Posted on 10/06/2001 5:14:11 PM PDT by Pokey78
THE war of the hour, we are told, is against "global terrorism". So declared President Bush in his speech to Congress on September 20 and Tony Blair in his oration to his Party Conference last week. It is nothing of the sort.
The Soviet Union was once the evil empire challenging the West. Now it is the resurgence, or insurgency, of Islam that looms over the non-Islamic world. The momentum of the Islamic revival has been gathering pace at least since the 1950s. Yet the West's justified fear of this resurgence and a desire to avoid offence to the Islamic faith have had our leaders treading on eggshells over the events of September 11.
The hostile engagement between Islam and the West has not been in doubt for years. Thus, when Baroness Thatcher reminds us that it was Muslims who brought down the World Trade Centre, and Muslim spokesmen express their outrage that anyone should relate the act to Muslims, it is hard to know whether to laugh or weep.
Our very declaration of war - against the "global terror" - is itself bogus. There is no war to declare. There has been a war on for decades. It has included savage hostilities among Muslims (as within Algeria, Lebanon, Iraq, and so on) but, more pertinently for us, between Islamists and the West. Russia and China have been caught up in it too.
When President Bush announced his National Missile Defence Programme, citing the risk of attack from "rogue states", it was not North Korea he had in mind but those Islamic countries with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons already acquired, or being acquired. Moreover, of the seven nations on the State Departments list of terrorist nations, five are Islamic.
With New York skyscrapers turned to rubble and thousands dead, there have been few boundaries, whether of territory or moral principle, of method of combat or falsification of word, that have not been transgressed on this battlefield. Yet taboo, a false tact and short-term memory loss serve between them to cloud our knowledge of what is afoot. US and British bombers patrol Iraqi airspace, Israeli forces carry out assaults in Gaza and the West Bank, and President Clinton launched missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan without the declaration of war. There has been no need.
There have been many other wars since 1945 that have nothing to do with Islam. But from the 1950s, and especially once the fall of Communism in 1989-1991 had freed the Muslim states of the Soviet bloc from their straitjackets, Islam has taken the lead in anti-Western activity politically, religiously and militarily. It has brandished guns in one hand and sacred texts in another, demonising America, Zionism and Christianity. But from an explicable desire not to include in our objections "the good Muslim" - of whom there are millions - we avoid saying what we know and fear.
Nevertheless, there are few areas in the world, from the Caucasus to Kashmir, from the Moluccas to Manhattan, from Tunisia to Tanzania, that have not suffered from the Islamic convulsion. In previous upsurges Islam gained an empire from the Indus to the Pyrenees. It created the aesthetic glories and sufferings of Islamic Spain, and brought the Turks and their Ottoman Empire to the gates of Vienna.
Black-masked, flag-burning Islamist militants are hard to connect with their predecessors who created the Alhambra in Granada or Seville's Alcazar, and with the great Islamic philosophers of the Middle Ages, the friends and intellectual peers of Christian and Jewish sages of those times. The "good Muslim" may take his moral distance from hijackings, inter-Muslim brutalities, the blowing-up of embassies, book-burning and so on. But the fount of Islamic energy, of its destructiveness and high aspiration, are the same as they have always been: the desire to protect the purity of the Islamic faith and to vindicate its claim to be the final revealed religion on earth.
Islamophobia has exacted a brutal toll in reprisal for Islamic violence. This includes the shooting down by the US of an Iranian airliner in July 1998, the assassinations carried out by the Israelis, the savaging of Muslim Chechnya by the Russians, the hangings of Islamists in Xinjiang by the Chinese - still continuing - the coalition turkey-shoot of the Iraqi army after its retreat from Kuwait and the near-genocide of Muslims in Bosnia.
But then this is war, undeclared as may be. It has already taken a bewildering variety of forms and struck in many places. In 1972, Israeli athletes were murdered by Islamist militants at the Munich Olympics. The attempt on the Pope's life was made by a Turk whose controllers remain unknown. A Libyan plot brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in December 1988. In February 1989, the Iranian fatwah against Salman Rushdie was pronounced by Khomeini. In Sudan, Muslim sharia law was introduced by the Islamist government in 1991 and civil war has raged between Muslim north and Christian south ever since.
The upheavals provoked by the resurgence have taken millions of lives. The Sudanese civil war and famine have led to some two million deaths. The Biafran civil war in 1967 in Nigeria between the dominant Muslim majority and Christian Ibo immigrants killed some one million people. Even the largely unheard-of 1991 Tajikistan civil war, provoked by Islamist secessionists, caused tens of thousands of dead.
In addition to the corpses in this war have been refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers. Millions have fled the Islamic world; some three-quarters of the world's migrants in the last decade are said to have been Muslims. They have been variously escaping sharia law, inter-Muslim conflict, economic chaos, Muslim-Christian violence and, not least, anti-Muslim aggression. Escapees, victims, scapegoats, malefactors and "sleepers" awaiting their moment, they signify that an aroused and angered Islam is on the move.
For politicians simply to call all this "terror", and to promise to extirpate it with precision strikes and the denial of funds is a folly. As the equivocations of Saudi Arabia and a nuclear-armed Pakistan reveal, the Islamic nations know that it is the resurgence of Islam not "terrorism" which has prompted the West's call to action. These nations cannot afford to support this call wholeheartedly, no more than can any "good Muslim" spokesman in Britain, whatever Baroness Thatcher may expect of them.
In every war, the first casualty is said to be truth. In this one, our politicians have not even begun to admit to us what it is really about.
David Selbourne is author of The Principle of Duty: An Essay on the Foundations of the Civic Order
There is an Islamic terrorism based on socio-religious perceptions. It may not include the whole Arab and Muslim world, but it perceives the terrorism it wages against the West as an integral part of its religion. The West in general and the USA in particular cannot ignore it and should therefore unite their efforts in an attempt to find different means of countering this kind of Islamic terrorism.The West should learn from one of the best students of Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism, the Dutch scholar, Prof. Johannes Jansen:
“In a fiercely competitive society the dominant religion may preach that the greatest virtue is to love one’s neighbor. The religion of a group which over the centuries has become marginalised may, on the other hand, preach that God has exclusively and explicitly chosen those who follow his commandments. This group may come to believe that it plays a central role in the history of God and his creation. In a society where the law is not much more than an interesting but highly theoretical matter, the major religion may proclaim that following God’s laws is the only way to put things right. . . Islamic fundamentalism is both politics and religion. It has a dual nature. When it is analyzed as if it were a movement that has political nature only, mistakes are made because fundamentalism is fully religion at the same time.” [3]
In the Islamic world one cannot differentiate between the political violence of Islamic groups and their popular support derived from religion. They, at any rate, do not recognize any disparity.
The important question remains as to how the West should defend itself against Islamic terrorism. To address the question would require another article. Suffice it to say that in order to deal with this problem, the West must first recognize that the present terrorism on the part of the Arab and Muslim world is Islamic in nature.
Link to full ICT article: Is There an Islamic Terrorism?"
Contrary to some not-so-authoritative officials, I don't find it peaceful, forgiving and kind, unless you are already a Muslim. Rather I find it accusatory and full of anger. That's my impression, having read it. Read and be you own judge.
Ever read the Old Testament, bud? Or, the Talmud? Even the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes.
Yes. I read it and I came to the same conclusions you did.
"Oh," say my liberal co-academics, "no Islamic authority believes in a literalist interpretation of the Koran!"
("Have you ever read it?" I ask. "Well, no, but no Islamic authority believes...")
But as my significant other says, religion isn't defined by the scholars, it's defined by the people who read the text and then strap a bomb to their chest and walk into an Israeli pizza parlor.
I suspect there are a similarly secular breed of Muslims who think Islam means, "Oh... you know... be nice to people... and... uhm... don't eat pork!" and that's about it. I'm aware that these people are not the enemy. (Heck, most of them aren't even sure what direction Mecca is in and would turn in circles like an Irish Setter if you told them "time to pray!") And that's fine.
But those violent individuals who would kill for Islam are fundamentalists in the truest sense: these are the fundamentals of Islam and they are following them to the letter.
Bump to that truth! Of course, it also holds for religion. Any "true" religion would be definition by tyranny.
I remember that.
Oh, I know! As long as you do exactly what they tell you, they really are the nicest folks you'll ever be assassinated by!
I suggest anyone willing to comment on this should read the Koran first.
Contrary to some not-so-authoritative officials, I don't find it peaceful, forgiving and kind, unless you are already a Muslim. Rather I find it accusatory and full of anger. That's my impression, having read it. Read and be you own judge.
YES, YES, YES. The Koran is a piece of nasty hate literature. It is obvious that Mohammed was duping a bunch of ignorant people into accepting Arab supremacy. It is amazing how the Koran ridicules and denigrates Christians and Jews, just to mention an example.
The rising tide of nationalism, not only among the European millets, but among the Arabs too, who had allied with the British against the Ottoman Empire during World War I, persuaded the Turks that Islamization was no longer a viable ideology for Turkey. This left Westernization and Turkification as alternatives.
Because there had been no tradition of modernization within the Ottoman Empire itself, the only available model of it was Europeanization, which the Ataturkists chose
One day the Turks woke up to a new government mandate that rags were no longer allowed, all Turks were to start wearing suits and ties, rags on the heads were now not allowed, "hats" with brims were now the only legal headdress.
In that the Taliban has only recently outlawed the education of women and mandated that all women be covered head to toe, it's only logical that these stoneage types will basically do what ever they are told.
I say make them eat Sushi on Thursdays.
There may be few exceptions - educated Iranians, Turks for the most part, a few Jordanians, Berbers, etc. But I believe the vast majority of Arabs are our religious, political and theological enemies and will remain so as long as Wahhadism is the main sect in Arabian Islam. The REAL enemy are the sheeted pious bigots in the Saudi Sheikdom and neighboring states who use our petro dollars to bankroll maniacs like those of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda.
By the way, Palestinians HAVE a country - its called Jordan and they should all go there or somewhere a lot HOTTER.
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.