Posted on 10/14/2001 9:30:12 PM PDT by Pokey78
Why everything is at stake.
EUROPE'S GREAT RELIGIOUS WARS ended in 1648. Three and a half centuries is a long time, too long for us in the West to truly believe that people still slaughter others to vindicate the faith.
Thus in the face of radical Islamic terrorism that murders 6,000 innocents in a day, we find it almost impossible to accept at face value the reason offered by the murderers. Yet Osama bin Laden could not be clearer. Jihad has been declared against the infidel, whose power and influence thwart the triumph of Islam, and whose success and example--indeed, whose very existence--are an affront to the true faith. As a leader of Hamas declared at a rally three days after the World Trade Center attack, "the only solution is for Bush to convert to Islam."
To Americans, who are taught religious tolerance from the cradle, who visit each other's churches for interdenominational succor and solidarity, this seems simply bizarre. On September 25, bin Laden issues a warning to his people that Bush is coming "under the banner of the cross." Two weeks later, in his pre-taped post-attack video, he scorns Bush as "head of the infidels."
Can he be serious? This idea is so alien that our learned commentators, Western and secular, have gone rummaging through their ideological attics to find more familiar terms to explain why we were so savagely attacked: poverty and destitution in the Islamic world; grievances against the West, America, Israel; the "wretched of the earth"--Frantz Fanon's 1960s apotheosis of anti-colonialism--rising against their oppressors.
Reading conventional notions of class struggle and anti-colonialism into bin Laden, the Taliban, and radical Islam is not just solipsistic. It is nonsense. If poverty and destitution, colonialism and capitalism are animating radical Islam, explain this: In March, the Taliban went to the Afghan desert where stood great monuments of human culture, two massive Buddhas carved out of a cliff. At first, Taliban soldiers tried artillery. The 1,500-year-old masterpieces proved too hardy. The Taliban had to resort to dynamite. They blew the statues to bits, then slaughtered 100 cows in atonement--for having taken so long to finish the job.
Buddhism is hardly a representative of the West. It is hardly a cause of poverty and destitution. It is hardly a symbol of colonialism. No. The statues represented two things: an alternative faith and a great work of civilization. To the Taliban, the presence of both was intolerable.
The distinguished Indian writer and now Nobel Prize winner V.S. Naipaul, who has chronicled the Islamic world in two books ("Among the Believers" and "Beyond Belief"), recently warned (in a public talk in Melbourne before the World Trade Center attack), "We are within reach of great nihilistic forces that have undone civilization." In places like Afghanistan, "religion has been turned by some into a kind of nihilism, where people wish to destroy themselves and destroy their past and their culture . . . to be pure. They are enraged about the world and they wish to pull it down." This kind of fury and fanaticism is unappeasable. It knows no social, economic, or political solution. "You cannot converge with this [position] because it holds that your life is worthless and your beliefs are criminal and should be extirpated."
This insight offers a needed window on the new enemy. It turns out that the enemy does have recognizable analogues in the Western experience. He is, as President Bush averred in his address to the nation, heir to the malignant ideologies of the 20th century. In its nihilism, its will to power, its celebration of blood and death, its craving for the cleansing purity that comes only from eradicating life and culture, radical Islam is heir, above all, to Nazism. The destruction of the World Trade Center was meant not only to wreak terror. Like the smashing of the Bamiyan Buddhas, it was meant to obliterate greatness and beauty, elegance and grace. These artifacts represented civilization embodied in stone or steel. They had to be destroyed.
This worship of death and destruction is a nihilism of a ferocity unlike any since the Nazis burned books, then art, then whole peoples. Goebbels would have marvelled at the recruitment tape for al Qaeda, a two-hour orgy of blood and death: image after image of brutalized Muslims shown in various poses of victimization, followed by glorious images of desecration of the infidel--mutilated American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of the USS Cole, mangled bodies at the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Throughout, the soundtrack endlessly repeats the refrain "with blood, with blood, with blood." Bin Laden appears on the tape to counsel that "the love of this world is wrong. You should love the other world...die in the right cause and go to the other world." In his October 9 taped message, al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman abu Ghaith gloried in the "thousands of young people who look forward to death, like the Americans look forward to living."
Once again, the world is faced with a transcendent conflict between those who love life and those who love death both for themselves and their enemies. Which is why we tremble. Upon witnessing the first atomic bomb explode at the Trinity site at Alamogordo, J. Robert Oppenheimer recited a verse from the Hindu scripture "Bhagavad Gita": "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." We tremble because for the first time in history, nihilism will soon be armed with the ultimate weapons of annihilation. For the first time in history, the nihilist will have the means to match his ends. Which is why the war declared upon us on September 11 is the most urgent not only of our lives, but in the life of civilization itself.
Charles Krauthammer is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.
This is a pretty good post. People need to keep in mind Muslims mean something other than what we think when they say they are "peace-loving", they believe they will be as soon as the whole world is living under Islamic law and forced to practice this faith. This is the peace they are after and to them the ends justifies the means.
On the up side---they'll have Hillary, Janet Reno, Jane Fonda and all the feminists in long garments and veils over their faces.
It is going to get a whole lot uglier here. I refer once again to the ongoing harassment attacks of Anthrax. Yes they are "pinpricks" in one sense but they keep us very busy with little real expenditure of resources on their part. Each letter with talcum powder cuases a reaction and costs us far more than the $.34 stamp on the letter. Hazmat crews are getting exhausted and labs that test the powders are getting very tired. The US Post Office is perhaps an unplanned target of these attacks.
I am concerned about what these pin priclks are diverting our attention from.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
And our petroleum industry will BOOM! Lots of jobs in ASAP oil extraction.
The first attack on the WTC killed about ten people, the next attack killed 6,000.
The first anthrax attacks killed one, (so far), when they perfect their delivery systemn the next attack will kill??
I worry that in the confusion of the coming overthrow of Musharraf, some of the Paki nukes will disappear. Months later, they may "turn up" in a shipping container in Long Beach or Norfolk.
Remember in the Guld War how Buchanan said that their would be thousands of our troops killed? This time around the BUSH he sees that it's wisest to keep his mouth shut. That way he can ramp up the criticism when the going get tough.
In its nihilism, its will to power, its celebration of blood and death, its craving for the cleansing purity that comes only from eradicating life and culture, radical Islam is heir, above all, to Nazism.
Sorry Charlie, the enemy is not nihilism, or even radical Islam (which is a self-redundant phrase). The enemy is the Koran itself:
Medina Suras
The Chapter of Women
[Chapters from the Koran]
The Harvard Classics 190914But if there befalls you grace from God, he would sayas though there were no friendship between you and himO would that I had been with thee to attain this mighty happiness! Let those then fight in Gods way who sell this life of the world for the next; and whoso fights in Gods way, then, be he killed or be he victorious, we will give him a mighty hire.
What ails you that ye do not fight in Gods way, and for the weak men and women and children, who say, Lord, bring us out of this town 19 of oppressive folk, and make for us from Thee a patron, and make for us from Thee a help?
Those who believe fight in the way of God; and those who disbelieve fight in the way of Tâghût; fight ye then against the friends of Satan, verily, Satans tricks are weak.
Do ye not see those to whom it is said, Restrain your hands, and be steadfast in prayer and give alms; and when it is prescribed for them to fight then a band of them fear men, as though it were the fear of God or a still stronger fear, and they say, O our Lord! why hast thou prescribed for us to fight, couldst thou not let us abide till our near appointed time? Say, The enjoyment of this world is but slight, and the next is better for him who fears;but they shall not be wronged a straw.
... Why are ye two parties about the hypocrites, when God hath overturned them for what they earned? Do ye wish to guide those whom God hath led astray? Whoso God hath led astray ye shall not surely find for him a path. They would fain that ye misbelieve as they misbelieve, that ye might be alike; take ye not patrons from among them until they too flee in Gods way; but if they turn their backs, then seize them and kill them wheresoever ye find them, and take from them neither patron nor help,save those who reach a people betwixt whom and you is an allianceor who come to you while their bosoms prevent them from fighting you or fighting their own people. But had God pleased He would have given you dominion over them, and they would surely have fought you. But if they retire from you and do not fight you, and offer you peace,then God hath given you no way against them.
Ye will find others who seek for quarter from you, and quarter from their own people; whenever they return to sedition they shall be overturned therein: but if they retire not from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wheresoever ye find them;over these we have made for you manifest power.
We reach the end of communication when I say that I believe in the workings of God, as I have seen them in my life. I can just say "I believe". I also believe that the focal points of mankinds advances were in most cases people who believe. I think that if you compare the Babylonian empire to the Roman Empire (and make adjustments by the time differential) or the Egyptian empire, that the Babylonian and Egyptian Empires were far and away beyond what Rome Achieved with far less technology. Where is Iraq now, Egypt now, vs Rome now?
I do not have near your grasp of the minutia of history, hats off. But the macro picture? Since Islam, No Moslem nation has ever achieved much of anything except conquest. If Saudi Arabia lost its oil (which is a limited resource) would you invest in hi tech there or any other Islamic country? Medicine? Manufacturing? Agriculture? About a third of the world is under Islams thumb. Gives us a great selection. Why is the bottom of the worlds productive (intelectualy) areas all in the Moslem nations? It is not a coincidence. Islam appeals to the unlearned, the fleshly. Kill and die for virgins and feasts indeed!
I am perhaps too religious, I believe America is great Because of God, not despite God. Anyway, thanks for the post, I will print it out and study it. Blessings!
The Crusaders of the first crusade spent the day after taking the cross murdering Jews. Meanwhile Moses Maimonides, the greatest Jewish medieval scholar, was a respected figure at court in Egypt and Syria. When Moorish Spain was reconquered by Christians, many of the Jews fled to Turkey or Holland to avoid the persecution that immediately followed. Some of those that went to Holland remembered what religious tolerance had been like, and not long afterward the Dutch revolt from Spain was the first successful Protestant revolt from a Catholic king. Tolerance had to be relearned in the west, and medieval Islam had a small part in that process.
And they did listen to reason in theology at one time. Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes were not committed to darkness and persecution of free thought. They even influenced western theology, particularly that of Acquinas. Some of their own theologians opposed these tendencies, out of fear of secularism. They threw the baby of reason out with the bathwater of unbelief, and the Islamic world has produced precious little in the way of science or learning since. Some thinkers in the Muslim world in our own day have recalled this, and suggested it was the key mistake. Avicenna could have been their Acquinas, if they had listened. It is not too late for them to start listening now.
I understand your religious outlook on history, but it seems to me it leaves too little room for the known nuances of wickedness. If Christianity taught that all Christians are righteous, your reading, true or false, might be the Christian one. But that is not Christian doctrine. Christianity does not insist on the universal righteousness of Christians, but on the universal fallenness of all men. All men can be evil. Many outwardly profess what they in no way understand in their hearts. Many crimes caused by human passions - greed and hatred, ungoverned zeal, love of power - have been dressed in pretty language. This makes it untrustworthy to judge men and deeds by outward professions of religious affiliation.
As Lord Acton put it, "in judging men and things, ethics go before dogma, politics, or nationality. The ethics of history cannot be denominational. Judge not according to the orthodox standard of a system, religious, philosophical, political, but according as things promote or fail to promote the delicacy, integrity, and authority of conscience. Put conscience above both system and success.
"The moral code is not new, it has long been known. It is not universally accepted even in Europe, even now. The difference in moral insight between past and present is not very large. But the notion and analysis of conscience is scarcely older than 1700, and the notion and analysis of veracity in history is scarcely older than our own time. In Christendom, time and place do not excuse - if the Apostle's Code sufficed for salvation. A good cause proves less in a man's favor than a bad cause against him.
"Faith must be sincere. When defended by sin it is not sincere; theologically, it is not faith. God's grace does not operate by sin. Transpose the nominative and the accusative and see how things look then (i.e. apply the golden rule). The systems of Barrow, Baxter, Bossuet are higher, spiritually, constructively, scientifically, than Penn's (Quakers). In our scales his (Penn's) high morality outweighs them."
In addition to Acton's wise words on the subject, I point out the effect that religious tolerance in the Muslim world would have for your own religious outlook. Missionaries can operate wherever there is tolerance, but cannot breath where it is not recognized. Islamic orthodoxy today regards apostacy from Islam as not only a sin, but as a capital crime. There is little prospect of evangelizing the Muslim world before they learn the principle of freedom of conscience.
Religious confidence ought not to shrink from freedom of conscience. To confess a dependence on intolerance, or on fighting another religion as an implacable enemy with physical rather than spiritual arms, is to confess a lack of faith in the attraction of truth. It is in the interest of your religious views too, no less than in the interest of justice among Muslims, and in our country's interest in its relations with Muslim countries, to see religious tolerance established in that part of the world.
Nor are you "allowed", theologically, to give up on one sixth of the human race. Justice may arise where it is least looked for, even in a despised malefactor at the gallows - when no one else understood - if only he is willing to say rightly "but this man has done nothing wrong." Charity, Chesterton once said, is a mystical agnosticism about the complexities of the soul. For what it is worth.
Don't be a simpleton. The jihadists did not destroy the Bamiyan Buddhas because of a Jewish connection. There is no Jewish connection in the South Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, Chechnya, Sudan, Algeria, Nigeria, etc etc.Exactly, this isnt about Judaism or Nihilism. Its about Islam.The problem is the insane death cult called radical islam.
patent +AMDG
We are now faced with a new situation. A situation not unlike the one we faced in 1941. Strange zealots for whom suicide is not only acceptable, but an honor. Ignorant of the ways of the real world, they are frightened and suspicious of anyone who is different from them. Requiring each others' approval, destroying that which they do not understand is the only road they know to travel.
It may take a while for our current flavor of PC to wear off, but as moslems here are pretty clear in their tacit approval of the actions against the "infidel" or "kafir", it's just a matter of time before the PC wears off and we call the moslem community to account.
It might interest some of the younger folks to know that when the japs were put into the internment camps, it was done for their own protection. The government and the media was full of "kill the buck toothed monkey jap" posters because that's how wars are won.
I hope we all retire PC and see these anti-American moslems for what they are. No matter where they live.
It's Islam.
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.