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  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.
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 Speech,“ 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.
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.