Shariah: What's The Problem?

I've had friends who came from broken homes who enlisted in the armed forces. They hoped the discipline there would help them to become men. I’ve had friends who became drug addicts – for the same reason. Drug addiction imposes a discipline on lives that are without.

Liberalism often seems attractive because liberals are good at imposing rules - rules that give structure to minds that lack the confidence to decide. The same applies to tea party followers.

The latter does not seem to be enough largely, because of the absence of consequences. Following the rules or breaking them is all the same. In fact, breaking them appears to assign some special status. The overall result is often confusing and arbitrary.

What about shariah? Is it really so bad as all of us are led to believe? I know, most of us recoil from it as we would from enlisting or succumbing to drug addiction. We hate the thought of early morning drills and dirty needles. We hate being labeled this or that. We have this image of ourselves as free men and women, unfettered by habit or convention.

Someone once said that “Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.” It’s true in a way. Shariah gives you plenty of timelines and obligations. It kind of takes away all that pesky guilt that most of us are dragging around with us. It’s a legitimate response to doubt; a way of living within relatively safe confines where everything is written in stone. It’s also stifling. It kills curiosity and initiative. It minimizes risk. It makes it harder to fail and also impossible to succeed. In this, communism and shariah are one and the same.

Why do so many of us shy away from shariah while, at the same time, embracing socialism, the armed services, political parties – or even drug addiction? I understand that the pictures we’re shown of stonings, public hangings, slit throats, and severed limbs leave us gasping. This is all very frightening to us – flesh and blood consequences. Why, we don’t even remember where the meat we eat comes from anymore.

Shariah is not like that. The overwhelming majority of people who practice shariah are people just like us – like liberals, tea parties members, those who choose careers in the armed services or drug addiction. My grandmother used to say that the soup is never so hot when it’s eaten as when it was cooked.

So, what’s the problem? Why do we fear it? Why do we instinctively recoil from it? If others accept it, why can't we? Is our ego getting in the way of just letting go?

I’ll tell you outright why you should be concerned. All these movements that are sweeping the globe and are targeting America specifically have one thing in common. They seek to overthrow capitalism. Say, you have a skill or talent. Say, you can act, dance, sing, play football, lead a service-based organization; run a store; build a house... Perhaps you’re good with numbers or words. Maybe you’ve learned how to heal, teach, or offer advice - and that’s how you make your money. All that will mean nothing if those coordinating these left-wing and Islamic groups get their way. There will still be wealth and money. There will still be value. But value will be based on protection: You will pay for protection; or, people will pay you according to your ability to protect them. It’ll be a brutal world; a world without certainty that can change in a heart beat. It’ll be 'dog eat dog' – the way it always has been before America came along.

That in a nutshell is our challenge – a challenge made infinitely more daunting because roughly half our nation resides in the opposing camp while the other half remains ignorant of the threat. I can safely say that the next two years will determine the outcome. As it stands, either shariah or socialism has taken the lead. Both are pretty much the same. Pray that the nation wakes up in the meantime and freedom prevails.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

How We Came To Be A Day Late And A Dollar Short

The following is taken from a transcript of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s address last Friday to mark the 32nd anniversary of the Islamic revolution as reported by AFP:

"We will soon see a new Middle East materializing without America and the Zionist regime and there will be no room for world arrogance in it."

Addressing the people of Egypt directly, he said, "They (the United States) have adopted a friendly face and saying 'we are friends of people of North Africa and Arab countries', but be watchful and united. You will be victorious.

“(The) Iranian nation is your friend and it is your right to freely choose your path. (The) Iranian nation backs this right of yours.

“(The United States is an) accomplice to the oppression by the Zionist regime.

"Come and take away the Zionist regime which is the source of all crimes... take it away and liberate the region. Free the region and give it to the people and take this regime, which is the child of Satan, out."

This is the second time Ahmadinejad has made such statements since the Egyptian protests began. The first time he proclaimed that every government in the region that has aligned itself in any way with the United States will fall.

This got me to thinking (again) that these people are serious. Their hatred for Israel is the cause they are willing to die for. Israel knows this. It has been in its interest to promote the notion that the destruction of Israel will not be the end of it; that Islamic appetites will also aim to devour Europe and even America.

Nobody has been listening. And I myself predict that once Israel has been destroyed, the West will remain quite safe for a time. Islamic hatred of the West is solely focused on the West’s recognition and support of Israel.

Today Mubarak resigned. The Muslim Brotherhood will assume power. The rest of the Middle East will fall into Islamic extremists’ hands. Ultimately, Israel will be attacked. This time, the Islamists will win.

At this point, the West will mobilize to defend itself. (It has always been in its power to do so. All it would ever have required is tapping its heels together.) There will ensue a great purge of everything Islam. At the same time, the Left - which has aligned itself with Islamic extremism - will be sent packing. The world will return to some semblance of normalcy; now, of course, burdened by the stain of momentous, insufferable guilt.

Already today, the leaders of Europe have come out with a statement proclaiming that multiculturalism is not working. It can only get worse from here.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Betrayal

When we are first born we are nothing (as well as everything). We are equipped with specific tools chief of which is a sense of identity. It’s noteworthy that the first thing that usually happens is that we are given a name. The child opens its eyes and sees. And all it sees (it thinks) is a part of itself. It is only by learning the names of the people and objects around it that the divide between it and the outside world is established.

From there the child begins to make certain assumptions. He learns to manipulate specific objects - his mother, for instance - to get what he wants. She presumably knows what she must do in order to attend to his needs. He needs to eat; his diapers need to be changed. His dependence on her continues not as demand, but as expectation. It would never occur to him to say, “Thank you.”

The child’s name circumscribes his identity. His first allegiance is to himself (which now includes his parents). He does not see them as separate from himself. Later, as his world view expands, he must determine his own proper place within it.

No matter how complicated it may get, no matter how many paradoxes arise - all due to and resting on false assumptions - the shadow of his first life experience remains: I am (singularly responsible, either through my action or inaction, for) all I see.

Religion derives from identity and the desire to secure for oneself a place within eternity. In this, one’s assumptions become critical. Clearly the lion’s share of one’s efforts go towards achieving and maintaining one’s target position. The time may come when previous alliances and dependencies are no longer useful. These are then jettisoned. Guilt may arise from such acts as abandonment or betrayal that may have become essential to the service of one’s perceived (greater) self. Meanwhile, the shadow of one’s very first assumptions invariably come back to haunt.

Only saints are spared this dilemma. At this juncture ordinary people are faced with a choice: either to recognize and accept their limitations; or to strive for ever greater control on one hand, or utter dependence on the other.

Hinduism recognized this dilemma from the start. It created the caste system within which everybody is assigned their place. The promise of a higher entry into the next life (provided that one adheres honorably to one’s duties) helps the lower casts to endure. Only wise men realize that it is only a matter of appearances; that suffering as well as joy is spread out evenly among all.

In the West every individual is held responsible for his own fate, which (whether one admits it or not) extends to the afterlife. As we are our own severest critics the question of salvation comes into play. Liberals tend to fall victim to ego from which stems the infantile presumption of utter co-dependence with the universe. Therefore, for just one to be saved, all must be saved. Conservatives tend to harbor more modest ambitions. They are content with saving only themselves and perhaps a few others. They also tend to be happier, successful and self-satisfied.

Point of note: Identity drives all. This is why only a man of outside lineage can agree to commit an act of betrayal.

It's Still Bush's Fault

No doubt, the Obama administration is going down in flames. Getting rid of this one and replacing him (or her) with this or that one is purely political theater – and, in this particular case, much like moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic.

It’s interesting to note that the blame game, particularly on the left, has already begun. Progressives, seeing the writing on the wall, won’t let this one go without one last salvo of the classic guilt trip directed squarely at the most sensitive part of American sensibility.

There can no longer be any question that the American people elected Barack Hussein Obama - not for his resume, but - for his skin color. In this way, they had hoped to put the lie, for once and for all, to accusations of racism that have been emanating unabated from certain quarters for decades. According to a new theory, hatched at the highest levels of academia, America’s contrition has come too late.

In a recent interview of Princeton ‘Politics and African-American Studies’ professor, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, on the Joe Scarborough morning show, he confronted her with Obama’s shortcomings since he’s been in office. Her rationalization, to my mind, was nothing short of astounding. She said that Obama had been left with a “hollow prize”; that, by the time Americans saw fit to elect a black man president, America had already been gutted, spent, used up; adding, that this is similar to blacks that have had the misfortune of having been elected mayor of failed cities like Detroit.

In other words, “It’s Bush’s fault.”