Posted on 09/18/2001 10:10:00 AM PDT by Heuristic Hiker
I love Barbara Olson and I love Ann. In Ann's last column (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ba0ba347497.htm) Ann expressed concisely how we all feeling about the lost of Barbara. This is a great evil that has come upon our land…but it is also possible to bring greater evil into the world if caution and patience is not exercised in redressing this diabolical threat. There is no doubt that we are at war, but we don’t have to wage the war that bin Laden wants. He wants a crusade against him…and he may get it…but I would argue for some initial responses which would actually be more harmful to him and his cause. I’m a graduate student of Middle East history who spent last year on a fellowship to Israel. I’m not claiming this makes me an expert on what has gone on, but I do think I can offer some legitimate arguments for exercising some patience. Below are some of Ann’s statements from the later part of her essay. I agree with her goals, but as I will out line in my essay which follows, I believe there are some better options than the “kill them all” response:
Apart from hearing that this beautiful light has been extinguished from the world, only one other news flash broke beyond the numbingly omnipresent horror of the entire day. That evening, CNN reported that bombs were dropping in Afghanistan (news - web sites) -- and then updated the report to say they weren't our bombs.
They should have been ours. I want them to be ours. This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response to the annihilation of patriots like Barbara Olson.
We don't need long investigations of the forensic evidence to determine with scientific accuracy the person or persons who ordered this specific attack. We don't need an "international coalition." We don't need a study on "terrorism." We certainly didn't need a congressional resolution condemning the attack this week.
…We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
Again, I would argue for patience, I believe the most important immediate response that the US can give to this challenge will be diplomatic not military (though I think the military response will and should be powerful). Bin Laden wants a crusade (in the Middle Ages model) against him (because he knows how the last crusade turned out). We don't want to give it to him...yet (history doesn't always repeat itself). I think we need to give the Islamic world the chance to decide if this is what they want. If it is, then we will indeed have a new World War on our hands.
I have been impressed with the patience and steps that both Powell and Bush have taken so far towards building a consensus against what has happen internationally, but especially in the Middle East. Bush has said that he wants those who are with us to make their declaration clear…if not it is a signal that they are against us. For myself in the Middle East context the clearest voice will not come from the political leaders, but rather from the religious. This is where bin Laden gets his support. If the religious leaders of al-Ahzar (the main religious university in Egypt) don't pronounce a fatwa (a formal legal sentence (made infamous in their use against Salman Rushdie) against bin Laden, then I would say that the country of Egypt is against us. The same for the Mufti in Jerusalem and so on.
The week before this happened I was reading a book called "People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil" (by Dr. M Scott Peck, author of "The Road Less Traveled" (I highly recommend both these books (There of the "self help" type). . In this essay, I've found myself referring quite frequently to this book. I think a lot of what Peck had to say about human evil is applicable to what happened last week.
I do pray the careful, diplomatic solution is the one pursued to the end of this crisis (Though I believe the military will play an important (hopefully, secondary role). Those who prefer their fare simple (or simplistic) will likely become impatient, but for a lasting solution to this crisis. Patience is what is required. Human evil of the type on display this week is too complicated for a one-sided understanding. And it is too large a reality to be grasped within a single frame of reference. This cancer has to be removed with as much precision as possible so as not to kill mankind's body and "soul," and it is an advanced cancer that will require a multifaceted treatment.
What are the specific advantages of a patient response? Why take any extra time to understand the minds of the perpetrators? Why try to build a consensus of action? Why not just….kill them all?
One reason to avoid the effort to understand such acts is that the attempt would seem to involve actually speaking in the language of nihilism, since time immemorial a diabolic voice. Yet, why do or learn anything unpleasant? The answer is, as Tolkien notes below, that it is our duty to try. And in the current situation, it is simply a far better response – both in terms of determining an effective initial response and in laying the ground work for constructing a peaceful world, with the U.S. at its head – to have some glimmer of understanding of what we are to do than to flounder:
It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.(J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King (Ballantine Books), 1965, p. 190).
There is not a universal definition of evil, but a simple one that has been suggested is that evil is opposition to life (evil is ‘live' spelled backwards). It is that which opposes the life force. It has, in short, to do with killing. Specifically, it has to do with murder-namely, unnecessary killing, killing that is not required for biological survival. (M. Scott Peck "The People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil," p. 42)
In what way, shape or form could the attack on Tuesday have any relevance to the survival of to bin Laden and his followers or any fundamentalist group?
Dr. Peck notes that evil is most often committed in order to scapegoat, and the people he labeled as evil are chronic scapegoaters. In the "Road Less Traveled" he defined evil "as the exercise of political power – that is, the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion-in order to avoid ….spiritual growth" (p. 279). In other words, the evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Spiritual growth requires the acknowledgment of one's need to grow. If we cannot make that acknowledgement, we have no option except to attempt to eradicate the evidence of our imperfection. (p. 74)
I think this is a very apt description of the fundamentalist milieu that bin Laden and his cohorts swim in. They are aware of their short comings, but instead of choosing spiritual growth they choose the evil attack in an effort to put out a light that shines on their short comings.
What is the cause of this failure of self-hatred, this failure to be displeasing to oneself, which seems to be the central sin at the root of the scapegoating behavior of those Dr. Peck calls evil? The cause that Peck suggests in not an absent conscience. There are people, both in and out of jail who seem utterly lacking in conscience or superego. Psychiatrists call them psychopaths or sociopaths. Guiltless, they not only commit crimes but may often do so with a kind of reckless abandon. There is little pattern or meaning to their criminality; it is not particularly characterized by scapegoating. Conscienceless, psychopaths appear to be bothered or worried by very little-including their own criminality. They seem to be about as happy inside jail as out. They do attempt to hide their crimes, but their efforts to do so are often feeble and careless and poorly planned. They have sometimes been referred to as "moral imbeciles," and there is almost a quality of innocence to their lack of worry and concern. (p. 75)
Bin Laden is neither a psychopath or sociopath. He is rather a sane very, very evil man.
One of the most disturbing facts that came out in the Eichmann trial was that a psychiatrist examined him and pronounced him perfectly sane. We equate sanity with a sense of justice, with humaneness, with prudence, with the capacity to love and understand other people. We rely on the sane people of the world to preserve it from barbarism, madness, destruction. And now it begins to dawn on us that it is precisely the sane ones who are the most dangerous. It is the sane ones, the well-adapted ones who can without qualms and without nausea aim the missiles and press the buttons that will initiate the great festival of destruction that they, the sane ones, have prepared (Thomas Merton Raids on the Unspeakable (New Directions Publishing Corp., 1964, paperback edition, pp. 45-46).
Unfortunately, Bin Laden is sane. He presents a "sane" message to a significant minority in the Islamic world. Because the message is "sane" and a religious message, it must be denounced by sane religious voices within the religious communities of our Muslim allies. They must issue formal fatwas. Lesser condemnations or statements by political leaders will still allow Bin Laden to maintain his "saintity" among this significant minority. As long as this is the case their will continue to be a large pool of "martyrs" for his cause.
The American Islamic community needs to recognize that it was an attack directed at them. The real game for Osama bin Laden is how he is perceived within the Islamic community in American and the Middle East. Other public opinion is irrelevant to him. Physical destruction must be rained down upon the terrorist networks that currently exist, but if we are to permanently root out this evil, the U.S. will need to support those within all of the Islamic communities of the world who are willing to end their tolerance for this interpretation of the Islamic tradition. This is a case where tolerance is not a virtue. Osama bin Laden is a cancer that must be cut out.
The truly evil are dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. They worry about this a great deal. They are acutely sensitive to social norms and what others might think of them. (p. 75) This is particularly true of bin Laden and his ilk. I think the central motivation was to draw dramatic attention to their movement throughout the Islamic world. Right now on that account bin Laden has been successful. Even if we kill him tomorrow he will still have been successful in this central goal.
The West, and the United States in particular has shown as a bright beacon of democracy, freedom and individuality on the dreary world of fundamentalism, which in many ways resembles a form of communism which aims at restricting the minds of its followers. Communism is dreary in all its forms – light and opportunity are beacons that threaten it.
Most of the Muslims in America that I have seen interviewed on Television have condemned the act and then gone on to say that this has nothing to do with real Islam. I applaud the condemnation, but I question the assertion about the relation of terrorism to Islam. The rewards of martyrs are explicitly stated in the Qu`ran. Almost universally the Crusades are seen as a great evil that the West played upon Islam. The work of the notorious Assassins was one way that the Crusaders were responded to. Instead of asking if the act is condemned, I wish an interviewer would ask a Muslim believer where he believed the terrorist was now, in Hell or al-Jannah (paradise). In sum I think there is an unhealthy "dualism" about how many Muslims feel about Tuesdays events. I think it is possible for the same individual for feel terrible about it and call it a great evil and at the same time believe that the hand of Allah is behind it and bin Laden and his followers will receive their reward in Paradise.
This a puzzling dualism and I don't think I am the only one puzzled by it. I think many Muslims are. A clear religious fatwa condemning bin Laden and his followers to hell would add a significant degree of clarity.
The Qur'an (3:169) says "count not those who are slain in the way of God as dead; nay, they are living, with the lord they have provision."
…So God has guarded them from the evil of that day, and has procured radiancy and gladness, and recompensed them for their patience with a Garden, and silk; therein they shall recline upon couches, therein they shall see neither sun nor bitter cold; near them shall be its shades, and its clusters hung meekly down, and there shall be passed around them vessels of silver, and goblets of crystal, crystal of silver that they have measured very exactly. And therein they shall be given to drink a cup whose mixture is ginger, therein a fountain whose name is called Salsabil. Immortal youths shall go about them; when thou seest them, thou supposest them scattered pearls, when thou seest them then thou seest bliss and great kingdom. Upon them shall be green garments of silk and brocade; they are adorned with bracelets of silver, and their Lord shall give them to drink a pure draught. Behold, this is a recompense for you, and your striving is thanked (Qu'ran 76:5-22).
…and wide-eyed houris as the likeness of hidden pearls a recompense for that they laboured. (Qu'ran 56: 22-24).
Perfectly We formed them, perfect, and We made them spotless virgins, chastely amorous, like of age for the Companions of the Right. (Qur'an 56: 35-38)
By the leaders of Muslims leaders in America issuing fatwas against bin Laden I think it would send a clear message to their followers that they believe that bin Laden's place will be in hell not paradise.
One station that I think has done a good service- publicizing some of the unfortunate backlash that some Arab/Muslim Americans have experienced is surprisingly MTV. Their main station is in New York and I think they have done some pretty good reporting. Religious freedom and respect for others religion is a bedrock of American society. I do believe that one of the main goals of this terrorist attack was to attempt to reveal the "illusion" of this religious freedom to the world. I hope that in the long run he is disappointed. I think many of the American Muslims interviewed were more "cultural" Muslims than intellectually grounded followers (like most American Christians are "cultural" Christians, rarely taking the time to examine the details of their beliefs until times of crisis). This is a time a crisis and it is a time to examine beliefs. Their communities' leaders issuing clear fatwas against bin Laden could be an important aspect of the self appraisal.
Finally, by seeking allies within the Islamic community and making this the emphasis of our war against terrorism instead of the "kill them all approach" we are in reality saving ourselves. Dr. Peck notes that the effects which follow too constant and intense a concentration upon evil are always disastrous. Those who crusade not for God in themselves, but against the devil in others, never succeed in making the world better, but leave it either as it was, or sometimes even perceptibly worse than it was, before the crusade began. By thinking primarily of evil we tend, however excellent our intentions, to create occasions for evil to manifest itself. (Huxley p. 192).
I think this describes much of the nature of the failure of the Christian Crusades in the Middle Ages. I pray that our passion does not lead us into a similar error in a new crusade. This is why co-opting, those Muslims who have completely ended any and all tolerance for any acceptance of the legitimacy of the type of martyr acts promoted by Bin Laden – is so important. This should included clerics, from the religious centers of the allies who have sided with us, issuing fatwas condemning Bin Laden. In the case of Egypt – the ulema of al-Azhar, in Palestine – the Grand Mufti, etc. If the fatwas are not delivered, then in the phrase of Pres. Bush we should assume they are against us.
Those who are with us should be nurtured economically, militarily and culturally as are most important allies in the new war against terrorism.
That was my point.
Most Muslims would say no.
As much as I dig you, still always a mindbender to find you on the same side as me ... =)
And it was an obvious point.
I've been cruising various "conservative" BB's this week and I am completely disgusted by the attacks on Islam by some of the so-called Christian community. I have seen just about every example of mindless anti-Islam propaganda, usually generated by fundamentalist Christian websites. This is NOT a religious war. Ours is NOT a Christian government. Our SECULAR government has no authority to declare a war on ANY religion.
If anyone wants to wage a war on Islam, I'll buy them a plane ticket to Afghanistan and we shall see how far they get.
Too much education will never replace the reality of: having your nose busted by a bully; your car vandalized by an unseen jackal; a loved one mugged or raped or murdered; a letter from a loved one who is in a foreign land lauding the greatness of the country that sent him to whatever place or hell hole he is in, all in the name of protecting freedom; experiencing what that same individual is experiencing while writing that letter home; digging thru the remains of a monstrous office building looking for survivors but finding nothing but death; waiting and waiting and waiting for some positive word about a loved one or friend who was last seen in an office building that was leveled by some mindless act of a devil; the every day fears of a mother or father or child living in a country ravaged by acts of terrorism, not knowing what is going to happen tonight or tomorrow and knowing there is only one country on this planet that can possibly give them aid but not knowing if it will ever come.....
No, she is not an expert nor is she even worthy of an opinion.....
This sends the argument back to what the Qu ran actually teaches. It looks as if I have some reading to do.
Words for all of us to live by.
Islam has already considered the religious dimensions of this truggle and made them the central highlight for themselves. We need to do likewise, or God will abandon us to our iniquity and we will continue to fail to grasp the seriousness of our situation. Do you think He will fight for us if our battle is merely for worldly glory and worldly aims that leave Him hidden in the closet?
You cannot escape history. Why should we look upon this religion as a benign force for good when it so blatantly acts as a perverted force for evil? Islam views non-Muslims as idolators who insult Allah by their very existence. It is a standing declaration of war against non-Muslims. For Mohammed, a sufficient cause to attack the Byzantine Empire was to send letters demanding its immediate conversion to his new religion. When refused, this "insult to Allah" was dealth with as Muslims have always delth with it - by a sneak attack upon the unsuspecting Byzantines and the forcible conversion or enslavement of the populace. How does this differ at all from their present behavior towards our brothers in southern Sudan? And all Muslims cheer on this war and so many support this war with their money, so indistinguishable from our own present suffering in its targeting of women and children.
someone get the straight jacket</font size>
Arabic: jihâd
Islamic term, Arabic for 'battle; struggle; holy war for the religion'.
Jihad has two possible definitions: the greater, which is the spiritual struggle of each man, against vice, passion and ignorance. This understanding of jihad has been presented by apologetics of modern times, but is an understanding of the term rarely used by Muslims themselves.
The lesser jihad is simplified to cover holy war against infidels and infidel countries. This kind of jihad is described in both the Holy Koran and in the hadiths. Muslim law has divided the world into two entities, dâru l-'islâm, the abode of Islam, and dâru l-harb, the abode of war. Battling against the Abode of war was a duty for a Muslim, as this is the only way for the peace of Islam to take the place of the warlike conditions of the infidels' society. Jihad can be both defence, as well as attacking an enemy.
The enemies of Islam are divided into two groups, the Peoples of the book, âhlu l-kitâb and the pagans, the kâfirûn. The first group, defined as Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Mandeans need only to submit to an Islamic ruler, and live in peace with other Muslims to end the situation where jihad is imperative.
For the pagans there is a principle fairly similar, but they get less rights under the Muslim ruler than the Peoples of the book. While this group generally can live safely inside a Muslim society, some Muslims have propagated that these should either convert to Islam or face death penalty. In situations where the Muslim rulers mean that war has to be waged against the infidels, they should be allowed sufficient of time to convert before the Muslim army attacks.
Jihad is a duty for every Muslim community, but not necessarily for every individual: it's sufficient that a certain number of the the able men perform jihad. The one who dies in the battle against the infidels, becomes a martyr, a shahid, and is guaranteed a place in Paradise as well as certain privileges there.
While offensive jihad, i.e. attacking, is fully permissible in Sunni Islam, it is prohibited for some of the larger groups of Shi'i Islam, which consider only the Imam, now in occultation, as carrying the right to decide to go to war or not.
The Kharijis regard jihad as the sixth pillar of Islam, a position that other groups of Islam have adhered to earlier.
You need rest, and to read something other than anti-Islamic propaganda. Try actually
reading what's in the Qu'ran.
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.