(Vanity) As the World Turns, Part II, or Back to the Future

In my prior article, (Vanity) As the World Turns, or The Wild, Wild East I considered the possibility that changing demographics, upheavals in culture, and changing markets may bring the centuries-old preeminence of the Western World to an end. Three main heirs-apparent were mentioned: a renewed Islamic Caliphate, China, and India. I considered some of the weaknesses of the West and some of the cultural strengths of the others. In this and the following pieces, I wish to consider the potential Achilles’ heels for the rivals. I begin with Islam, with a detour into US politics and recent history.

As remarked earlier, the strength of Islam is exactly that: Islam. By analogy to the United States, which has been united across a diverse set of cultures and locations through a set of common political beliefs, Islam is united—across many racial and national boundaries—by common theological beliefs. In addition, the beliefs are such that they can be readily communicated and grasped without a great deal of formal education. In addition, the Muslim world is considerably younger (and more fecund) than the West. Finally, much of the Muslim World is centered around some of the largest oil reserves on Earth—convenient for economic power and/or blackmail against industrialized powers. However, each of these strengths contains a seed of weakness which may retard the establishment of sharia law worldwide.

First, consider the shared creed. Is the Muslim world really as unified as typically portrayed? Look at the violence in Iraq, aided and abetted by Islamic forces in Iran. Surely that is an example of Muslim unification? Not necessarily, upon closer inspection. Recall that a major battle fought by US forces in the last couple of weeks was actually against a splinter sect (Messianic isn’t quite the word to use of Muslims, but perhaps apocalyptic would do) who were setting out to slaughter a number of traveling pilgrims of a different Muslim persuasion. Or, for that matter, note that a great deal of the violence in Iraq is Sunni-Shia rivalry, echoing the see-saw of Catholic and Protestant power within Europe hundreds of years ago. (For an example of how extreme this is, consider the recent bootlegged video of the execution of Saddam Hussein. Here we have a world-class mass murderer and dictator. Not quite in the league of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot, but certainly up there. During his execution (a first) a bootleg recording is made, and on it, the dictator and the executioners and witnesses get into a religious quarrel. Wouldn’t you think in Iraq’s case, crimes against humanity would take precedence over squabbles?)

Consider now the youth and demographic quotient of Islam. The problem here is twofold—one economic and the other societal. The economic problem is that with all of the young Mohammeds being born, where are they going to find employment? Recall that much of the Muslim World would be living in pretty abject poverty if not for the flood of petrodollars coming from the hands of infidels. And history has shown us that large masses of single, bored, repressed young men is not a recipe for any kind of stability. If the leaders of the Islamic world cannot find a way to channel the energies of all these youngsters into something, this may cause problems. (Yes, I realize “Death to the Great Satan” is still pretty appealing, but it doesn’t put food on the table. And if Islam unleashes its youth on the rest of the world with a view to conquest, the result will probably not be a clean victory, but instead something more like the Mad Max movies, with integrated civilization as a whole sputtering to a halt, with memories of finer things.)

Finally, there is oil—black gold. Some have considered the idea that petroleum is a perfect weapon to use against the developed and decadent infidels. I can think of two reasons why this is not necessarily true. First, it seems clear that the current crop of leaders in Saudi Arabia and other places, is very used to the level of luxury and comfort afforded by selling the oil. Unless there is a theocratic revolt, they will be very unwilling to renounce the profits. But there is another possibility as well. With all of the hindrances placed by the US Democratic Party on drilling for oil in ANWR, or off of the coasts of Florida, or many other places, in addition to the unilateral energy disarmament of the US by restrictions on coal and on CO₂ emissions, the net effect is that many of the traditional sources of fossil fuels outside fo the US are disproportionately losing their supply of *cheap* fuel. Over the long term, this may have the economic effect of the “rope-a-dope” by the US, where we denude the resources of our rivals, and end up being the only player in town at the end of the day.

In summary, one hopes that Islam will not be a major threat to the US for the foreseeable future in a demographic or economic sense—always with the caveat that if Muslim fundamentalists gain access to fission or thermonuclear weapons, all bets are off. If Islam does supplant Western liberal democracy, it may be it will do so not by moving ahead, but by reducing much of the world to the Dark Ages once again. Back to the Future? Or Forward to the Past?

(As an aside, maybe it should be emphasized that *that* is what the United States has to fear most by the Islamization of Europe. One can only hope that the ex-Christian powers have the foresight to disable or destroy any nuclear-weapons related technology or artifacts, during the slow decline of their civilization, before the point of no return is reached.)

In my next piece, I will take a look at China. Keep in mind the Chinese calendar.

The final went well. Just three more now.

I can try to answer some of the questions in your post #20...

1. I’m pretty sure the Arabs are the descendents of Ishmael (hence the Ismaili sect, and the name Ismail is common amongst Muslims). Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages and are fairly similar. Genesis says Ishmael’s descendents would have their hand against Isaac’s, and against the world. Boy is that true. The Muslims do indeed hate the Jews, and pretty much the rest of the world too.

2. Wahhabism is a relatively young sect of Islam. If I remember right it originated in the 1700s and was created by Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab. The Saud family, who had controlled the area around Riyadh since the 1400s, adopted Wahhabism in the 1700s and it’s still the majority sect in Saudi Arabia.

3. Wahhabism and Sunni Islam in general doesn’t have a heirarchy of clerics, but Shi’a Islam does. The lowest rank is the mullah, followed by the hujat al-Islam ( “proof of Islam” — al-Sadr was one of these), then the ayatollah, and then the grand ayatollah (i.e. Khamenei in Iran). The imam is the guy who leads prayer and gives sermons at the mosques—both Sunnis and Shi’ites have them.

I’ll let Cronos & Muawiyah give their input too :)

1. The Ibadis are the majority islamic sect in Oman (they are tiny minorities elsewhere). The Ibadis are separate from Sunnis and Shia: some differences are that Ibadis believe that hell is everlasting and that there is no such thing as purgatory (sunnis and shias believe that muslims enter purgatory and then are cleansed before going to heaven -- no matter how grave the sin, though how true they are to the Koran determines which level the Muslim goes to (hence the term seventh heaven as in the levels of heaven) -- but non-Muslims all go to hell

they support Ali's stand against Muawiyah, but however, say that since Ali compromised, he wasn't worthy of being the imam. Hence the Ibadis have their own imamate -- in fact they were a law unto themselves in the Imamate of Oman (distinct from the Sultanate of Muscat until the 19th century).

2. Wahabbis are among the strictest group of islam. Taliban ARE Wahabbis -- in their beliefs. Talib means student and these poor souls were trained in Saudi sponsored madrassas in the NWFP in Pakistan -- they were brainwashed and we're living with the consequences.

There always was a formal, historical and hierarchical structure within Islam -- called the Caliphate -- the first CAliph was Muhammad and then the good caliphs like Abu Bakr and al-Khattab. Husein and Ali (descendents of the prophet) tried to make the Caliphate a dynasty but were overthrown by the Umayyads and their followers became the Shias, Ismailies, Bohras etc.

3. Ok, so now you got the split between the Shias and the Sunnis. Now, a bit later, there were disagreements about the rule of one or the other Imam and the dissenters from the main group became Ismailies (or followers of Ismail), then Bohras, Dawoodi Bohras etc.

Druze are a mystery religion with bits and pieces of Islam, etc. They are also ethnic as well as religious since they only marry among themselves and do not accept outside converts (like the Parsis or Zoroastrians in India).

I do believe that the BEDOUIN Arabs are the descendents of Hagar. The ones who are descended from the Arabs in the Yemen were more cultured and not related to the northern arabs (Yemenis after all are descendents of the Shebans and have a civilisation dating back millenia). The Arabs from the Hejaz may be descendents of Keturah.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.