`Could it be, might it be, is it just possible that -- Egypt is preparing for a future campaign against Israel, the Infidel enemy, the once and future enemy, the enemy with which a permanent peace, according to Islam, can never be made?`

- a resounding yes! and they have friends

UN Envoy Calls for End of Israel

By now, a year later, Dugard has had it with Israel and is ready to suggest a “solution” for it that was never contemplated for South Africa even in the worst days of apartheid—nor, for that matter, for contemporary beacons like North Korea or Sudan. For John Dugard, one Jewish state is too many—and Israel must take into account that there are many like him no matter what its policies.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19679

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 30, 2005 7:46 AM

Hugh, your article is good as usual but nothing really more than common sense. The question is, why does common sense such as yours seem so hard to grasp for American politicians? On a personal level, these politicians would never hand out their own cash to relatives or acquaintances that despised them or squandered their money. Are they such ninnies as to approve these huge sums without looking at where it is spent or caring?

Posted by: former liberal WF at September 30, 2005 10:30 AM

Hugh posted :Is this a question that someone can please raise in Congress? Can someone ask the Administration to explain the American aid and what the Egyptians are doing with it, and the anti-American attitudes fostered in Egypt by the government and by the Egyptian elite -- attitudes which might be lessened among the masses if they did not think, correctly, that American aid simply goes to prop up a band of thieves at the top?

Hugh, I think that you should send your article to members of Congress.

Posted by: DP111 at September 30, 2005 1:42 PM

Mr. Hugh:

Egypt since the Military coup of Nasser has been ruled by military men with Arabic nationalists, militant Islamists, and banana-republic-like “El General” types. What do expect from such a leadership except “sell your robe and buy a sword” policy! In a matter of fact, the embalm of Egypt’s national armament industry committee, which is tasked with the procurement, maintenance, upgrade, and assembly of imported weapons has the Quranic verse, “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies”, Surat-al-Anfaal (8), verse 60.

1) Egypt still views Israel as its biggest regional enemy and sees building the military as both a national and a religious duty.
2) It sees having such a well armed military as key to its regional standing and as a trump card: i.e. if you do not want this Army to fall to Islamists, pay up.
3) With the African droughts getting worst, Egypt’s self imposed share of the Nile water is increasingly challenged by Ethiopia, which is attempting to reclaim a bigger portion for its own use. Mubarak has alluded to what accounts to a threat of war if Ethiopia went ahead with its planned dam construction projects.
4) The military build up would be seen by Islamists as a proactive measure in the struggle with Israel, or so the government hopes that this somehow placates them.

Posted by: have_mercy at September 30, 2005 4:23 PM

"Can't buy me love. Everybody tells me so!" The Beatles.

The Jizya to Egypt (or any other Muslim state or organization). What a colossal and ignorant waste of money. This will not make Muslims happier or more compliant as they believe the Jizya is the non-Muslims' as mandated by Allah. Anyone with an ounce of sense understands this principle.

Posted by: epg at September 30, 2005 4:48 PM

I strongly disagree with Hugh's negative characterization of the Camp David accords spelled out in a previous essay, but there is no question that Egyptian government-controlled media today (and for the past decade at least) is some of the most vitriolic in the world towards America, Israel and Jews.

On the other hand, I'd be curious to find out the opinion of Israeli leaders to the prospects of a termination of American aid to Egypt. Something tells me they'd counsel against it.

Would a termination of aid result in a dramatic change in Egyptian policy vis-vis Israel and Palestine? Over the last 5 years, the Egyptians have served as an important diplomatic bridge between Israelis and Palestinians and between Fatah and Hamas (trying to bring the latter into cease-fire mode). Though the results of these efforts have been checkered, no one with any objectivity can deny that Egypt has been a moderating force in the region...(sometimes actions speak louder than words).

Egypt now has physical access to Gaza and is therefore in a position to exercise even greater influence on Palestinian behavior. We should think good and hard whether or not we want to push Egypt into rejectionist mode. Terminating American aid will in all likelihood do just that.

Perhaps stern diplomatic efforts including an explicit threat to REDUCE aid might compell Mubarak to put an end to the incitement. If only the State Dept (and Bush for that matter) had some backbone.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 30, 2005 4:55 PM

"I'd be curious to find out the opinion of Israeli leaders to the prospects of a termination of American aid to Egypt. Something tells me they'd counsel against it."
-- from a posting above

Which "Israeli leaders"? Shimon Peres, doing his continued impersonation of the Fool of Chelm, would probably urge the Americans not only to keep up the aid to Egypt, but to give more, more, more to the "Palestinians." Uzi Landau, on the other hand, might think quite differently.

But the problem for the Israelis is that they cannot always say what they think, not even privately. What Israeli leader is going to privately tell the Americans what I have frequently written -- you know, you have it wrong. Egypt doesn't make war on us, though it prepares for war (that $7.5 billion in arms purchaes in 2004), not because of the Camp David Accords, but for the same reason Syria and Saudi Arabia don't -- it has too much to lose. That's it. But we'd really like it if you stopped giving them all that money.

Remember -- successive American administrations have been sinisterly careful to link the aid to Egypt, in the same bill, to aid to Israel. The Israelis desperately need that American aid, given the forces arrayed against them. They do not want to queer their pitch, and if by suggesting to the pro-Israel senators and representatives that they thought the aid to Egypt was a bad thing, a vindictive State Department, eager to keep the jizyah flowing and never terribly friendly, given the kind of Arabists -- those who know nothing, and care less, about the tenets of Islam -- who control the relevant desks, they might, if they offered their real feelings about Egypt, endanger aid to Israel.

Do not confuse Israeli silence, or the silliness of some (many)Israeli politicians, with what the generals, who of course are alarmed about Egypt's arms buildup (and its WMD project, by the way -- and the evidence of its collaboration on such matters with Iraq before the war) and would wish to deprive Egypt, if they could, of the money to acquire such weapons.

In any case, it is the interest not of Israel alone, but of all Infidel states, to stop the payment of the jizyah to any and all Muslim states. Stop the foreign aid.

Then, if the oil-poor Arab states want money, they should be directed to the offices of their Arab Muslim brothers, in Kuwait, in the U.A.E., in Qatar and other Janus-faced statelets who want American protection from Iran and Saudi Arabia, and thus are willing out of self-interest to offer space for a base (in Qatar, in Kuwait), as long as those bases are never used against any Muslim state or people, unless that state is regarded as a direct threat by the local Muslim rulers to their own existence. And of course send them to Saudi Arabia, a country which this year will take in $90-100 billion more than it did last year from that accident of geology.

The most sober Israelis, the very dry, asciutti, taciturn men whom one seldom reads about, or hears about, the ones who know what Jihad is, who know what Islam is, who know what Egypt is, have views about the latter that are not those sometimes expressed by the more foolish Israeli leaders, and certainly not those of the American State Department. They know too much.

Posted by: Hugh at September 30, 2005 5:14 PM

Cornelius posted:We should think good and hard whether or not we want to push Egypt into rejectionist mode. Terminating American aid will in all likelihood do just that.

In effect you are advocating surrender to blackmail.

Posted by: DP111 at September 30, 2005 5:23 PM

"Cornelius posted:We should think good and hard whether or not we want to push Egypt into rejectionist mode. Terminating American aid will in all likelihood do just that."
-- from a posting above

A perfect definition of the Jizyah: a financial tribute, paid by Infidels to Muslims, which will not be withdrawn for fear of the Muslim reaction.

We are told that if we stop paying this Jizyah-aid that helps Egypt buy armaments, and even engage in a little wishful WMD-projecting, Egypt will be pushed "into rejectionist mode." Sounds like a DVD player: "Rejectionist mode." Well, Egypt is doing its damnedest right now, to make thinks difficult for Israel in every way. And it is preparing, as best it can, and hoping to be under the radar (not hard when that radar is owned by Western foreign offices and the American State Department, and turned permanently off)as it does so, for a future war. It has to. That is part of Islam, part of the Egptian military's desire, and the will of the people of Egypt -- as long as the counter-blows are not too hard.

Cornelius recommends continuing to pay the Jizyah. In this respect he is like a good many Christians and Jews in dar al-Islam who, for centuries, went along. They had an excusse -- the had to. But we don't have to give Egypt anything. We can read Egypt the riot act, up and down the land. We can cut Egypt off from access to Western arms, Western technology. We can keep the children of the rich Egyptians from visiting, much less settling in, our lands -- and of course poor Egyptians too. We don't need to do a damn thing for Egypt -- it is the Egyptian government that has a lot of explaining to do, about what is allowed in the controlled press, on television, and so on. The farcical elections were farcical, but the fact that the Egyptians felt they had to mount the farce was a good sign --a sign that the government is concerned about American reaction.

Well, they should be -- Congress should, if it had any sense, be raising hell about Egypt.

It is the same problem, writ small, as with Saudi Arabia. We don't owe Saudi Arabia a thing. There is nothing the Saudis can do to us. They have to park their money somewhere. If it is parked, illiquidly, in America --we can seize it, at any time, as enemy-owned assets -- but only once we realize who the enemy is, and define it accordingly as all those who "support the Jihad, etc." The Saudis charge us what they charge everyone else for oil. They try to set a price in OPEC, based on production quotas, that will maximize the total value of their oil reserves, keeping in mind as well the need for an income stream at present. That's it. That's all. No favors done by them -- and none need be done by the American government, or any other Western government.

If some officials say otherwise, it is not because the United States really needs to do favors, but because those corrupt and greedy officials would like to be chosen by the Saudis for "special" favors, for special contracts, for special consultant and lecturing fees -- and so the private interests of those traitorous people who have for so long been insisting that the American government must placate the Saudis, are quite different from the interests -- directly in opposition to those interests -- of the American government and people as a whole.

There is a distinction. It is important.

Posted by: Hugh at September 30, 2005 5:48 PM

Jizya or appeasement comes in other forms as well. There is the case of Turkey's application to join the EU. It has been oft stated by many, that turning down Turkey, will lead to Turkey joining the islamist group, and thus further increase our vulnerability to Jihadism. In essence this is blackmail or Jizya of the political kind.

The fact remains that Turkey, an islamic country is very keen to join the EU. The question we have to ask then is, is it for economic reasons or for furthering the cause of islam. If it were just the former, I would have only economic worries because of increased taxation on the rest of Europe. However what worries many, is that it may well be the second reason that may come to the fore, once Turkey is admitted to the EU. If that transpires, it may well lead to a religious civil war in Europe. As experience has shown, civil wars in Europe have a tendency to becomne world wars, with frightening consequences for humanity as a whole. The EU elite is asking ordinary Europeans to take a huge risk to life, property and civilisation, in letting Turkey in, while offering no benefits in return except a negative one.

Posted by: DP111 at September 30, 2005 6:46 PM

I think I can speak for most of the regulars here when I say that I've been thoroughly bedazzled by the entertaining prose, the remarkable passion and the inexhaustible energy of Hugh Fitzgerald since his arrival here at JW. He is most definitely an enormous asset and I congratulate Mr Spencer for bringing him on board.

As most of you are aware, Hugh and I have had our differences, mostly over US Iraqi policy. It's always a challenge to take him on and I sometimes find myself in over my head.

Today the issue of contention is Egypt. I'll start by saying that my position is not etched in stone and that hell if I'm going to the wall for the likes of Mubarak. But I'd like to point out some holes in Hugh's argument. His passion occasionally betrays him in both wording and content. Take the following assertion:

"Well, Egypt is doing its damnedest right now, to make thinks difficult for Israel in every way."

This statement is demonstrably false. In the past two years, Egypt has brokered talks between Israelis and Palestinians...and between the PA on the one hand, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad on the other in attempts to bring the latter two groups on board the cease-fire efforts. These diplomatic talks haven't always born fruit, but even Sharon and the Likud in Israel would admit they are sincere attempts to break the cycle of violence...(why would his government participate otherwise).

Additionally, the Egyptians could do so much else that it is not doing in order "make things difficult for Israel." They could be emulating the behavior of Syria and become direct facilitators of Palestinian terror, something I would hope even Hugh would have to admit that they are not. They could be moving heavy armaments into the Sinai in violation of the Peace Treaty with Israel, but they haven't.

Here I'd like to showcase another example of Hugh's enthusiasm clouding his objectivity:

"We can cut Egypt off from access to Western arms, Western technology."

Hugh seems to view the USA as omnipotent; that we can snap our fingers and our friends in Europe and East Asia will follow our lead in isolating a moderate country like Egypt and deny it Western technology. May I remind everyone that we can barely get the Europeans to cooperate in isolating Iran, a terrorist state hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. I'd like to ask him how, in the absence of an egregious change in Egyptian behavior, can the US compell our friends to "cut Egypt off from access to Western arms, Western technology."

This goes to the heart of his disconnect with reality; Hugh is hell-bent on burning our bridges with the Muslim world. He wrote an essay a couple of weeks ago in which he advocated terminating "all but the most necessary contacts" with the Muslim world. Among other things, he wants us to expell all Muslim students and deny them a Western education. Now this might sit well with many of you who have a visceral hatred of Muslims, but it is completely unrealistic and would do nothing but isolate the USA in the world. Europeans and Asians can produce most of anything the USA can, but they can't produce oil. They're not about to commit economic suicide by showing solidarity with the USA at this point in time. They'll cast their lot with the oil producers. And Muslims will continue to acquire Western technology and education from these other sources.

Even Hugh's view of the Saudis is unrealistic:

"There is nothing the Saudis can do to us. They have to park their money somewhere."

The Saudis can easily dump there assets here in America and transfer their money to banks, stocks and other institutions in Europe, Japan, the UAE and Southeast Asia. They can stop financing our deficit by ending their purchases of T-Bills. Most of all, they can cut oil production and drive up the cost of petroleum to levels that could easily induce a recession in America (and the world). The Saudis would not be impacted in the least because the price increases would compensate them for the production cuts.

In short, the Saudis have our asses literally over a barrell...and its apparent to everyone but Hugh. Their achillees heel is that if they drive the price of oil too high, the search for alternative sources will become irresistible. But as lazy and corrupt as the political class in the West is, the Saudis have great latitude before they'll reach that point.

As for Hugh's other points:

I don't know the extent of the military build-up that he claims Egypt has undertaken, but if he is correct in his facts, it is certainly a source of concern and draws attention to Egyptian ambitions. But the build-up isn't necessarily proof positive of malevolant intentions; Egypt could very well be hedging its bets and preparing itself for any eventuality...fully conscious of the fragility of the peace process and the inherent instability of the region. I'm not wearing blinders here folks, I'm mearly pointing out that a military build up is not necessarily an automatic sign of impending aggression.

As I previously conceeded, the incitement in the Egyptian media is not conducive to the establishment of peace and this should be a source of contention between the USA and Egypt. It is an issue serious enough to warrant a review of our aid programs. In the event of Egyptian intransigence, a cut in aid as opposed to complete termination would in my opinion be the appropriate policy.

OK Hugh, have at it.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 30, 2005 9:30 PM

I'd like to clarify one sentence...

They're not about to commit economic suicide by showing solidarity with the USA at this point in time IN THE EVENT OF AN ACROSS THE BOARD RUPTURE IN US RELATIONS WITH THE ARAB/MUSLIM WORLD, PARTICULARLY ONE INDUCED BY AMERICAN INITIATIVE AS HUGH PROMOTES.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 30, 2005 9:48 PM

No, basta. Quod scripsi, scripsi. Others can make the same points about the same misreadings, or wilful misunderstandings, in your post. Like jesting Pilate, who would not stay for an answer, I won't stay to write one. How's that for bringing home the proverbial Bacon? I want to read something right now that has nothing to do with Islam, in order to cheer myself up. Besides, I'm 98 years old and have never been kissed.

Posted by: Hugh at September 30, 2005 9:50 PM

Cornelius:

"But the build-up isn't necessarily proof positive of malevolant intentions; Egypt could very well be hedging its bets and preparing itself for any eventuality...fully conscious of the fragility of the peace process and the inherent instability of the region.."

Sure. They need to be prepared in case Israel is going to attack.
I've heard better jokes!

Hugh:

98 years old and never been kissed: Australia is just the place for you! See you, mate!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 1, 2005 12:05 AM

SHEIK: "Sure. They need to be prepared in case Israel is going to attack.

"I've heard better jokes!"

Israel has just publicly threatened to attack Iran if the US does not intervene and stop Iran's nuclear program.

How far-fetched is an Israeli threat to attack Syria or yes, even Egypt in one, two, five or ten years over similar concerns?

I'm not Jewish, but my sympathies lie entirely with the Jewish state. That doesn't preclude me from trying to be objective.

HUGH: It's possible I've misread or misunderstood your posts. I hope I haven't done so willfully.

I certainly don't blame you for packing it in. How prolific can one man be? Your output is mind-boggling...and Lord knows, you've got bigger fish to fry than me.

I swear I never had your energy back when I was 98.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 1, 2005 1:18 AM

Cornelius,

Over the last 5 years, the Egyptians have served as an important diplomatic bridge between Israelis and Palestinians and between Fatah and Hamas (trying to bring the latter into cease-fire mode).

This is amusing as the Egyptians abetted the movement of arms and "businessmen in suits" into Gaza from the get go. Hezbollah "liased" with their counterpart, Hamas in suits, to iron out and perfect the shaped charges now being used to such good effect in Iraq.
Of course there is no business contract, between the groups, registered in New York.
Seems that many have fallen for the various forms of Taqyia in use.

Just to add to the "illusion" how come Hamas was able to send into Egypt, when they comfortably breached the Gaza/Egyptian border, dozens of jeeps to return with piles of arms, explosives and drugs stockpiled for them in Rafiah? And that went on over several days.

Posted by: Cynic at October 1, 2005 6:04 AM

Coenelius posted:In the past two years, Egypt has brokered talks between Israelis and Palestinians...and between the PA on the one hand, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad on the other in attempts to bring the latter two groups on board the cease-fire efforts. These diplomatic talks haven't always born fruit, but even Sharon and the Likud in Israel would admit they are sincere attempts to break the cycle of violence

As long as Egypt was in the Russian camp, there was no way that Palestinians could get anything out of Israel, as the US is the main broker in the ME for anything of substance. It then became a matter of necessity for Egypt to break away from Russia and become a client state of the US. Since then it has been jam all the way fopr Egypt. This also gave Egypt influence in official US circles. Nothing wrong with that, as every state functions to further its own interests. However, it is naive to suggest that Egypt has used that influence to be a neutral broker between the Palestinians and Israelis. Far from it - it has used that access to to put forward Palestinian agenda to US policy makers. It is naive to regard this as honest and sincere peace brokering, when in fact it is just another facet of the war against Israel.

It has been noticeable over the years, that Egypt vehemently condemns Israel for any retaliatory actions that Isreal takes against Palestinian terrorism but finds excuses for terrorist attacks against Isreal.

Cornelius - it is commendable that you try to see the Israel-Arab war on purely political grounds. Unfortunately, events on the ground, do not justify such a sanguine view.

Posted by: DP111 at October 1, 2005 6:04 AM

Cornelius posted:In the past two years, Egypt has brokered talks between Israelis and Palestinians...and between the PA on the one hand, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad on the other in attempts to bring the latter two groups on board the cease-fire efforts. These diplomatic talks haven't always born fruit, but even Sharon and the Likud in Israel would admit they are sincere attempts to break the cycle of violence

As long as Egypt was in the Russian camp, there was no way that Palestinians could get anything out of Israel, as the US is the main broker in the ME for anything of substance. It then became a matter of necessity for Egypt to break away from Russia and become a client state of the US. Since then it has been jam all the way fopr Egypt. This also gave Egypt influence in official US circles. Nothing wrong with that, as every state functions to further its own interests. However, it is naive to suggest that Egypt has used that influence to be a neutral broker between the Palestinians and Israelis. Far from it - it has used that access to to put forward Palestinian agenda to US policy makers. It is naive to regard this as honest and sincere peace brokering, when in fact it is just another facet of the war against Israel.

It has been noticeable over the years, that Egypt vehemently condemns Israel for any retaliatory actions that Isreal takes against Palestinian terrorism but finds excuses for terrorist attacks against Isreal.

Cornelius - it is commendable that you try to see the Israel-Arab war on purely political grounds. Unfortunately, events on the ground, do not justify such a sanguine view.

Posted by: DP111 at October 1, 2005 6:05 AM

According to the JCPA, n the one hand, the United States has argued that Egypt is not a threat to Israel, and the entire military aid program to Egypt is based on the premise that Egypt is at peace with Israel. On the other hand, the U.S. tacitly accepted Israel's point that it cannot ignore Egypt's capabilities when calculating the military balance in the region.?br />
And now with the Israeli cabinet's approval of a military buildup in Sinai along the Gaza border, it is Israel who is negating its own qualitative edge over its militarily equipped neighbor.

While 750 troops do not in themselves represent a significant military buildup, it is some of the supporting military equipment permitted in the new Philadelphi agreement which is raising the fears of opposing Israeli politicians and security brass.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=88990

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 1, 2005 6:58 AM

Well, I knew I was going to take some flak here.

Cynic, I don't know about the veracity or the details of what you're writing about. All I know is that Egypt has used its good offices over the last couple of years to try and end the cycle of violence in the region. Israel has been a willing participant in these talks. This is fact.

Hugh wrote that Egypt is "trying to make things difficult for Israel in every way." The statement belies the facts.

DP111, I appreciate your commendation, but let me assure you that I'm not sanguine about realities on the ground in the Middle East. Ancient hatreds and in particular religious fanaticism are daunting obstacles to overcome.

I do have a faint hope that peace can be achieved. Even a relative peace like the one ushered in by the Camp David accords. When Sadat signed on in '78, in one bold stroke the Arab-Israeli conflict was reduced to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's still ugly, but there is no immediate existential threat to Israel's existence like there was in October 1973 (though Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is once again transforming the equation).

To be honest, I don't think Israel's long-term prospects are very good. Demography is destiny...and fertility favors the Palestinians.

But I do hope that in the short and middle term, the countries in the region can live in peace. I believe in a more active American diplomacy. What I don't want to see is more Oslos; interum agreements that are destined to fail.

I think Israel is mistaken by grasping for peace in increments...giving away Gaza and portions of the West Bank without an overall settlement. This means the Jewish state holds fewer and fewer bargaining chips in the search for a comprehensive peace.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 1, 2005 11:50 AM

It is common sense to punish countries that produce terrorists (including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Jordan). Egypt is also the mother of 'Muslim Brotherhood' and monster Arafat. Yet, Egypt gets billions of hard-working, tax-paying law-abiding Americans, to kill those very hard-working, tax-paying law-abiding Americans who pay Jazia.

Go figure!

Posted by: Alert at October 1, 2005 4:28 PM

Cornelius:

With a few misgivings, your last post is a fair assesment of the situation, and a realistic hope for the future for Israel.

On the demography issue - it is a threat that faces the entire non-muslim world with few exceptions - Japan being one exception as it has few muslims.

If the demographic threat turns out to be the real threat, as I have believed and posted for a long while, then civilisation is done for. However on further thought, there are other forces that are coming into play, which may make the islamic birth rate appear old fashioned and quite pointless.

One is the information revolution. This revolution will energise society rapidly if any such threat comes into view, and force it to take drastic actions. Then there are the emerging technologies of genetic engineering, cloning, test tube babies etc. Who knows what will be the state of play of population dynamics in a hundred years or so ie when the muslim demographic threat really begins to be perceptible.

Posted by: DP111 at October 1, 2005 8:56 PM

DP111,

Information age or not, in a Democracy where the vote decides policy, population matters. Europe's a goner. Israel's prognosis is no better. We have more time here in the States by virtue of the vast reservior of Christian Latins already here or on their way. But even here, Latin birthrates are falling.

Your prognosis for Japan was much too sanguine. The Japanese have perhaps the lowest birthrate on the planet. Without an infusion of immigration, the burden of supporting retirees will soon become crushing. But Japan can avoid the fate of Europe by bringing in Philipinos and Chinese as opposed to Indonesians. Whether they will do so is another story.

It's depressing yes. But not hopeless. Transforming the Muslim world is key. Can it be done? Certainly not for as long as we continue our rote-like validation of Islam in our cultural and political discourse.

We've got to shine the light of truth on every nook and cranny of this psuedo-religion...particularly the profound moral failings of the Prophet Muhammad. It's there for all to see in the volumes of the Ahadith.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 1, 2005 11:46 PM

Cornelius:

I'm going to try these thoughts out on you. Besides this thread is getting bare and not many will look in.
------------------------------------
There are many factors coming into play in rapid sequence and concurrently. That is the way of the modern world. Technology is transforming every aspect of life. Let us look at Japan as a case. Japan can maintain its life without any immigration, as technology takes over many of the mundane tasks that are at present done by humans. Wealth is not dependent on population numbers. Life expectancy and health quality is also increasing, and that means that retirement age will be increased to take this into account. People will live longer and also work longer. In Japan, where work is not considered a necessary evil but quite liked, there will be no social problems as a consequence. In fact people will be queuing to work even after retirement. Even in Britain, there are large numbers of people who want to continue working after retirement. These two factors alone make it unnecessary to import vast numbers of mainly uneducated and unskilled workers. Japan does not have to sacrifice social cohesion to maintain its life style. In fact, the wrong sort of immigration will destroy it. I think that the Japanese are smart enough to figure that out.

Now comes the more intriguing development of genetic engineering. We are at present at the dawn of this new technology of genetic engineering, cloning, embryo technology, test tube babies and others that we don’t even know about, and yet to be invented. It may seem far-fetched now, but in a hundred years or so, it may become outmoded to have babies the old fashioned way. A Brave New World is what we may be heading to. Even now, women can have babies when they are well into there fifties. Surrogate mothers are getting increasingly common. In the future, a surrogate "mother" could well be a machine. Women may be relieved of the burden of pregnancy altogether.

In a future world, just a century from now, population may be decided by social factors and not by individual choice. Religion etc will not play any role in population control; in fact it will be illegal to do so. Is this possible?

Well, some fifty years ago it was considered immoral or unethical and against divine purposes to use contraceptives. Now they are accepted without even a thought. A mere two decades ago, it was considered unethical to in anyway choose the sex of a baby. Now many parents around the world are doing so, and even "engineering" the sex of a baby. The same may apply to what genetic engineering and embryo technologies have to offer. It may seem science fiction now, but in a hundred years it may be the accepted way. In fact, given the ever-increasing growth rate of science and technology, and coupled with the information age, this future may be here sooner then a century from now. Even in Europe, the muslim population is unlikely to become dominant in a hundred years i.e. if we are not stupid to let Turkey in.

Now to look at the political conditions that will be required. First, once such technologies are readily available, it will be impossible to stop people exercising their choice. Governments will then have to recognise the inevitable and regulate accordingly. The second is a more depressing thought. I do not think that this age of Freedom we are in, is going to last. Human history has been by and large, under some sort of totalitarian authority. This period of personal freedom is just a blip in the long history of subjugation of the individual. Prof Tyler some 100 years ago is said to have predicted that civilisation lasts at the most for a period of approximately 200 years.

From "reputedly" Prof Tyler, as the source is not really known

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

Inevitably this largesse will run out, leading to social unrest, which then will lead to authoritarian government. In a post information age, this is likely to be global in its reach. Control of population, which inevitably means population growth, will employ the new technologies.

I will stop now. I look forward to your response.

Posted by: DP111 at October 2, 2005 8:08 AM

Cornelius:

Unlike the computer and information revolution which was all fireworks, the revolution in the life sciences is an insidious one, going on in the labs ever so quietly, and of which the general public is unaware of.

The technology of the surrogate mother as a machine is going to lead to a complete transformation of human society. It will become possible for a person (as even eggs from a woman is not a requirement), to have as many children as he or she wants. This can lead to a population explosion if no control is exercised. Population control is then inevitable and muslims will not be an exception.

The pace of change in the life sciences is so great that this scenario may be upon us in our own lifetime, and most certainly in the next hundred years or so.

Posted by: DP111 at October 2, 2005 10:19 AM

Interesting stuff DP. It'll be fascinating to see how it all plays out...providing I'm not prematurely terminated by a devout Muslim's expression of piety.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 3, 2005 11:15 PM