‘Intellectual’ Migrant Coolies – Irrational Rationalists

[miles-militis]

‘Intellectual’ Migrant Coolies – Irrational Rationalists

One of the pillars of Western democratic societies is the ‘freedom to express ones opinion’, but how ironic it is, that its proponents parading themselves as ‘intellectuals’ resort to knee jerk reaction, when they are unable to address legitimate criticism(s) of the issues at hand.

 

To our surprise - they are not the real intellectuals of the West - they are largely economic migrants who have become the vanguard of Western democracies.

 

The underlying principle proposed by these conformist-economic-migrants is that: any criticism(s) of the system is hypocritical whilst residing and enjoying the fruits of the same country. Of course, the application of the principle is exclusively reserved for dissident-migrants, who have either settled or are second generation plus, in the West. This implies that only the native white citizens like Noam Chomsky are entitled to dissent, where as the dissident-migrants should either conform to the status quo (assimilate) or leave the country (repatriate). Isn’t it ironic that the conformist-economic-migrants as vanguards of Western democracies are using the language of the racist right, who are demanding same, i.e. assimilate or repatriate?

 

It should be noted that, presenting such types of ‘argument’ appears to be a convenient way of avoiding the real issues and the opinions expressed by the dissident-migrants. The above principle argued by the conformist-economic-migrants implies that one can legitimately criticise only from a distance, in foreign lands. Therefore, hypothetically, if the whole world had been unified by a single ideology, all the dissidents would be required to move on to the next planet! The points below elaborate on some of the clear fallacies of the argued principle.

 

a) The idea clearly contradicts the much-trumpeted premise of ‘free speech’. The very notion of ‘free speech’ entails accepting dissension within the status quo in order for it to have any meaning. It wouldn’t quite be freedom of speech if everyone was compelled to agree with the consensus, would it now! Thus, instead of absorbing the dissident viewpoints in line with the notion of ‘free speech’, these conformist-economic-migrants are trying to stifle any form of criticism. Yet, they constantly brag about their enlightenment as a result of embracing the notion of ‘freedom’ in the West.

 

b) The issue of expressing criticism is an inherent right of any citizen, not a privilege. Therefore, by selectively singling out the dissident-migrants is clearly a form of discrimination based on ethnicity. Some go even further by issuing threats of expulsion as soon as they exercise their legitimate right(s). What happened to the boasts of being elevated by tolerating divergent views?

 

c) If one were to follow this warped logic everyone would end up becoming an armchair critic (similar to themselves i.e. conformist-economic-migrants), as they could only criticise from great distance rather than effectively from within. Which is also a clear indication of cowardice.

 

d) Genuine changes almost always occur from within. Those who criticise the existing system are often motivated by injustice and oppression. As an example, the black community in America formed the civil rights movement to demand greater protection from rampant racism. So, by following the logic of these conformist-economic-migrants, the Afro-American community should have either migrated back to Africa or simply accepted the status quo!

 

e) To the conformist-economic-migrants it is apparently hypocritical to criticize, and yet ‘enjoy’ the “fruits” of that society. Hypocrisy by definition is to contradict ones stated criterion(s) and opinion(s), this obviously, has no relationship with ones place of abode! Besides, many of the dissident-migrants are second generation plus and never migrated to the West in the first place. As for the “fruits”, this is the product of the entire society from the collective effort of all the citizens. Therefore, every citizen is entitled to enjoy it.

 

Therefore the argument proposed by the conformist-economic-migrants is not the result of profound thought and research but simply reflecting the mindset of the typical self-haters begging to be accepted by the establishment. It is rather more appropriate to describe them as modern day ‘intellectual’ migrant-coolies, instead of using their physical potential; they are employed, or prostitute themselves by offering their ‘intellectual’ services. Many of these migrant-coolies go beyond the diktats of their masters in their zeal to demonstrate obedience. As shown above, in their passion to protect their masters they defend Western values like “freedom of speech’ by attempting to silence the critics. Yet, they have the gall to accuse others of hypocrisy!

 

Migrant-Coolies as Islamic ‘experts’

 

Some of these ‘intellectual’ migrant-coolies have extended their services by proclaiming themselves as ‘experts’ in Islam, merely because of Muslim ancestry. When it comes to Islamic experts, the Western mass media is full of them, you have Jewish ‘experts’, atheist ‘experts’, Christian ‘experts’, and even the professed anti-Islamic ‘experts’, but nowhere can one see the experts who actually profess to adhere to the message of Islam. One should note that all these so called ‘experts’ amongst the migrant coolies usually have three things in common: they have received no formal education in Islam, no attempt has been made to engage with genuine Islamic scholars and they never provide an alternative.

 

The migrant-coolies argue, that all the Islamic commandments have to be sanctioned by the human mind. One can already witness the ‘logic’. The divine revelation from the all mighty has to be approved by the human mind, which was the creation of the all mighty in the first place! So the fallible human mind to used in ratifying the infallible all mighty! Isn’t it a bit like the machine attempting to maintain and repair its creator? Of course, even this example is inadequate since the disparity between the creator and the creation is immense by definition.

 

They mock religion in general but yet assume to uphold and use religious criteria’s, whilst not realising it, as one would expect from ‘intellectual’ coolies. As for example, they oppose incestuous marriages, but if the ration is the sole criteria, what is the rational reason for not marrying ones mother or sister? Many of them have wives, so why resort to the religious institution of marriage instead of cohabiting? Similarly, can one not argue on the basis of ration to terminate all the abnormal human beings within society, in order to prevent the perpetuation of genetic disorders?

 

Issues of ethics and morality are not simply a matter of mechanical computation of the mind but emanates from a certain belief about life itself. When a thief steals there are no independent magic formula to derive the just retribution but it simply comes down to ones belief. If there is a magic formula, then can these coolies explain why serial killers in US are executed but they are kept alive in warm cells in Europe? Can they also explain their constant rants about the ‘immoral’ nature of polygamy but yet they sanction homosexuality and other forms of perversions? NB: The reason for their lack of substation is that, they have little to offer other than being critical of Islam, a true characteristic of intellectual bankruptcy.

 

Some of these migrant-coolies do not bother to hide their vile polemic under the guise of ‘legitimate research’. Recently, in a well-known website, a author has engaged in using abusive and foul language in maligning the Prophet of Islam as a ‘terrorist’ without defining what constitutes ‘terrorism’. Nor does he attempt to elaborate on the various criterions that he uses to malign the Prophet of Islam. Not surprisingly, he also does not provide any alternative. Anyone can engage in endless diatribe but genuine scholarly criticism is usually accompanied with an alternative.

 

Such ‘intellectual’ migrant-coolies are without honour, who have nothing to protect, as they are empty of any genuine solutions other then their constant rant and foul mouthing against Islam. So, they go about like the Mongol hordes attempting to commit only destruction not to rebuild anything.

 

Scholars of Islam in the past have had genuine debates with the scholars of Europe and other civilisations. The likes of Imam Ghazali, Bayhaqi and others are still admired by the West for their scholarly engagement. Most of which these ‘intellectual’ migrant-coolies are dwarfs compared to the scholars of the West. They will have to do far more to pose a challenge to Islam. Abstaining from using foul language would be a first step in their education.

 

The old principle of “judging the tree by its fruits” needs to apply here. Outbursts against Islam as being inherently evil has to be explained by these coolies as to why so many free citizens of West and around the globe are still embracing it considering the adverse publicity that Islam receives from the sophisticated and vicious mass media of the West. Islam is said to be fastest growing religion, hence it must have some level of inherent momentum and dynamics. In contrast, how many followers have these coolies produced in their attempt to be saviour to mankind from Islam by their constant waffle? Most certainly scribbling on the Internet and in their virtual world will not generate that sort of following.

 

These intellectual migrant-coolies needs to reminded that the long history of Islam testifies to the resilience and dynamism of Islam in countering aggression, from the medieval crusades, Mongol invasion, European colonisation and now the naked aggression of Anglo-US-Israeli axis. Islam will not only survive the onslaught but it will grow stronger as its track record indicates. As its adherents and non-adherents (potential adherents) can clearly see the lies, hypocrisy and contradictions of those who shout “freedom”, “democracy” and “justice”. The fake war on ‘terrorism’ has only increased the number of converts and interest in Islam.

 

Reformers of Islam - Wannabe Martin Luthers

 

Amongst the migrant-coolies posing as Islamic ‘experts’ you have the more ambitious characters portraying themselves as reformers. There is a so-called aspiring ‘Muslim’ reformer who professes to be a Lesbian. Is that not like a thief or an adulteress preaching about the virtues of honesty or chastity? If anything, it is her lifestyle that is in need of reformation, rather than Islam. Here an analogy can be made, if an individual through cursory self-study, claims to have studied medicine, then proceeds to ‘refute’ and ‘debate’ well established professors of medicine, that individual would laughed at. What if that individual then proceeded to practise his/her ‘finding’s – that, obviously would not be a laughing matter; but a criminal act!

 

Similarly, another prominent self-proclaimed reformer, a devout Islam hater and a professed feminist by the name of Taslima Nasreen. Like the previous case she also has no formal education in Islam. It is interesting that she has called for reformation rather then being frank and state what she really means, abandoning Islam altogether. Naturally, as one would expect she has been awarded fellowship at Harvard, audiences with heads of states, for her services in maligning Islam, using rehashed arguments borrowed from the Orientalists and Western feminists.

 

Let alone provide any alternatives, these irrational rationalist fail to see their inherent contradictions within their own actions and statements. As an example she opposes polygamy but yet she confessed in her latest book to prostituting herself as a mistress to married men, thereby making many monogamous men polygamous! Another example is her constant bragging about the equality of the sexes as if they are identical in every aspect. Perhaps she can set an example by getting rid of the segregated male and female toilets and changing rooms at Harvard as a first step. Such types of segregation is practiced and indoctrinated to the school children even in the gender-obsessed Western world acknowledging the inherent differences in male and female.

 

Note again, she offers plenty of criticism but very little in the way of alternative. Bereft of any intellectual originality and having failed to generate any kind of following, she has resorted to writing pornographic type of materials exposing her sexual ‘adventures’ in her old age. She states that she is not ashamed of what she has done; naturally, shame can be only felt by those who have honour and self-dignity. Just like wild beasts fornicating openly feels no shame, and human beings imitating the animals by disclosing personal information equally feels no shame.

 

Irrational rationalists do not care to see their own folly. In advocating ‘reformation’ by abandoning all the core values, what then remains of Islam? Surely, this is nothing more than an attempt to dismantle Islamic teachings under the guise of ‘reformation’

 

The Western media, its intellectuals and governments have given such rabble-rousers an inordinate amount of publicity and support by honouring them with various accolades. This demonstrates how much they hate Islam whilst preaching that it is the Islamic world that is full of hate. Even if the Islamic world does express hate, is it abnormal to express such emotions, under occupation and aggression?

 

It is clear to see that an honest insight into Islam is not the objective of the ‘open minded, liberal, enlightened, Western academics’. If this was their goal, why than have obscure, non-entities like the coolies in question, become reference points rather than orthodox Islamic scholars? Even their own academic institutions are providing ‘arguments’ and challenges that are far more scholarly and worthy of a response. Which also indicates how desperate the political leadership in the West has become in their quest to manufacture a modern day Islamic Martin Luther, thus they are ready to adopt any old coolie.

 

Thus in summary, attempting to silence criticism(s), attacking Islam, promoting obscure individuals on the basis reformation are all aimed at undermining Islam. This shows that the West is still medieval when it comes to dealing with Islam. Intellectually inept to cope with arguments hence they are increasingly resorting to the fascists tactics of their forefathers by incarceration, slandering though its powerful mass media whilst denying Islam/Muslims a voice, of course the coolies are ever present offering their ‘services’.

 

 

Yamin Zakaria

London, UK

 

Others works of his