„Just as sometimes compassion may do harm,
cruelty may sometimes be merciful.”
To maintain the opposition between moderate Islam and radical Islam is a tactic that the West has accepted ever since the war (yes, it’s an actual war) on terrorism began in 2001. Since then the clash has been taking place on two tracks: the military and the ideological one. The military track does not fall within my competence – there are specialists who deal with this. However, judging by the results in Paris and Brussels, in Madrid, London, Moscow and Ankara, we do not seem to be very successful in it. I’m rather excited by the ideological battlefield. Not just because I’m a captain in this sea, but also because the ideological aspect precedes, accompanies and determines the military one. Before they happen on the streets, in the trains, in the airports, in the buses, on the squares, in the restaurants and the concert halls of big European centers, the mass murders have already taken place multiple times in the perpetrators’ imagination and dreams.
The two wars (the mental and the physical one) are inextricably connected – they are part of one common war, just as they are part of one common reality. As long as the sequence goes from the mental (the metaphysical) to the actual physical murder and should we accept that prevention is the most desirable sort of defence, then our first battle must be for the hearts and the souls of the potential terrorists. It’s easy to say this but very difficult to achieve. It’s obvious that had we won the ideological battle, the military one would’ve been already won without bloodshed. We could win the war in the most non-violent, easy, expedient and humane way simply by preventing it. How to make this practically possible is a problem that remains unsolved. It remains unsolved not because our civilization is not inventive, but rather because this matter, simple at first sight, is much more complicated and full of internal contradictions that can only become apparent in the course of the conflict and when they sabotage our efforts. So, as I was beginning to explain, the US followed by Europe, tried to oppose moderate Islam to radical Islam. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the Americans decided to build a huge mosque right next to the ruins of the World Trade Center where thousands of people found their death. This symbolic gesture was crystal clear: we shall fight evil with good, oppose to war with peace and withstand the religious intolerance of the barbarians with our civilized, Christian tolerance. Sounds beautiful and noble, but as it was later proven by the numerous terrorist acts in Western Europe, Asia Africa Звучи – it turned out to be ineffective and even counterproductive. The terrorists were not moved by the magnanimity of Washington and its partners in Western Europе – neither they were demobilized or demilitarized. Radical Islam became even more radical in the shadow of this tolerance – and it grew up to become what we now see in Islamic State . The failure of the Western approach can be only partly explained with the messianic, missionary character of the Islamic religion. Christianity is also a missionary religion but its missions no longer include bloodshed, although Christians used to be violent 5-6 centuries ago when their religion was as young as Islam is today. This however doesn’t necessarily mean that 5-6 centuries from now, Islam will experience the moral growth of Christianity, it doesn’t mean that it will naturally become more humane and cultivated – these processes can be unpredictable and they cannot be subject to such rough interpretation. Only the doctrines of communists and determinists teach that time leads us from imperfection to perfection by itself, that the evolution of human kind is positive and constructive by rule and that historical experience automatically makes us morally better. This bloody experience namely, serves to testify that for humans, the way up is just as open and possible as the way down to barbarism.
If we look at the roots of the two leading world religions, we will see a certain distinction which is crucial from moral viewpoint: Christian ideology (New Testament) does not accept (unlike the Old Testament) the murder of non-believers, while the Quran is recommending it, offering specific instructions, practical advices on how to kill sinners. Based on this it’s very hard to make a moral distinction between radical and moderate Islam – they are both fundamental, they are both based on the Quran – and the Quran is based on the intolerance to those who have dissenting opinion. While the didactics and the moralization in the Gospel is carried out under the supremacy of free will and the right of free choice for every person, the Quran is 100 percent didactics. Unlike the New Testament the Quran is not very choosey when it comes to the methods allowed in defending the true faith – it accepts violence, lie, treason, prostitution and trade with living flesh. In fact every crime committed in the name of the true faith, automatically becomes not only morally acceptable, but also a strategic must and it immediately turns from a misdeed into virtue. That’s why I find it as groundless to talk about moderate Islam as it is to talk about moderate fascism, communism or racism – they are all united by unscrupulousness. Needless to say, not every Muslim is a terrorist and millions of Muslims condemn the acts of terrorism as relentlessly as Europeans do. These condemnations however come from the inconsistent, those who deviate from the imperatives of the Quran – the revisionists. As we know from the last century, that was sodden with blood and tears, there were also many Bolsheviks and Nazis who condemned the mass killings and who became thereby victims of their own parties. But the presence of internal opposition (as we would call it nowadays – dissidence) does not mitigate or excuse the crimes of these regimes. Because those political idealists and dissidents who had been trying to better their inhumane parties, were the inconsistent communists and Nazis – as both doctrines not only allow but demand the destruction of all opposition. And this is where the terrible crimes of these regimes have their roots. Same goes for Islam, the theory of which not only accepts but also dictates violence against non-believers – even homosexuality is to be punished by death according to the Quran. Exactly this circumstance is what causes and maintains the atrocities of Islamic State and the mass killings in Paris, Brussels, Madrid, Moscow, London and even the attack on the Burgas Airport, if you like. Unbelievers have to be destroyed, good must overcome evil. And this isn’t according to some free interpretations of the Quran – this is according to the authentic Quran. The Quran doesn’t want to hear about the dialectical interdependence of means and goals and that noble causes cannot be pursued with base methods. Unlike Christianity which understands and sympathizes with the drama of faith and infidelity, the Quran prefers to simplify, to put labels and to judge. To enforce the true faith without being too selective about the means – this is the leading instruction that the Quran gives to its followers. The logical conclusion is that if we want to stop the momentum of terrorism, threatening to spread all over the world, we need to take its ideological resources away from Islam. But how can this happen in practice when there is no one who could rewrite and enrich the Quran the way the Gospel rewrote and enriched the Old Testament by throwing out the „an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” principle, turning violence into mercy, replaced intolerance with tolerance and revenge with forgiveness? I can’t see Islam going through such reform in the coming ages. Every attempt to rethink the Quran will be sanction by the Quran itself, because the latter is so entrenched with cannons that unlike our Holy Bible, it would never allow for any kind of reform – such steps will be considered unforgivable crime and will be punished accordingly. Needless to say – the only according punishment is death.
Paid with thousands of victims of terror, our experience in the new millennium shows that the tolerance towards the Orient from the Oxidant not only didn’t make things better, but it led to new atrocities. The clash of moderate Islam against radical Islam, on which the West relied on, led to unexpected results: the moderate Islam didn’t take on the radical Islam – quite the contrary. The tolerance of the Free world helped spreading radical Islam to millions, and not only on Arab soil. So the circle got full and our defense mission against terrorist threats – much harder. So? The Western world should take the step, for which it doesn’t even want to hear right now: to become less tolerant not only to radical Islam, but also to the moderate Islam, when it’s ideology becomes impossible to coexist with the general moral principles of our civilization. There is no other way. If we refuse to go in this direction, the next attacks, which lurk around the corner and are on their way from theory to practice, will undoubtedly become reality, will polarize the fronts and will once again feed people’s emotions and will also mobilize European and American nationalists. There will be no memory of today’s civilized methods. Bound by Christ’s sacrifice and blood, and the pain of hundreds of generations, for a civilization like ours, who values highly the human life, it will be hard to go into a knight’s battle with a barbaric belief in which the human life has no value. “Our desire to die is stronger than your desire to live”, said a terrorist group’s commander fifteen years ago to his captives in the Russian capital. The following bloodbath shows that his statement is worth believing.
In itself tolerance is undoubtedly a blessing, but the Western tolerance in the postwar period and especially after the fall of communism had one disastrous effect: The scientific revolution and the consumerism that follows from it and which is putting our instincts to sleep and bringing our senses into narcosis, helped turning this tolerance into unlimited tolerance. This is contrary to human nature – people are restrained by many conditions and are only viable being within certain limitations – humans are not adjusted to unlimited magnitudes. Every time tolerance becomes unlimited – and the history of Europe keeps many examples of this – this leads to unlimited tyranny. Sent with the wrong message to the wrong address, our magnanimity towards Islamists today is suicidal. To tolerate the intolerance, that is killing us day after day in our home, means to clear the way for our own perdition. The unambiguous signals that the atrocities of Islamic terrorism are sending should lead us to unambiguous conclusions. Disproportionate tolerance – as Karl Popper teaches – destroys itself. Organically, tolerance is not a state but a process and this process goes both ways. There is no unilateral tolerance – the unrequited tolerance, deprived from reciprocity that the West is showing to the refugee masses today, naturally turns into tolerating crime, violence and evil. When the unmeasured tolerance meets the militarised intolerance, the person who is tolerating finds his destruction. Merkel’s showy and uncritical tolerance, from which she poorly tries to distance from time to time, rather looks like cowardice, an ugly compromise by the neoliberal status quo of the West – the mass outrages committed by Muslim refugees ib Cologne and Hamburg serve as an illustration. One of the most popular research these days which summarizes the German experience with immigration from the Middle (and the not so middle) East, uses the dark title ”Germany is destructing itself.” Our entire cultural heritage gathered throughout the ages is warning about this danger, which weighs above our heads as never before. In „By image and likeness” Mussil is uncompromisingly precise: ”Ages when everything was allowed have brought disaster to people every time”. Decency, abstinence, generosity, music, morals, poetry, ethics, restraint – they all have a purpose much deeper than keeping our life in a certain image within certain limits. There is no unlimited happiness. There is no great happiness without great limitations.” Limitations aimed at keeping an eye on our natural; barbarism. Societies that are infinitely free can only be place for perfect beings, but our world doesn’t know such. Given that we the people are naturally, genetically imperfect, our coexistence is only possible under the supervision of higher authority and under the threat of its institutional sanction. To the extent that he is human, even Christ is imperfect – Mohammed on the other side, who has married a child, needs no comment.
The reluctance of the West to tackle the Islamic threat, its unwillingness to recognize that the terrorist are not using the Islamic ideology but they are being used by it, has its psychological roots. The infinite freedom that the prospering democracies have, in which they live carelessly, seems somewhat self-generated, without our conscious contribution. On the other hand we need to limit and adapt tolerance according to the danger that its self-sufficiency presents. But human nature is rather used to avoiding efforts, than to making them consciously. The internal jihad, which according to the Quran is about self-perfection, is every Muslim’s personal business – may he fight it, however he likes. But the external jihad is oriented towards the fundaments of our Christian existence, against us – no matter if we are believers or materialists. No religion and no policy as well as no god and no civilization has the right to replace our identity with another – this equals spiritual murder. We must never tolerate this. I do not call of course for us fight the war against our existential enemies as fierce as they fight against us – even in the cruellest battle we shall not kill women and children, take innocent hostages or publicly behead people. I rather mean administrative measures aimed at limiting the rights and freedoms of our captors – the way take ours but with guns to our heads. Every critical social situation, especially the war which that we can already see through our windows, logically requires such steps to be taken. Terror is damaging our rights as of Europeans and citizens of democratic societies. When huge European cities begin to look like military camps, when armed police patrols cross the streets and scaring us instead of prompting security, when a casual firework in the center of Paris throws everybody into panic, when our right to live turns into a fight for survival, our civil society is obliged to find a way to restore its civil dignity. Our basic rights and freedoms depend on this. A man who’s scared is not free – he’s a slave to his fear. Having slept through the genesis of Islamic terrorism, Europe will soon have to face two choices – either to accept Sharia or to stop tolerating it, There is no other option on the horizon.
And this brings us to a very complicated question: Isn’t the principle of dialectical interdependence between means and goals applicable to us too? Aren’t the undemocratic methods we shall use, going to restrain and hurt our own democracy? But this is already happening right before our eyes – the security measures we are taking today to ensure our physical survival are already restraining democracy. If due to cowardice and misunderstood tolerance, we refrain from taking serious actions now, we rare risking the survival of our entire democracy tomorrow and replacing the civilized Decalogue with the barbarism of Sharia. European democracy must, like a lizard chased by a beast, sacrifice its tail to save the body – this is best price we can get. Our alternative is unambiguous – in order to preserve civilization for ourselves and for our children we must change it and arm it, so it could become less vulnerable to evil and more capable to fight barbarism. It’s just as necessary as it is difficult.
This is not only a matter of tactics – it’s also about psychology as I mentioned. The radicalism against us logically generates radicalism within us, while the battle we fight today for our freedom may tomorrow escalate into a world war with unpredictable ending. The history of Christianity which during the Dark Ages was just as bloody and violent, teaches that the New Testament principle of non-resistance to evil is an unsecure barrier against the demons who sleep inside us. They are patiently waiting for their chance and we are to decide weather they will have it. Here and now. Tomorrow, as Glen Beck’s new book ”Everything’s because of Islam” warns. it will be late and the day after tomorrow – impossible.
Translated by Toncho Kraevski