The Roots of Muslim Rage

The Atlantic ^ | September 1990 | Bernard Lewis

[Moby Grape]

Trust me...I did not, nor do I think many, thought you AGREED with this guy....I only wanted to set the record straight that the Muslims have had this RAGE for centuries, and it has NOTHING to do with the US not "minding their own buisness" or our policies regarding Israel. Muslims in the 1700's were attacking US merchant ships and stealing their cargo, taking Christians hostage, etc. When the American armies went to "straighten" things out, General Eaton wrote in his dairy that these people believed they would go to heaven by killing Christians....my point is that this EXCUSE of rage is a bald face LIE...it is their RELGION that is at the heart of this, NOT our policies. The history of the Muslim Babary Pirates is clear evidence that the rants of the third party isolationist about our having "brought this on ourselves, is just silly.

[sanchmo]

I think we all agree on that.

I didn't read this as an apoligist piece on Islamism. I just read it as "the Islamists are lashing out due to an inferiority complex and envy of the superiority of the West."

He writes: FOR a long time now there has been a rising tide of rebellion against this Western paramountcy, and a desire to reassert Muslim values and restore Muslim greatness. The Muslim has suffered successive stages of defeat. The first was his loss of domination in the world, to the advancing power of Russia and the West. The second was the undermining of his authority in his own country, through an invasion of foreign ideas and laws and ways of life and sometimes even foreign rulers or settlers, and the enfranchisement of native non-Muslim elements. The third -- the last straw -- was the challenge to his mastery in his own house, from emancipated women and rebellious children.

I think this is the bottom line, and that the fault rests with the Islamists inability to adapt to a changing world in the face of the West's success.

[Moby Grape]

I agree that the writer was suggesting the envy is part of the rage equation, but, this does NOT explain why Muslims were the same in the 1700's when the US had NO NAVY, NO FOREIGN POLICY, was NOT a "Super Power", was NOT wealthy, etc....whether the US as poor, or rich, the Muslims acted the same.

[sanchmo]

1. In the 1700ss, they had already lost the lastest seige on Vienna, and were visibly on the decline. The West was clearly expanding throughout the world - in the Americas and Asia, and making inroads into Africa. The Ottomans were being socially, culturally, economically and militarily outflanked long before their fall a century ago.

2. They were really not the same in the 1700s as today - the feelings were not as intense or as widespread. And they didn't target the US as a matter of policy like they do now. Back then, American ships were targets of opportunity within easy reach. Today, they go far out of their way - physically and mentally to attack the US wherever they can. I don't think that in the 1700s they thougth of the US as the Great Satan, the cause of every type of evil in the world. They were probably more obsessed with the Hapsburghs, the Spanish and Portuguese, and the Brits (although I have no historical evidence to back that up ;^).

[Moby Grape]

I disagree. The US in the 1700's was an island...not "expansion".....It has been suggested, although not in the article that you posted, that the Muslim faith has been "highjacked" by extremist. I wish to point out that General Eaton, in his dairy just before the war with Tunis, said,"It is almost impossible to convince these wild bigots that Christians can be something other than enemies of Mohammedians."..He went on to describe how they are a difficult fighting force because they believe that by killing Christians, they go to heaven. I do not attempt to claim that the 1700's are an apple for apple comparison, but that the belief system has NOT been highjacked in "modern" times. It was then, and is now a religion that teaches and those who do not convert are the enemy and that the enemy should be destroyed.

[sanchmo]

Yup - I guess I wasn't comparing apples-to-apples myself.

You were talking about Islamist attitudes towards Christendom in general - I'll have to agree that it hasn't changed since the 1700s.
I was talking about Islamist attitudes towards the US specifically - which is just the latest flavor of the one you were describing.

[mercy]

This article is too long. The subject is not worth that many words. Islam is NOT one of the wolds great religions. Just because it has a lot of ahereants does not a great religion make.

The first and only real qualification of greatness is that the religion is lost in the mists of antiquity as to its origins, however has ancient written traditions regarding such origins AND it survives to the present day with a large following.

There are only two such. Hindu and Hebrew. Christianity qualifys because it is essentially Herew to this day. Polytheistic vs Monotheistic vs Atheistic. Everyman makes his choice. Flollowers of modern or middle ages cults like Islam have not made a choice. They have opted for an uninformed, uneducated non choice. Perhaps this is why they hate the informed of the planet so much.

[aristotleman]

Historical perspective on the crusades differs amongst Christians: The Eastern Roman Emprire (Byzantines) did not see the crusades as a benevolent movement, since the european knights sacked Constantinople and terrorized Cyprus and other territories. The Byzantines had managed to achieve a delicate balance with the Arabs up to that point, trade, occasional battles, mutual tolerance. Many muslims lived in Byzantine territories, in relative peace. The nature of the Empire was that of mutli-ethnicity and tolerance.

In the west European world, there was no central government, christianity was a relatively new thing that helped unify tribes and strengthen feudal lords. Attacking the Holy Lands was decided with religious fervor, tainted with a degree of greed and an appetite for adventure. But it was not a well thought-out attack. It only served to make Islam defensive, and increased intolerance. Up until then, except for the occasional conversion-by-force islamic expansion, Christiendom was largely tolerated because of the Byzantine policies.

I don't think that the Crusades were a "mistake", or a "turning point", however. The violent expansion of Islam westward seems historically inevitable, crusades or not. The only thing that changed was the mindset towards europeans: From "Hmm, let's convert those infidels and drain their resources", to "Hmmmm let's convert those #$@#$%#@# enemy infidels and drain their resources."

[Lent]

Good posts!

[Lent]

But it was not a well thought-out attack. It only served to make Islam defensive, and increased intolerance. Up until then, except for the occasional conversion-by-force islamic expansion, Christiendom was largely tolerated because of the Byzantine policies.

I disagree profoundly. Remember that Islam had spread its Jihad for over 400 years BEFORE the first Crusade. Islam had massacred, pillaged, dhimmiized entire Christian, and as well Jewish populations in the ME, North Africa, Spain, Asia Minor, to the gates of Constantinople and Paris. They massacred monks, destroyed churches, pillaged the land continuously, and Arabized numerous areas destroying and transplanting or reducing the existing population to dhimmis or slaves.

Moreover, the first Crusade was instituted BECAUSE in the 11th century the rampaging Seljuk Turkish Muslims were sweeping towards Constantinople and leaving massacres, and pillage, in their wake.

Hence, the Crusades did no such thing and this propaganda about the Crusades has been one of the worst historical distortions in history. Keep in mind that there were many Crusades afterwards. Some of the Crusades did go awry and in one of them actually attacking Constantinople. But this was not "awry" in the sense that they are to be blamed for any subsequent Islamic position. Any current expression of Islam is solely the fault of its own Jihadic theology.

[Moby Grape]

Thanks very much.

[RetiredArmy]

The Moz-Lums have not seen my rage lately. I'd like to be able to compare it with one of them!

[thepainster]

I'll offer another scenario: Islam is used by the people in power in Muslims contries to keep the uneducated population under control. As Western ideals find their way into these societies, it brings into questions some of the teachings of Islam and thus starts to erode some of this power. The Muslim Clerics and Royal Families don't like this, so they tell the peasants that the great Satan (USA) is the cause of all thier problems. This is drummed into their heads from the time they are children. They raise a population Muslims that at best distrust and at worst totally hate the West and in particular the United States. From this hated is spawned the terroism we are seeing today.

All the while the Royal families jet set around the world and engage in the sinful activities forbidden to the common people as dictated in the Koran.

It's all about power and money.......always has been, always will be.

[mathurine]

I think you broke the code.

[aristotleman]

Indeed, before the first Crusade there existed Islamic pressure, but the byzantines dealt. Don't forget the sacking of Constantinople during Crusade II. Greeks can never forget that.