominance, Mr. Ramadan?
Besides oil, the only thing Islam has going for it is extremely high birth rates. This can be seen as an advantage as long as Muslims are allowed to dump this excess population in non-Muslim countries and dominate these through demographic jihad. If the non-Muslims should decide to curb Muslim immigration, even the high birth rates would turn into a curse. Islamic nations are already falling apart. At the time when the oil revenues run out for Muslims states, India and China may have had missions to the moon. The 21st century will not be an Islamic century. Most likely, it will continue with a Western lead. The alternative is some sort of power sharing between Western and Eastern infidels. The Islamic world, stripped of its oil revenues and no longer able to export its population growth to non-Muslims countries, will hardly be a blip on the radar screen.
Ohmyrus, a member of faithfreedom.org, has given a good description of the Islamic predicament in his essay "Once were warriors: Why Islam failed Muslims". Islam is a warrior's creed that served its early followers well. It prospered because its ethos makes it very successful as a medieval war machine when men fought with swords, bows and spears. From impoverished desert tribes, they rose to forge an empire in a short time that stretched from Spain to India. The ethos it engendered -- "brotherhood for believers, contempt and hatred for non-believers, belief in heavenly rewards for fallen warriors, a high fertility rate (which requires the subordination of women), blind obedience" -- created formidable warriors. But these same qualities are handicaps for Muslims in the age of the microchip. Islam's ritualistic practices inculcate blind obedience among its followers and not questioning inquisitive minds. The way the Koran is taught in traditional Madrassahs is by memorization. This leaves no room for asking questions. Asking questions risks the student of being accused of blasphemy or unbelief. Great scientists and philosophers do not come from such a passive environment. Islam is specialized and tailor-made for a society that no longer exists, and instinctively wants to drag the rest of the world back to these "glory days". It used to be excellent for breeding soldiers, to plunder the lands of non-Muslims. But even this gets increasingly difficult, in a world of advanced technology.
Of course, even if Islam is collapsing as we speak, that does not mean that it is nothing to worry about. On the contrary. There are few things more lethal than a wounded beast, trapped in a corner. And that is exactly what Islam is now. Worst case, it could be a very violent collapse, if Islamic radicals manage to ignite a global war. Islam is the Tyrannosaurus Rex of the 21st century. Once king and feared by all, now sidelined by smarter and faster-adapting creatures in a world it no longer understands. The old giant can still be dangerous, lashing out with a vengeance against the new breed. Mammals, they call them, these upstarters. It makes a lot of noise and may even succeed in killing some of the ones unlucky enough to be standing in its way. But terrifying as it may seem, it is destined to fail. This is the age for big brains, not big but slow limbs. It will end its days in museums, scaring kids of the future hearing tales about this big monster which ones roamed the earth. Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida are but the last roar of a dying beast, a dinosaur in the age of mammals.
Wolfgang Bruno is a European author. He is writing a book about the Internet movement of ex-Muslims. All of Bruno's essays can be republished and reproduced for free by anybody who wants to, as long as credit is given to the author.
Posted by Robert at April 11, 2005 10:12 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I can't predict whether the west will decline, but if it does I do predict it will be relaced by China, India and other Asian (non-muslim) nations. I see Mr. Bruno has made the same point.
Posted by: johnb![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 11, 2005 11:00 AM
Oh c'mon, Spencer, let yourself go - BELIEVE IT ! ! ! : o )
Posted by: CGW at April 11, 2005 11:16 AM
Im sure the UN will find some way to put Islam on life support As we all know Islamic terrorism comes from poverty .
Trying to curb immigration is a clear cut cases of oppressing Islam Which justifies killing .
Canada will be ready soon to eject its second generation spores .Who would say no to immigrants from Malmo. or Denmark.
And they have the ghettos of Hamtramck and Detroit to come to and annex .
As long as ignorance abounds and Islam is consider more acceptable than the being a neo Nazi or a klan member The threat remains.
Quran verses should be on the side of buses Islam should be treated like Aids “Islam is a hate group” Should replace” Hello” as a telephone greeting .
at April 11, 2005 11:17 AM
For instance, the entire foundation of Islam is based upon female subjugation and male dominance. The movement to grant equality to females will essentially destroy Islam. Islam is quite simply too rigid to survive in a modern world.
As is Judeo Christianity,which is also built upon female subjugation or rather "patriarchialism", aka "family values".
In fact on another forum a poster who has declared himself an agnostic, recently declared himself "Orthodox Christian", because of what he calls morals, which he refused to define. I see the same thing with Catholics and Protestant fundamentalists.
"Family values, moral issues" are merely euphemisms for patriarchial dominance, and fear of modernity and change.
It's not only the Muslim world that can't keep up with and fears liberalism (as Sayyid Qutb did and the Osama bin Ladens and Jihadis do), but it is also "conservative" Christians and "anti Jihadis".
Christianity "misogynistic" certainly, just read the Pauline Gospels "women should keep quiet in church and if they wish to learn anything let them ask their husband" or "man is not made for woman's sake, but woman is made for man's sake" or "man is head of the woman", etc and so on.
And of course all of this is uttered in the Old Testament, in particular Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
Even homophobia is misogyny, it is loathing of men who dare "act like women", the implication being that women are creatures lesser than, thus worthy only of use as brood mares.
Since Muhammad got his ideas about women, war and vengance from the pre existing religions, it is safe to assume that Judeo Christianity is the template upon which Islam was built.
With the addition of bedouin tribal culture, and the ethos of the Arab developed over time in their
struggle to survive in a barren wasteland.
Barren wasteland, the same enviroment in which the Jewish culture and religion evolved, and which was passed on to the gentile in the form of Christianity.
As a secular "UCK", and a social liberal who sees more potential worth in women, than the righteous Christian, Muslim or Jew. Women who still have not been taught their own self worth.
At the end of the day I do not see much to differentiate the Muslim, from the righteous, family value, "conservative".
BTW, here is a testimony to the pervasiveness of the Stockholm Syndrome. I watched a special on Discovery Times, about the women of Saudi Arabia, produced by a liberal, modernisti Pakistani woman. "The Women of the Holy Kingdom". It might interest you but the men (except for the clerics and extreme religious) were more open to an expanded role for women, including voting, holding office and jobs, than the women.
Which is interesting,the biggest obstacle in Saudi Arabia to women's rights are women themselves, the same phenomeonon that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony ran into when they fought for women's rights and the right to vote.
There biggest obstacle were middle class, main stream women, who feared the responsibility and uncertainity that came with equality in any measure.
More than once I've seen a muslim woman claim that women are incapable of rule or leadership, and they both use the same excuse.. hormones. The first was actually a Pakistani legislator (totally covered in her veil abaya, the other was (on the aforementioned program) a Saudi Arabian professional.
I've run into scores of traditional catholic women, who don't think women should play a role in politics or society.
And as a former catholic and Knight of Columbus, to a man I have met other men who share the same view. Patriarchial misogyny: a woman's place is in the home and submissive. Which was also Hitler and Stalins point of view and policy (exigencies of war forced Stalin to take a more pragmatic line and used every resource he could to fight the NAZI's).
I watch Arab News daily (English translation of course) and am utterly amazed that it is the women who are the most adamant, most strident, most warlike. It is the women who praise their sons who go out to blow themselves up, it is women who demand total victory for Islam. I've seen muslim women coo their baby boys, with "you will be a shaheed",It is the women who don't want peace, unless it is their peace.
Women are actually more conservative than men.
Of course it is a testament to the efficacy of brainwashing, but all religious identity and belief is a product of brainwashing. Motivated with carrots and sticks, both temporal and extemporal.
There are no winners in religious wars. But there is commonality between the Muslim and the western conservative, a pathological fear and hatred of modernity, of liberalism, of change.
Because modernity, liberalism, change means loss of personal power and control, insecurity and uncertainity.
And BTW, the so called "left" is as "conservative" as the "right", their motivation is also security and control.
They just come at the issue from a different perspective. Marxism is just as conservative as fundamentalism and Islam. If you doubt that, then read Milovan Djilas, The New Class, or examine from the reaction of the Soviet Ruling class to liberalism and change.
Posted by: Giaour at April 11, 2005 11:58 AM
"If the non-Muslims should decide to curb Muslim immigration, even the high birth rates would turn into a curse."
Even without these immigration curbs in place, the latest news out of Iran suggests that "Khomeini's babies" -- Iran's large demographic of young, educated and underemployed -- are making life more than a little uncomfortable for the mullahs.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at April 11, 2005 12:30 PM
Iran had to reverse its anti-birth control policies due to a scary population explosion during the Khomeni years. The mullahs now push condoms and vasectemies. The overall poverty of the country is terrifying. It was a Second World country under the Shah; now it's Third World and probably slipping toward Fourth World.
Posted by: Suzan at April 11, 2005 12:34 PM
Giaour;
I saw "Women of the Holy Kingdom" and it was encouraging but I agree, muslim women can sometimes be their own worst enemy.
I have seen 2 other documentaries from SHARMEEN OBAID-CHINOY which were pretty good.
What a fecked up world we live in !!
at April 11, 2005 1:09 PM
You can't say the position of Jewish and Christian women is as bad as in Islam.
On women not wanting rights, this feels very strange to me, but then you could argue that women in societies like SA are infantalised as well as brutalised. With rights come responsibilities. This can be frightening if you're not used to it.
Posted by: Interested at April 11, 2005 2:33 PM
Interested:
You wouldn't be questioning any of Giaour's contentions there would you?
"Since Muhammad got his ideas about women, war and vengance from the pre existing religions, it is safe to assume that Judeo Christianity is the template upon which Islam was built.
With the addition of bedouin tribal culture, and the ethos of the Arab developed over time in their
struggle to survive in a barren wasteland.
Barren wasteland, the same enviroment in which the Jewish culture and religion evolved, and which was passed on to the gentile in the form of Christianity."
Posted by: Giaour at April 11, 2005 11:58 AM
Muhammed took what he liked from where he liked and altered it to suit himself, so assume nothing unless you can also cite some respected authority, including the agricultural productivity of the lands of Israel prior to the Islamification of the region. The lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean coast weren't always dessert. Dessertification is a process that starts with the removal of trees and ttakes place over a long period of time.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at April 11, 2005 3:51 PM
Apologies for the lapse in spelling above. I meant "desert" not "dessert".
Posted by: waterdragon52 at April 11, 2005 3:53 PM
Waterdragon52:
You meant desert, not dessert? That's one hell of a typo when you think about it!
'The lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean coast weren't always dessert.'
But Mo came along with his Instant Whip and Bob's yer uncle!
Posted by: Interested at April 11, 2005 8:48 PM
" But there is commonality between the Muslim and the western conservative, a pathological fear and hatred of modernity, of liberalism, of change."
Giaour, is it really "pathological" fear? I admit to being "scared" of an increasingly islamizing society -- looking some 20 years into the future, based on existing trends -- but does that make my concerns "pathological"? As for "hatred of modernity", well, I'll give you this, you did get a hearty laugh out of me. Is this hatred comparable, do you think, to liberals' pathological hatred of tradition?
"More than once I've seen a muslim woman claim that women are incapable of rule or leadership, and they both use the same excuse.. hormones."
It's interesting the way liberals embrace biology when it is seen as furthering their aims, but denounce it whenever it appears to frustrate them. In short, while I unreservedly support "women's liberation", it really hasn't been the boon to personal fulfillment feminists assured themselves it would be. It's not that I would ever deny a women the right to sexual promiscuity or the career ladder, it's just that from all the anecdotal evidence available to me, women appear less happy in such roles than in -- gasp! -- "traditional" female roles. Just because women have the right to do whatever a man does, doesn't mean they _must_, or are always wise to do so.
Posted by: spect8or at April 12, 2005 1:42 AM
" But there is commonality between the Muslim and the western conservative, a pathological fear and hatred of modernity, of liberalism, of change."
Giaour, is it really "pathological" fear? I admit to being "scared" of an increasingly islamizing society -- looking some 20 years into the future, based on existing trends -- but does that make my concerns "pathological"? As for "hatred of modernity", well, I'll give you this, you did get a hearty laugh out of me. Is this hatred comparable, do you think, to liberals' pathological hatred of tradition?
"More than once I've seen a muslim woman claim that women are incapable of rule or leadership, and they both use the same excuse.. hormones."
It's interesting the way liberals embrace biology when it is seen as furthering their aims, but denounce it whenever it appears to frustrate them. In short, while I unreservedly support "women's liberation", it really hasn't been the boon to personal fulfillment feminists assured themselves it would be. It's not that I would ever deny a women the right to sexual promiscuity or the career ladder, it's just that from all the anecdotal evidence available to me, women appear less happy in such roles than in -- gasp! -- "traditional" female roles. Just because women have the right to do whatever a man does, doesn't mean they _must_, or are always wise to do so.
Posted by: spect8or at April 12, 2005 1:43 AM
testing
Posted by: Kepha at April 12, 2005 2:43 AM
There's another wild card to consider about Muslim demographics in the West: many Muslim leaders whine that they're losing the younger generation. Farsi-speaking Christian churches popping up in a number of US cities and people like Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq suggest that Islam is not as powerful as suggested. While there are inroads among American Blacks, I've noticed that some such converts, after a few years, gravitate back to Christianity or secularism. It could well be that the end result of a long period of Muslim immigration in the USA will be that a re-Christianized America might show a somewhat "swarthy" face. There's evidence from Europe as well that many are leaving Islam, too.
Giaour, I'll tell you why I fear what "liberalism" has become. Once upon a time "liberal" meant seeing liberty as the highest political good; but today, it seems to mean regulating just about everything (including the solar system, if it could get its hands on it) except the libido. You've revealed that you're old enough to remember the days when "fag" was just about the worst thing you could call someone; now, "progressive" opinion is stumbling all over itself to accommodate homosexuality. What'll it be next as "liberalism" continues to define deviancy downward? Clucking sympathetically as those pedophile priests whine into the camera about how a "puritanical culture" undid the "beautiful thing" they had with those unfortunate kids they b-f'ed? Polygamy? On the other hand, they're promoting "hate speech" laws when, back in the days of the Berekeley sit-ins, their war cry was "FREE SPEECH!"
What else? try this: go to a gathering of your favorite radicals, and say, "Ah, yes. Catro's Cuba is great! A country where 'Marracon!' is still the worst insult you can call a man can't be all bad!" Watch the temperature drop about 30 degrees.
Posted by: Kepha at April 12, 2005 2:54 AM
While I don't agree with A. Sina's metaphor of Islam being as shakey as a house of cards, I do think there is some hope.
Because Islam is utterly antagonistic to positive human instincts.
I mean, who does it really appeal to?
Unless you are a real tight-ass male... the kind the called -in psychological circles- the "Right Man"... that type of guy who CANNOT be, DARE NOT be wrong. And will kill people to prevent anyone from disrupting his cocoon of certainty and perfection. (Et Tu, Mohammad?)
Long-term tyrannies are a contradiction in terms under modern conditions.
Where things change so fast that even Divine Truth loses its static luster in comparison with the effervescence of an actual space station being built in a ballet above the turning planet, molecular machinery moving toward microscopic surgery by remote control, brain transplants (on the horizon) to elude a dying body, -and ever-expanding Art, Music, Film, Literature and Theater.
My hope is that young people in Islam will outgrow its quaint confines. Tempted by a brighter sun.
Like a seed that bursts its dead shell.
Posted by: BigSleep at April 12, 2005 4:04 AM
Even as an ex Christian Giaour you should know a little bit more of Christianity before making so "important" revelations about misogynist behaviour from St Paul (letters and not Gospel sic!)
a) St Paul says "women, you should be subdued to men but (and here you lack in coherence) men don't abuse of them"
b) you should know that St. Pauls statements are not normative but they are sons of their time
This is quite a fundamental difference compared with the immutable revelations related to the Qur'an...wife beating is prescribed as an obligation in islamic law if they don't obey! So please stop telling nonsense about things you just don't know!
at April 12, 2005 11:22 AM
Giaour
When muslim women don't allow themselves to use their natural assertiveness towards advancing themselves in their own lives, they then use that assertiveness in pushing Islam.
Ditto for women in other religions as well.
Posted by: Voltaire at April 12, 2005 4:16 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)