The Origins of Occidentalism (Holy War against the West)

The Chronicle of Higher Education ^ | 2/6/04 issue | IAN BURUMA

[wgeorge2001]

with our own forms of intolerance. To think that we are at war with Islamism in the name of Christianity, as some zealots believe, is a fatal error, for that is to conform precisely to the Manichaeistic view of those who seek to defeat us. Muslims living in the West should not be allowed to join the holy war against it. But their rights as Europeans or Americans must be respected. The survival of our liberties depends on our willingness to defend them against enemies outside, but also against the temptation of our own leaders to use our fears in order to destroy our freedoms.

No, it is a war against Christians,Jews, and freeborn patriotic americans. The left wing communists in America support Islam which would use and eventually kill or enslave them.
Why is it that liberals use so many facts and always make invalid answers.
The war in Islam and liberal communist athiests wage is a war against God and His Christ, they lose. I read the book.

[marktwain]

He makes some sense until the politically correct end, where he sees no advantage for the war on terror in the war to liberate Iraq.

"It may even be that attacking Iraq, however gratifying in many ways, has made the defense against Islamist revolution harder. Moderate Muslims everywhere are cowed into silence by aggressive U.S. actions, for fear of being seen as traitors or, worse, barbarous idolators. "

Gee, then why has there been an upsurge of moderate Islamicists after the liberation of Iraq, a toning down of anti-us rhetoric, Libya's retreat from WMD's, Iran's attempt to placate the west, whether genuine or not?

It appears that this guy *must* find fault with the Iraqi liberation, or he can't work at his university.

[David Isaac]

As long as there has been two persons, or more, there has been a war of ideas, which has manifested itself in many different ways, sometimes violently,sometimes not.

There have not been that many outright wars fought over ideas, most have been the result of greed, envy, or fits of pique and someone defending themselves from same. As a rule these outright wars have been just that, outright, meaning nation versus nation (or fractions thereof) on the field of "honor".

Terrorism, as a form of war, has not been all that common, and it is what separates militant Islam from other historical combatants involved in "battles of ideas" (though there are many other instances of terror as a stategy, almost all of which can be traced back to Communist instructors somewhere).

People will always disagree on almost everything. But when they take the war to civilians, indiscriminately killing women and children, then every effort must be undertaken, by all civilized peoples, to exterminate the perpetrators.

Some of us find it amazing that intelligent people have not realized that intelligence is a necessity in defeating all those who would wish to defeat us. How many times do we have to be "surprised" before it is no longer surprising.

[gaspar]

I began reading this article and soon worried that I might be going mad. However, it eventually dawned on me that the composition was really a mishmash of ideas that would take hours of effort to refute. It was as though a teacher offered a theme and an essay was begun in a class of forty students: The first student began with a sentence, and the second followed with one of his own. The essay was completed with the last student's jot and tittle. In the end, confusion was king and nothing was proved.

[ckilmer]

At first I thought the article was interesting. But then it went on too long. Time is evil.(Remember to say "thank you Jesus" for putting Time on our side.)

[gobucks]

This author is ostensibly trying to protect American Liberty with this article. He fails on two counts.

1. But it is not immediately apparent that a war against Iraq was the most effective way to fight the Islamist jihad.

Really? Whether the Saudi Arabs are secularists or orthodox wahabbi fanatics, they're all now looking intently at their immediate northern borders. North, they witness a huge, gigantic 'crusader' garrison, which now makes the Israeli garrison look puny.

Given the pure fuel for this jihad originates in the sands of Arabia, what is not recognized by the author is this reality:

A jihad requires two resources: warriors with the heart to kill (a finite number), and a sense of freedom to attack the enemy at locations outside of the homeland. Our garrison in Iraq is a massive vacuum to both.

In the mind of a jihadist, two things take shape: a huge, alien force is just to the north of the spiritual homeland - jihadists will be streaming into Iraq for the foreseeable future.

But bigger is this: they will look at the Saudi regime, and pinpoint the blame for Iraq's democratization squarely on the royal family and power structure. For it's that structure, in the Arabian homelands, that is ultimately supposed to guard the 'purity' of Islam. I sense the jihadists will increase their efforts to destroy the saudi royals by an order of magnitude in the near future.

And let's not overlook the recent end-of-haij sermon by the "leading" saudi cleric; it's certainly noteworthy regarding the current 'purity' of that fuel - one can imagine the utter rage of the jihadists listening to that apostatized sermon. Make no mistake, that sermon directly conflicted w/ Koranic teachings.

It's effect is likely to attract jihadist's attention to the 'kingdom's' corrupt power structure all the more; most folks don't realize that Arab culture has historically always rejected the idea of 'royalty'. Every Arab is a king, as long as his honor is intact. Shame is being heaped upon arabia by the bucketload, and now, especially by their own kings and clerics.

These are all outcomes of the Iraq war, and serve the USA's security interests (and by extension) those of Israel) very well indeed. For our enemy doesn't have limitless resources.

2. But their (Muslims) rights as Europeans or Americans must be respected. The survival of our liberties depends on our willingness to defend them against enemies outside, but also against the temptation of our own leaders to use our fears in order to destroy our freedoms.

But we must also be careful that in doing so we don't end up undermining {our freedoms} ourselves. In the balance between security and civil liberty, the latter should never be sacrificed to the former.

It's here he totally misses the reality of what we're dealing with. The Koran explicitly instructs Muslims to infiltrate non-Islam societies by stealth, if force of arms is insufficient to convert by force.

During the 'stealth' period, it's actually holy to lie and falsely pay respects to barbarian customs, e.g., 'elections'.

We in the USA are making a fatal mistake if we think Muslim offspring will grow up, assimilate to secular democratic ideals, and thus reject their parents faith system. This is a Trojan horse that today we are not recognizing (Laocoons are frustrated everywhere these days).

Democracy has as it's underpinning value Christ's teachings regarding truth ... the pursuit of the love and loyalty to the 'truth'. Islam is the pursuit of obedience and loyalty to Allah. Islam, per the current content of the Koran, and democracy are, ahem, oil and water.

So, our 'security' is ultimately religious in origin - all the hysterical yammering by secularists will never change this truth.

For our 'liberty' is not derived via pure reason ... it is distilled from the love of truth. Libertarians who claim no faith in 'Christ' nonetheless intellectually piggyback on His message regarding truth. Before Christ, truth was indeed relative. Science appeared on the world scene AFTER Christ, an inconvenient chronology to the materialists.

And this is why folks who viscerally hated communist ideology find the same visceral reaction to Islam arising within themselves. Because both are distilled deceptions being foisted on our American way of life. And both are pointing to Christ has someone who is intolerant, and guilty of 'hate speech' and 'hate thoughts'.

To the author, I have this suggestion: write about the consequences that will befall our society if the forces currently arrayed to label the Bible as 'hate speech' win the fight. Write about the consequences if following the teachings of Christ is legalisticly suppressed.

[gobucks]

See above; it only took me about an hour.

[gobucks]

Thought you three should be pinged on this.

[gershwingirl]

Ping.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[happygrl]

To an Islamist, anything that is not pure, that does not belong to the kingdom of God, is by definition barbarous and must be destroyed.

Then why don't they begin with their own societies ?

A chief failure of the Arab Muslims in particular is that they don't introspectively consider their own sins.

The slavery, the debauchery of children, the repression of women, sodomy, the lust for money, all are rampant in that culture.

The most significant aspect of truth is looking at oneself with a critical eye. The Arab Muslims, in particular, have not managed this first juvenile step.

[Valin]

Agree it's not very well put together.
There's some good stuff(ie. I agree with the writer) and some non-sense(I disagree), but it's really tought sledding.

[Valin]

Then why don't they begin with their own societies ?

Actually this was thier first complaints. That their own societies were becoming "degenerate". (If memory serves) The Muslim Brotherhood was orginaly founded to "reform" Egypt. In one sense it's not that the questions they have/are asking are wrong(Why are we after being the center of the world for so long now reduced to 3rd rate status) it's the answer (We need to retuen to a "pure" Islam). Whatever the heck "pure Islam" means.

[Valin]

I disagree! :-)

[Valin]

We in the USA are making a fatal mistake if we think Muslim offspring will grow up, assimilate to secular democratic ideals, and thus reject their parents faith system. This is a Trojan horse that today we are not recognizing

Then would be wrong in assuming you'd deport all Muslims?
Remember

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Aquinasfan]

To think that we are at war with Islamism in the name of Christianity, as some zealots believe, is a fatal error

Why? Mohammedans believe that the world can be divided in two, between the "world of peace" (the Mohammedan world) and the "world of war." It's pretty clear where they stand on the issue.

[Aquinasfan]

In the end, confusion was king and nothing was proved.

Wow! You hit the nail on the head.

[Aquinasfan]

We in the USA are making a fatal mistake if we think Muslim offspring will grow up, assimilate to secular democratic ideals, and thus reject their parents faith system. This is a Trojan horse that today we are not recognizing (Laocoons are frustrated everywhere these days).

Democracy has as it's underpinning value Christ's teachings regarding truth ... the pursuit of the love and loyalty to the 'truth'. Islam is the pursuit of obedience and loyalty to Allah. Islam, per the current content of the Koran, and democracy are, ahem, oil and water.

So, our 'security' is ultimately religious in origin - all the hysterical yammering by secularists will never change this truth.

This deserves a Drudge-style siren. Well said.

[freedumb2003]

Time is evil. (Remember to say "thank you Jesus" for putting Time on our side.)

Interesting, pithy and quotable but -- huh?