Replies

Thanks for reminding to link the Lewis quote.

I understand your point on radical Islam.

However, when I'm talking about communist repression and terror "under cover of Islam", it's not some vague notion -- that's just the facts. They weren't exactly covert about it until 1991.

The beauty of both prongs -- undermining Christianity and co-opting radical Islam -- is that they do indeed capitalize perfectly on the raw material at hand.

And, had "radical Islam" truly enjoyed a unbroken continuity, I doubt very seriously it would have needed the organizing, training, sponsorship and continued support of Soviet and Chinese communists.

It's like pretending the IRA suddenly pulled itself up by its own bootstraps when, in actuality, it was just a matter of the Soviets' finally appreciating and electing to control the potential for an IRA contribution to World Revolution.

I know we're going to disagree here, but I truly think the confection of Israel was a calculated move in many respects. It's easy to see why the West's Oligarchs were interested in a "sustainable" geopolitical toehold in the shifting sands of the Middle East. Shoot, made 'em look almost moral overnight despite their take on WWII's slave labor, the personal effects of MILLIONS and the dividends of war which inevitably land in the pockets of those alert always to the opportunity to turn a profit on human suffering.

It's the Soviet sponsorship of some of the Zionists that bugs the hell out of me. Surely they were bent on having a most magnificent means of focusing the Middle East (and the world, for that matter, given Uncle Sam's having drawn sole babysitting duty in perpetuity).

It's like some hypnotist's gem swinging in front of the wholly disparate and -- by all appearances -- defeated factions of Islam throughout the region. With the right amount of turmoil and baiting (thanks to Soviet sock puppets like Arafat), one could pretty much use Israel to control relations between the US and the OPEC barons, even.

(Though just outright siding with them, as Putin did the other day, is always good for laughs and lends a certain aura of "power" to the princes.)

And, had "radical Islam" truly enjoyed a unbroken continuity, I doubt very seriously it would have needed the organizing, training, sponsorship and continued support of Soviet and Chinese communists.

Again (since we've discussed this in another context before), you're confusing the materiality (labour and materials) to sustain the process of "radical Islam" (the Jihad) with the theological process itself. It would be like saying because the Greek and Armenian Christians were the economic (and exploited as dhimmi) backbone of the Ottoman Empire that in reality the Ottoman Empire was a Christian empire. This is foolishness. The Jihad was able to spread by exploiting whatever served its purpose. The Jihad is able to "spread" ideologically and to a limited extent geopolitically because of petro-dollars. We are now well aware of the vast network of banks and Saudi funding for Islamicist movements internationally. Of course, maybe we have the ironic reality that our need for oil is the source of Islamicist growth!

Let me move this one to a consideration of what I see is a fundamental "understanding" necessary in this Islamic mess. This is seen seminally in the Arab Islamic and greater Islamic treatment of Israel. I'm going to suggest to you that the problem with Islam is that it has tended to become the handmaiden of Pan Arab nationalism. In other words, where Islam has fundamentally gone wrong is that Arab nationalism has tended to vitiate a maturing of Islam. I believe the Lewis quote captures this notion quite well. So we see in Turkey largely the absence of Pan Arab nationalism (except in those elements in the Islamic community which are thankfully repressed by the Turkish government). Turkey is, as you know, an ally of Israel. I don't want to get into the other geo-political considerations of this relationship my point is that if Arab nationalism is severed from Islam Islam has the opportunity to apply Western reform concepts such as the hermeneutical principles developed in the Reformation, Counter-Reformation and Enlightenment period.

Hence your criticism of RnMomof7 is entirely misplaced. Jesus said, "Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." I think you kind of want the latter without a rigorous application of the former. This is a recipe for disaster. It's all fine to want to come together as Jews, Christians, and Muslims (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), recognizing the theological differences of course, but it is quite another matter to ignore or minimize the current irreconciliable and dangerous elements which exist in a large part of the Islamic world and which also infect a significant portion of the Islamic community domestically.

And, had "radical Islam" truly enjoyed a unbroken continuity, I doubt very seriously it would have needed the organizing, training, sponsorship and continued support of Soviet and Chinese communists.
It's like pretending the IRA suddenly pulled itself up by its own bootstraps when, in actuality, it was just a matter of the Soviets' finally appreciating and electing to control the potential for an IRA contribution to World Revolution.

Aren't you ignoring the fact that radical Islam existed prior to Communism? I am baffled as to why you think that all sorts of radicalism need to be explained in terms of Communism. Maybe a better way of looking at the issue is that departures from truth may cause radicalism, which is a form of irrationality.

A good lesson to be learned is that history does not often repeat itself exactly. The progression of history may be better understood as the combination of the novel and recurrent.