 
|
11A014
Allah, Supreme?
by Jim Davies, 1/14/2011
Yesterday in How We Got Here I recommended Laurence Vance's fine essay on how FedGov foreign policy over half a century and more has brought upon us the excuse for drastic curtailment of freedoms, and that's a view I endorse. Muslims have been around for centuries, the religion is stable, and they gave little trouble to the "West" after 1683. Only after the "West" rammed the State of Israel down their throats in 1948 did they get seriously antsy. However, there is another view. It holds that Islam is a religion with an unchanging commission from Allah to rule the world, using whatever means, including violence, may be necessary. We ought to weigh that view, noting of course that merely wanting to rule the world brings no guarantee of success (and that there's no shred of proof that Allah even exists.) It says that with the help of oil revenue, they have been able to wage a cunning war with at least two aspects: strike terror with random suicide bombings, and accept Western hospitality by emigrating to host countries and forming Muslim enclaves to grow and ultimately dominate. A good expression of this view is found here - it's well compiled with a huge, perhaps overwhelming amount of evidence which deserves review even while remembering that the wish is not the same as the ability. We tend to see religion in terms of peaceful persuasion; normally Christians have spread their faith by one-to-one testimony and by preaching to any who will listen; forced "conversions" have happened, but they are the exception and not the rule. With Islam, it's the other way about. From the very start, Islam combines violent government with religion; it is at root a theocratic movement. Hence the extreme difficulty non-Muslim missionaries have always faced, of even being allowed in to Muslim countries to preach. To speak of an alternative God is to commit treason. Thus Islam swept Southern Europe during the Middle Ages - by sending not monks to preach, but armies to conquer. Thus did Islam so very rapidly expand during Mohammed's lifetime and immediately afterwards; it was a perfect formula for governance. He said he ruled because the Creator of the Universe had told him to; submit, or die. I have to agree here with the late Jerry Falwell: the prophet was "a violent man, a man of war." The evidence is plain. How, then, would a zero government society withstand infiltration by such murderous missionaries - from this or any other comparable religion of the future? - noting that it might not be a conventional military invasion, but more likely a migration? A free America would be open to all, so Muslims arrive with every intention of living among us and then achieving domination. But there will be no ruling structure for them to capture. Some Muslim immigrants arrive, to join the free-market society. They offer trade, so will be welcome. They honor their contracts, they stay welcome. But if any of them aggress in any way - by defrauding someone, or by using violence to change his religion if any, or by asserting a right to welfare, he will be treated like any other aggressor in society - subjected to claims for compensation and, should he refuse to obey a free-market court order, shunned. Indeed, if his act of violence is overt, matters may well not get that far; anyone who so wishes will go about armed, and will defend himself as needed. None of that happens today. Then, it will be the everyday norm. So will aggressors have no future in the coming zero government society; whether they are Muslim, any other variety of theocrat, or just plain old residual government junkies. The absence of a government structure is the ultimate defense.
|
|
