The Rule of Professors
by Peter 1
In our days we observe a phenomenon which is very strange at first glance — the convergence of the progressive Left with Muslim fanatics on virtually every issue.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the progressives ruling Europe are deliberately transforming the continent into a Muslim land. Many people still cannot believe this; they prefer to think that it is either incompetence or naïveté.
If we now look at history, we notice that it was the most scientifically advanced countries that fell into the hands of Muslims during their expansion, including Egypt, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia — the birthplaces of civilization.
I cannot believe that the great countries were unable to resist the attack of nomadic barbarians, if they wanted. Something, however, prevented them from doing so. It was the peripheral and much less developed states that showed resistance and managed to repel the conquest.
The Golden Age of Islam, which some don’t believe in, may have really existed. Some sort of civilization may have really flourished under Islamic rule. The only small objection is that none of those great achievements were produced by Islam itself.
- - - - - - - - -
However, Islam can perfectly adopt and consume the fruits grown by others, while they last. More than that, I believe that the whole motive of Islamic conquest — although never openly admitted — is to grab the tasty fruits of civilization which they cannot produce themselves but jealously desire. Therefore, countries that are less prosperous have a better chance of surviving.
However, there is more than this one-sided desire. There is a mysterious tendency of the elites of the advanced countries — let us call them progressives — to submit to the rule of nomadic barbarians. The true hidden reason is yet to be found; however, one interesting point is the amazing similarity of progressives and Islamic spiritual leaders!
Let’s take, for example, a typical professor from a School of Political Science in San Francisco or London, and a professor from a School of Islamic Jurisprudence in Cairo. We will find that:
|1.||Both study texts which they consider to be absolutely correct, and to which they cannot add a single new word.|
|2.||Both claim that their work and their ideas can save the world.|
|3.||Both believe in administrative measures to be imposed on the population for the good of society: taxes, penalties of various sorts, the prohibition of wrong ideas.|
The main difference between the two is the contents of the texts which they study. Some people believe it is an obstacle that cannot be overcome. However, there is nothing in Islam that cannot coexist with most physical sciences, such as atomic physics or ballistics. As for scientific institutions and universities, they can also perfectly function under Sharia.
Of course, free thought will be forbidden, and research will degrade, but who told you that research is the main goal? The main goal is the educational process. And progress can be easily redefined as the progress in education, for example, how many verses you have learned by heart.
Actually, most of the progressive ideas — such as imposing taxes, centralized redistribution of goods (while there are still some), elimination of borders, the worldwide rule of progressives — can be implemented under Islam much more easily. After all, Islam in many respects is just the rule of professors, who failed to add a single new word to their textbooks.