Very sober analysis. As Michael Corleone said, "Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgment."

You are awefully confident that the Shi'a will prevail in Iraq. There are numerous situations around the world where minorities dominate majorities (see Tutsi-Hutu history). In fact, given that there are several Sunni-dominated states around Iraq with governments willing to supply arms and refuge, it may be that the Sunni are capable of re-taking control Iraq in the future.

The central premise here -- that "we all want the same thing," namely "decent lives" -- is dubious on its face. To hinge so large an argument on this premise is not "sober analysis" at all, but more nearly a fantasy or dream, as Harris says.

It is clear that not every society of men is driven by the motivation of comfort and prosperity. Some are driven by a desire for honor, or fear of shame; others are driven by the ideal of virtue; others are driven, as our own once was, by fear of God, that is, by piety.

The idea that Puritan Massachusetts, Islamic Arabia, and postmodern America are all civilizations moved by the same spiritual forces, is risible.

What Paul said.

Or, to be a bit more precise, it's true that everyone wants a decent society, it's just that we disagree about how to define decent.

Partly because of Orrin's fantasies about the wonderful regime of 16th century Spain, I have been reading up (again) on the history of the Low Countries during that time. Facts do not square with his view, and the behavior of the Imagebreakers -- to cite just one example among very many -- proves it.

Once we accept that some people don't want to be civilized, we are left with a choice to make: Do we also want to become savages, or do we dispatch them once and for all and press on with civilization as a worthy goal for all humanity?

Paul:

then why are the Arabs so unhappy with their lives?

Brandon:

Great--then we can go kill them and remove them from power again.

Because their lives are full of shame -- acute, unanswerable shame. Not because they are poor or subjugated by tyrants, but because they sense the failure of their civilization and despair.

Which means they will be amenable to change. We're shamed by our mistakes, merely embarrassed by failure. Their shame arises because what they believe in has proved incapable of competing with us.

I didn't notice it working out that way among white Southerners when I was growing up.

Just the opposite, in fact.

I didn't same that they are incapable of change. What I said is that what might lead them to change is quite different than what would lead us to change. What I think is foolish dreaming is the idea that we are all the same at base, that we all "want the same thing."

The only thing that all men share is the original stain of Sin; it's manifestations are of a nearly infinite variety.

Paul:

But you aren't saying that God Created varieties of men are you? Good white Europeans, lazy Mexicans, anti-democratic Arabs? If we're all Created in His Image then we're all rather similar. The idea that they don't want a decent society seems manifestly absurd.

Harry:

What's your point? That the white South was incapable of change and white Southerners don't want decent lives? I'd assume Muslims are just as intractable as we were.

Yeah, I've read Mantle of the Prophet too, and I'll believe Shi'ism is perfectly amenable to democracy when I see it. I'm more partial to Naipaul's image of Iran myself. Their shame comes from their pride. They know that they are Allah's chosen people, and so they must be flawed to explain their current failures, so they need to recreate the conditions from the time of the Prophet. Just because they want to better their miserable lives doesn't mean they're willing to accept the way of the infidel (yet).

brian:

If you had a free and fair referendum in Iran today and allowed people to vote on whether the clerics should retain control over the legislative process, how dio you think it would turn out?

I'll concede that as far as I can tell from the news (actually from blogs, mostly, which is how accurate?) it is likely the clerics would lose. What would replace them I have no idea. I should not have changed the subject from Shi'ism in general to Iran in particular. Given the state of nuclear proliferation in the last half-dozen years, do we have time to allow every Islamic country to figure out for themselves that such theocratic rule is a guarantee of failure?

brian:

Think of the Sunni Triangle as Ground Zero.

Don't blame God for it.

Muslims look at the world the way they do (whatever that is) because of choices made by their ancestors that they have mostly adopted.

Orrin thinks they are going to reject their ancestors, the way he did his.

Some have, but that rejection generally means moving. The ones who've stayed home are pretty well content with the way things always were, and it seems that a largish majority of opinion leaders are actively reactionary.

Islam is not a revolutionary society except when you compare it with 6th century Arabia, as the Muslims themselves do constantly.

The way the Southerners proved incapable of letting go of bad choices? Oops, never mind...

Paul:

Thought provoking analysis.

OJ:

Similar and same are two different concepts.

It isn't surprising that Saudis and Norwegians are similar. What would be surprising is that a group of people existing for millenia in a harsh desert environment would be the same as people existing in a harsh arctic environment.

The difference between similar and same may ultimately be crippling.

Yup, the Arabs just ride around the desert on their camels, like in Lawrence of Arabia.

Exactly so, Orrin.

There were a few, very few, Southerners who saw a different future, men like Henry Grady, Booker Washington and even my formerly slaveowning greatgrandfather, who changed enough to become, by 1895, the introducer when Washington made his first address to a white audience, at the Cotton States Exposition in Atlanta.

The fine Christian white Southerners, though, reacted mostly like the Arabs and they never let go. They had the bad choices pried out of their hands by the secular state and a minority of the churches.

The parallel is exact.

I agree. There's no reason even the Sunni Triangle can't be reformed. People change and do so rather rapidly as did Southerners

OJ:

You conjure the demon of Race to obscure and embitter; it is a shabby tactic.

I'm talking here about religion and culture. If you want to adopt a sheltered transnationalism as your creed be my guest; I am sticking to what is plain as day: that something dark and sinister has poisoned the wells in the lands of Islam. Perhaps we should be begin to call this most enduring heresy by its name.

As Wretchard of The Belmont Club explains with great eloquence:

"Yet here lies the last danger. Our hand is stayed by fear that the Thing is waiting to transfer its malevolence to us. It has lost the field, but still hungers after our souls. 'Smite us', it says, 'and come to prayer; come to Islam'. Militarily impotent, it has retreated within its herd and built around itself a wall of unconquerable hate, daring us to enter its cave. Here it lurks safe from bullets, for in the end a culture can be displaced only by another culture. The West cannot win the Global War on Terror until it rediscovers the wellsprings of its own belief, until it sends out teachers alongside soldiers, until it finds the courage to judge Islam, or certain Islamic sects, by a higher standard. Only if it rediscovers what it found, then lost, after Nuremberg can it save itself and save Fallujah."

Four guys got killed in one occuppied city. In order to condemn all of Islam you have to ignore the reform efforts in the nations of Iraq, Morocco, Turkey, Afghanistan, the Gulf states; Libya; the open struggles in places like Iran and Syria; and on and on.

Of course it would be easier to just nuke them all. The easy solution is seldom worthy.

"Four guys got killed in one occuppied city."

A dismissive remark worthy of John Kerry.

Who said "nuke" anyone? I quoted a man who spoke of "teachers alongside soldiers," and until "the courage to judge Islam" by a higher standard.

We've judged Islam by those standards, that's why we're Reforming it. That's why those who enjoyed power previously are resisting. But their resistance is futile.

If your argument is that we should send more teachers, that sounds great--probably wanna wait til the shooting stops though.

That's four more to a butchers bill running to the thousands.

And would be millions if their grasp ever catches up with their reach.

Unfortunately, their scripture says the only natural state of affairs is the world-wide dominion of Islam, and they are perfectly entitled to kill as many as necessary to get there.

Unfortunately, Paul is probably right.

Orrin, in 1963 the first organized public demonstration in favor of change in Raleigh, N.C., was held by SCLC. There were about 60,000 white people in Wake County. Three showed up for the demostration.

I'd say that shows pretty clearly that the majority of white Southerners wanted to cling to the old ways, even if it meant they were poorer, sicker, less free and more likely to be cut with a razor than other Americans. Even if it meant they were ridiculed and jeered by other Americans.

You say Islam is reforming. When I see 5,000 people in the streets of Islam's equivalent of Raleigh demanding reform, I'll believe they have taken the first baby step.

So far, hasn't happened. You are fantasizing.

The South is still segregated?

It may well be nukes, or MOABs, or simple daisy-cutters and firebombing that brings radical Islam to heel.

It's not necessary that it turn out this way, but one dark vision of the future is that the Muslim world can't move beyond exploiting natural resources, accidents of fate and geography, to actually producing something of worth. They're extremely vulnerable to the collapse of value of said resources, which has historically happened for every natural resource.

Then, the Arabs in particular will have huge populations, and no money.
That breeds despair and resentment, and angry young men will lash out even more against the West, which might lead to some apocalyptic scenarios for them.

Michael:

Your reasoning is bleak, but, nonetheless, compelling.

Took over a hundred years, Orrin, and yes, it's still considerably segregated. The seg academies thrive.

The Muslims don't have a hundred years to change.