There seems to be a vestigial debate taking place about the motive for islamic terror and islamic action for manifest destiny. The notion that there is an islam which is miscible with other ideologies and then a hijacked and modern version which is supremacist and violent. I say vestigial because as islam ramps up its full on attack on the rest of the world it really seems to matter less and less whether its islam or just the hundred million or so we see trying to take down world governments and implementing sharia as directed through pretty much all the mosques in the world.
Last night, Ottawa’s Free Thinking Film Society brought in probably the most important speaker for the first position, Daniel Pipes. The FTFS also brought in the main speaker for the other position in 2010, Geert Wilders. So whatever else one may think certainly the Free Thinking Film Society is doing excellent work no matter which side of the debate you may be on.
Interestingly and by coincidence Andrew Bostom published an article today where he directly takes on the position of Mr. Pipes, a segment of which is below.
Said and Pipes: An “Essentialist” Harmonic Convergence?
Most of his essay re-affirms (but never establishes by dint of hard doctrinal and historical facts) the same glib, tired arguments Pipes has discussed before: Islam’s prophet Muhammad was not an “Islamist,” and was not responsible for “Islamism,” which is a “modern extremist variant” of Islam; an “unbearable” discordance between “pre-modern accomplishment and modern failure” caused the (mass?) “psychic trauma” which engendered “Islamism” in the 1920s; and a mere 10-15% of Muslims support what Pipes terms “Islamism.”
Pipes concludes his latest iteration of “Islam Versus Islamism” by attacking those (such as Ali, Sultan, and Wilders) who reject its shoddy premises for their ostensibly uninformed “succumbing” to what he terms “a simplistic and essentialist illusion” of the Muslim creed. Ironically, Pipes’ latter claim of “essentialism” re-packages the post-modern incoherence of Edward Said, as demonstrated brilliantly by Philosophy Professor Irfan Khawaja. As Khawaja observed in 2007:
If Said thinks that Islam is different from other abstract nouns, he needs to tell us why… And yet, as we have seen, he often treats abstract nouns in an essentialist fashion. So it should follow that Islam can be treated the same way. And yet that is precisely what he takes to be the cardinal sin.
I welcome the comments of those who have something to say on this sideshow debate on the issue of Islam Vs. Islamistism extremism. Or communism Vs. Communistismlamist extremists etc.
COMMENT by TRUTHIOCITY:
1. Islamists use islam to validate their stance and to inspire jihadism and supremicism. The core ideology is a tool for them and as such should be delegitimized – thus made a less effective tool.
2. The modernist changes that Mr. Pipes talks about come from fudging the original rules. It’s common sense and pragmatic but the core beliefs remain in place to be returned to in future. That’s just what the various fundamentalists have already done.
So if islamists are vanquished, the core beliefs are still there for future islamists to utilize again and jihadism can reemerge at any time in the future.
3. Furthermore even Islamic states that are motivated by state power rather than religion can still utilize islam’s core as a lever to inspire violence for the benifit of the state. This is pretty much what Iran does.
4. I recognize that it’s not nice but one part of warfare is to attack the enemies belief systems that are connected to it’s capacity to wage war. Islam is exactly that kind of belief system. By not attacking it as we would a weapons factory, we allow the enemy unhindered access to a weapon they use against us.
The Islamists KNOW this and their psychological attacks on our own belief systems (and personal psychology) is an integral part of their jihad. Attacking our belief systems that stand in the way of their conquest. That’s what all that muslim bitching about the flag of st George is really about. It’s psychological warfare meant to reduce resistance by making people feel neurotic about patriotism.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the heathen, pagan, devil worshiping, primitive, animal sacrificing, gander.
And no it’s not nice but not as mean as we are lead to believe. It doesn’t hurt peoples feelings- that’s a lie. It’s islamist bullshit meant to prevent us from doing to them what they are knowingly doing to us. It’s intellectual warfare strategy meant to help them win in the war of ideas. The analogy in kinetic warfare is when you fire at an enemy in order to hinder their ability to fire on your advance.