Two Models for the Encounter Between Islam and the West

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/01/two-models-for-encounter-between-islam.html

There are essentially two models for the current encounter between Islam and the West. The Clash of Civilizations, the first model is held by a narrow slice of the population in First World countries, and an even smaller slice within the political and academic world. This model holds that we are experiencing a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. A clash of civilizations resulting from the desire of Muslims to create a global civilization based on their religion and culture, by displacing all competing civilizations, primarily (but not limited to) Western Civilization.


The second model is the Assimilationist Model, this model is the most widely held one, not only on the left, but among many on the right as well. The Assimilationist Model holds that the tensions between Muslims and the West, both in the West and in the Muslim world, are the product of the incomplete assimilation of both sides into a global society.

Under the Assimilationist Model, clashes in Europe or terrorism in America result from a failure by their host countries to properly assimilate Muslims within their borders. This "failure to assimilate" results primarily from Western racism, ignorance about Islam, and disrespect for Muslim values, leading to economic and social injustice. This economic and social injustice is then said to marginalize Muslim moderate leaders, who are more prepared to assimilate into their host society, and strengthens Muslim extremists.


On a global scale, violence from the Muslim world is said to be produced by the failure of First World countries to respect and adapt to Muslim culture and religion, as well as the left's old standbys of racism, and economic and social injustice. With the same results as on local level. Muslim extremists are strengthened, Muslim moderates are weakened, and stuff blows up all because we didn't spend enough time learning about other cultures.

Both locally and globally, the Assimilationist Model's prescription for curing terrorist ills is the same. For the affected countries to learn about the values of their attackers and strive to accommodate them. To provide financial benefits and various forms of affirmative action to neutralize Islamic grievances and show respect by promoting and normalizing Islam, both locally and globally. This will harmonize Muslims and non-Muslims together within the emerging global society. And then everyone can join hands and live peacefully together under the enlightened rule of a vast global bureaucracy.

While the Assimilationist Model emerged out of attempts by First World countries to actually assimilate Muslims, in its present state it is essentially a prescription for what is at best mutual assimilation, and what is at worst, a Muslim takeover. And what is worse, the Assimilationist Model is the dominant model used by politicians, academics, business leaders and the political and intellectual elite of almost every society currently targeted by Islam.

And there is a reason for that. Where the Clash of Civilizations model presents a global showdown in which not only is there no avoiding a global conflict, but that conflict will also disrupt emerging trade, international cooperation and global governance mechanisms-- the Assimilationist Model is an essentially optimistic one that says that if we all "buckle down" and make some cultural sacrifices, censor our cartoons, pay fealty to the cultural importance of Mosque and Koran, and avoid eating in public around Ramadan time, in exchange we'll benefit from from globalism abroad and multiculturalism at home (read as a dirt cheap workforce that can help fund our already bankrupt socialist systems). It's no wonder that the Assimilationist Model is so popular among the ruling elite, since it assumes that with a little cultural tinkering, everyone can be made happy. Even if it's under Sharia law. The details don't really matter to them, only the big picture does.

The different viewpoints inherent in these two models, the Clash of Civilizations and the Assimilationist Model underlie virtually all of the debate going on about Islam and the West. And what is so insidious about the Assimilationist Model is that it represents the "easy shortcut" in which societies begin trying to win over Muslims, and by the time they realize it isn't working they see no other alternative short of civil war for dealing with the problem, and this only reinforces their commitment to the Assimilationist Model as the only remaining option.

It is easy to understand why the Assimilationist Model is so dominant, given two choices, most people will choose the "easy way" out. Most people will also try to choose the nicer one, in order to feel better about themselves. The Assimilationist Model offers a minimum of sacrifice up front. There's no need to fight wars or contemplate international alliances against a rising evil. All you really have to do is run some ads, meet with some Muslim leaders, address their concerns and you're done for the day. It seems easy and at first it is. But then the demands get worse and worse, and even when you address them the violence increase. And you're caught inside the trap, and the only way to get out is chew your own leg off, on a national scale. But how many modern leaders are prepared to do that? And so they keep repeating the same futile gestures, putting more and more on the table, in the hopes that at some point the Assimilationist Model will kick in and their society will be saved. Of course the only thing that finally kicks in, is Sharia law and another addition to the Ummah, once the tipping point has been reached.

The difference between the Assimilationist Model and the Clash of Civilizations is the difference between a slot machine that asks for a quarter and a training course in electrical engineering that asks for ten thousand dollars. The first seems tempting, because it asks for very little up front and offers a huge reward. While the other asks for a lot up front and doesn't offer nearly as much down the road, and requires a lot of hard work. And much of the West's political leadership is no longer geared up for sacrifices and hard work, but for socialist bread and circuses, and the Assimilationist Model fits nicely into that mold.

But the intellectual failure of the Assimilationist Model goes even further back, because it's really the model that the West adopted for use against Communist and other far left wing workers' movements, which focused on depriving them of their base by improving conditions for workers. Since then the First World has adapted that same model for use in pacifying virtually any form of dangerous social discontent. But there's a basic disconnect between applying a model meant to deal with an ideological threat to a religious and cultural war. Because while Islam functions at the ideological level, its primary appeal functions at a cultural, national and religious level.

Islam is not simply a manifestation of discontent due to economic or social barriers, but the Manifest Destiny of Muslims in building a global Caliphate. It cannot be waved away with aid money, affirmative action or even showing respect for Islam. The Assimilationist Model is based on the fallacy that Islamism can be neutralized by coddling Muslims. It is profoundly and deeply wrong in this regard, because it fails to understand the power and appeal of Islam. But the fault lies in the left which following its Marxist model of class warfare has coded every social movement as coming in response to economic inequality. And the level of acceptance for the Assimilationist Model demonstrates the level of penetration by the basic ideas behind Marxism... even when those ideas were used to counter the rise of Marxist groups.

The left's intellectual dominance in the First World has wedded its political elite to a worldview in which local and global conflicts can be reduced to either greed on the part of developed nations and groups, or outrage against economic inequality by undeveloped nations and groups. The latter half of the 20th century has overlain those ideas with dollops of tolerance and respect, but the underlying idea remains the same. That you resolve a conflict by divide the Haves from the Have Nots, and assuming the latter can be appeased by remedying the wrongs done to them by the Haves.

The "Have and the Have Not" formula so vital to the Marxist worldview is so thorough embedded that it cannot envision actual Islamist motives as anything except as an insanity that can be pacified by weaning away their followers with economic, social and cultural incentives, or the inventions of intolerant conservative elements within their own society who are seeking to disrupt their attempt at national and global harmony.

This is why the Assimilationist Model has become a fact of life, whether it's in Europe, where governments seek to charm Muslims by showing them respect, or America, where the government is planning to spend billions to lure away Taliban fighters from their machine guns, to Israel, where the endless peace process continues dangling a limited state before terrorists who remain committed to destroying their country.


Because it is easy, because it accommodates the facile worldview of the left and provides minimum disruption to their plans for a global order-- the Assimilationist Model remains very hard to shake. Its optimism and humanism makes it seem morally indefensible to its followers. But its fatal flaw, like that of all utopian delusions, is that it is completely unreal.

The core meaning of utopia is a place that cannot exist. The Assimilationist Model too posits a mythical place brought to life by the ideological will and intellectual laziness of a civilization at war, but refusing to acknowledge it. The rate of global Muslim violence has been steadily increasing, and while the proponents of the Assimilationist Model will always defend it by finding new sources to blame for growing Muslim outrage, almost as quickly as Osama bin Laden's videotaped ghost does (US Troops in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Global Warming, Western Culture, the WTO), this sort of intellectual sloppiness cannot even begin to explain why Muslim violence is not limited to the West, why it is not limited to developed countries, why in fact its only distinctive characteristic is the Muslim violence itself.

The Clash of Civilizations remains the only rational explanation and prescription for action. But it is also a difficult one, both practically and morally for many people to accept. But understanding the other side, requires understanding the flaws of the Assimilationist Model. For it is by understanding the nature of another's delusion, that we can begin to show them the truth.

The Israel of YHWH

Hat tip to Scot Dryer of profoundprophecy.com

It is important to pray and desire the peace of Jerusalem all while realizing it is the Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace, Y'shua) that will bring the peace. There are really two competing "laws" that are diametrically opposed to one another. One will prevail and one will fail. The teachings and instructions of YHWH, enforced by His Son will prevail over the traditions of men and the teachings of the adversary. Whether lies found in Christendom, Islam or Judaism...a lie is a lie and the adversary is the founder of such.

One of the hot topics as many of you know is The Temple Mount. Who does this chunk of real estate belong to? It belongs to Abba and He set as stewards over it, the Israel of God. Immediately, I begin to ruffle feathers with that statement as opposed to just, Israel. What do I mean? Israel vs. "the Israel of YHWH" can mean two very different things. On the one hand we have natural descendants of the 12 tribes and on the other we have grafted branches (or gentiles that have joined themselves to YHWH, keeping the feasts, sabbaths & commandments as they are led by the Spirit). Consider the parable:

The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.


As I was pondering this little parable, it dawned on me...the three types of people to whom "the parables" are addressed. Parables are for the believer and all believers fall into one of THREE categories.

1.Believers from Judah - Southern Kingdom
2.Believers from Israel - Northern Kingdom
3.Grafted in believers from "the nations" or former Gentiles

The "flipside" is also important in that each of these groups also has those who are "cut off" in unbelief and as a result are not "the Israel of YHWH." So Paul's enigmatic quotation "All of Israel will be saved" is 100% spot on...because all who ARE saved ARE ISRAEL, the Israel of God. This also explains Paul's riddle regarding the following statement:

"For they are

not all Israel, which are of Israel" - Romans 9:6

Notice the "of Israel" statement...He is referring to natural branches that have been "CUT OFF" because of not believing or not abiding in the vine. This also explains the former verse:

Who are Israelites; to whom pertainieth

the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; - Romans 9:4

Notice "the adoption" pertaineth to Israel. Wait a minute!!! I thought Israel was the "heir by birth," NOT SO! It is by adoption or the rebirth and "grafting into" the commonwealth.

I hope this little nugget is a blessing.

Islamic Christianophobia: The world ignores the persecution of Christians in the Muslim world.

http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2010/January08/0862.html

In Egypt, seven Coptic Christians were murdered yesterday by a Muslim gunman as they filed out of a midnight mass in the southern town of Nag Hamadi. In Pakistan, more than 100 Christian homes were ransacked by a Muslim mob last July in the village of Bahmaniwala. In Iraq that same month, seven Christian churches were bombed in Baghdad and Mosul in the space of three days.

Such atrocities—and there are scores of other examples—are grim reminders that when it comes to persecution, few groups have suffered as grievously as Christians in Muslim lands. Fewer still have suffered with such little attention paid. Now a new report from the non-profit ministry, Open Doors USA, shines a light on the scale of oppression.

In its annual World Watch List, Open Doors ranks eight Muslim countries among the 10 worst persecutors of Christians. The other two, North Korea (which tops the list) and Laos, are communist states. Of the 50 countries on the list, 35 are majority Muslim.

Take Iran, which this year ranks as the world's second-worst persecutor of Christians. Open Doors reports that in 2009 the Islamic Republic arrested 85 Christians, many of whom were also mistreated in prison. In 2008, some 50 Christians were arrested and one Christian couple was beaten to death by security officials. At least part of the reason for the mistreatment appears to be the result of Muslim conversions to Christianity: Apostasy carries a mandatory death sentence in Iran.

In Saudi Arabia (No. 3), all non-Muslim public worship is forbidden. The state forbids the building of any type of non-Muslim house of worship, and Christian expatriates in the kingdom must practice their faith in private. The same goes in the Maldives, where the report notes that all citizens must be Muslim; "the handful of indigenous Christians are forced to believe in complete secrecy." Similarly in Mauritania, conversion to Christianity or any other religions is formally punishable by death.

Little wonder, then, that once-thriving Christian communities in the Muslim world have now largely voted with their feet by fleeing to safer havens, often in Europe or the United States. That's true even in religiously important communities such as Bethlehem, where the Christian majority has largely fled since the arrival in the 1990s of Yasser Arafat's repressive government and the ascendancy of Islamist groups such as Hamas. By contrast, Christians practice their religion freely and openly in Israel, just a few miles distant.

It might seem natural that at least some attention would be paid in the West to the plight of these Christians. Instead, attention seems endlessly focused on "Islamophobia," not least at the U.N.'s misnamed Human Rights Council. In November, much of Europe went berserk over the Swiss referendum to ban the construction of minarets (though not of mosques). But the West's tolerance for its large Muslim populations stands in sharp contrast to the Muslim world's bigotry and persecution of its own religious minorities. That's a fact that ought to be borne in mind the next time Westerners berate themselves about their own supposed "intolerance."

Questions for Every Muslim

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/12/questions-for-every-muslim.html

The following was written by Bill Warner and originally published December 14, 2009

WHEN YOU STUDY the incident of Major Hasan at Fort Hood, you realize that there were some questions that needed to have been asked. But, no one knew what to ask, since the wrong questions might seem, well, politically incorrect. No one wants to be politically incorrect. We don't want to offend.

If you look around you will find that no one is asking any Muslims hard questions. Never mind the Major Hasan types, no one asks questions to the Muslim at work. It turns out that there are many questions that each and every Muslim should be asked. These are simple ones that deal with the core of Islam. Every Muslim knows the answers.

"Do you believe that the Koran is perfect?" This is not offensive. Muslims must believe that the Koran is perfect, without error. They also believe that it is eternal and universal. Most of all, it came from the lips of Mohammed.

"Is Mohammed the ideal Muslim? Should Muslims pattern their life after Mohammed?" Again, don't worry that Muslims will find this awkward. Mohammed is admired, looked up to, and idealized. He is the perfect father, husband, friend, warrior, wise elder and best companion that could be.

These questions establish the Islam of the believer. Every Muslim believes that the Koran is perfect, and Mohammed is the ideal human.

Islam is only partially based on the Koran. Far more of a Muslim's life is governed by Mohammed than the Koran and Allah. Why is this so important? The practical way to understand Islam and what Muslims believe and think is to know about Mohammed. This is very good news. Anyone can understand Mohammed's life.

However, once you get to know Mohammed, the perfect Muslim, Islam becomes problematic. From the first days of being a prophet Mohammed not only preached a better way of life, but he attacked all those who did not believe him. He created a new type of human being called the kafir, usually called unbeliever, but this is not an accurate translation. A kafir is the worst person in the world; an unbeliever is just someone who does not believe. A kafir can be mocked, deceived, tortured, enslaved, murdered, robbed, raped, and plotted against. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.

Now we are ready to ask a Muslim another question. "Am I a kafir?"

The only answer is yes, but that is not the answer you will get. If you are a Christian you will be told no, you are a person of the Book. That sounds nice, but if you don't believe that both Jesus and Mohammed were the prophets of Allah and that the Gospels are false, then you are a Christian kafir. They also might say that you are a non-Muslim, but that is not what the Koran says. The Koran says that you are a kafir.

Now we come to more questions that should be asked, but most people do not have the knowledge to ask them, since the questions are based on knowing Mohammed's life. As an example, Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive kafirs if it would advance Islam. So: "Have you ever deceived a kafir?" is appropriate to ask.

Mohammed assassinated kafirs, tortured, enslaved, robbed and plotted against them. His entire life as a prophet was an attempt to make kafirs submit to Islam by any means possible. It is proper then to ask: "How do you feel about what he did?"

If you are a Christian, ask: "Over 60 million Christians have been killed in jihad. Christians are persecuted daily in Islamic lands. Have you ever apologized for this?"

If you are a black American, ask: "Islam sold slaves on the West coast of Africa, the east coast of Africa and the Mediterranean. You enslaved over a million Europeans. Why do you never take any responsibility for slavery?"

If you are a Jew, ask: "How do you see the war against Israel as jihad?"

The other reason we do not ask questions is that we have become a nation of deceivers under political correctness. We don't ask Muslims any question that would make them feel "uncomfortable."

It is completely reasonable to ask anyone about their ideology. Christians, Jews, liberals, conservatives and every other ideology have to answer questions about what they believe. Why not Muslims?

That is the true question for kafirs: "Why are Muslims the only people in the world who don't have to be asked difficult questions about what they believe?"

All Muslims must answer questions about Islam, questions about Mohammed and the Koran for the only way to know a Muslim is to know their Islam.

Bill Warner

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.