Canterbury Tales of Dhimmitude: Archbishop Ready for Sharia
The Archbishop seems to misunderstand Islam. Proponents of Sharia do not see any distinction between religion and state. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not any.
AQ-types consider the conduct of secular government in predominantly Muslim countries to be a form of apostasy and punishable by death. This subject actually serves as a good entrypoint for discussion of jihad.
We are constantly told, especially by the various talking head “experts” on the news (such as Michael Scheuer), that AQ is waging defensive jihad to combat the imposition of Western, secular ways on the Muslim community, or Umma. This is true. They are doing that. However, they are also doing something else: offensive jihad. This goes hand-in-hand with defensive jihad and has parallel interests.
Offensive jihad seeks to impose Muslim rule (Sharia) on the world. (By world, I mean the planet between Venus and Mars, in totality, ie, every square inch of it.) This does not necessarily mean the conversion of everyone to Islam by force, but rather the creation of Islamic states in which non-Muslims are forced into second-class citizen status, or Dhimmitude. We know that the AQ-types seek to impose such rule in Western countries through a sophisticated, special-purpose intelligence gathering technique called “reading what they write in their statements to each other and the press.” (If you ever want to get really far ahead of the MSM in understanding AQ, just try the aforementioned technique.)
As far as the idea that Christian values are the best counter to Islamism, I would take the following issues with it:
1. The phrase “Christian values” is pretty wimpy. If someone means Christian faith, then they should say Christian faith. The nature of Christianity is such that faith is a specific ingredient in Christian belief. The values themselves are not considered sufficient on their own.
2. While I, being a Christian, heartily recommend Christianity, I think that with regard to the very narrow concern of stopping people from blowing themselves up in crowds and such, ANY more peaceful religious beliefs will do(Hari-Krishnas, whatever…)
In any case, one combats an idea by confronting the proponents of that idea in a forum witnessed by the public eye at large and presenting a refutation that is quickly and easily understood, reasonable, and sufficiently solid to withstand rebuttal. One does not do it by caving in to the adversary.
Can the Archbishop name a single person of significant positive contribution in the Bible whose primary, defining characteristic was one of have linguini for a spine?
Put another way, is he familiar with the line, “I come not in peace but to deliver a sword”?
