Also on this page ANDRE’ SERVIER’S ISLAM AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MUSULMAN 

America, Muslims, and the Future

London, England, 7 July 2005, four bombs killed at least 50 persons in the subways and destroyed a surface bus, and two bombs unexploded prevented further carnage.

London's Islamists unusually mum, by Seth Rosen, Washington TIMES, July 9, 2005

London's notoriously outspoken Islamists, a media-savvy faction who have publicly praised the September 11 hijackers and called for Islamic law in Britain, have fallen unusually silent since Thursday's rush-hour attack on commuters. Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, the radical cleric known for giving his cell phone number to reporters, did not answer yesterday or the previous day. The Web site of the sheik's followers was offline, and Anjem Choudhary, his top assistant, refused to comment on the blasts that left scores dead...Mr. Bakri ... has repeatedly called the September 11 hijackers "magnificent," and in Internet sermons, as reported by the Times of London, he implores Muslims to fulfill their "duty" of jihad and to support the mujahideen abroad. Mr. Bakri defended the March 2004 Madrid train bombing, and said that British Muslims should "kill and be killed" for Islam. ..During an interview earlier this year at a McDonald's in East London, Mr. Choudhary ... [said], "The Muslim community is under siege ... and it is an obligation for every Muslim to prepare themselves mentally and physically for any outcome and eventuality."

The same article also states:

In contrast, Muslim clerics and residents of London condemned the bombings without reservation, including one of Mr. Bakri's supporters. "My reaction is the same as the British public -- it is an act of terrorism and I'm deeply saddened," said Abu Bakar Siddique. "Many innocents lives were lost and many Muslims died."

What is not missing in Muslims in England is the same in America. What is missing is also the same. Both give us grave cause for pause.

Back when schools taught reading and actual factual content, and let us not forget relevancy, we kids learned about Diogenes of Corinth who walked about in Ancient Greece with a lantern, trying to discover an honest man. In our callow youth, this always sounded a little like Diogenes and Don Quixote could have easily been buds, had such even been possible. Muslims in America, with their maddening passivity, bring Diogenes back to mind. Here's how.

11 September 2001 hit a "sleeping" America, sleeping despite 20 years of wakeup calls, all of which had gone unheeded.

In the post-911 processes, we began learning about this Islamic threat, about Islam, and about Muslims. As we grew more knowledgeable, we became sensitive to the fact that there is a cultural black hole here in America involving Muslims. Unlike any other group of immigrants and their American born progeny, Muslims behaved like a black hole in space: All sorts of stuff got sucked in, but nothing came out.

The notion of a modern day Diogenes popped up. In this case, Americans began looking for truly American Muslims. What we got were bad stories: Sgt. "Akbar" fragging his Army officers in Kuwait, the deserting Marine who disappeared into Lebanon finally, the endless diet of hate preachers in the mosques, and ... well, there is just too much of this stuff. There were no good stories to know about, although some of the reason for that is fifth column journalism will not report good stories.

We were getting endless bleating from Muslims in America about "discrimination," "hate crimes," and other stigmata of their alleged victimization. They hated profiling, mosque surveillance, and so on--although every one of the perpetrators of the nefarious events of the prior twenty years, right up through 9-11, were Muslims, and were nearly 100% young males. They seemed to take a page out of the black victim behavior book, the page that says you must protest surveillance and profiling measures, even when you are responsible for 90+% of the crime in your population area.

What was missing from Muslims then, and now, is patriotic visibility. If they were Americans by choice or Americans birthed from those who chose to move here, why were they invisible and silent about jihadic activity against America? Their silence deafened. Their invisibility blinded. Their absence overpowered, and this black-hole-like passivity really started to aggravate all the rest of Americans, from those who had come here freshly to those who had had deep and long family roots here.

Passivity inevitably creates the impression of assent. A number of reports about Muslim responses, right here in old downtown America, after 9-11 made this impression indelible to very many Americans. So many expressed the sentiments that they could not criticize the behavior or the intent of the 9-11 perpetrators because they were fellow Muslims. And that is how it has been since: either direct assent or silence suggesting assent.

We learned that allegiance to Islam and allegiance to America are mutually incompatible, officially speaking, i.e., according to Islamic doctrine. If you are Muslim, you cannot claim any national allegiance. You are allegiant solely to Islam and its ummah (or the global collective of Muslims). Thus, if you were a Muslim, you were a drain on America and Americans because Islam forbade your toting your own share of patriotic responsibilities. You were here to parasitize and take us down from the inside. And, we saw seemingly endless examples.

It became very easy to lump all Muslims in America into one kettle, and turn the heat up to "high." As American blood and treasure spilled out to save Muslims from Muslims, resentment grew in direct proportion. Still Muslims in America chose to ape the three monkeys who saw nothing, said nothing, and heard nothing.

The modern day Diogenes searched in vain for the Muslim in America who is American first and Muslim second.

The serious worry is, in my view, that any repetition of Muslim-driven events against America may well unleash fury against Muslims, fury that will go far beyond the days of lynching black Americans for being black, etc. Far too many Americans see Muslims as an enemy within America, either actively plotting nefarious deeds against America or providing financial and emotional support to such activists. Americans characteristically do not want to regard any group or members of those groups who reside in America that way, but Muslims in America passively resist obvious and easy efforts to stand up and be counted as patriots. Their rotten reputations come squarely from their own behavior.

Only one thing can prevent a future popular turning on Muslims in America following a 9-11, a 3-11, or a 7-7, if it is not too late already to blunt the possible fury. That one thing is for Americans who are Muslim to stand up and speak out. They must condemn all forms of jihad except for the version requiring personal striving for personal improvement, and adopt the behavior of the "normal" religions which convert solely by persuasion. They must disavow all Islamic enemies of America, foreign and domestic. And, above all, they must profess allegiance to America, and be convincing about it.

Nothing less will do. If these simple actions are not taken, there likely will not be enough police, national guard troops, and federal agents to protect them if there is some other 9-11 like event.

We keep hearing about pro-America Muslims who are American. Unfortunately, groups like CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) hog the spotlight and claim to speak for ALL MUSLIMS. This is similar to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claiming to speak for all black Americans. Having CAIR, ISNA, and all the rest doing all the speaking creates a gap that is far too wide to be called a "credibility gap." Once more, Muslims sit there passively and let groups like CAIR "speak for Muslims." These groups tar all Muslims with the same brush on the one hand, yet far too many Muslims contribute money and do the bidding of every command from groups like CAIR, ISNA, etc.

Despite all of these proclamations about the large numbers of loyal Americans who are also Muslim, too few--if any--can be named or identified by most Americans. This is not a good sign and augures poorly for the future of Muslims in America. It just does not have to be this way, but Muslims will have to take action to get out of the hole they have dug themselves into. Passive dependency and sullen passive aggressiveness expressed through an "I am a victim" approach to their problems and refusing to take responsibility for changing themselves will not work. In fact, this approach, picked up from our Left, will not only not work, it will absolutely guarantee Muslim failure and possibly disaster.

Maybe, just maybe, there is some hope out there. World Net Daily published a letter from an American who is a Muslim, and it is unlike anything I have ever read from a Muslim in America. Once you read it, you will know that letters like this will never be published by the likes of CAIR, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, L.A. Times, CBSNBCABCCNN, etc. These groups and publications want to laud only losers. The writer of this letter clearly is not a loser.

WorldNetDaily: U.S. Muslim speaks about terrorism, Posted: July 8, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By LETTER OF THE WEEK

The guys at al-Qaida should be happy I'm not the president of the USA. I consider myself to be a conservative Muslim and conservative-libertarian politically.

Why are those things locked up in Guantanamo allowed to have access to the Quran? Did they think they were doing God's work when they got caught? The USA should stop spending all that money on special amenities for them and soften them up with just enough to keep them alive and breathing on their own. Those among them who are guilty of crimes against humanity should not be allowed to get out alive.

Why haven't the borders with the United States been militarized? Why should we care what other countries' governments think? The law is what it is and it needs to be enforced, right? That's what differentiates a First World country like the United States from a Third World country like ... take a guess.

If the Pakistani government is too chicken to go after Osama bin Laden – who is probably getting shelter from tribes within its borders – then maybe the United States should get a little unconventional ...

So, al-Qaida wants Muslims to rejoice over the attacks in London? Well, I'll hold off celebrating until Osama bin Laden and his hordes of savages are atomized, blown to pieces, etc. They claim to be true Muslims – in my sight, they are barbarians and perverts who deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth. No mercy should be shown to them by anyone!

Sure, I would be considered to be a "traitor to Islam" by them, but they're not God and have no credibility with me whatsoever. Only God knows what is in my heart. What I do know is that I do my best to serve God and I love the USA and do so freely as a Muslim.

Nabil Ahmad

Wow! A thinking Muslim! An American who is also Muslim! A patriotic Muslim!

Or, is this just more Muslim dissimulation?

I tend to think that this writer is for real and not trying to blow Islamic smoke. He writes like a right-winger, thankfully, in total contrast to the adopted style of the American Left which most published Muslims in America use.

He is doing what Christians and Jews have done for a very long time: rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, so to speak, and to God what is God's. I really hate that expression, but I use it to show the complete separation that must occur if Muslims are to leave 7th century C.E. thinking and behavior.

If you know good Muslims, and "good" in the proper sense, pass on Nabil Ahmad's letter. Tell them to use it as a model: to stand up, to speak up, and to assert themselves for America and against all the militant jihad. Encourage them to express this Caesar:God divide within themselves so that others make take the courage to speak up. As we say so often, great rivers start as coalescing drops.

I am deadly serious when I write apprehensively about possible future aggression directed against Muslims in America--if they continue to appear supportive of overt and covert jihad of the militant types, and if further 911-type events occur. Of course, I have no crystal ball, so I cannot say for certain that such will actually occur. Who would carry out such deeds? I have no specific knowledge of anyone. However, I tend to think a sizeable percentage of Americans might unleash themselves in every state, perhaps some 20 - 40 % of Americans. These will be people infuriated at two things: Further assaults on America from Muslims, and the chronic failure of the American government to deal rationally with the Islam problem in America. This need not occur and should not occur.

Muslims in America are at a most critical social-political cross-roads, and time is short. London of 7-7-2005 told the world that more is coming-- there, here, and in many other places. Muslims in America joining the fight for America, as Americans, will preserve and protect America and Muslims in America.

Will they switch from passive to active mode, and become visible to American Diogeneses?
 


 

~~~~~

ANDRE’ SERVIER’S ISLAM AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MUSULMAN 

[A reader sent us links to the full texts of the English language and French language versions of this book.  He wrote:

English version, a page by chapter : http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/
English version, all chapters in one page :
http://www.coranix.com/biblio/servier1923gb.htm
French version, all chapters in one page :
http://www.coranix.com/biblio/servier1923fr.htm
The French version is longer than the English one as several chapters
dealing mainly with French internal political aspects have not been
translated in the English version.

Since we are always very careful about writers' identities, locations, and addresses, we will simply have to say to "C.R.," thank you very much.

G. Mason

[09 June 2007]

_____________

 (Translated by A. S. Moss-Blundell, with a preface by Louis Bertrand; Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York; 1924) 

“Islam is Christianity adapted to Arab mentality, or, more exactly, it is all that the unimaginative brain of a Bedouin, obstinately faithful to ancestral practices, has been able to assimilate of the Christian doctrines.  Lacking the gift of imagination, the Bedouin copies, and in copying he distorts the original.  Thus Musulman law is only the Roman Code revised and corrected by Arabs; in the same way Musulman science is nothing but Greek science interpreted by the Arab brain; and again, Musulman architecture is merely a distorted imitation of the Byzantine style.”  (Servier, page 61) 

          We are always on the lookout for books which delve into the functions of the minds of Islamists, most particularly those arch-typical Islamists, the Arabs.  To date, the best book on the subject remains The Arab Mind by Raphael Patai  (our review).  This old timer by Andre’ Servier comes in second.

          Both books come from very different parts of the 20^th century.  Servier published in 1924, and Patai’s final revision came in 1983.  Yet, both could have been written on the same day, or even at the same time, or several centuries ago.  Both deal with the most stagnant minds on the globe, stagnation devoid of any but parasitized “progress” for almost 1500 years.

          Patai is long on Arab-Islamic behavior and language (psychology) while short on history.  In his defense, he was not writing a history book and did not have the need to be long on history.  On the other hand, Servier is long on history and short on psychology.  Servier was addressing the profound ignorance of Islam and its history existing in the colonizing French of his day and needed the cite the history.  Both volumes complement each other marvelously.

          Servier wrote from the perspective of post-World War I.  French colonization was going strongly throughout North Africa and the Middle East, where the French and British were dealing with vast concentrations of Muslims.  The Ottoman Empire was just about out of business as a Caliphate, to be replaced by a semi-democracy under Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk).  Egyptian nationalism underway for decades was strengthening substantially against the British, but the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was some four years off from formation.  England and France had carved up the Middle East, forcing various artificial boundaries, literal lines in the sand, including Iraq.  Oil was not yet a big deal, but was close to it.  Communism was flourishing here and there, and fascism was gearing up for big things ahead.  Germany had been kicked out of the Middle East and Africa following defeat in World War I and was wallowing in severe economic inflation.  America was in the throes of the Flapper Era and almost oblivious to the Muslim world.

          Servier tried to prepare the French to deal with Muslims (or Musulmans, as he referred to them), particularly in North Africa.  Those living today who have taken the time to shake off ignorance about Islam will find little new, in general, in Servier.  Almost everything he wrote, you can read from our site, Jihad Watch, Counter Jihad Education Task Force, and Daniel Pipes’ website, as well as others too numerous to mention.  However, Servier said what we have learned many years before we were born.  What was true about Islam and Muslims to Servier in his time is equally true, and remains completely unchanged, today.  Like Patai, Servier was not troubled with cultural thought disorders such as “political correctness,” multiculturalism, moral relativism, and epistemological relativism which have prostrated Europe and Canada, and have almost brought the USA to its knees.

          He made the case that to understand Islam, you must first understand the Bedouin, and to understand the Bedouin (Arabs), you must understand the desert of the Arabian peninsula.  So he begins with the desert and how this molds the psychology of those who try to live off it.  The people who resulted as Bedouins live a nomadic and predatory live style, with intense loyalties to families and tribes, and almost complete inability to deal with the future (conceptual range) and creativity.  Theirs is close to an aconceptual existence, dominated by impulsivity, emotionality, and progress through looting, versus productivity.

          Prior to Islam they had no civilization, nor have they developed one since Islam.  They came close by the 9^th century A.D., but managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the nick of time.  Their sole creation has been a religion.  Islam, said Servier, is a “secretion of the Arab brain.”

          His history is a good accounting of the first centuries of Islam, up until the final ossification of Islamia which occurred in the Ottoman Empire.  He documents how fragile young Islamia was after Muhammad because of infighting and a fading sense of purpose.  What happened to the conquering hordes of Islamia after conquest became the biggest threat to early Islam.  The conquering hordes had come from a geographical area devoid of civilization--the Arabian peninsula.  The Arabs overwhelmed civilized “neighbors” by means of sheer physical force and barbarity.  Those whom they conquered were always much more civilized than these barbarian Muslims, whose primary interests were physical loot, carnality, and the joy of bloodshed using raw power--Bedouin values and virtues sanctioned by Islam. 

However, the conquering Arabs kept making the same mistakes.  They forced conversion to Islam on the conquered peoples; then, they themselves grew soft through their internalization of the fruits of civilization from those whom they had conquered.  The conquered peoples, once converted, became utterly equal to the Muslims, as Islam dictates.  The conquered peoples always set about conquering their conquerors, who grew softer and softer.  Also, the early Muslims, with their Bedouin psychology, turned on each other continuously with intrigue after intrigue, On the other hand, the conquered peoples, now equal to the Arabs, just grew stronger, threatening the future of Islam.  Something would have to be done to save Islam.  

          Before the process of ossification of Islamia really took hold, these early Muslim Arabs delighted with the inventions, discoveries, arts and sciences, and publications they had looted from the civilizations they conquered.  These civilizations had been heavily enculturated through exposure to centuries of Latin, Greek, and certain other civilizations.  Syria, Persia, and India were reservoirs of those cultures, and were plundered by the Islamists who moved in to take from them.

          Servier is very clear about the fact that Islamists have invented absolutely nothing in their entire history, other than Islam, and yet they have received misattribution after misattribution from many ignorant sources, which have alleged Islamia to have been a high civilization, along the lines of the Arabian Nights (even this was Persian, not Arab).  Medievalists mistakenly gave the Islamists credit for the knowledge passed to them from Muslim writings,  not realizing that these materials did not originate with Muslims, but had simply been appropriated from others.  Later on, in a backlash to Christianity, some Europeans went out of their way to praise Islam for its “high civilization,” as a means of putting Christendom in a bad light.  To this day, many people, some of whom ought to know better, still misattribute the status of civilization and culture to Islamic society.  Muslims copied, and usually not accurately.  What original work they did do became selected histories and writings about grammar.  Everything else they attempted to originate has been as universally inferior as it has been scarce.

          Quoting Servier (page 18):   

“To sum up:  the Arab has borrowed everything from other nations, literature, art, science, and even his religious ideas.  He has passed it all through the sieve of his own narrow mind, and being incapable of rising to high philosophic conceptions, he has distorted, mutilated and desiccated everything.  This destructive influence explains the decadence of Musulman nations and their powerlessness to break away from barbarism…” 

          There is a good reason for that inferiority.  Inferiority in all intellectual spheres is the spawn of Islam.  Wherever Islam takes hold, human progress stops, then regresses to a basal level, where it stays.  Quoting Servier, “After a century of Arab domination, there is a complete annihilation of all intellectual culture.”  (p 11)

          Under the Umayyad caliphates, Islamic civilization came close to existing, but when the Abbasside caliphates displaced the Umayyads, Islamia began its terminal decline and fall.  Its high water mark ended in 846 A.D. with the death of the last Umayyad caliph, Wathiq.  Thereafter, very decadent, if not fundamentalist, Abbasside rulers took over.  Prior to 846 A.D. and for a while thereafter, cultural ferment continued to civilize Islamia, because the Arabs enjoyed utilizing their importation of knowledge, particular philosophy, medicine, and the sciences from the conquered territories and could have had their own renaissance.

          Servier summarizes (pp 182-183) the end of the Umayyads:

“Islam owed them much; it was they who built up its power.  Free from fanaticism, they had left some liberty to the vanquished peoples, and thus in Syria, in Egypt and in Spain, they had allowed Greco-Latin civilization to put forth new flowers.  The…  [Umayyads], instructed and polished by the Syrians, were to some extent and possibly unconsciously, the heirs and successors of the Byzantine Emperors.  As such, they deserve some recognition.  With their successors, the Abbassides, there begins the reaction of narrow fanaticism against liberty of conscience; the reign of blind piety and persecution; it is also the reaction of the Arab spirit, coarse and ignorant, against Greco-Latin culture.”         

          Arab scholars scrutinized Medina-style Islam particularly, the type most fundamental and closest to Muhammad’s preachings, found it wanting as well as an obstacle to the exercise of thought and discovery.  Sages ridiculed Islam in favor of freedom of thought and expression because Islam was so utterly backward and rigid.  The Mutazalite sect, under the Umayyads, came very close to nullifying Islam--until they did themselves in with their own brutal enforcement of their ideas, which paradoxically extolled “free thought.”

          From the mid-9^th century to its end, caliphs and clerics established shari’a, and shari’a became the immutable and unquestionable law of Islamia.  This was done to stop the disintegration and impending demise of Islam.  Doing this ossified Islamia because it was enforced by sword.  Philosophers, scientists, and artists were put to death unless they shut up and posed no further threat to the Medina-style Islam which all had to adopt.  Within three generations, most progress in Islamia became a thing of the past.  Progress slowed until by the time of the Ottomans, no one could remember the old days.  And so it has been for at least half of a millennium and will become so for the rest of the world if Islam achieves the power it seeks. 

As Servier puts it (page 153), 

“Islam was not a torch, as has been claimed, but an extinguisher.  Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was—and it remains—incapable of adapting itself to civilization.  Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.” 

          He does not make the point as well as Patai does about the significance of  the Arabic language becoming fused, from the first, with Islam and this fusion has persisted to this day.  The Arabic language, developed among the Bedouins of the Arabian peninsula, became the means expressing Arab subculture.  It also became the official language of Islam and was imposed as the official language on all conquered peoples.  Few were literate, so the effect of the Arabic-Islamic fusion magnified the effect of Islamizing peoples, and still does.  Its importance cannot be overstressed as being the transmission belt for turning a normal child into the Muslim we see today, saw yesterday, and will see tomorrow.

          Servier does address the key role of Muslim women in establishing and maintaining the rigidity of Islam by their effects on the young.  Islam keeps women suppressed, repressed, and ignorant, but it requires that they raise the children.  These same women literally brainwash children during their most formative years, until formal Islamic education finishes off these kids in ignorance and illiteracy to keep them and the Islamic subculture utterly stagnant. 

Human minds must be thoroughly deformed in childhood for Islam to work as it does.  Islam not only closes minds, it welds them shut.

          From page 191,

“The deadening influence of Islam is well demonstrated by the way in which the Musulman comports himself at different stages of his life.  In his early childhood, when the religion has not as yet impregnated his brain, he shows a very lively intelligence and remarkably open mind, accessible to ideas of every kind; but, in proportion as he grows up, and as, through the system of his education, Islam lays hold of him and envelops him, his brain seems to shut up, his judgment to become atrophied, and his intelligence to be stricken by paralysis and irremediable degeneration.” 

It worth noting that Servier was quite aware that Islam was on the move to becoming a nuisance, if not a menace, to civilizations five decades before Khomeini took power in 1979, and long before the events of 11 September 2001.  In his first chapter, he states:

“…Islam is by no means a negligible element in the destiny of humanity.  The mass of three hundred million believers [Editor’s note:  This was 1924.  Muslims now number over one billion.]  is growing daily, because in most Musulman countries the birth-rate exceeds the death-rate, and also because the religious propaganda is constantly gaining new adherents among tribes still in a state of barbarism.”  (p. 2) 

He adds, and do remember that he writes from the perspective of 1924, 

“The number of converts during the last twenty years in British India is estimated at six millions; and a similar progress has been observed in China, Turkestan, Siberia, Malaya and Africa.”  (p 2) 

Rising Islamic agitation had been going on for some time and was quite evident in Servier’s day.  He attributed it to Muslim reaction to British colonialism.  Four years after this book, in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood formed in Egypt, with two goals:  to return to ultra-fundamentalist Islam and to throw out the British and British influence.

He also was fully aware of dissimulation which Islam inculcates in Muslims.  It is a process of lying by omission, commission, playing multiple levels of meaning against whomever the Muslim deals with. This is the taqiyya which we know well today, and it made Muslims as untrustworthy then as now.

Servier had a few quirks.  One was his trust of the Turks, one the author of the preface to the book, Louis Bertrand, did not share.  The latter was much more accurate in his distrust.  The French Servier held the Negro not only in low esteem but wrote as though they were deterministically incapable singly, in groups, or as a people, ever to be able to rise to accomplishment or responsibility.  He also is unduly laudatory about Muhammad.  Further, the way Servier wrote about Arabs and the Musulmans (Muslims), he would surely be accused of racism because that has become such a popular ad hominem epithet among postmodernists to attempt to discredit what someone says.  However, if you examine what Servier says through the entire book, you will not conclude that he is a racist.

He summarizes his principal ideas about Islam and its effects at the end of the final chapter, and that is worth quoting since this book has long been out of print:

“Islam is a doctrine of death, inasmuch as the spiritual not being separated from the temporal, and every manifestation of activity being subjected to dogmatic law, it formally forbids any change, any evolution, any progress.  It condemns all believers to live, to think, and to act as lived, thought and acted the Musulmans of the second century of the Hegira [8^th century A.D.], when the law of Islam and its interpretation were definitely fixed.

“In the history of the nations, Islam, a secretion of the Arab brain, has never been an element of civilization, but on the contrary has acted as an extinguisher upon its flickering light.  Individuals under Arab rule have only been able to contribute to the advance of civilization in so far as they did not conform to the Musulman dogma, but they relapsed into Arab barbarism as soon as they were obliged to make a complete submission to these dogmas.

“Islamized nations, who have not succeeded in freeing themselves from Musulman tutelage, have been stricken with intellectual paralysis and decadence.  They will only escape as they succeed in withdrawing themselves from the control of Musulman law.”