There are many solid critiques of the Islamic religion.
Well-formed theological refutations of the Islamic conception of God, skepticism over the origins of the Quran, and legitimate criticisms of certain maladaptive traits that become apparent in those who adhere to often the most prominent interpretations; all of these are both interesting and intellectually meritorious.
But most criticisms of Islam do not center around these points, they instead are propagated from the perspective of bourgeois Liberalism, which is, in its ‘principled’ form, offended by the guest who comes into the house and does not play by house rules; those rules being adherence to the doctrine of the self, the eternal quest for emancipation. It is of course no coincidence that the very word ‘Islam’ means submission.
Let us first acknowledge that most Liberals are not at all critical of Islam, not openly at least. Their almost sexual fascination with ‘the other‘, with that which overtly challenges their ancestral inheritance, knows few bounds. This has as much to do with ethnicity as it does with religion.While there are a growing number of white Muslims, it is rare to see a Liberal leap so joyously to their defense as to that of an Afghan or Libyan migrant. Most Liberals are in a certain mode which has as its primary directive the ferreting out of any possible privileged or discriminatory systems, and anybody of an exotic background is sure to be classified as part of a victim group.
However, there is another school of Liberal (admittedly a fraction of the rest), which runs with a different prime directive, and that is the defense of Liberalism, even if it means occasionally violating some of its tenets. This type is far more aware of their surroundings, and is usually fully cognizant of the fact that their ideological brothers and sisters are sleepwalking into oblivion. Are these people cowards? In some senses, no. Many of them actually risk their lives in being critical of Islam, and most certainly risk their reputations. While Islamophobia isn’t as severe a heresy as homophobia, the point is that once you have been declared as such, you are likely to be treated the same way as a racist, no matter how much you argue that Islam isn’t a race. So, I don’t mean these people are cowards in the sense that they are scared into silence by the threat of Islam (for the record, I don’t think their detractors are guilty of that either), but instead they are guilty of a cowardice with regard to self-reflection and assessment.
In many ways, critics of Islam such as Douglas Murray, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, etc. are much like those who say that if only we had a nice white country things would be okay. Remove the external parasite that has somehow leeched its way in, surround ourselves with a moat and our problems would disappear.
Think back a moment to one of the key critiques of feminism; this being that the concept of the ‘patriarchy’ as an international body of men with nefarious designs to disenfranchise women at every turn, is a conspiracy theory without basis. It’s a conspiracy theory that has to be appealed to in order to explain the existence of this inequitable system that we have. If there was no conspiracy, feminists would have to admit that the way societies treat men and women are in fact grounded in brute facts about male and female behavior. While conspiracy theories such as ZOG or the Eurabia Project are not without merit (indeed aspects of such theories tend to be true in some instances), underlying this are the same problems. Blame is deliberately shifted away from oneself in order to avoid unpleasant conclusions. The unpleasant conclusion that we can reach with regard to the Islamization of Europe is one that many of Islam’s critics will not acknowledge: that there is something intrinsically wrong with our societies, and this is why they are being eroded and transformed by a hostile foreign power.
Saying that Liberal society or Western civilization simply deserves to survive is like saying that any number of now extinct species deserved to survive. Complain as much as you like, but Darwin’s laws remain binding. If your society is failing to compete, then either you are the victim of horribly bad luck (something that the West can never lay claim to) or your survival strategy is lacking. Some will scoff and say “have you seen British GDP? Look at our education levels, look at our technology”. Valid points, but if these things are so important in the great game of civilizations, then why would you feel threatened by Islam? Perhaps you subconsciously realize that all the corporate development in the world is no good if it causes rich monopolies to import cheap labor, that over-funded universities telling young men that they need to ‘rethink masculinity’ might render them docile as women are gang raped in a subway, and that the most advanced weaponry in the world does little good if much of your population is in the retirement home. As the West has climbed Maslow’s hierarchy, it has engaged in the rather bizarre practice of kicking off the rungs below it.Now it’s trapped at the top, and there is a long way to fall.
There are two things to consider and these are; survival itself, and the value of that survival. It’s easy to conflate the two, but there is a distinction. What you often find however is that the two concur with each other. Societies lacking in intrinsic value do not survive. It’s that simple.
When we speak of survival, we are making positive judgments. A civilization either will survive, or it won’t. When we speak of the value of survival, we are making normative judgments, whose objective grounds are based on Tradition and by extension, God. The present Liberal order is not only devoid of any higher spiritual value, but in addition, the purging of such elements has crippled the resolve of our civilization to even defend itself. Value tracks survival, at least in the long term.
The key thrust of Modernity has been that civilization is unimportant. Instead, individuals are important. It is impossible to remain consistent with Liberalism and still assert that civilization (even your own) is in fact important. Muslims still value civilization. Whatever faults it may have, and however alien to us it may seem, their continued self-understanding of basic truths is one of the key reasons they are running circles around Western man who grumbles from his armchair as demographics slide away from him.
In an article for The Spectator, Douglas Murray raises opposition to an open-door policy for refugees, by pointing out that Europe cannot assimilate the Muslims it already has. What he won’t admit is that telling a Muslim to assimilate is like telling a dueling opponent to empty his bullets into the dust. What motivation is there? It’s like when Americans decry China for stealing patented ideas, but why would China stop when the US is not only willing to allow this theft, but its public will then buy Chinese products in their marketplace no questions asked? The Muslim is in the same situation. A vanishingly small number will accept assimilation but most will not because clearly our present culture has done us little good. Monkey see, monkey stay far away. They also might have something of an axe to grind as American planes continue to bomb Pakistani weddings and Yemeni funerals, how over and over again through various avenues the West inserts itself into Arab and Persian affairs when they are not wanted.
Since the dawn of contemporary terrorism, the left has been keen to purge out all reference to Islam when considering its options. Vague terror is the problem. Conservatives respond by repeating radical Islam until they are blue in the face. Then, the counter-Jihadists go one step further and say that it isn’t about radicalism at all, it is about Islam.
Wrong on all counts. The present crisis is not about Islam, the expansion of which is only symptomatic. The problem is us. The problem is the assumptions we have built our Modern World around, many of them appealed to still by Islam’s critics. If the peoples of Western countries are to survive, and indeed if they want that survival to have any value, they must examine themselves. Their volley against Islam cannot be based on the bile of women’s emancipation, gay rights, the freedom to satirize everything, expulsion of religion from public life, and on and on. It must be rooted in two very-easy-to-understand truths that justify resistance to Islamization, which were the basis of our forefather’s resistance: