A Modest Proposal Of Dhimmitude
The blogosphere has spent most of the morning scratching its collective head over an op-ed article at Time Out London. It purports to outline all of the beneficial aspects of an Islamist takeover of London, and castigates those who believe in a "hysterical, right-wing nightmare" of dhimmitude. People are unsure whether the author, Michael Hodges, is either a capitulationist or a satirist non pareil. You decide:
On the surface, Islamic health doesn’t look good: the 2001 census showed that 24 per cent of Muslim women and 21 per cent of Muslim men suffered long-term illness and disability. But these are factors of social conditions rather than religion. In fact, Islam offers Londoners potential health benefits: the Muslim act of prayer is designed to keep worshippers fit, their joints supple and, at five times a day, their stomachs trim. The regular washing of the feet and hands required before prayers promotes public hygiene and would reduce the transmission of superbugs in London’s hospitals.Alcohol is haram, or forbidden, to Muslims. As London is above the national average for alcohol-related deaths in males, with 17.6 per 100,000 people (Camden has 31.6 per 100,000 males), turning all the city’s pubs into juice bars would have a massive positive effect on public health. Forbid alcohol throughout the country, and you’d avoid many of the 22,000 alcohol-related deaths and the £7.3 billion national bill for alcohol-related crime and disorder each year. ...
In an Islamic London, Christians and Jews – with their allegiance to the Bible and the Talmud – would be protected as ‘peoples of the book’. Hindus and Sikhs manage to live alongside a large Muslim population in India, so why not here? Although England has a long tradition of religious bigotry against, for instance, Roman Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that under the guiding hand of Islam a civilised accommodation could be made among faith groups in London. This welcoming stance already exists in the capital in the form of the City Circle (see Yahya Birt interview), which encourages inter-faith dialogue and open discussion.
Hodges doesn't make it easy, but I'm voting for satirist. Hodges easily makes a case for dhimmitude that is worthy of Jonathan Swift, or at least Jon Swift. In fact, Hodges may have used A Modest Proposal as a guidepost to writing this article:
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout. ...I think the advantages by the proposal which I have made are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance.
For first, as I have already observed, it would greatly lessen the number of papists, with whom we are yearly overrun, being the principal breeders of the nation as well as our most dangerous enemies; and who stay at home on purpose with a design to deliver the kingdom to the Pretender, hoping to take their advantage by the absence of so many good protestants, who have chosen rather to leave their country than stay at home and pay tithes against their conscience to an episcopal curate.
Secondly, The poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by law may be made liable to distress and help to pay their landlord's rent, their corn and cattle being already seized, and money a thing unknown.
Thirdly, Whereas the maintenance of an hundred thousand children, from two years old and upward, cannot be computed at less than ten shillings a-piece per annum, the nation's stock will be thereby increased fifty thousand pounds per annum, beside the profit of a new dish introduced to the tables of all gentlemen of fortune in the kingdom who have any refinement in taste. And the money will circulate among ourselves, the goods being entirely of our own growth and manufacture.
The entire piece offers a vision of the "benefits" of accepting Islamic domination and oppression in terms that liberals love. It means an end to junk food, compulsory education (at least for the boys), and end to racism (through religious triumphalism), environmentalism, and so on. It's A Modest Proposal for the age of radical Islamist terror, a surrender document designed to embarass those who would capitulate.
I could be wrong. Michael Hodges could possibly be so intellectually vacuous as to believe in the literal interpretation of what he wrote at TimeOut London. If so, then this serves as an even greater satire, if unintended.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that Iowahawk has a great satire based on the satire.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 8, 2007 9:11 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (2)
Comments (13)
Posted by Mark Soper | June 8, 2007 9:44 AM
I'm stunned to read that this is an actual piece. I'm hoping it's a 'Modest Proposal'-type satire. Whether it is or not, you must read Dave Burge's brilliant 'first draft' parody of it at Iowahawk: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/06/londons_swingin.html
Posted by NoDonkey | June 8, 2007 9:50 AM
How long before our own Democrat Party adopts these ideas?
After all, if you are the surrender party, you need to assure people that conditions under surrender will not be all that bad.
So market it. Dhimmitude is the next thing, the trendy, funky fresh movement that all of the cool people are doing. Like Pelosi donning the headscarf and kissing the feet of Assad.
Islam already the religion that the left speaks nothing but good about, while they relentlessly castigate Christianity and Judaism.
Why shouldn't the left go all the way, so they can say they were Dhimmis, before being a Dhimmi was cool?
Posted by naftali | June 8, 2007 9:50 AM
See Iowahawk for how it's supposed to be done.
Posted by km | June 8, 2007 9:56 AM
I am baffled that the feminists and gays that are such vocal and catered contingents among the "progressives" don't see the danger of ascending Islam.
When the Islamists tell the feminists and gays that they plan to take them out to "get stoned" they aren't indicating that they'll be passing a blunt around.
Posted by patrick neid | June 8, 2007 10:02 AM
satire? it shows what a world we live in where we can't tell.
Posted by RBMN | June 8, 2007 10:06 AM
Another interesting item from the same site:
Islamic extremists in the East End
Time Out London
http://www.timeout.com/london/features/2872.html
Hodges' "Is London's future Islamic?" may be like a Hunter S. Thompson piece. Everyone knows it's a parody, except maybe the author.
Posted by Adjoran | June 8, 2007 11:10 AM
It's a rather obvious satire. The tip-off is the whole "Muslim prayer as exercise" idea.
Posted by lexhamfox | June 8, 2007 11:41 AM
Oh that is too funny. TIME OUT advocating Islamist takeover of London and getting rapped by a right wing blog in the US for it.
I expect the President of Iran will be the guest of honor at San Francisco's Gay Pride Parade this year with Mugabe as his 'date.'
C'mon Ed. Serious irony detection failure.
Posted by NoDonkey | June 8, 2007 12:28 PM
"Serious irony detection failure."
Please. Like someone on the left WOULD NEVER think like this? After all of the absurdity that's come out of the multiculturalist movement?
Even if he didn't mean it, the reason it's funny is because we can definitely see some dimwit leftist writing a piece like this and being serious about it.
If he does repudiate it, it may be sort of like Sheryl Crow's "it was a joke" about her one toilet tissue idea.
Posted by Lightwave | June 8, 2007 4:46 PM
"Even if he didn't mean it, the reason it's funny is because we can definitely see some dimwit leftist writing a piece like this and being serious about it."
And amusing as that is, the reason we're even discussing this is because there are moonbats who would see no problem with the US or UK adopting the plan as realpolitik.
Underneath the humor is the nasty truth of the matter.
Posted by Dave Mears | June 8, 2007 5:34 PM
a British reporter speaking out against alcohol? It has to be satire.
Posted by lakeside | June 9, 2007 7:47 AM
I cannot detect any irony in this article except for the few paragraphs that the Captain excerpted. The rest of the article actually sounds very favorable to Islam without sounding sarcastic. I hope it's a parody but it might not be. And frankly it's not hard to imagine some liberal praising the virtues of Islam while ignoring its vices simply because he disdains western civilization.
Posted by Mauro | June 10, 2007 12:19 PM
I'm sorry, Ed, but I don't see how the author could possibly have been serious. I'd say he was being sarcastic more than satirical, but no sane person in an enlightened 21st century country could possibly say that and mean it.
On the other hand, there's the Creation Museum...