Exposing the Weakness

Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the people. Marx was a bit reactionary on the subject, and then the pseudo-religion of "the state" replaced belief in a spiritual diety, making the "religion" of socialism the opiate of the people, complete with a utopian vision. But, I think his point was that religious beliefs, promises of wonders in an afterlife, can anesthetize people to the shabby earthly situation they find themselves in. For example, during slave times, Christianity was used to pacify the slaves by convincing them that no matter how lousy their lot in life is, heaven awaits the obedient and the oppressors will go to hell. Also, if an individual or group of individuals can convince the masses that they have a divine decree to hold power, the religious masses will basically subjugate themselves to the divine authority. Hence, kings were given power by "divine decree" and the Catholic church had power long ago.

So, now we have radical Islam. The West has basically seperated personal spiritual beliefs and practices from government. Power does not come from divine decree, and one's lot in life is seen (in a person of character) not as some temporary penalty that will be resolved in heaven, but as a matter of personal choices and effort (at least when we can get a socialistic state out of the way). The opposite appears to be true in radical Islam. Politics and religion are closely intertwined, or are one and the same. Imams have both religious and political power. The people are left in whatever plight they are in, under the promise that being good Muslims (as defined by the Imams who are interpreting the Koran for them) will gain them favor when they meet Allah. This is so deeply ingrained that people are willing to blow themselves to bits for the promise of 72 virgins in heaven.

This reliance on religion being the opiate of the people keeps the people from asking very simple questions that would expose the weakness of the political system. But, others can ask the questions and the lack of a good answer could expose the weakness to the people and perhaps begin to wake them from their hypnosis.

Look at the economies of states that run under theocracies, or at least Muslim Arabs in the Middle East. Take away the oil riches from the Saudis and others, and what do they have going for them? How are the people doing in Iran? What's the standard of living in Gaza? Why is Egypt getting foriegn aid money from us? It's clear that one of the reasons that the Israelis are the sworn enemy of the governments in the region is that they are a demonstration that people, set free, can actually accomplish something. There they are, on a barren plot of land with no oil, and they have a decent economy and a good standard of living. So, if you want to keep your people under your thumb, you have to make that success evil somehow, and have those people be the enemy, particularly if you have absolutely NO plan of your own to create wealth and raise the standard of living of your people.

So, that's the question: What is the plan for raising people's standard of living? In the Caliphate, how do you plan to create a thriving economy, or do you merely expect the people to suffer, and all of the technology and lifestyle enhancements of the modern world to eventually break down?
An economy is an interesting beast. It's either advancing as a result of the creativity and effort of the people (mostly spurred by the promise of reward in the form of enhanced lifestyle for the creator and the laborer), or it's declining. Look at Iraq's infrastructure. Granted it was a semi-secular dictatorship rather than a theocracy (though, in practice it is tough to see a difference in results as opposed to a difference in style), but one of the problems we have with rebuilding it is not the damage by war, it's the damage caused by the neglect and the lack of modernization. Look at the differences in infrastructure and the economies in long time capitalistic liberal democracies versus socialist countries. Do you suppose effort and reward in capitalist terms results in a better standard of living than totalitarianism, whether it be a theocracy or claims to be socialist?

Other good questions are: After you have defeated and subjugated the infidels, who is going to buy the oil, and with what? How are you planning to keep the economies of the dhimmis thriving when it is clear that even if you can get people work by force, you can't get them to create by force, or produce high quality goods by force? Is the plan to keep people at a standard of living that is barely subsistance level and keep promising that life will be good only after life is over, or do you have a better plan? If you DO have a better plan, why do we see no evidence of it in the Middle East today? Do the Imams and the Ayatollahs get to live richly while everyone else suffers, and, if so, why? There are plenty of Arab and/or Islamic states, and they don't appear to be particularly blessed economically aside from the benefits derived from oil, which makes them rich only because other, non-Arab, non-Islamic states buy the oil. Why should the people expect sudden economic blessings just because more of the world is under Islamic rule when they don't see it in the places where the states are already under Islamic rule?

In other words, the relevent question is: Aside from promises of future heavenly grandeur (which require belief, but for which there is no evidence), what is in it for the average Muslim if the world becomes Islamafied? We KNOW there's nothing in it for the infidels, though some of the infidels (you and I) seem to want to ignore what we'll lose (including our lives) if the Islamafacists have their way. But, it also seems like there is not much in it for the Muslims either, other than for the select few who rule. Isn't facism always that way, no matter what guise it comes under?