When I say "Islam", they hear "Muslim". - Eric Allen Bell
Computer systems at their core are systems of relationships between data. In order to do anything a computer system must carry out operations which base decisions on comparisons between data items in one location and those in another. They do this extremely quickly but that is fundamentally what they are doing.
Introduction
There is a story from our changing vision of the universe
which parallels our current difficulties in seeing the realities of Islam. This
story concerns the transition from a geocentric (earth-centred) view of the
universe to a heliocentric (sun-centred) model of the solar system during the
16th and 17th centuries. This transition was so radical
that not only was the earth no longer considered to be the centre of
everything, it was also open to question as to whether there even was a “centre
of everything”.
Despite being completely wrong, the geocentric model of the
universe made perfect sense to those who held it. It explained what they could
see of the sky by night and of the sun by day. This is very much like the
liberal orthodoxies of today with regard to Islam and Muslims. Liberal
explanations of the behaviour of Muslims and Islam as a whole make sense of
people’s observations (to some extent) but they miss out information which is
not immediately visible but which nonetheless is crucial for understanding
reality. That is the subject of this essay.
The Ptolemaic system
When you ask a child if the earth travels around the sun or
the sun around the earth there is a high likelihood that they will tell you the
sun travels around the earth. This seems intuitively obvious to them. They see
the sun move from one side of the sky to the other during the day and the
position of shadows changing accordingly. The sun certainly appears to travel around the earth. But
as we grow up we are taught that the apparent
motion of the sun is caused by the daily rotation of the earth about its axis.
We thereby gain an understanding of reality which is not easy to come by with
common sense alone.
Prior to the 17th century most astronomers would
have told you that the sun travels around the earth; they would have told you
that the earth was the centre of the universe and that not only the sun but
everything in the heavens rotated around the earth. Just look at the night sky,
they would say, and see how the stars all move in unison but are fixed in
relation to one another, this proves that
the earth is at the centre of everything.
Beginning with these assumptions, a complex model of the
universe was built with the earth in the centre and the planets set in
concentric crystal spheres with the stars set in the outermost sphere. Greek philosophy
dating back to Plato had determined that the sphere was the most perfect form
and, since heaven must be perfect, it was only logical that the planets and
stars were set in spherical forms. This also led to the conclusion that the
planets must move in perfect circles and astronomers spent centuries developing
extremely complex models which could account for the apparently elliptical orbits of the planets in terms of perfect
circles. The planets do in fact move in elliptical orbits.
Immutability was also a logical attribute of the heavens
because, being heavenly, they were perfect and perfection could not be altered
as it would thereby become imperfect. So how were observed changes in the sky,
such as comets, to be accounted for? The sphere in which the moon was set
represented the innermost limit of the unchangeable, perfect universe and
everything within the Lunary Sphere was not perfect and therefore changeable.
Comets were therefore understood to be occurences within the Lunary Sphere.
This cosmology also sat well with other ideas about the
nature of the world and the nature of heaven. Aristotle’s concept of the “Great
Chain of Being” represented the whole scale of life, starting right at the top
with God and moving downwards to the lowliest forms of life. This accorded Man
a place in the chain of being between God and the animals, a position with
which he could feel satisfied. It also had an explanation for the tendency of
things to fall towards the earth. Since the earth was the centre of all things,
it naturally attracted all things towards it.
![]() |
| The Ptolemaic Universe |
This view of the cosmos prevailed for approximately 15
centuries. It afforded people a sense of knowing the cosmos and their rightful
place within it. The Aristotelians were a dominant intellectual force during
this whole period and the Ptolemaic cosmos formed part of a larger explanatory
system known as Aristotelianism; a system covering politics, ethics, physics,
law, education etc. No less a person than Alexander the Great was taught by
Aristotle personally.
Challenges to the
Aristotelian universe
Copernicus
During the first half of the 16th century,
Nicholas Copernicus gradually allowed his ideas of a heliocentric solar system
to leak out. He provided a
theoretical challenge to the geocentric model. This did not arouse all that
much attention. Outsiders deemed to be eccentrics or even heretics are
generally ignored – or worse. Giordano Bruno, who admired Copernicus, was
burned at the stake in 1600 for asserting that the universe was infinite.
The New Star of 1572
In early November 1572 a “new star” appeared in the
constellation of Cassiopeia. In fact a star had exploded becoming a far brighter
object in the sky. It did not explode in 1572 but some 15,000 years earlier, the
light only reached the earth in 1572. So what were the Aristotelian astronomers
to make of this? The heavens were perfect and immutable so the change must be
occurring in the Lunary Sphere they thought. How could this be checked?
![]() |
| Tycho Brahe points to the "new star" with a recent image of the supernova remnant |
Fortunately an astronomer called Tycho Brahe had spent his
life studying the stars and developing more and more accurate instruments for
making astronomical measurements. He determined that the “new star” was well
outside the Lunary Sphere where change was not supposed to occur. The Ptolemaic
system had suffered a serious blow. Nevertheless, as Bruno’s death above
attests, entrenched opinion was still very strong and capable of exercising its
will with utmost severity.
There was a further “new star”, or supernova as they are now
known, in 1604 and similar conclusions were reached.
The Moons of Jupiter
Galileo Galilei is one of the best known figures of
scientific history. In 1608 he adapted the telescope for astronomical
observations and two years later he noticed that Jupiter had its own orbiting
satellites or moons. He could see four. This information provided Galileo and
other astronomers with a very significant insight, one which literally shook
the foundations of their universe: the
earth was not the centre of everything.
Just imagine yourself in a world that you had taken for
granted was the centre of the universe, a view which had prevailed for 15
centuries; imagine the sense of stability, anchorage, the status of being at
the centre of all things and suddenly you discover that you are not. That’s
what Galileo’s discovery implied.
What Galileo had discovered was a system, a group of objects in organised relationships to each
other. This system had a planet at its centre and four moons orbiting around
it. That provided the crucial insight. The existence of this system was not
visible to the naked eye but with the aid of the correct instrument, a
telescope, it could be clearly seen.
This discovery landed Galileo in hot water, not only with
the Catholic Church but also with the Aristotelians. The hostility of the
Aristotelians towards Galileo never abated and the Church forced him to abjure
the moons of Jupiter in 1633.
His story has long provided Western civilisation with a
legendary story of ignorance trying to suppress knowledge; of orthodoxy
attempting to change reality simply by refusing to look at it. Some accounts of
the episode say that various contemporaries of Galileo were unwilling to look
through his telescope for fear of what they might see.
![]() |
| Galileo |
Galileo also went on to study the phases of Venus which
proved that Venus travelled around the sun. This led to the adoption of the
Copernican model of the solar system and we now refer to this transition as the
Copernican revolution. So the grip of orthodoxy finally loosened and the Church
now looks back with shame to this episode.
We are now engaged in a similar battle between knowledge and
orthodoxy. This time the battle is between those who have seen the Islamic
system for what it is and those who refuse to look through Galileo’s telescope.
The forces of orthodoxy today consist of established liberal thinking.
Now call me fanciful if you wish but this viewpoint is not
so very different from the geocentric view of the universe, though in this case
the universe we are talking about is the universe of values. Liberals even tend
to assume that all people will gradually gravitate towards their way of seeing
things; that is, towards liberal values. We see this kind of thinking at work
when liberals assume that history is gradually moving in their preferred
direction. President Obama is fond of saying that those opposed to his
viewpoint are “on the wrong side of history”, as if history has a predetermined
destination and anything at odds with that is on the “wrong side”. We also see
this thinking at work when people argue that Islam is where Christianity was
500 years ago and that if allowed to take its course it will arrive at exactly
where we are now. This thinking definitely betrays a sense that everyone will
gravitate towards the liberal position.
That’s really just an aside, what I really want to focus on
is the new insight that the counter-jihad movement has gained into the nature
of the Islamic system. We are probably unique in the history of societies
facing the threat of Islamic conquest in having a detailed forewarning of the
nature of the system we face. And yet there are so many who refuse to look at
the nature of that system. They are the counterparts to Galileo’s
contemporaries who feared to look through his telescope and some, like the hard
left and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, are the equivalent of those
who intimidated people to restore the state of ignorance. It seems we are always
destined to live with a faction of people who brand others as heretics and resort
to mob rule.
On the nature of
systems
Just as the internal dynamics of Jupiter’s system gave the
game away for astronomy so too do the internal dynamics of the Islamic system
for us today. Let’s have a look at the nature of systems and then look at some
specifics of the Islamic one. This system, like Jupiter’s, is not visible to
the naked eye but with the help of the correct viewing equipment you can
clearly see it. Once you have seen it, as the counter-jihadists have done, your
thinking undergoes a Copernican revolution.
Systems are organised wholes which are greater than the sum
of their parts. They are made up of smaller sub-systems or components. They
consist of organised complexity.
Mechanical Systems
Mechanical systems are those which are based on
relationships between mechanical components. They are designed and assembled by
people and are also controlled by them. In some cases they can be automated. A
bicycle is a system of mechanical components which is a dead mechanical
structure but combined with the energy and intelligence of a cyclist it and the
rider become a dynamic whole which is greater than the sum of the parts. Also,
if the rider just sits on the bike he/she will fall off but once in motion the
whole system achieves a dynamic equilibrium.
There are some mechanical systems which are not assembled by people: Jupiter and it's moons is a system of mechanical relationships governed by the laws of motion.
There are some mechanical systems which are not assembled by people: Jupiter and it's moons is a system of mechanical relationships governed by the laws of motion.
Computer systems
Computer systems are very complex and consist of computer
hardware, software and data. The system will consist of thousands of
sub-systems and components both at the hardware level and the software level.
The thing that really determines how a computer system will behave is the
software, the computer code. It is through the computer code that people are
able to specify in detail what the system should do under a whole variety of
different conditions. It is the code that determines whether the computer
operates as a gaming machine or a word processor. Within either of these broad
operational categories there are thousands of sub-systems which contribute to
the operation of the whole.
Computer systems at their core are systems of relationships between data. In order to do anything a computer system must carry out operations which base decisions on comparisons between data items in one location and those in another. They do this extremely quickly but that is fundamentally what they are doing.
Living systems
Living systems are even more complex and consist of
biological components and sub-systems that contribute to the existence of the
whole organism. Respiratory systems, digestive systems, nervous systems, sensory
systems, cellular systems are all examples of the kind of sub-systems operating
in living organisms.
Another key feature of living systems which distinguishes
them from mechanical or computer systems is that they are self-created; they
have evolved into what they are. They also have the ability to self-regulate or
self-organise and they can replicate themselves.
In order to create copies of themselves living systems make
use of genetic code. This code provides the instructions for building every
system and component of the whole organism. What the organism will be and what
sort of survival strategies it will use, the way it will self-replicate and
self-expand is written in this code.
One example of a living system is the rhododendron bush.
Rhododendrons are an invasive species which gradually create an ever-widening area which is exclusively inhabited by rhododendrons. Once a dense thicket of bushes is established nothing else can grow there, the dark canopy blocks all the light. This quality of rhododendrons is written in their genetic code. It is part of their nature.
Rhododendrons are an invasive species which gradually create an ever-widening area which is exclusively inhabited by rhododendrons. Once a dense thicket of bushes is established nothing else can grow there, the dark canopy blocks all the light. This quality of rhododendrons is written in their genetic code. It is part of their nature.
The Islamic system
Islam is a system. It is a recognisable set of behaviours
persisting through time. Just like a species of animal or plant it has distinct
patterns of behaviour, a strategy for survival, and a strategy for
self-replication and self-expansion. It is composed of millions of sub-systems
which contribute to the operation of the whole. That whole is greater than the
sum of its parts. Like the computer system and the living system its behaviour
is encoded in some form and that code is distributed throughout the system.
In the case of Islam, the behaviour of the different
sub-systems and the system as a whole is encoded in the canonical texts: the
Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira. These texts represent the source code for the
system. Interestingly, this source code also provides rules for how it is to be translated. Once it is translated it forms the organising principles for the system
as a whole. For example, the Koran is not ordered chronologically and in order
to decode it properly you have to refer to the Sira to find out what episodes
in Muhammad’s life the different parts of this code refer to. Once you know
this you can understand the code much better. You also need to look at the
Hadith and the reliability criteria for each of these narratives in order to
cross-check and elucidate pieces of the Koran and Sira and vice versa.
The source code also spells out the rules for dealing with
contradictions between one set of code and another. The rule is that later code
always over-rules earlier code. This is the Law of Abrogation and it is one of the most important pieces of the code because it tells us how Islam is ultimately destined to behave towards us. To distinguish the later from the earlier
code we study the Sira.
Obviously this is quite a complicated job but all the work
has been done for you just like a computer program that has been written and
tested and you just have to learn to use it. So too with the Islamic code, you
can read a fairly simple explanation of it and grasp its import pretty quickly.
You mustn’t be intimidated by computer nerds or Islamic scholars! It’s all very
logical and you can easily understand how it fits together. Once you have an
understanding of the code, you can then see why Islam and Muslims are the way
they are. Just as the genetic code for the rhododendron bush illuminates why it
lives the way it does.
Having studied the system code of Islam, we know that it is
an invasive system, a pattern of living which renders an area hostile to all
other patterns of living, just like the rhododendron: invasive, exclusive,
unyielding. We also know its prime directive: to dominate the world.
So, to observe the moons of Jupiter we use a telescope and
that reveals the existence of the Jovian system. To observe the Islamic system,
we read its source code and the built-in rules for interpreting that code into
system code. Unless we look at this system code we are easily fooled by a
plethora of superficial details and the soothing messages of Islamic
apologists.
Unknown unknowns
Former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was famous for
saying that there were known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. His
political opponents loved to ridicule him for this observation but it actually
says important things about the different states of unknowing.
![]() |
| Donald Rumsfeld |
The profoundest ignorance is that which arrogantly assumes
that most of what is important is known already whereas an appreciation of the
unknown and of what is not even known to be unknown shows humility and respect.
Before the supernova of 1572, the possibility of a “new
star” was an unknown unknown. Once the event had occurred it became necessary
to answer some questions about it in order to test the existing theory of
cosmology. Was what we thought to be true really true? The news of this event
took about 15,000 years to reach the earth travelling at the speed of light
(300,000 kms per second).
We have a situation today where liberal thinking holds sway
in the West. In many ways this is a good thing for there are many good aspects
of liberal thought. Nothing is perfect however and liberal thought is no
exception. One of the big failings of liberal thought today is probably rooted
in its widespread acceptance, and that failing is its assumption that liberal
thinking is more widespread than it really is. Richard Landes has called this
Cognitive Egocentrism and he describes it in the following terms:
The
projection of one’s own mentality or “way of seeing the world” onto others,
e.g., the teenager who is obsessed with sex, and assumes the same about
everyone else. In the current situation of globalization, cognitive egocentrism
has its greatest impact in the political relationships between people coming
from civil societies and those raised in prime divider societies. Since the
basic political principle of Prime divider societies is “rule or be ruled,” “do
onto others before they do onto you,” political actors from those cultures
assume the same zero-sum,
domineering intentions in their opponents (the “enemy”). Since the basic political
principles of civil societies is “I’ll give up trying to dominate and trust you
to give it up as well,” “if I’m nice to you, you will be nice in return,”
assume positive-sum
attitudes in their opponents (the “other”). The current situation testifies to
a dangerous mis-apprehension that works to the distinct disadvantage to civil
society. The media, in particular, as the representative of civil society,
emphasizes its role as empathizer, often failing to defend civil society, even
exposing it to danger.
Liberal Cognitive Egocentrism (LCE)
The projection of good faith and fair-mindedness onto others, the
assumption that “other” shares the same human values, that everyone prefers
positive sum interactions. In a slightly more redemptive mode, LCE holds that
all people are good, and if only we treat them right, they will respond well.
This is a form of empathy that… aspires to the radical victory of justice, and
robs the “other” of his or her own beliefs and attitudes. It projects onto
rather than detects what the “other” feels.
Thus Western liberals inhabit a world in which their typical
habits of thought and belief are seen to be operating in peoples where actually
they don’t. This fallacy sits at the heart of their perception of the world. It
is a habit of mind which is unreflective and fails to take sufficient account
of unknown unknowns.
On September 11th 2001, passenger aircraft were pressed
into the service of a system developed in the Dark Ages for the conquest of the
world under one god. Prior to this event, the Islamic system was an unknown
unknown to most people (many knew of the existence of Islam but not the Islamic
system). Just like the 1572 supernova, these aircraft carried important information about the nature of reality.
Some took note of the event and began to ask questions. They turned to the source code of Islam and looked for explanations for the attack. Others remained firmly locked within their own version of the Ptolemaic system, liberal thought, and explained the event in terms of inequality, discrimination, lack of respect, neo-colonialism, poverty, lack of education. Liberals clung to their cognitive egocentrism like a baby blanket.
Some took note of the event and began to ask questions. They turned to the source code of Islam and looked for explanations for the attack. Others remained firmly locked within their own version of the Ptolemaic system, liberal thought, and explained the event in terms of inequality, discrimination, lack of respect, neo-colonialism, poverty, lack of education. Liberals clung to their cognitive egocentrism like a baby blanket.
But those who turned to the source code discovered the
existence of a system just as Galileo had revealed the existence of a system
(in fact a sub-system with profound implications for the nature of the system
as a whole). The existence of this system changed everything, just as Jupiter’s
system had knocked the earth from its position at the centre of the universe.
It told pioneers like Bat Y’eor, Robert Spencer, Bill Warner and Mark Durie
that we were faced with a system that radically changed our position in the
world. Everything did not revolve around us and our way of thinking at all.
There was a system that had its own organising principles, its own strategies
for self-expansion and self-replication, and its own goals.
Unfortunately Western liberals continue to see Muslims as
discrete individuals with rights to religious freedom rather than as members of
a system (this problem was expressed very succinctly by Eric Allen Bell when he said, When I say "Islam", they hear "Muslim". It is true that each Muslim is an individual, a definable system
composed of sub-systems, but each Muslim is also a component, a sub-system
within a superordinate system, one with emergent properties of
self-organisation. The system in the case of Islam is like a vast war machine. It is this perception of Muslims as members of a larger
system with quasi-self-organising properties which has radically altered the
worldview of the counter-jihadists. It is this fact which we struggle to communicate
to our contemporaries who continue to live in the equivalent of a Ptolemaic universe.
They thus tend to see the counter-jihadists as malevolent people with some
irrational mistrust of people different to themselves. They continuously make
fools of themselves by calling us racists, for example. They are also easy prey
for the Muslim spokesmen who can seduce them with soothing words about
inter-faith dialogue and co-existence.
The counter-jihadists know, having studied the system code,
that Islam does not intend to engage in co-existence any longer than it has to.
Any co-existence is purely illusory and tactical. The counter-jihadists also know
that what individual Muslims think about the meaning and destiny of Islam is
largely irrelevant since the meaning and destiny of Islam is clearly (once
decoded) set out in the system code. Individual Muslims come and go but the
system code remains.
The counter-jihadists have tried to show Western liberals
the existence and meaning of the Islamic system just as Galileo tried to show
his contemporaries the existence of Jupiter’s moons. And just as his
contemporaries equivocated, avoided and procrastinated when it came to looking
through his telescope, the forces of orthodoxy today (Western liberals) are
doing exactly the same.
The question for us is how soon can we persuade Western
liberals, and especially our elites, to look through our telescope and see the
system that we have discovered. At present they seem more inclined to make us
abjure the existence of this system, just as the Church forced Galileo to
abjure the existence of Jupiter’s moons. On the positive side, more and more people are having a look and once they look we have a very high conversion rate.







Good stuff ! You deserve praise for having the courage to be politically incorrect ...
ReplyDelete