The Islamists Have it Wrong

Middle East Quarterly ^ | Summer 2001 | Abdul Hadi Palazzi

[Voice in your head]

This was written prior to 9/11, before most people had ever heard of Wahhabi or the term "islamist". But, it pointed out the incompatability of Wahhabi lunacy and the existence of western civilization.

[Unam Sanctam]

I wish a lot more Moslems thiought the way this person does.

[SunStar]

Western observers, both among the general public and the media, commonly make the mistake of thinking that Islamism1 is the same as traditional Islam. Even Western researchers describe Islamism as a resurgence of traditional Islam.

Some people remember history, and specifically, The Crusades. They were battles against extremist Islam. This article is whitewash.

[Voice in your head]

Congratulations on making it all the way to the end of the first sentence of the article.

[BenR2]

Of course, the media will not fete this guy as a celebrity the way they do with jihadi-apologist Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR.

[SunStar]

Congratulations on making it all the way to the end of the first sentence of the article.

Thanks. I also read the entire article, and though I respect Islamic people who think their religion is peaceful, I can use history and my own perceptions to make a more accurate judgement.

[muawiyah]

The Wahabis and the Islamists are, of course, both hypocrites.

According to the terms agreed to in Islam, they should both kill each other.

In fact, it is Osama Bin Laden's ambition (as an Islamist) to eliminate the House of Saud (the Wahabis).

The guy is too stupid to do the job, however, having thought the route to success ran through the World Trade Center.

[Restorer]

The Wahabis and the Islamists are, of course, both hypocrites. According to the terms agreed to in Islam, they should both kill each other.

The Wahabis ARE Islamists. They are just the oldest branch, and have been thoroughly "corrupted" by the power and money they have gotten from their alliance with the Saudi government.

Osama has no real doctrinal disagreements with the Wahabbi establishment in SA. He just thinks his group should replace theirs becauuse they have become corrupted by contact with the West.

[Voice in your head]

[Valin]

The Crusades. They were battles against extremist Islam

How so?

[Restorer]

Good one.

[Restorer]

The Crusades were a very complicated series of events. They don't fit neatly into this idea, though.

Atrocities committed against pilgrims in the Holy Land and threats against Constantinople were the two proximate causes of the Crusades. Both were a result of the conquest of the Middle East by Turkish tribes, many of whom were at best marginally Muslim. They were barbaric and motivated mostly by desire for plunder. They treated Christians who came into their power essentially as they treated Muslims who weren't part of their tribe. Badly. As did the earlier Huns, Scythians and Magyars, who were not even vaguely religious in their motivation.

In a very broad sense the Crusades were a counter-attack against Islam. But they were a several centuries delayed counter-attack.

In their aspect of holy war against the enemies of God, they were an incorporation of the Muslim idea of jihad into Christianity. Probably took a couple of centuries to take hold, since it is just a dramatically unChristian concept.

[lainde]

bttt

[tiamat]

This is going to be unpopular here, but the Crusades were ALSO a land-grab, an excuse for plunder, and a way for some european rulers or the Pope to get RID of inconveiniant people. ( He's after your crown? Send him on Crusade! ) People justify all SORTS of things in the name of religeon, and the Church's hands are not as pristine as they might be.

Tia

[Restorer]

Not unpopular with me. :)

You're absolutely correct. However, there has never been any war that was fought with unmixed motives. That some Crusaders fought just for themselves does not change the fact that some fought for high ideals, and probably the vast majority fought for both in varying mixtures.

[tiamat]

Oh sure. Some of them WERE in the Crusades because they believed that it was the right thing to do.

I just get impatient with people who paint ALL things done in the name of Christianity as all good, and EVERYTHING Muslim as completly and totally evil.

I got fed up with religeon years ago because of that sort of attitude and pray on my own time and privately as a result!

Tia

[MHGinTN]

I wonder, have we yet realized that Pali mothers are practicing the same sort of thing the dnc worships--abortion--but doing it a bit later in gestation and in a way to make war against not only their children but their self-proclaimed enemies?

[Restorer]

No problem here.

A great deal of evil has been done in the name of the Cross and the Crescent, both.

The difference is that those following the Cross have mellowed, and (some of) those following the Crescent have gotten more virulent.

How many people have been killed in the last century by Christians for specifically religious reasons? Darn few, especially when compared to the 100M+ in the same timeframe by the various anti-Christian ideologies (Nazi, Commie, Islamist, etc.).

[tiamat]

What scares me is that the Islamists are REALLY pushing for a religeous war.

They do not seeem to understand that IF they get their wish, and IF they get a "Crusade", it will likely result in Islam being wiped off the face of the planet save for a very few very small communities.
If it happens, a bunch of people on BOTH sides who do not need it will be slaughtered, because we really cannot afford to spend time sorting them out.

The Moderate Muslims had better get a clue fast and bring their errant "brothers" to heel!

I consider Wahabism to be a nihilistic death-cult and it may bring down the whole thing.

Tia

[Restorer]

You did hear why there are no Arabs on Star Trek, didn't you?

It takes place in the future, and we haven't played cowboys and Arabs yet.

It striked me as much like those (thankfully few and isolated) blacks who try to provoke a race war in America.

Don't they realize what would happen to their side if they succeded in getting the war they want?