 |
| These guys are really happy that the "non-Muslim, mass murderer" who has "hijacked" the "Religion of Peace", is now dead.... |
But that's what we have now in the case of "The Death of a Monster". I'm talking of course of the demise of that bearded bloviator from Central Casting, Mr bin Laden (as the New York Times calls him, in their rather too-quaintly anachronistic way).
Here is the hypothesis: that Islam is a Religion of Peace, and that bin Laden has "hijacked" it for his "twisted" ends. That he is not a Muslim. That the number of people who follow his "warped version of Islam" are just a "tiny minority" of the Muslim population, most of whom repudiate the teachings of the mad mullah. (Each phrase in inverted commas is from a commentator I've heard or read in recent days).
Those who believe this hypothesis are mostly, but not exclusively, of the Left. They include virtually all of the mainstream media (MSM) – the Guardian, the New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the BBC, ABC – politicians of all stripes, academics, and of course, Muslim and non-Muslim apologist everywhere. In his announcement of bin Laden’s death, president Obama went so far as to claim that bin Laden was “not a Muslim, but a mass murderer". Ex Department of Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge was on the BBC radio on 6 May, saying that Muslims who supported bin Laden's "utterly warped" ideology, were not just a "small" minority, or a "very small" minority, or even a "very, very small" minority. No, they were, intoned the ex head of America's counter terror efforts, a "very, very, very small" minority. Got that? There are just a tiny number of Muslims who support the non-Muslim mass murderer Mr bin Laden.
Those who believe this hypothesis are mostly, but not exclusively, of the Left. They include virtually all of the mainstream media (MSM) – the Guardian, the New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, the BBC, ABC – politicians of all stripes, academics, and of course, Muslim and non-Muslim apologist everywhere. In his announcement of bin Laden’s death, president Obama went so far as to claim that bin Laden was “not a Muslim, but a mass murderer". Ex Department of Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge was on the BBC radio on 6 May, saying that Muslims who supported bin Laden's "utterly warped" ideology, were not just a "small" minority, or a "very small" minority, or even a "very, very small" minority. No, they were, intoned the ex head of America's counter terror efforts, a "very, very, very small" minority. Got that? There are just a tiny number of Muslims who support the non-Muslim mass murderer Mr bin Laden.
The corollary of this hypothesis is that the "vast majority" of peaceful and moderate Muslims who don't stand for bin Laden, and whose religion has been sullied and hijacked by the scoundrel, will cheer his demise.
How do you test a hypothesis? By subjecting it to trial. In this case, the trial is the death of bin Laden. Clearly if the hypothesis is correct, the vast majority of Muslims who feel that their religion has been hijacked and sullied, will rejoice.
So, how does this hypothesis stack up under then blowtorch of the empirical test? Well, as is -- or should be -- apparent to all by now: not well at all. The hypothesis has been negated!
Look at the reactions around the Muslim world. From Jakarta to Jeddah, from Norilk to Nigeria, there's been condemnation of the killing. Muslims are calling the US a "terrorist state", they say that "all Muslims are bin Laden". Nor are they the poor and ignorant: in Pakistan, hundreds of Lawyers -- many no doubt trained in the UK -- prayed for the soul of the "great Muslim warrior". Indonesia, Malaysia -- both held up as fine examples of moderate, democratic societies -- said precisely.... nothing. [Postscript: not quite nothing in Indonesia: they’ve now come out in firm condemnation of the killing. Sigh. A moderated Muslim state, an exemplar of the accommodation between democracy and Islam….)
Concentric circles of hate
There are concentric circles of support for bin Laden’s world view, which in short is that the world should be brought to Islam, violently if necessary. The inner circle, those willing to don a death jacket, number in the millions and include al Qaeda, the Taliban and the many radical Jihadi terrorist organisations (100+ at my last count). The next circle is those who support the aims and it methods (indiscriminate killing), but would not themselves strap on a death jacket ar actively participate in violent jihad, but who nonetheless support the supremacist agenda – these number perhaps in the tens of millions, by various polls. The next circle is those who support the aims (the spread of Islam and Sharia), but who do not agree with the violent methods of Jihadis such as bin Laden. These number in the hundreds of millions and are the majority of Muslims worldwide, as shown in numerous polls. The outermost circle is those Muslims who are truly secular and who openly adhere to western legal systems the US constitution and the norms of western society. These are like the thin layer of atmosphere on the planet of inner circles, and are in fact a minority: the likes of Muslims for Peace, Muslims who Support the Constitution, and so on. They are not only in a minority; they are reviled by the wider Muslim community and often under threat from them.
The meaning of support for Osama bin Laden
So what does support for bin Laden’s aims, if not always his methods, mean? Here is bin Laden in his own words, words directed at the Muslim ummah:
On freedom, liberty and the West’s way of life:
“For practically everything valued by the immoral West is condemned under Sharia law.” (p.37)
On coexistence:
“Does Islam or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam; either willing submission; or payment of the jizya [tax on non-Muslims]…; or the sword – for it is not right to let the infidel live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam; or die”. (p.42)
In case we miss the point:
“In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the Sharia from being publicly voiced among the people…”. (p.51)
Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West, “Al Qaeda Reader”, Doubleday, 2007. Raymond Ibrahim, ed.
The fight with Islam
Thus the reaction of the Muslim world to his death – “we are all bin Laden” – means that they hew to those views, to greater or lesser degrees. They may not always agree with his violent methods, but they recognise that he represents the core aims of Islam.
Hope and no hope
When I tell my wife this, she says that my view means “there is no hope”. Now that may be, but if it is, does that mean that we should willingly dupe ourselves with some other version of reality, indeed with the unreality of the belief that Islam is a “religion of peace” that has been “hijacked”, when it’s clear that that’s not the case? Of course not. As long as we do that we’re the dog chasing its tail. We have no hope indeed of ever finding an accommodation with Islam for it does not want to accommodate us, no matter what obeisance we make.
Rather, it is better to face the facts. That bin Laden represents at a deep level the true aims of Islam, which is supported by the majority of observant Muslims worldwide, to more or less open degrees.
The options
But is it really “hopeless”? Is it hopeless to recognise that there can be no accommodation with an ideology that wishes only our destruction?
Of course not. We can take many steps.
We can disengage from the Muslim world. Take out the armies, navies and air forces from all Muslim countries. Stop treating enemies as allies: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being the two most obvious. Stop all aid to these countries. Let them get on with their own lives, as they constantly ask. They say “Islam is the Answer”. Very well, carry on.
By all means continue to trade with them – where else is Saudi going to sell its oil? Where else is Pakistan going to get the goods it needs, if not the west? But stop giving away money and stop giving away lives, in the doomed hope that we are working towards creation of Jeffersonian democracy. Stop Muslim immigration to the west, as it’s the immigration of those who hew to an ideology – one every bit as horrid as the Nazi one – that desires our destruction, no matter the protestations of those “moderate Muslims”, whose existence the death of bin Laden has shown to be a fable.
Back to the hypothesis -- getting the wrong results, so just repeating it anyway.
But of course none of this will happen. At least in the short-term. I used to be a diplomat in the Australian service, and have no illusion about the workings of governments and their bureaucrats. All of what I suggest will be distasteful to them, “discriminatory” and “Islamophobic”, “inappropriate” and any number of other dismissive pejoratives.
But time will tell.
The reality of the situation is so obvious, the empirical evidence of the falsehood of the basic hypothesis, that in due course the MSM, politicians and academe might in due course be mugged by that reality. And then the options will suggest themselves.
