Islam versus Europe

In previous posts, I’ve drawn parallels between the human rights fanboys and girls and the “reformers” in the Islamic world, each fleeing the consequences of their own ideology, but fleeing forward into even more of it, because they have failed to correctly diagnose the roots of their predicament.

I’ve also argued that the defining dynamic of our age is bureaucracy vs. democracy: deciding what to do either by following rules or using judgement.

It was only when reading Robert Spencer’s book, “Did Muhammad Exist?” last night, though, that the true parallel between the human rights lobby and the Mohammedans really struck me. Islam, too, is essentially a system of rule-following. That’s why the authenticity of the so-called holy texts and their correct interpretation is of such tremendous significance. Both ideologies deprecate the use of judgement, instead investing written rules with sacred significance. Those who interpret the rules - the ulema or the human rights judges - then become the supreme arbiters of what happens in society.

Since democracy is essentially a ceremony in which people collectively use their judgement to find the best way forward, it’s easy to see why both human rights and Islam are in inherent and irreconcilable conflict with it. Rule-following is inimical to democracy, whose vitality depends on its capacity to dynamically and improvisationally adapt.

Islam and human rights are both pernicious ideologies rooted in a fear of human freedom.