Could a Country De-Islamise Itself?

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Ann, Ann Coulter, ann coulter trump, ann coulter twitter, BBC, big bang theory, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, convert, coulter quotes, Counter-Jihad, declaration, Defend the modern world, deislamise country, Egypt, Facebook, Iran, Islam, Islamic world, Islamism, Lebanon, policy, policy policy, Turkey, Twitter, we should invade their countries, wordpress, world

Iconoclastic commentator Ann Coulter once made headlines by suggesting that “(America) should invade (Islamic) countries, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity.”

Her idea – if it was really an idea – was promptly laughed out of court, as well as being branded an example of a corresponding American ‘fundamentalism’ by the apologist Left. I can’t really argue with that response. If an operation such as Coulter proposed were in any way feasible (or affordable) it would surely be the most worthwhile and benevolent action by a nation in human history. Sadly, it isn’t feasible, nor is it affordable.

Despite that, the idea that a Muslim country can be de-Islamised is not political science-fiction. There are isolated examples which may allow for it, owing to unique historic factors and local ethnic aspirations. I am frequently presented with the idea that Iran (Persia), Egypt, and Syria all have ancient identities which precede the Islamisation of their territories by Abu Bakr and his marauding armies, and for which they might be willing (if presented with the right amount of Western encouragement) to trade their rotten Islamic present. How might this be achieved?

The most notable case of a country attempting to rid itself of the strictures of Islamic doctrine is that of Turkey in the time of Ataturk. Although rarely explicit, Ataturk had little affection for the Islamic religion (or at least its social application) and his bold, sweeping reforms severely curtailed the faith in Turkish society. Ataturk (and his supporters) wanted a secular, Westernised Turkey; one that would bare little to no resemblance to the Ottoman Empire – with all its fanaticism and slovenly Eastern habits. The reforms so implemented were successful and would go on to secularise and partially Europeanise the Republic for over 60 years, before being rapidly reversed by the AKP party of Tacip Erdogan, a self-confessed Islamist and dedicated Sunni.

Turkey’s experiment with modernity was destined to fail all along. Despite their genuine desire to Westernise, the Turks remained overwhelmingly Muslim in allegiance, having Islamic funerals for the dead, Islamic rituals for the young and a large Crescent despoiling the national flag. Turkey did not de-Islamise because there was never an intention of de-Islamising.

A comparable experiment in Westernisation took place in Iran before the revolution. Backed by American and British leaders and inspired by the example of Ataturk, the authoritarian ‘Shah’ Reza Pahlavi enacted massive social reforms aimed at liberalising and modernising Persian society. In the urban elites this was a roaring success. Young middle and upper class urbanites fully adopted the freedoms of the modern world, celebrating the diminishment of Islamic authority. The descendants of these people are now largely living in the West, having fled the country after the Islamic uprising of 1979.

Why did that uprising occur? For many reasons, but one of the most essential is that a nation is not its elite. Working and lower-middle class Iranians (especially those from impoverished backgrounds) were not ready for such rapid change. When the rabble-rousing populists of revolution appeared, they thus found a sizable number of henchmen willing to topple the ‘arrogant’ pro-Western elite. The rest is history.

These days, the Iranian diaspora (descendants of the Iranian upper classes) assures the West that the next attempt at Westernisation will succeed. They may be right, they may be wrong. It will be a while before we can know one way or the other.

In Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Syria and Algeria, the middle and upper classes are also secular. They too dream of civilising their respective countries; that is, bring the general population up to their own level of personal development. Yet as with Iran, the majority of Egyptians (excepting Christians), Lebanese (excepting Christians), Tunisians and Syrians are uneducated, jobless, illiterate, and supremely devout in their attachment to Islamic consolations. The elite can wish away the days and months, but nothing will change without a long, difficult and expensive process of public education and social reform.

De-Islamisation (of countries, societies, races) is not an impossible prospect. It may happen at some point in the future. But at the moment it is simply utopian, and as likely as the elimination of tradition from any nation, Islamic or otherwise.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Between Paradise and Hell: The Precarious Happiness of the Christian Lebanese.

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Armenia, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Christians, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Lebanon, Maronite, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Shia, UK, USA

This past week, various friends of mine have sent me the link to a viral video from MEMRI TV. It features a sultry Lebanese TV anchor cutting the microphone of a London-based ‘Imam’ after he arrogantly seeks to insert his sexual-religious authority into the conversation.

I’m not as impressed by this as others seem to be. That is because I have never truly considered Lebanon a part of the barbaric construct we call the ‘Islamic World’. Indeed, after the State of Israel, Lebanon seems to me the most civilised and modern country in the greater Middle East.

While it’s true that Muslims now make up a slight majority in the country, the civilising effects of Lebanon’s Christian elite extend deeply into its social and educational fabric. As a consequence, Lebanese Muslims tend to be more ‘secular’ than Syrians or Jordanians, and arguably for reasons directly attributable to Lebanon’s cultural diversity (one of the very time that phrase can be used positively).

If you look through an album of photographs taken in modern Beirut, you might find it difficult to distinguish the streets and piazzas from parts of Portugal, Spain or southern Italy. Despite the ancient mosques and grungy madrassas, one will also notice billboard advertisements for premium wines and Heineken Lager, bare-armed women in tight jeans and sunglasses, as well as gaudy bars and upmarket pubs catering to American and English tourists respectively.

The Lebanese Christians are proudly aware of this geo-cultural strangeness and view any comparison with other Arab states like Saudi Arabia or Jordan as wholly derogatory. Biology plays a role in this. Though all Arabs are a mixture of ancient ancestries, the Lebanese are known to be especially diverse. Genetic investigation of the Christian community has revealed a mixture of Greek, Arab and Western European genetic markers, the last being a hangover from the time when Lebanon functioned as a base for the Crusaders, some of whom remained, intermarried and got lost in the biological stew.

Though we in the West might look down on sectarian attitudes, it is surely easier to sympathise in this case. Imagine for a moment that we in England belonged to a modern, affluent and liberal(ish) country neighboured to the North and East by lands of hellish confusion. We would all eventually come to rely on sheer hostility to prevent the damaging integration of outside elements, especially if defensive alliances seem unavailable.

Only a few miles from the wine bars of Lebanon, the sub-humans of ISIS cut the heads off people accused of summoning demons or practicing witchcraft. Just a short drive from a Beirut Miss Universe pageant is a tent-city where women cannot even leave their homes.

It is hard to think of a more terrifying fragility or a more perfect misery than that of the Christian Lebanese.

D, LDN.

Are Terror Groups Becoming More Powerful Than Nation-States?

Tags

4chan, America, anti-tank missiles, Assad, Britain First, Caliphate, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Hezbollah, IS, ISIS, Islamic State, Lebanon, Obama, Russia nuclear, Russians, Serbs, Syria, Terrorists, Ukraine, US, War, War with America, War with Islam, War with Syria, War with Turkey

The terrorist ‘rebel’ forces of Syria, who – even if combined – number less than 25,000 men, have fought the million-man army of the Syrian State to a bloody stalemate. Despite the thousands of tanks, APCs, missiles, chemical warheads, fighter-bomber jets, and trained soldiers at Assad’s command, he has failed to prevent massive swathes of his nation falling into the hands of a rugged, relatively disorganised opposition.

In Iraq, another terror group, ISIS, has held its ground against the US, Saudi and Jordanian air forces, the Iraqi army, and various Kurdish paramilitaries.

And finally, in Ukraine, the pro-Russian separatist militias of the Donetsk People’s Republic have held off the armed forces of NATO-backed Western Ukraine whose ranks, even accounting for Russian counter-measures, dwarf the resources and technologies of the opposing side.

What does this tell us about our world?

For me, it raises the vitally important question as to whether the power of terror groups are evolving to a state of parity with national armies. It certainly seems that way, looking at the evidence.

Much of the improvement in guerrilla warfare over the past ten years is due to the development of one particular weapon – the mobile anti-tank missile. Once so large, they had to be hauled about on wheels, modern variants of these weapons are so small they can be carried like a rucksack.

It is a well-grounded fact that anti-tank missiles are cheaper to produce and more efficient in operation than the vehicles they destroy. If they are effectively designed and accurately deployed, 1000 anti-tank missiles can theoretically go against 1000 tanks and triumph.

The Israelis don’t need to be told this. Their brief and unsuccessful war against Lebanon in 2006 is judged in retrospect to be a Hezbollah military victory (a military victory, I emphasise, not an abstract ‘ideological’ or ‘moral’ victory – a military victory by Hezbollah over the Israeli army).  How did the Lebanese movement achieve this? In the main, it was via anti-tank missiles, the latest, most upgraded type used by the Russian military. Hezbollah is rumoured to possess many thousands more.

To understand this requires counter-intuitive reasoning. We naturally assume that a huge, hulking Israeli tank is more likely to triumph over a single Shia terrorist, however well he is armed. But that’s not what happened on many occasions.

It is suspected that the Syrian state has passed more varieties of Russian equipment on to Hezbollah since the beginning of the Syrian implosion. This fact, along with the ghost of the 2006 war, goes some way to explain why Israel has not displayed enthusiasm for a rematch.

By way of conclusion, there is no reason, no reason at all, why a terror group cannot triumph over a modern nation state, and we are seeing them do so in many parts of the world today. That these groups are often only 10 or 20 thousand man strong, should give us all cause for concern, especially at a time when Muslims flow into Europe by the million.

D, LDN.

Are Shia Muslims an Exception?

Tags

Are shia more moderate?, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East military balance, Nuclear program, Persia, Persians, Shia vs Sunni

It has been put to me more than once that Shia Muslims represent a more civilised portion of the Islamic multitude than the Sunni majority. For evidence, those who hold to this argument present the cases of Iran and Lebanon.

Despite their troubles and imperfect governments, it is undoubtedly the case that these two countries enjoy a higher and more recognisably (to a European) civilised form of social order that the lowly standards of the Islamic world. Iran, regardless of its theocratic state, rarely experiences beheadings and terrorism. Lebanon, despite Hezbollah, has retained a level of social peace conducive to a flourishing tourism industry. It is less surprising to hear of an Iranian or Lebanese intellectual being nominated for a Nobel prize than it would be to hear of the same honour bestowed on a Saudi or Afghan. And when one looks at a photograph of Tehran or Beirut, it is easy to imagine one is looking at a city in Eastern or Southern Europe.

In Iraq, where 70% of the population is Shia, the civil war further revealed this distinction. During Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s reign of terror, almost all of the acts of terrorism in the conflict were Sunni against Shia. And when the Shia did respond, it was more often with law and state, rather than bomb and machete.

It’s all very convincing isn’t it? To be sure, an increasing number are very convinced of it. I’m not yet one of them though and I have 3 reasons to support this stubbornness:

1. Despite the undeniably unique aspects of their religious system, Shia Muslims nevertheless revere and follow the Qur’an as their infallible manifesto of life and behaviour.

2. Despite the moderation of the Iranian population, the Iranian state continues to stone women and hang gays for explicitly Shia Islamic reasons.

3. (related to No. 2) Shia Islam exercises Sharia law just as fervently as Sunni Islam and believes it should supersede civil legislation.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t add greater nuance to our dealings with Shia countries than with Sunni ones, because we probably should. But I don’t believe (or have yet to be convinced) that a Shia country can serve as a reliable ally of the West. Too much separates us and that which does so is of crucial importance.

D, LDN.

Turkey: The Islamic Superpower.

Tags

Air force, Battle, Defend the modern world, Hezbollah, IDF, Israel IDF, Israel military, Lebanon, NYT, NYT cartoon, Polizei, Syria, Times, Turkey military prowess, Turkey vs Israel, War, World politics

Should they desire it, the modern Turkish army could storm Europe up to the borders of Paris. None of the countries separating France from Erdogan’s Islamic republic are capable of opposing the Turkish military even if they acted in concert. In both quality of arms and manpower, the Turks are superior. Hard to believe? Let’s look at some statistics:

The Turkish armed forces have at their command over 800,000 troops. The army is equipped with over 10,000 tanks and APCs. The air force flies over 400 warplanes (mainly upgraded F-15/16s) and 450 modern combat helicopters. The Turkish navy has over 168 war vessels. As part of NATO, the Turkish air force also administers 200 ‘shared’ US nuclear missiles.

Compared to the militaries of the UK or Germany, Turkey is a superpower.

Turkish strength matters for two reasons; first, its neighbourly position to Europe. Second, because any deportation or change in the status of Muslims in Europe will inevitably tread upon Turkish toes.

A clear majority of Germany’s Muslims are of Turkish descent. Unlike the Algerians of France, these migrants are therefore backed and supported by a near-by state with a modern military. Germany’s own military is nowhere near as large. For an equivalent situation, imagine if Pakistan was in the same geographical position as the Czech republic and had a military larger and more powerful than the UK. Could Britain afford to address the Pakistani situation in its own territory without taking into account the strength and nearness of the Pakistani state? Of course not.

Turks are loudly offended by even the slightest gesture of support for the Kurds and Armenians and have successfully bullied Germany on both of these issues. Imagine how much more virulent and threatening its anger would be in the case of explicitly anti-Turkish measures by the German state…

Alongside its military prowess, the Islamic superpower has a very dynamic economy. Unlike the struggling nations of Europe, the Turkish economy has experienced rapid growth in recent years. Unemployment, once a massive domestic problem, is now dwindling to a manageable intensity.

On the back of this growth, the movie industry in Turkey is also beginning to flourish and has led to some calling the country the ‘Hollywood of the Islamic world’. Sophisticated blockbusters are being produced which depict America, Israel and the Jews as evil and the Palestinians and Muslims as saintly victims.

Ever since the flotilla raid in which Turkish Islamists were killed by IDF commandos, Israel and Turkey, once in (awkward) alliance with one and other, have been in a state of cold hostility. While it seems next to impossible that the two countries will ever exchange direct blows, Israel has reason to feel nervous over the Turkey’s switch to pro-Palestinian advocacy in international diplomacy.

What should the West do about Turkey? Well, for one, I suggest the country is removed from NATO at the first opportunity. The cold war is dead now and the logic of the alliance died with it. While the West is kind and generous to Ankara, we rarely see kindness flowing the other way. When ISIS besieged the Kurdish town of Kobane, the inaction of the Turkish military (stationed only a few miles to the North) was chilling to the blood. Turkey also continues to occupy Northern Cyprus in contravention of international law and against Western demands for negotiations.

If we need to have an alliance in Asia Minor, I suggest we switch our focus to Turkey’s greatest historic victim – Armenia; the first Christian majority country in history and a genuine oasis of Western civilisation in a swelling sea of Islamic hatred.

D, LDN.

Latent Vs Active: A Replacement Typology of Muslims.

Tags

Christian, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Egypt, English Defence League, France, Islam, Islam by country, Lebanon, Multiculturalism, Muslim, Muslim world, No to Turkey in the EU, Organizations, Quran, Religion and Spirituality, Saudi Arabia, Social Aspects, Turkey, United States, World Muslim, Zombies

I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the often proposed division of Muslims into ‘Fundamentalists’ and ‘Moderates’ is unconvincing to me. The distinction is obviously political in origin and obscures more than it enlightens.

I would like therefore to propose a replacement theory, or rather definition, to explain the real difference between the believers who merely pray, and the believers who hijack airliners.

There are, I propose, two distinct types of Muslim in the world; Those who are Latent, and those who are Active. (*There will always be a minority who elude definition).

The Latent Muslim is in the clear majority, accounting perhaps for three quarters of the World Muslim population.

This kind of believer is typically serene and apolitical. He is opiated by his beliefs, rather than stimulated by them. Devout though they may be (and unlike Christians) they often have little curiosity for the battle of ideas.

The Active Muslim – by contrast – is someone whose experience has engaged the less sedating aspects of his faith. He is inclined towards the excitement of violence, death, punishment, procreation and conquest.

These Muslims will fight you until you believe exactly as they do, and possibly even afterward.

Crucially, (unlike with the false Fundamentalist/Moderate antonymy) the Latent Muslim can become an Active believer at any given time. The two conditions are not opposed, merely different, and the Active state is always quiescent in the Latent.

The signature fallacy of EU/US leaders has been to assume that extremism and moderation are real elements of Muslim self-identification; that they are innate, unchangeable and permanent. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

As Daniel Greenfield wrote:

“Politicians… wall off that vast majority of Muslims who did not actually come down to Woolwich and hack at a soldier with a machete and did not fly two planes into the World Trade Center from those who actually did. The hackers and pilots are extremists. The couch potatoes watching at home and cheering them on are moderates. That might be fine if we were discussing a gas station robbery in Cleveland. But to Muslims, Jihad isn’t an act of violence; it’s an act of faith.”

The Latent Muslim, as the name I have chosen implies, is not a moderate. He is unactivated. He lives quietly and habitually, enlivened only by foreign stimulus. It is this Foreign stimulus that tends to change the Latent into the Active. This explains for example, why those Muslims in 99% Muslim countries (Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc..) are largely Latent, whereas those in religiously divided lands (Lebanon, Egypt, Serbia/Kosovo, Britain, France) are more Active.

A more frivolous illustration would involve the mythology of Zombies.

Zombies (in some depictions) are unaggressive and docile among each other, but faced with a thinking human, become drones of monstrous conquest.

In the logic of Zombies, there is no ‘friend or foe’, but simply ‘fellow or food’. And as wrong-headed as we would be to negotiate with the undead, perhaps we’d do better to reconsider our approach with Muslims based on the criteria described.

D, LDN.

Bomb Iran.

Tags

Bahrain, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Iran, Islamic Republic, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Pakistan, Persian Gulf, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union, Strait of Hormuz, Tehrangeles

Like Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a country whose ambitions are limited by its borders. Tehran’s ruling clerical elite views itself as the logical executive of the Shia Muslim world, for which they would claim Iraq, Lebanon, North-East Arabia, Bahrain, and parts of Pakistan.

For this purpose, the Iranian military (including paramilitary forces) now marshals over 2.5 million men; the largest standing army in the most heavily-armed region in the world. Given its geographic position, the Iranian republic is also able to fire sophisticated missiles at Europe, Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well at US bases in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian navy meanwhile can halt oil transit in the Straits of Hormuz, potentially devastating the global economy.

And perhaps to all this, Iran may be about to add a nuclear capability.

The day the Islamic Republic first tests a nuclear device will mark the birth of a new Great Power; an Islamist Soviet Union, shielded by the threat of apocalypse to arm and manipulate the world, from Bahrain to Mexico to Tehrangeles.

The Obama administration has today consented to lay off the Islamic Republic for a period of six months, being assured of a ‘freeze’ in Iranian nuclear development. Given that Iran once hid a secret enrichment facility under a mountain, this seems foolhardy in the extreme.

Of the deal this weekend, the Israeli Prime Minister has said the following::

“Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world… This agreement and what it means endanger many countries including, of course, Israel. Israel is not bound by this agreement. The Iranian regime is committed to the destruction of Israel and Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”

It appears only Israel and Saudi Arabia are now willing and able to do anything about Tehran’s drive for the big league.

If, in the coming weeks, the former decides to act alone, and if the press tells you that Israel is being reckless, or selfish, or fanatical, or is somehow a ‘rogue state’, know this: This is the same state which stopped Iraq and Syria from developing WMD; weapons which could have just as easily been aimed at London as Tel Aviv. There is a clear and undeniable overlap between Israel’s security and our own, and Iran, along with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, is part of a terrifying cultural revival, aimed ultimately at our common destruction.

We have been warned.

D, LDN