Could a Vulcan be Tolerant?

Reflexive statements are logically complex.  By reflexive we mean a statement or principle that "acts on itself".  If a statement includes itself within its "room to act", it is reflexive.  It has been pointed out by many that Tolerance is a self-contradictory principle simply because it has this character.  As a principle, it requires we be tolerant of everything, i.e. we do not get to choose where it should be applied and where it can be put on the shelf.  Thus, the tolerant individual cannot speak out against intolerance since that would itself be an intolerant act.  But tolerance should not condone what it sets out to be opposed to.  Logically tolerance necessitates that we allow intolerant people the right to be intolerant. This is the paradox that Karl Popper the Austrian-British philosopher spoke of in 1945 in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies when he said; “If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."  As a star trek fan, it seems to me that Vulcans would by definition be incapable of tolerance since it is fundamentally illogical. This is precisely the dilemma the West faces with respect to "Dawa" which is the political agenda of Islam.  (see my previous blog).

But what do we mean when we say the word "Tolerant"? Is it more than an abstract virtue? Most agree that tolerance is a mind set and the practice of "open mindedness". It is patient, lenient, accepting, even forgiving.  It does not mean agreeing, or giving up one’s own views or convictions. Being tolerant is not easy.  It allows us the ability to suffer fools, if not gladly, with a certain patience that looks beyond the moment.  Are there any limits to tolerance?  I would argue that there must be. One cannot be tolerant of evil.  It is illogical in my opinion for example that the LGBTIQ community in its communal acceptance of unlimited immigration for Syrian refugees fails to understand Dawa and that the goal of political Islam is to impose Sharia on the entire world.  They fail to understand that unreformed Islam or radical Islam if you prefer is inherently intolerant of their sexual orientation and not only preaches but practices the death penalty for those living that lifestyle. Is it logical to accept with open arms those who seek to kill you?  I do not know what the solution might look like, but if we allow the spread of intolerance, those of us who cherish tolerance as a virtue, as the "only real test of civilization" are likely to die out, one way or another.  

Dawa, The Ideology behind Islamic Terrorism

An article by Tunku Varadarajan in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion section last weekend caught my attention.  The interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is identified as "Islam's Most Eloquent Apostate", brings forward the fascinating idea that there is an underlying political ideology behind radical Islams pursuit of jihad.  This ideology she calls Dawa.  It is also in the title of a recent book by Ms Ali, "The Challenge of Dawa".  Any interested reader should read the book for themselves.  Briefly she makes the point that unless an "Anti Dawa" strategy is developed and soon the west may be doomed.  

Ms Ali has previously held that Islam was not capable of reform.  The opinion piece points out that she has now changed her position and feels that it can be reformed but only by those she calls "Mecca Muslims". These are those who hold to the kinder, gentler form of Islam preached by Muhammad before 622. In that year Muhammad left Mecca and migrated to Medina and the religion of Islam took on a much more militant and "unlovely", some would say evil ideological involution.  Islam in Ms Ali's opinion needs to be viewed NOT just as a religion with all the perks that go along with that identification in a free society, BUT as a religion that is inexorably intertwined with a political ideology that has at it's core the conviction that Sharia Law is destined to overthrow all other forms of jurisprudence in the entire world. Dawa is conducted "right under our noses" in her words and aims at the conversion of non Muslims to political Islam.  By pushing more moderate Muslims toward activism it seeks to overthrow the political institutions of the west and establish an Islamic utopia where Sharia is the law of the land everywhere. 

Ms Ali goes on to say that the focus on terrorism is misguided and what we should be focused on is the war of ideas against "Islamism" or political Islam.  Our reverence for freedom of religion should not blind us to the existential danger of Dawa. The current strategy of Jihadi "whack a mole" is destined to fail in her opinion unless we openly confront the danger of Dawa. The philosophy of Dawa insinuates itself into all of the west's "institutions of socialization" including schools, prisons, universities, and political parties. She points out the fundamental incongruity of progressive's push to accept Islamic culture and practice with their acceptance, even championing of agendas such as gay rights.  She unflinchingly points out that Islamists are not just homophobic but that they actively desire and seek to put gay individuals to death. Another area of her expertise that is not pointed out in this essay is her campaign against female genital mutilation which is still actively practiced in many Islamic countries. Her sad story about being on the receiving end of such a barbaric practice is told in her earlier books. This would seem to be enough to put her in the forefront of "women's rights" movements but instead she is shunned and boycotted from many universities. How I wonder can a liberal progressive woman of 2017 not be in favor of eliminating this horrible abuse of a woman's body?

Many will not agree with her position that the religion of Islam is a Trojan Horse that "conceals Islamism the political movement".   Much as the Jihadist's use of mosques to store weapons takes advantage of the West's reluctance to attack a house of worship the religion of Islam escapes censure and regulation because of our constitutional protections of freedom of religion. She fearlessly states,"the agents of Dawa hide behind constitutional protections they themselves would dismantle were they in power."

The natural enemy of Dawa in her opinion is assimilation. She unequivocally states that the agents of Dawa in the west promote "cocooning" of children to keep them from being exposed to ideas contained for example in the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution, Freedom, women's rights, gay rights, limits on parental influence, etc are all inconsistent with the tenets of Sharia.  

Her proposed solutions will strike many as unreasonable but what about the alternative?