A century ago, when the Middle East was relatively unaffected by the modern West,
And when the West lacked the constraints of political correctness,
And when the best writers in English were better,
The descriptions of the effect of Islam upon nations and peoples were clearer:
(The Weekly Standard review of "The River War" by Winston Churchill is worth reading for more than the paragraphs I have excerpted.)
For us now faced with battle in Afghanistan, most telling may be Churchill's reflections on the clash of civilizations that played out in the war:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property--either as a child, a wife, or a concubine--must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities.
"Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science--the science against which it had vainly struggled--the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
This is, of course, the kind of statement which modern multiculturalists would use against Churchill as proof of Western chauvinism or racism or worse. Yet Churchill is much more even-tempered and balanced than his critics.
This post may also be found at: Delphi Peculiar Notions Forum.
