The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Sharia Law: “He’ll Take Orders!!”

It is not common knowledge, but Ayn Rand, the
novelist/philosopher, described the means and ends of Sharia law, doubtless
before she had ever heard of it. She died in 1982, but in one key chapter of The Fountainhead, her archvillain,
Ellsworth Toohey, newspaper columnist and power-lusting gadabout, describes to
Peter Keating, his protégé in destruction, what he wants to see happen to
Howard Roark.

Roark is the architect-hero of the novel. He is scheduled to be
tried for blowing up a public housing project. Toohey confronts Keating to
obtain a key incriminating piece of evidence that Roark designed the project,
not Keating. Roark’s plans were altered by a team of second-handers, which
included Keating. Roark subsequently dynamited the half-finished project. Toohey
bares his soul to Keating for the first time. Keating is frightened,
understanding only now the charming, flattering, but dark motive behind
Toohey’s friendship with him.
Keating: 
“Why do you want to kill Howard?”
Toohey: 
“I don’t want to kill him. I want him in jail. You understand? In jail.
In a cell. Behind bars. Locked, stopped, strapped – and alive. He’ll get up
when they tell him to. He’ll eat what they give him. He’ll move when he’s told
to move and stop when he’s told. He’ll walk to the jute mill, when he’s told,
and he’ll work as he’s told. They’ll push him, if he doesn’t move fast enough,
and they’ll slap his face when they feel like it, and they’ll beat him with a
rubber hose if he doesn’t obey. And he’ll obey. He’ll take orders. He’ll take orders!”*
On the premise
that Islam is a totalitarian ideology, this is as good a dramatic description
of the purposes of Islam’s Sharia law as any, especially in regards to
non-Muslims. An unlikely-looking dictator, Ellsworth Toohey was a
dyed-in-the-wool totalitarian. But he preferred to be called a “humanitarian.”
(As he is described
in the novel, his physical appearance is a hybrid of that of British socialist Harold Laski
and of  the American actor Clifton Webb. In the 1949 film, the role of Toohey
was filled by Robert Douglas, who, while good, was far too masculine; Webb
would have been ideal. Anyone who has seen him as the sniping, condescending newspaper
critic Waldo Lydecker in Laura [1944] might agree.
Rand wrote her description of Toohey before she heard Laski speak in New York
at the New School in 1937.**)

He’ll take
orders!”
Er wird Aufträge zu nehmen!” It sounds so much more dictatorial in
Merkelian German. For that is what the Chancellor has told Germans: You will
take orders from your new masters, the Muslims. We must save Germany by
destroying it and demoting you to the status of second-class citizens is a
necessary precondition. You will not resist your new condition – defamers and
blasphemers will be punished to the full extent of the law – and defer without
protest to an admittedly crude and primitive culture, a culture and a people irreconcilably
alien to Western civilization.
Is it any wonder that some German
caricaturists have dared portray her with a Hitler style moustache, in Nazi
uniforms, as a “Bitch of Buchenwald”?
Toohey’s motive
is to acquire power: Power over people for the sake of exercising power. To
make them subservient to his whims, to order them about, to make them do things
they do not want to do. To see them humiliated and punished for the least
infraction of his diktats, for the least deviation from his will. To see them
humbled and obedient. To see them accept being slaves and minions of his will
as the natural and inevitable course of their existence, to see them act
against their nature as men of free will acting for their own, selfish reasons.
To see them alive but beaten. To see them work in their various industrial and
business “jute mills” to support their captors, who they know are their
inferiors in mind and spirit. To see them know they have no alternative but to obey. To see them bow and scrape and
approach their masters on raw, bloodied knees to beg for mercy.
The enforcers
of Sharia would take pleasure in knowing that that the captives of such a
system accept being “inferior” and live only to escape the sting of the lash,
bullets to the brain, the force of the stone, the agony of rape, the pain of
amputation.
Toohey does not
– and knows he cannot – reduce Roark to a passive, reactive cipher as he can others.
He knows that Roark cannot be broken. He wants him alive and knowing that this
is how his life will be spent, wasted in the suffocating regime of imprisonment
in a collectivist society, because he, Ellsworth Toohey, has to power to waste
it and imprison him.
Except for
minor particulars, Toohey’s envisioning of Roark in captivity in no way differs
from the means and ends advocates of Sharia law.
Subjugated dhimmis, as non-Muslims, as conquered People of the Book,
and atheists, as well, will do as they’re told, or suffer horrendous,
Sharia-prescribed consequences if they don’t do as they’re told. Rubber hoses
are an optional instrument of pain; burial alive, knives, swords, machetes,
rape, stoning, and amputation are also in Sharia’s toolbox of Islamic justice.
Siblings in Ideology
Toohey, like
any other ambitious totalitarian – Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, as well as
wannabe authoritarians like Barack Obama – is truly a “selfless” individual. He
doesn’t even hold conventional, second-hand values. He has no personal values
beyond the urge or compulsion he needs to satisfy to control other men, men who
do have personal values. Other men have more metaphysical significance to him
than does existence itself.  He is what
Rand called in her nonfiction a “social metaphysician.”
Other men are
the core of his existence – what they do, what they think, what they value.
They represent a threat, a collective nemesis, more so than does nature, which
he has elected not to control or master in the way of making an honest living
as a trader. Men pass him by in the pursuit of their values, living their own
lives. He resents this. If he cannot control other men – and the only way he
can control or rule them is to reduce them to empty vessels like himself, by
corrupting or destroying their values and their sense of personal worth – then he
will feel the dread of a kind of vertigo – more correctly, of acrophobia – of tumbling
into the empty, bottomless void of his soul. So the void must be filled with the
bodies and lives of other men. Not finding a way to control men is his most
frightening prospect. He  hates men who
will not bend to his will. They must be contained, controlled, or destroyed.
His only sense
of personal efficacy is based on the power to employ force or fraud on his
victims.
Muslims would
be Toohey’s ideal subjects and raw material for mass control, ready-made and
prepared to be told what to do with no questions asked. But the Islamic Umma – the super-collective of all
Muslims – like Toohey, cannot abide, tolerate or coexist with a society that is
diametrically opposite and opposed to it. So Islam’s antipode must be corrupted
and prepared for domination by Islam, just as Toohey throughout The Fountainhead cultivated and corrupted
men like Peter Keating for his domination.
And Islam is
well on its way to dominate the West, and possibly the whole planet.
On December 9th,
Gates of Vienna published Sonia Bailley’s précis
of part of Stephen Coughlin’s 790-page Catastrophic
Failure
: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
, “Islamic
Timelines Fueling Jihad
.” She begins with:
All-out war with the West has begun. With the
culmination of two Islamic timelines imposing Islamic law or Sharia worldwide
converging this month, in fact one this week, things are bound to get worse.
More deadly terror attacks are expected worldwide as a result of this, as
forecasted by Major Stephen Coughlin, a former U.S. army intelligence
officer and Pentagon expert on Islamic law of jihad. The timelines are building
momentum in parallel, with one plan using violent jihad to destroy the West,
and the other using soft jihad to destroy Western civil liberties through the
use of Sharia-compliant UN resolutions and hate speech codes to curtail any
discussion or analysis of Islam.
In her
prefatory summary of her article, she wrote:
With the convergence of two Islamic timelines
(al Qaeda, OIC) to destroy the West culminating THIS month (the OIC’s timeline
ending Dec. 9th), along with the Muslim Brotherhood’s engagement in violent
jihad, as opposed to the softer jihad of dawah (inviting non-believers to
Islam, meant only as a preparatory phase to violent jihad), Westerners, as
predicted by Major Stephen Coughlin, are in for the biggest shock of their
lives in the dark times ahead, beginning this week, especially now that the
caliphate has been re-established.
And how does
Coughlin present Islam softening up the West for the fatal blows?
Al Qaeda’s 20-year plan to violently impose Sharia on the West in
stages is just entering Phase Six (2016-2020) of “Total
Confrontation”
. This timeline, hatched well before 1996, was known to the
West for ten years.
The other death-to-the-West Islamic timeline
implemented ten years ago by a highly powerful and influential organization —
the world’s second largest intergovernmental organization (next to the United
Nations) and largest Islamic organization — is also building momentum in a less
violent but parallel way.
The Organization of Islamic
Cooperation
[OIC], the
largest voting bloc at the UN (comprising the world’s 57 Islamic states)
proposed a Ten-Year Programme of Action (at a two-day summit in
Mecca concluding on Dec.9th) to internationally criminalize any criticism of
Islam or so-called Islamophobia, culminates this week (December 8th and 9th).
Toohey might
have added to his description of Roark’s captivity: “He’ll speak only when
spoken to, and not before – if ever.” Censorship – actual and de facto – is a means of silencing
critics of Islam about any aspect of the ideology, particularly Sharia law. This
silencing has been a goal of the OIC since 1999. It is obsessed especially  with the global criminalization of “Islamophobia.”
In all likelihood, the OIC-backed-and-boosted
UN Resolution 16/18 will become law not only in Canada, beginning with Quebec
as Bill 59 (which would criminalize websites offensive to Islam with fines of
up to $20,000) — but in the U.S. as well, in light of Attorney General Loretta
Lynch vowing just one day after the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack
that she will prosecute anyone using “anti-Muslim rhetoric” — although she didn’t mention
anything about prosecuting anyone using genocidal or jihadi rhetoric against
non-believers.
ABC News, in
its December 4th report, “
Department
of Justice Will Go After Anti-Muslim Hate Speec
h,
“ reported on Lynch’s appearance before the Muslim Advocates dinner :
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged that the Department of Justice will go after hate speech that might
incite violence against the Muslim community, she told a crowd of
Muslim-Americans and supporters Thursday night.
“Obviously this is a country that is based on
free speech,” Lynch told the audience at the Muslim Advocates dinner in
Arlington, VA. “But when that edges towards violence…we will take action.”
Muslim Advocates, a legal advocacy group,
asked Lynch to address concerns about an uptick in anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate
crimes
.  Since 9/11, Lynch says that
the Department of Justice has investigated more than 11,000 acts of anti-Muslim
rhetoric, which have led to 45 prosecutions. “I think sadly, that number is
going to rise,” said Lynch.
Bailley
notes:
Lynch’s promise conforms to
UN Resolution 16/18, which, if it becomes international law, would enforce
Sharia against Islamic blasphemy. This will be in accordance with those laws
enforced by Mohammed 1,400 years ago that condemned to hell or called
for the killing
of his dissenters and insulters.
Any form of expression that
reflects badly on Islam, or that is offensive or insulting to a Muslim, even if
that criticism constitutes the truth, is in violation of Islamic law, and is
considered a criminal offense in Islam. Those forms of informative expression might
include the mere mention or criticism of jihad and its cruel and barbaric
torture methods, the rape and enslavement of Christian and Yazidi women, the
persecution of religious minorities, gays, and apostates, to name a few, and
the motivating ideology behind all these horrific acts.
So,
why would the OIC, a bloc of Tooheys in burnooses, turbans, and Brooks Brothers
suits, want to silence those who criticize or mock Islam – unless its members
were uneasy with or even frightened of the free flow of ideas over which they
had no control, ideas that reveal the brutality and totalitarian nature of Islam?
 They don’t want non-Muslims to know the
truth about Islam, and are prepared to employ force to impose ignorance.
And
we here in the United States have a President who is willing to help enforce
that ignorance, in the persons of Barack Obama and his Attorney General Loretta
Lynch, among many others in his Muslim-populated administration, such as Huma
Shah, in Obama’s Office of Public Engagement.
Ellsworth
Toohey would chuckle and approve.
But
we Americans don’t approve. I think that is becoming fairly obvious by now. More
and more Americans seem to be siding with Howard Roark.We won’t take orders, either.
The
Fountainhead
,
by Ayn Rand. New York: Penguin 7Plume Centennial Edition, 2005. 727 pp.  P. 663.
*The Fountainhead, my 1943 edition. New
York-Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1943. 754 pp.  P. 688.
**See
pp. 113-115, The Journals
of Ayn Rand
. New York: Penguin Putnam, 1997. 752 pp.

Previous

The Great Pumpkin of Islam

Next

Islam in Contemporary Fiction

1 Comment

  1. Rob McVey

    Nice analogy! By coincidence I did a similar thing just yesterday — the Wet Nurse at Rearden Metal, as prognosis (1957) for state punishment of business 'monitors' today. A news comment, much smaller scale.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén