Some have have been complaining recently of the use of the phrase ‘clash of civilizations’ as if the idea were somehow irrationally alarmist and wholly without merit. Over the last few days, however, an intriguing combination of articles has appeared online which suggests–to me, at least–the broader dimensions of radical Islam. It’s even more frightening than I had imagined.
To start, an article by Jonathan Last in the Philiadelphia Inquirer neatly paints the case for the clash of civilization argument in broad strokes. The immediate concerns of daily life make us forget too soon the ebb and flow of Islamic influence in the world. We treat radical Islam as if it were invented only yesterday and terrorist acts as if they were isolated incidents we can ignore with impunity. Wrong.
As Pope Benedict XVI explains in his book Without Roots, the very concept of “Europe” emerged as a reaction to the surge of Islam. Not until the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683 did the Islamic tide recede definitively. For the next 300 years, Western civilization was ascendant and the Islamic world stagnated.
But the conflict between the two cultures never fully abated. Throughout the 20th century, Western countries tussled with Islamic states or their non-state proxies. And, as columnist Mark Steyn points out, when you gaze at conflicts around the globe today, the one constant is Islam. Muslims are fighting, or have recently fought, Jews in the Mideast, Hindus in Kashmir, Christians in Nigeria, atheists in Russia, Buddhists in Thailand and Burma, Catholics in the Philippines, and Orthodox Christians in the Balkans.
Next, Walid Phares, Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, on the real revelation in Zawahiri’s latest message (emphases, mine). Zawahiri explicitly announces that it is a clash of civilizations:
1 – The Pope: Calling him the dajjal (end of times liar or charlatan), Zawahiri unleashes theological attacks against the Church not referred to by the Muslim authorities that responded to the Pope over the past few weeks. Very revealing, these massive arguments haven’t been heard in public for decades and perhaps more than a century, but they have been taught at Madrassas around the world. He severely attacked almost the entire dogma of the Christian faith from the nature of Christ, the sanctity of Church, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the Holy Spirit, and many more theological basis of Christian faith, in a manner that was never uttered openly before. He stated that all the characteristics advanced by Christians about Christ are false and only his view of Jesus as Prophet Issa, is the valid one, etc. In doing so, Zawahiri expressed on the international stage, the theological agenda of al Qaeda and the Jihadists: A matter that indicates as of today, the ideological intentions regarding future “coexistence†with the Christians but also what the Jihadists have in mind to impose on moderate Muslims.
And, last, Fjordman’s excellent overview of the devil’s bargain France made with Islam–a mistake that is finally coming home to roost. It explains, in large part, the attititude that has puzzled the American public throughout this crisis. We thought France was an ally when, in reality, it has really been playing a double game in the interests of increasing its own influence and prestige, and from the most petty of motives–envy. France has much to answer for.
Thus, the Eurabian project became an enlarged vision of the anti-American Gaullist policy dependent upon the formation of a Euro-Arab entity hostile to American influence. It facilitated European ambitions to maintain important spheres of influence in the former European colonies, while opening huge markets for European products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries, in order to secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe. In addition, it would make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by favoring Muslim immigration and promoting Multiculturalism with a strong Islamic presence in Europe.
And this policy has been acted on consistently–surreptitiously, dishonestly–for the last 40 years.
A wide-ranging policy was sketched out. It entailed a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries that would endow Europe – and especially France, the project’s prime mover – with a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States. This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, and well outside of official treaties, using the innocent-sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue….
…Over the past three decades, the EEC and the EU’s political and cultural organizations have invented a fantasy Islamic civilization and history. The historical record of violations of basic human rights for all non-Muslims and women under sharia (Islamic Law) is either ignored or dismissed. In this worldview the only dangers come from the United States and Israel. The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media.
In short, an eye-opening confluence of ideas. It’s much bigger than 9/11. It’s much bigger than Iraq. It’s much bigger than Iran.
It’s much, much bigger.
And there people like Richard Reeves who just don’t get it.
BTW, I think there are plenty of people who do realize what we’re dealing with, but who avoid articulating it precisely because the prospects of an imminent major reform of Islam are slim to none, and don’t wan’t to end up in a war with the entire Muslim community.
Furthermore, the West has invented a fantasy Islamic civilization in other ways as well.
What would you say is the reason for why Americans don’t want to acknowledge the clash of civilizations? Is it because we’re afraid we would lose?
I suspect it’s because millions of “enlightened” Western “intellectuals” have invested so much of themselves in their multiculturalist philosophy. You know, we’re no better than anyone else, in some ways far worse, it’s all our fault, there’s nothing worth killing or dying for – admitting that (a) Islam has had it out for the West for centuries, and that (b) Isalmic culture is sharply in opposition to classic Western progressive values would effectively slaughter that sacred cow.
TW: When34, do as thirty-somethings do.
My objection to “clash of civilizations” is that I don’t believe the other side has one.
Excellent post, ahem!
Here’s another part of Mr. Phares report that I found interesting: (emphasis mine)
This is a point that needs to be shouted from the rooftops every time someone (including perrennial Bush basher Trudy Rubin in the same Philly Inquirer page) makes the “definitive” statement that all we are doing is “perpetuating” terror or “creating” terrorists. Beyond the practical difficulties of quantifying such a statement (take a jihadi census?) it only gives a passing glance to the nature of jihadists and their goals.
There are probably some in that category, though not “we.” There are those who simply do not think there is a serious problem—they acknowledge the threat, but are willing to accept a certain level of casualties from doing nothing. There is the entire “multiculturalism as cultural relativism” (as opposed to assimilation) mindset. And there are some (including the Bush Admin, I hope) that are doing so for strategic reasons, focusing on the true jihadis and hoping as few of the less-strict Muslims as possible realize how deep the problem really is (unless they figure it out like the Jordanians did after Zarqawi attacked them).
Check with Edward Said and get back to me.
TW: I only wanted12 virgins and they ended up issuing me 72.
Ards: I don’t know so much that we’re afraid we’ll lose–although we are most certainly afraid and in denial. If we were to lose, it would only be after an incredible conflagration,a world war.
We’ve forgotten the lessons of history. Americans are arrogant. In our pride at being so successful we forget that, historically speaking, we’re pishers–less than 300 years old. Power doesn’t necessarily assure longevity.
Partly, too, we’ve been brainwashed by the constant warm stream of politically correct urine that rains down on us from on high. Over years, it takes it toll on even the most aware of us. For instance, I realized only recently what a piece of socialist-inspired twaddle “Death of a Salesman” is. It’s an artistic tractor imported from the People’s Republic of Kum-ba-ya.
Face it, even the conservatives talk the politically correct line these days–it’s been years since you’ve been able to utter a thought without qualifying yourself profusely. This has grave implications: in a world of nuanced thought, you do not have to qualify your speech. But we’re no longer living in a world in which nuance can be taken for granted.
And that is very bad.
We can no longer–or, are no longer permitted to–distinguish between the part and the whole. If you suggest that radical Islamists are evil, for example, you’re accused of suggesting that every Muslim without exception is evil. Obviously, to suggest that the situation is even worse is insupportable: you’re branded a hate-monger. You’ll see the Left fight this particular idea tooth and nail. They have succeeded in making the part stand for the whole and they firmly believe it.
Packaging ideas in bigger and bulkier containers leaves us powerless to make fine distinctions and deal with life effectively. Half of our nation now operates on a handful of reflexive emotional responses.
Frankly, I think it’s a legacy of Stalinism: dumb them down so you can subjugate them.
By not acknowledging it we win? Wha?
If enough folks really feel our civilization was threatened with extinction, the other one would cease to exist. We were fairly ready to crispy-fry the world to stop the Leninists from running it. I wouldn’t think that too many would rather submit than dust certain locations far out of sight and mind.
To avoid that is why I am hoping we can settle this before it goes from a “clash”, to the Enemy reaching the point that they can subjugate our civilization. Which a little over a million and a half of us in the uniformed part of the DoD have a part in preventing.
Ahem, great post. Well said.
Major John, thank you. Thank you profusely for your courage and service for our country.