AS3
I waited for the random akhi to show up, but I guess . . . today I am him
Safferz,
You are right in many regards. Scholars in the vein of Edward Said serve an important role in the fight against imperialism. They have theorized about the means and methods used by Western imperialists to justify their continued infiltration of non-Western societies. They have correctly identified how Western scholarship, media tropes and political rhetoric are conjunctively used to pave the way for military action against an 'other.' The result is the aim all along--the economic and political domination of the 'other.'
But herein lies the rub. Any good imperialist (liberal) knows that physical domination is futile. The oppressed will rise in due time. They will reclaim their land and re-establish their political order. What a good imperialist desires is the cultural degradation of the other to the extent that members of that victimized group refuse to identify with their own culture and adopt the imperialist's mode of living. They see--above all--uniformity in thought, a shared faith.
What about the Cons?
The (Neo)-Conservatives is corrupt. They are the prototypical hypocrites in domestic politics. Yet, their foreign policies are achieved by brute force. When dealing with the other, they say what they think, do what they want and couldn't care less for the consequences. They are myopic and thus bad imperialists. The liberal is a useful enemy in domestic politics--he casts him as unpatriotic and stirs up nationalistic furor to gain votes. But they know full well that it’s all politics.
If Allah (SW) hadn’t checked them with the liberals in domestic politics, they would bomb and loot every country. See, GW Bush.
The Liberal Personified
The liberal is undisciplined. He suffers from a superiority complex because he is educated and can recite Lolita from memory. He decries the 'dark ages' and seeks enlightenment. The liberal is savvy. His own sense of superiority allows him to listen to other opinions diligently--because, after all, the liberal knows that this 'savage' only needs to be enlightened. He feels he can deconstruct any argument and win over the unenlightened savage because he has studied all the classics. The liberal, drunk of his own superiority, believes that he knows what humans want better than any other. He has one aim and one aim only--the creation of a society that operates within the parameters of liberal thought. He doesn't care for the color of your skin or the language of your ancestors. But the liberal demands political uniformity of which the cornerstone is individual freedom--his own formulation of individual freedom. See, the liberal is complex.
Higher education is the liberal's territory, his church. This is where the liberal liquors up youngsters and distills them of any and all principles. This is where he challenges the leaders of tomorrow to be unique in an environment that demands conformity. Note the echo-chamber that is the liberal classroom where a conservative student cannot voice his opinion.
There is only one concept that gives the liberals fits, i.e. the idea that there is a God and the imposition of limits on human behavior. This is source of the liberal's greatest ire. He believes that he can't defeat blind faith with rational reason. He knows that in order to implement his vision, he must confront this reality. The liberal has learned that beliefs are dear to humans and that they must be slowly changed. Thus, the liberal co-opts. The liberal is open to ideas as long as they further this aim by undermining the world's established cultures/religions. Thus, in this manner they corrupt with fancy theories and reformulations of Scripture. For the liberal, it is a long game and he understands that it may be a slow process. Whereas the conservative will bluntly call the other's scripture an invented work full of blasphemous statements, the liberal will take it to his library and deconstruct it. He will then write a paper in which he makes a mildly controversial 'eh' claim. Tomorrow, his liberal minions will cite him and expand that controversial claim. Finally, that controversial claim will become the defining concept of that Scripture. It will enter the mainstream media as a trope.
Muslims in higher education are especially susceptible to the liberal. Politically, he casts himself in contrast to the conservative. Thus, he becomes the friend defending against the bully.
More ominous to the Muslim is the liberal’s intentional fragmentation of education. History lies over there divorced from Political Science which barely touches upon Economics. This is a direct symptom to the 'secular' society--the division of the highest order, a false division, impractical and unimaginable to the Muslim mind. The idea is to constrain the student within the parameters of the system. Citations serve this purpose. PHD students are only allowed to sing the tune that doesn't disrupt the chorus. The result is a diversity of opinion but all of which is constrained within the liberal ideology. In other words, you may choose your words, but the liberal will choose the language.
Safferz, I believe what some of the brothers here are trying to say is that you are operating within this fragmentation. In the Islamic context, religion regulates political and economic life. Islam operates on a sphere entirely separate from any other ideology. It speaks a different language. To exercise dominion of Muslim political and economic interests is to exercise dominion of a part of their faith. Even with their economic and political aims accomplished, the good imperialist knows that he has not finished his work. He knows that it is only a matter of time before “blind faith” springs up and angry savages rid him of all that he has gained. To survive, the liberal needs clones within and without the lands that he desires to infiltrate.
