POL POT, NICOLAE CEAUSESCU, AND MUHAMMED MORSI WALK INTO A BAR, Part 2

Egyptians are putting on a graduate level course in rioting. They get what they want. Morsi’s constitution, first written on a napkin in a bar as detailed in Part1 (true story, of course) will surely end up burned or shredded or used to wipe their hineys or whatever it is they do when they want to insult a document.

 

The Arab Spring will probably take a generation or more to work itself out. Some believe there will be a dramatic rise in terrorism and unrest as Islam faces a painful, gut-wrenching move towards modernity.

 

Is Islam a utopian vision like Pol Pot’s and Ceausescu’s communism? Yes and no. A Muslim may romanticize the golden age of the past but the true focus is always on heaven. Even Islamofascists understand that Sharia will not be heaven on earth. The seventy virgins come only in death.

 

Religion is two things: It is both revelation and it is simply what its followers do. For coreligionists to debate is nothing new. Jesus exploited differences between Pharisees and Sadducees. But the question of “what is Islam” is particularly confusing. Turkish Prime Minister Tayip Erdogan once said, “There are no interpretations; Islam is Islam”. But take the Koran's famous injunction (2:256) that "there be no compulsion in religion." Is it a call for universal religious tolerance? Does it apply only to various denominations within Islam? Was it limited to non-Muslims in seventh-century Arabia? Does it protect only non-Muslims who agree to live under Muslim rule? Was it overridden by a subsequent Koranic verse? Is it purely symbolic? Apparently, it is all of the above.

 

An Egyptian Coptic Christian once told Omnipotentblog that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. There are only radicals and apostates. Given that the Muslim Brotherhood were recently burning and beheading Copts by the truckload, I can’t argue. Yet, we hear again and again about the “Religion of Peace”. Can it be? Islam expert Daniel Pipes thinks so. He writes that when he entered the field in 1969, Islamic extremism was virtually unheard of. “If things can get worse, they can also get better…If Islamism (wanting to institute universal Sharia law) can thus grow, it can also decline”.

 

Pipes is no apologist but he does seem to engage in wishful thinking when he rattles off a list of “untenable” requirements in Sharia such as “perpetual jihad against non-Muslims”, implying that surely Muslims will one day realize the requirements of Sharia just can’t be met and they should therefore flush it down a squat toilet. Dubious. However, he does cite examples where this already happens. Hiyal or “tricks” are used by jurists to get around things like not charging interest and never going to war against other Muslims. He cites studies of Islamic courts that make relatively flexible and reasonable rulings in apparent contradiction to the harshly patriarchal texts.

 

However, as Pipes himself admits, this “medieval synthesis” is perpetually prone to attack by purists because the texts themselves are considered holy and perfect. When pressed, it is a losing argument.

 

Can Islam be tolerant and modern? Neo-conservatives believed the ballot box had almost magical powers to transform. Then the Palestinians voted in Hamas. It was magical indeed. Emboldened, they took Gaza by gunpoint. Worried about Jewish cooties, they burned millions of dollars in grow houses left by the Israelis. What have other Islamists done? Morsi immediately began packing his government with cronies, enshrining Sharia and codifying discrimination against Christians. Still jailed, word on the street is that he is now reaching out to Mubarak and others to start a support group. Erdogan once said, “Democracy is like a train. Once you get where you’re going, you get off”. He initially governed well but slowly eroded press and other freedoms until the Turks finally had enough and started rioting. He and his Islamist party may not last. Some caution that if Islamists are courted to participate in democracy only to be deposed, they will return to terrorism and subverting democracy. Meh, six and one half dozen the other.

 

Can infidels live in peace with Islam? Maybe, but how do we discern between honest overtures and deceit? Several Islamic principals are troubling. Taqiyya and Kitman are deception and lying to infidels. It is ok to lie about one’s beliefs if one fears persecution. Since followers of the Religion Of Perpetual Outrage still seek revenge for the Crusades, the criteria is not exactly strict. One example is the existence of certain English versions of the Quran in which some of the more violent passages have been removed. Hudna is the establishment of a temporary truce, usually for ten years, for the purpose of rearming to defeat the enemy. Too weak at the time, Muhammed made a treaty with the Quraysh whom he later defeated. In another example of Taqiyya a New York times Op-Ed explains that Hudna’s goal is permanent peace. There is controversy over who broke the truce but Quran 9:5 says, “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists…capture them and besiege them…” Perhaps most disconcerting is the doctrine of abrogation or Naskh. It is the preeminence of later passages of the Quran over earlier ones. This is frightening because in the earlier passages, Muhammed promoted peace and tolerance. What do some of these later passages say about infidels? Quran(2:191-193) says- "And kill them wherever you find them…And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah]…”. As Muhammed gained strength, he became bold, bloody, and intolerant.

 

Francis Fukuyama, a pinhead’s pinhead, believes that humanity is on an inevitable path towards progress and democracy. Indeed, Steven Pinker showed that violence over the centuries has decreased tremendously. But democracy is a rare gem in history. From the Greek city-states and Roman senate to the resurgent leftism in Latin America and the creeping totalitarianism of Russia, liberty can die.

 

David Brooks wrote, “There are large populations across the Middle East who feel intense rage and comprehensive dissatisfaction with the status quo but who have no practical idea how to make things better. The modern thinkers who might be able to tell them have been put in jail or forced into exile…It’s not that Egypt doesn’t have a recipe for a democratic transition. It seems to lack even the basic mental ingredients.”

 

Egypt tried once before to modernize and failed. ­­­­­­­­­­­­In the early 1800’s, Muhammad Ali tried to make Egypt a cotton powerhouse. He made European rivals nervous but the nascent vines of industrialization withered under the hot desert sun and the culture’s lack of ambition and innovation. Egypt and the Middle East may yet join the 21^st century but it might take a while and it might be ugly. And bloody.