Dhimmitude - Eurabia Theory

[Randall Flagg]

Edit - These first 5 Posts have been moved from the Avs and Sigs thread


If they are a tad big, you can resize them with paint.
Zone will survive-have him look up the word dhimmitude and then read this article:
Dan Simmons (http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm)

[ZoNeSeeK]

RF: Yeah, the creative writing that comes out of fear-stricken America after any kind of major attack or threat of real attack is always very colourful ... So I take it Communism isn't so hot right now?

Irrespective of Miller's incredibly well thought out, researched and well-debated political views, as a movie 300 aint going to be racking up any awards anytime soon, and I was expecting something epic that would generate interest. I was disappointed in it, not hating it without seeing it. I don't have a problem with the concept of the movie itself. I think Miller fucked it up and it could have been much better. Perhaps with some sort of script, you know, that thing that makes up the core of a film?

[Randall Flagg]

I could care less about Miller and 300.
Without getting too far off topic, what are your thoughts on
dhimmitude
as well as the Dan Simmons piece?


So I take it Communism isn't so hot right now?
Communism is dead. Hasn't been hot around here since April-just kidding-since 1967.

[ZoNeSeeK]

Dhimmitude, as applies to non-muslims living in a muslim state? Or as a possible threat to non-muslim states?

Dan Simmons is riding on the speculative fear of the Eurabia theory. From what I have read so far, its fairly unreasonable to adopt this viewpoint given the information available. Muslim populations in Europe are not insidiously installing themselves in key cultural and political stations, have little effect on foreign policy, their populations are not as rapidly increasing as some theorists claim and they don't form this singular entity-state within european states. Muslim communities (although they are communities) are still fragmented, like any other immigration group in any other region. This is not some uncontrollable invading force threatening to make dhimmies out of western governments. The only way this would happen to any country is if my military force or if the government opted for this course of action, which I couldn't see happening. In regards to oil dependency, Europe (and Japan) are miles ahead of every other region in adopting fuel efficiency and green energy.

(This is something Bush would be all over like a bad rash - and its probably why he has suddenly decided to take interest in green power. He constantly and consistently ignores the scientific community but leaps into action whenever theres a whiff of threat from the Muslims. But hey - in the end its still a very good result for America, I just wish the US invested its powerhouse economy into green energy 10 years ago - both for environmental reasons and for not being reliant on other states for your primary fuel.)

Much of this Eurabia fear has probably sparked from (recently) the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed (and the response from the danish government) and the issues with traditional Islamic dress, but has also been a factor in French politics for the last 30 years. I think the majority of decisions so far have been borne out of official authorities not wanting to offend its multicultural citizens, but to suggest some sort of Eurabia future is going overboard.

Governments are quite equipped to safeguard their constution and respond to public reaction regarding foreign cultures in their society and I really don't think any sovereignity will allow any kind of political subversion to take place. A slight hardening and delineating of western values is already taking place in response to the Islamic presence - but its incredibly important not to link violence with what is essentially non-violent at this time.

I support reviews of immigration policies in response to any kind of cultural element thats manifesting itself in a dangerous way in any nation, but its important to maintain perspective and pragmatism about this. There's no historical precedent model to work on here so the rational thing to do would be to proceed with caution. Time Travelers popping out of nowhere with a "100 Year Islamic War" is probably something that would come out of Hollywood (probably when western governments become a little less politically correct - the downswing is almost inevitable), not out of our short term future :)

But youve got me interested in the whole argument now, I've had to do a little research and will do a little more about pro-theorists and see what else is going on that is causing this idea. We should probably move this to a new thread though - and I'd be really interested as to what the europeans on the board think about it.

But in the end, Dan Simmons isn't offering anything tangible that can be used or is contributing realistically to the issue. Its a very creative outcome and I'm sure theres been plenty of opposing scenarios put forward in Muslim states regarding America - and they actually have a precedent to use.

[Randall Flagg]

Very cogent and elaborative thoughts. I must say that your response is equally as interesting as Dan Simmon's piece, particularly given the brief time you had to collect and present your opinion.
Keep in mind, that although Simmon's piece certainly reflects his beliefs, the fiction narrative was/is (IMHO) interesting.

Yes-Time to move this.
You are a Facillitator, I would ask that you make the determination as to where this should go.
If I can be of assistance, please let me know.

[ZoNeSeeK]

It is interesting creatively and makes you ask the questions - could this happen? Perhaps it could, with different details? Like what? How could the world change?

The beliefs reflected in the story I find incredibly worrying - they pander to an frighteningly insular world view. The morale of the story - "Dehumanise your enemies before they dehumanise you" - is in line with a paranoid, fascist regime. The fact that the author is using (has to use) a time traveller who has witnessed the downfall of civilisation in order for his beliefs on a current world issue to seem rational undermines his entire opinion. Perhaps Dan Simmons should live in Indonesia or Dubai for a few years and then come back with an updated opinion that doesn't involve demonising an entire civilisation. What is the point of becoming what you're riling against?

I read an interesting interview with Queen Rania of Jordan recently regarding sentiments about the west there - you'd be surprised at how much the average Jordanian or Iranian view of America reflects the average American's view of them. The common ground? Massive ignorance about eachother, and eachother's cultures. That piece Ray Simmons wrote and movies like 300 contribute nothing to a solution and just validate lazy thinking.

Simmons wants to irrevocably link terrorism with Islam to make all Muslims terrorists - dangerous people who are being seeded in peaceful western populations on purpose. But at the end of the day we're talking about other human beings here. I'm sure most American men wouldn't appreciate being likened to redneck rapist murderers because of the actions of several US marines in an Iraqi village last year. America clearly distances itself from its own horrors but denigrates other cultures because of theirs. There's probably a bit of that in all of us, though.

[ZoNeSeeK]

Heres a great opinion column from one of our papers. I agree with it 100%.



Rediscovering our backbones as the fatwas fly
Salman Rushdie's knighthood is a healthy sign Western capitulation is not what it used to be, writes Janet Albrechtsen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 27, 2007

DON'T fall for the sweet old lady in hat and gloves number. The Queen has a crafty Machiavellian streak to her. Turning Salman Rushdie into a sir has been a handy health check on whether the West has learned the costs of appeasement. Her Majesty would have known that bestowing a knighthood on Rushdie would also elevate him to the world's biggest collector of Islamic death edicts. The question was whether this time the West would do a better job of defending itself. So far the signs are good.
The predictable stuff came sharp and fast. Immediately after Rushdie was given his gong for services to literature, Pakistan, our friendly ally in the war on terror, demanded that Britain withdraw the title. The British blasphemer had hurt the feelings of the Muslims' world, said various Pakistani MPs.

The West is now well versed in this Muslim drama. First act: enter Muslims claiming hurt feelings. Second act: enter Muslims issuing a death-to-Western-heathens diktat. Cue Pakistan's Religious Affairs Minister Mohammed Ijaz-ul-Haq: "If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British Government apologises and withdraws the sir title." Meanwhile, Pakistani students burned effigies of the Queen and Rushdie chanting "kill him, kill him".

It's a routine that travels. Iranian leaders wept tears, claiming it was a clear sign of Islamophobia. Honouring a hated apostate would hurt the feelings of the Islamic community, said the foreign ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini. The Headquarters for Honouring the Martyrs of Islam World Movement increased the bounty on Rushdie's head.

There's no point in arguing with a country complaining about hurt feelings while it promises to wipe out Israel or with its citizens who want to "bestow kisses on the hands of whomsoever is able to execute this apostate". But it's worth checking whether the protagonist in the third act of this horror play will stick to the script. That's where the West capitulates, apologising for Western values in the name of protecting Muslim sensibilities. Values such as freedom of speech: the right to voice opinions that are offensive. And freedom of religion: the right to disagree without copping a fatwa.

In 2004, after Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered for his movie, Submission, artist Chris Ripke reacted by painting a mural on a wall. It featured a dove (representing peace) with the words "thou shalt not kill" written in Dutch. The head of a nearby mosque complained to Rotterdam police that the mural was offensive and racist. Rotterdam police duly sent in city workers to remove the mural. When a message of peace is regarded as racist, you know Western values are just not what they used to be.

Last year when Muslims were offended by a bunch of silly Danish cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed, some Muslims reacted by burning the Danish flag to the tune of bomb threats, boycotts and $14 million fatwas on the head of the cartoonists. The intimidation worked. Western leaders fell over themselves in the race to condemn the cartoons. Muslim feelings had to be spared such hurt. Many newspapers refused to publish the cartoons. A French editor was sacked for publishing them. The Australian argued publishing them would add nothing to the debate.

With another chapter of Muslim intimidation unfolding over Rushdie's gong, it is becoming increasingly clear this is a debate we have to have. Not only with Muslim countries. But also with those living in the West who openly reject Western values.

We backed away in 1989. When the ayatollah Khomeini slapped a fatwa on Rushdie's head, it was a critical test of Western resolve. A test the West failed. Few took the angry Muslims at their word. Instead, they had to be accommodated and placated. Britain, the home of free speech, played host to book-burning and flagrant intimidation by Muslims of the West. Cultural relativism meant British Muslim leaders, such as Sayed Abdul Quddus from the Bradford Council of Mosques, could openly endorse the hanging of Rushdie because he "tortured Islam".

The West headed down the path of least resistance - appeasement. Many opted to stay quiet rather than wear the racist label slapped on anyone who challenged Muslim sensibilities. Others such as then US president George H.W. Bush delivered up a dose of moral relativism declaring both the fatwa and Rushdie's book were equally offensive. Others, including British establishment figures, sided with Iran's death merchants.

In the past two decades, free speech - that most critical of Western values - has been fed through the postmodern sausage-maker called political correctness. The result is a bizarre product where Muslims are deemed too precious to be prodded by the sharper ends of free speech, by words that challenge a set of ideas, their religion. But Muslims are free not just to tell us we are wrong but to demand death to Western infidels.

In that cosy, tolerance-laden environment political Islam thrived. Moral relativism and multiculturalism became Trojan horses for a weird Western death wish. Terrorist organisations banned in other countries set up their headquarters in Britain. Radical clerics exiled by countries such as Saudi Arabia made their home in Britain. British streets hosted demonstrations for those preaching death to Westerners. Local mosques and even universities bred home-grown jihadists. Bombs exploded. Britons died.

The more the West's confidence waned, tiptoeing around for fear of causing offence, the more audacious became those who despised the West. Summing up the Danish cartoons furore last year, one pundit wondered aloud whether 2007 would be the Year of Shutting Up: a year when the West would retreat even further, undermining its own values so as not to offend those with very different values.

Rushdie's knighthood has been a neat way of checking the West's pulse on one of its core values - the right to write freely. As a doctor might say, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that victimhood is still top of the pops for some Muslims. When Nazir Ahmed, Britain's first Muslim peer, said it was wrong to honour "the man that has blood on his hands" it echoed a "blame a Westerner" mentality that has hampered progress in much of the Arab world.

Eighteen years on, Muslims were still blaming a bloke who wrote a book, not their own bloody reactions. And some Western leaders, such as British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, are still saying sorry. The good news is fewer people are falling for that baloney. No protests on British streets this time. Not even a book burning. That has to be progress.

[Ruthful]

Wow.

A column published in The Australian that I, by and large, agree with?

:unsure:

I actually don't think this was some sort of Machiavellian plot devised by the House of Hanover, especially when you consider the collaborationist/dhimmi-type tendencies of that family, which date back to the early part of the last century.

Then again, Queen Elizabeth II has always been a bit of bedrock I suppose so you never know.

One thing that does kind of irritate me is the fact that some people go way beyond praising Rushdie for his courageous stance on the West's struggle against a bloodthirsty, pre-medieval religious cult to elevate him to an elevated literary status. As if he's on a par with Henry James, Anthony Trollope, Emile Zola, or some other equally exceptional novelist whose works constitute canon.

Alright, I can understand agreeing with his political sympathies in this area, just as I comprehend praising some of Ayn Rand's economic and political ideas, but I don't see how either can be viewed as contributing much-aside from a few unintentionally comic sex scenes-to the world of fiction.

That being said, if granting him this otherwise meaningless encomium pisses off the geiteneuckers-as almost anything smacking of rationality will-then I'm four square behind it!

[Randall Flagg]

Wow.
One thing that does kind of irritate me is the fact that some people go way beyond praising Rushdie for his courageous stance on the West's struggle against a bloodthirsty, pre-medieval religious cult to elevate him to an elevated literary status. As if he's on a par with Henry James, Anthony Trollope, Emile Zola, or some other equally exceptional novelist whose works constitute canon.


He isn't exactly chopped liver in the literary world:

Awards that Rushdie has won include the following:

Booker Prize for Fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booker_Prize_for_Fiction)
James Tait Black Memorial Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tait_Black_Memorial_Prize) (Fiction)
Arts Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts_Council) Writers' Award
English-Speaking Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-Speaking_Union) Award
Booker of Bookers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booker_of_Bookers) or the best novel among the Booker Prize winners for Fiction
Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prix_du_Meilleur_Livre_Etranger&action=edit)
Whitbread Novel Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitbread_Novel_Award) (twice)
Writers' Guild of Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writers%27_Guild_of_Great_Britain) Award for Children's Fiction
Kurt Tucholsky Prize (Sweden)
Prix Colette (Switzerland)
State Prize for Literature (Austria)
Author of the Year (British Book Awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Book_Awards))
Author of the Year (Germany)
Mantua Prize (Italy)
Premio Grinzane Cavour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinzane_Cavour) (Italy)
Hutch Crossword Fiction Prize (India)
India Abroad Lifetime Achievement Award (USA)
Outstanding Lifetime Achievement in Cultural Humanism (Harvard University)
Aristeion Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristeion_Prize) (European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union))

[Ruthful]

Okay, I'm not going to engage in a debate over the merits of Mr. Rushdie's literary efforts-since we'd probably have to move this thread to a different forum if that became its focus-suffice it to say I don't put too much stock in things like the Man Booker Prize, or other literary accolades that signify the talent exhibited by writers who create works that ninety percent of the general public will never read.

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of outstanding writers who were honored by elite circles during the course of their lives, e.g. Eugene O'Neill, V.S. Naipaul, Ralph Ellison, among others.

My only point is that a lot of praise attending to Salman Rushdie in the aftermath of the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini-and the subsequent campaign to have him and everyone associated with him assassinated in the most brutal manner imaginable-would have been absent but for that fatwa and the ensuing controversy.

In my opinion the resonance of certain ideas expressed in a novel like The Satanic Verses and the quality of the work itself are inextricably linked, which in my opinion is unfortunate since you can admire and agree with the ideas Salman Rushdie has espoused without genuflecting before his-in my opinion-meager talents as a novelist.

People are free to disagree with that analysis, but that's how I feel about this issue.

[ZoNeSeeK]

See - this is something the very excitable fatwa-launching islamic puritans could have used to present a valid (well at least reasonable) political argument: criticising Rushdie's literary skill intelligently and therefore doubting the Monarchy's motivations behind the knighthood as perhaps politically based .. but perhaps you need the more western values of open debate and argument for something like this to happen. Instead we get "CHOP THE INFIDELS HEADS OFF!"

Of course Rushdie would have received less attention and praise if the fatwa nonsense hadn't occurred - I think people were reinforcing and defending the values of free speech whilst condemning any kind of repressive act when it comes to literature (or any other medium) in the form of praise and support for Rushdie - which was probably praise and support for the ability to be able to recognize controversial viewpoints and encourage questioning of beliefs and doctrine.

I think Elizabeth II is far shrewder than the institution represents her to be, and I think the timing was nothing if not perfect. It sends a firm message from England that western values will not be dictated or compromised by threats from a judgemental and aggressive ideology with insane amounts of moralistic double-standards. This behaviour has been empowered by western acceptance and tolerance and I think a hardening of our position is long overdue (which ties in with the dhimmi theories). Nothing unreasonable or aggressive, but firm, well-thought out and diplomatic.

Islam does not have juridstiction over western values - I don't think the Throne used Rushdie as an example but definitely saw it as a good opportunity to validate England's position during a change of prime minister.

[Ruthful]

Good point.

I didn't really think about how this related to the transition at 10 Downing St., but I suppose that could have been another important consideration at play.

From what I've read these particular honors have to be rubberstamped by some sort of committee of elders (bureaucrats) before they are officially pronounced, but I suppose Elizabeth II has the last word.

What pisses me off is that he was preceded in this respect by figures who wanted to see him exterminated, e.g. "Lord" Achmed, that bespectacled goat turd Iqbal Sacranie, etc., etc...

Not that as someone from outside The Commonwealth-from a country that severed ties with Great Britain nearly two and a half centuries ago-should really care about such things as peerage, but it does irritate me that the cultural dysfunction that caused London to turn into Londonistan seems to have infected the entire UK to a greater or lesser degree.

[Ruthful]

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/hitchens200706?printable=true&currentPage=all

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/hitchensqanda200706

[ZoNeSeeK]

Yeah, im not that familiar with the way Britain's demographics have changed in regards to Muslim populations - its been a political issue across most of western europe for a couple of decades though, hasn't it?

[Ruthful]

Yes.

One of the explanations for the "alienation" of British Muslims from mainstream society-and Hitchens doesn't really allude to this in an otherwise fine essay and interview-is that the homogenizing, assimilationist institutions that existed in the UK for centuries-and which helped to integrate the first wave of Muslim immigrants-have gradually been obliterated by the multiculturalists.

This is where I part company with Hitchens-and side up with another liberal, Melanie Phillips-because the fact is that none of the Abu Hamzas and Omar al-Bakris would have a following if it weren't for the fifty to sixty year campaign to undermine and/or decimate the fundamental tenets of Western civilization and British history among elite circles.

If all you're taught in school-all you hear in the news media-is that British imperialism was bad-notwithstanding the fact that British imperialists were the ones who introduced representative government to the New World, abolished the transatlantic slave trade and were responsible for creating the largest democracy on the planet-then why wouldn't you hook up with al-Muhajiroun?

[ZoNeSeeK]

It is worrying - this shift thats going on.

We had race riots on the east coast a year or so ago due to high crime rates related to lebanese gangs in certain areas of Sydney - obviously rioting and violence doesn't help anyone but it indicates a level of tension between communities. Our intake of muslim immigrants is far less than Europe's - cities other than Sydney seeming to have much smaller Muslim communities also (there's barely any kind of division on the west coast at all, but our muslim community is quite small) - we have a massive amount of people from south east asia living here and we all get along fine. But its only a city of 1.5 million so I guess the catalysts for these kinds of social problems aren't really occuring yet.

The government is introducing changes in immigration procedures that further protect our values and constitution; for any person that wishes to live within our borders to acknowledge their responsibility to this constitution and values system. This is a sovereign right.

[Ruthful]

Yeah, I remember having some conversations with my friend in Brisbane-who was just as infuriated-about that at the time.

The thing you have to remember about them is that they have absolutely no discernible sense of humor.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ae1_1181774638

[ZoNeSeeK]

The lack of humour thing is pretty evident .. but it can't be 100% - im going to try and find a Tehran comedy tv show.

[ZoNeSeeK]

http://www.payvand.com/news/00/may/1006.html

oh well, theres plenty of resources out there - Iran has quite a few humorists and political satirists 'that constantly get arrested and released', which they themselves find funny. :)

This is interesting:

http://iranian.com/

Its frustrating how the majority of middle-eastern activists for peace and acceptance are the younger generation (well, the ones not poor enough to get roped into sects who blow themselves up).