Why Darwinian materialism is useless when it comes waking up the West to the Islam threat
In my commentary on Raymond Ibrahim’s important article demonstrating how Nidal Hasan at every stage of his conduct was following the Islamic doctrine on Muslim relations with non-Muslims, I noted the existence of various theories purporting to explain Hasan’s act through causes other than Islam, among which were:
According to the Human Biodiversity blogger Dennis Mangan, Hasan carried out the attack because, being unable to find a Muslim wife, he was sexually frustrated.I’ve now added to that entry the exchange at Mangan’s Miscellany where a commenter articulates the sexual frustration theory, and Mangan agrees with him.
Also, when we consider Mangan’s position in light of the depressing opinion poll (posted in the next entry) showing that 49 percent of Americans believe the massacre was a killing spree by an unhinged individual and only 44 percent believe it was an act of terrorism, we see that Mangan is on the side of those seeking to persuade the public that it was a killing spree. It’s interesting that the liberal view and the Darwinian/Human Biodiversity view of Islamic jihad are the same. Both liberalism and Darwinism reduce the jihad attack at Fort Hood to a meaningless, random event.
Todd White writes:
Isn’t the best evidence that Mangan is wrong the ABC News article you linked revealing that Hasan was worried he had HIV? If that was the case, Hassan was almost certainly NOT “sexually frustrated.”November 22
D. writes from Seattle:
If sexual frustration leads one to commit an act of jihad war or a terrorist act, does it follow then that all self-professed frustrated “betas,” which I assume would include most readers of Roissy’s blog, should be put on the terrorist watch list?Kristor writes:
Your post about how Darwinism/HBD is useless against Islam was percipient. And it makes perfect sense. If everything is nothing but genetics, then religion is nothing but genetics—i.e., it isn’t actual, only genes are—and what is inactual cannot explain anything, because it cannot cause anything. So to HBD—to a naively reductionist HBD, that is—religion is simply invisible. It doesn’t register as a real factor of events. Its adherents cannot see the enemy for what he is, but only as a sack of chemicals. The being that the chemicals constitute, and in whom they participate, must in his final analysis be to the naïve materialist illusory.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 21, 2009 09:15 AM | Send