Fair enough, guys, what would it take to alarm you?Of course, he has a list of recent provocations:
The other day, in a characteristically clotted speech followed by a rather more careless BBC interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that it was dangerous to have one law for everyone and that the introduction of sharia — Islamic law — to the United Kingdom was "inevitable." No alarm bells going off yet? ... Last week, the British and Ontario governments confirmed within days of each other that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions receive welfare payments for each of their wives. Still no alarm bells? I see female Muslim medical students in British hospitals are refusing to comply with hygiene procedures on the grounds that scrubbing requires them to bare their arms, which is un-Islamic. Would it be alarmist to bring that up — say, the day before your operation?Two quick reactions. First, the proverbial (and my brother would say completely apocryphal*) frog in warm water approach Steyn describes thus:
...if you'd suggested such things on Sept. 10, 2001, most Britons and Canadians would have said you were nuts. But a few years on and it doesn't seem such a big deal, and nor will the next concession, and the one after that. ... The folks who call my book "alarmist" accept that the Western world is growing more Muslim (Canada's Muslim population has doubled in the last 10 years), but they deny that this population trend has any significant societal consequences. Sharia mortgages? Sure. Polygamy? Whatever. Honour killings? Well, okay, but only a few. The assumption that you can hop on the Sharia Express and just ride a couple of stops is one almighty leap of faith. More to the point, who are you relying on to "hold the line"? Influential figures like the Archbishop of Canterbury? The bureaucrats at Ontario Social Services? The Western world is not run by fellows noted for their line-holding: look at what they're conceding now and then try to figure out what they'll be conceding in five years' time....is the reason I so emphatically reject the idea that it can be right to sit out this election and hope for Ideological Purity to be restored down the road. Not only is our political system deliberately designed to make "purity" of that sort impossible, the longer a corruption-- such as the ones on this list-- is in place, the more difficult it is to clean up later because people cease recognizing it as a corruption and come to accept it as the status quo. (Or "precedent" if you prefer.)
Secondly, to change topics wildly, since Steyn brings up the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments about shar'i'a, I thought this article --I believe the author is Muslim-- was instructive. It argues that imposing shar'i'a violates shar'i'a.
the Islamists' call for introduction of Islamic religious law in the West is an innovation, not heard in Europe or the United States before the radicalization of Muslims at the end of the 1970s. This is because it is actually a violation of traditional sharia, which commands that Muslims living in non-Muslim lands obey the law and respect the customs of the host countries. This requirement is spelled out, for instance, in the sharia volume A Code of Practice for Muslims in the West (1999), which quotes the moderate Iraqi Shia ayatollah Ali Sistani pronouncing that Muslims living in non-Muslim nations must commit themselves "to abide by the laws of that country," as they implicitly promise to do when they sign an immigration form. If they cannot do this, they should return to Muslim territory.In fact, he goes on to say, being good citizens of non-Muslim countries is part of the essential witness a pious Muslim is called to give.
Traditional sharia also forbids antagonizing the local majority in non-Muslim societies. Through most of Islamic history, jihad against non-Muslims referred to warfare between states and armies, not infiltration and conspiracy. For normal Muslims, there is a duty to protect one's family and community by showing a good civic example to non-Muslims.The thing that is so irritating about all this Western dhimmitude is that we are collaborating in the hijacking of Islam to the detriment of millions of decent Muslims vying for peace and freedom in their own countries. Islam does not forbid cartoon pigs or naming teddy bears Mohammed or even the artistic portrayal of Mohammad (although cartooning him is out); extremists and Western liberals do. If the Archbishop wishes to bargain with Islam, at least let it be with Islam and not a bunch of thuggish, ignorant, Arabist extremists who don't know shar'i'a from a torture manual.
*My brother maintains that as soon as the water gets uncomfortable, the frog will jump out. Which means the frog may be wiser than many people I know.
