'I had no idea that madness in the Islamic world had gone so far' - Naipaul

times (UK) ^ | Times

[BlackIce]

Naipaul tellin it like it is

[Procyon]

If you can only read one paragraph, this is it:

I’ve been aware of madness in the Islamic world. I’ve written about it. The madness of people who have fallen behind technically, and who do not have the will to make the intellectual effort to catch up. I was aware of the religious hatred, I was aware of the indifference to life. I was aware of the anti-civilisation aspect of the new fundamentalism. But I had no idea it had gone so far — the madness. The idea of their strength is an illusion. Nothing is coming from within. The terrorists can fly a plane, but what they can’t do is build a plane. What they can’t do is build those towers. I think people have spoken much rubbish about that event. The poor revenging themselves on the rich! It’s nothing but an aspect of religious hatred. And that is so hard to deal with, or even contemplate. You can deal with the poor striking out, but you can’t deal with the threat of a universal religious war.” Though he approved of the recent war in Afghanistan, he is keenly aware of the inherent absurdity of the current war on terrorism: “Your biggest enemy is your great ally — Saudi Arabia — and the foot-soldiers of the terror come from your other ally — Pakistan.”

[Black Agnes]

Nobel Laureate on Islam...

[eno_]

"You can deal with the poor striking out, but you can’t deal with the threat of a universal religious war.”

This sums up the denial and defective thinking in the West regarding Islamism. It isn't "poverty-ism," it's Islamism.

[Sabatier]

That paragraph jumps out,doesn't it?
Especially this line:"The terrorists can fly a plane, but what they can’t do is build a plane." That says it all.

[1bigdictator]

I hate to sound ignorant but I was not aware of Naipaul's work. I will be purchasing his books regarding Islam shortly.

[Illbay]

...his unwillingness to condemn excesses such as the 1992 destruction of the mosque in Ayodhya. ...

He feels a definite antipathy for Islam’s fanatical role in India, past and present.

"I deeply condemn all fanatics except OUR fanatics!"

[anymouse]

More interesting insight into Islamo-facism.

[SarahW]

"...the fount of all [their] actions is religion and the idea of the religious war, which involves religious hatred..."

Nothing is truer.

[cake_crumb]

"An Area of Darkness and Among the Believers"

Two for my reading list. <* SIGH *> So many books to aquire...so few funds to aquire them with...story of my life.

Naipaul's description of the problems in Islamic culture appears to agree with my own conclusions, which can be summed up in two words : "cultural stagnation."

Even if he had never wrote these books, I'd like him for his rejection of the Cult of Victimhood and embrace of forward progress.

[MinuteGal]

After what he stated about Islam, I hope he doesn't get Salmon Rushdie-ized.

Leni

[dennisw]

 

 

MEGA VS NAIPAUL PING!!!!

>
>
>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today's photo humor>

Thu Aug 8, 6:44 AM ET

A group of Ba'th party soldiers, who appear to have explosives tied to their waists, gather for a military parade in Baghdad in support of President Saddam Hussein August 8, 2002. Iraq's President Saddam Hussein said on Thursday that he was not frightened by threats from the United States and his country was ready to repel any attack. Photo by Faleh Kheiber/Reuters

 

 

[Big Bunyip]

Look for his dead brother, too, Shiva Naipaul, particularly the collection that contains "The Return of Eva Peron." Good stuff, though not about Musselmen.

[Aquinasfan]

"You can deal with the poor striking out, but you can’t deal with the threat of a universal religious war.”

This sums up the denial and defective thinking in the West regarding Islamism. It isn't "poverty-ism," it's Islamism.

Yup. Why is this so hard for the media to get? I suspect it's because they cannot understand religious belief in general. They simply cannot believe that other people take their faith seriously, since they don't themselves. Therefore they must logically ascribe the motivations of religious believers to other things, like class struggle, economic factors, psychological conditions, etc.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

You know, I was reading somewhere (I think the daily OpinionJournal from yesterday) about how some Palestinians despiar an hour or two after they're done celebrating a successful murderous attack.
I was literally screaming at my computer scream, "Why don't you build an economy!?! Why don't you build a government that will work for you!?!
And then I realized that they can't even comprehend. I mean, what are they going to do if they kill all of the Israelis? Why are they dependent on the Israelis for an economy?
Because they're too dumb to do it themselves. Sad.

[mel]

The terrorists can fly a plane, but what they can’t do is build a plane. Excellent point

[cake_crumb]

"Iraq's President Saddam Hussein said on Thursday that he was not frightened by threats from the United States and his country was ready to repel any attack."

Saddam sure says that frequently...makes you wonder who he's trying to convince? After all we whupped his sorry butt once already after he said the same thing, so it's not us....

</rhetorical question>

[carton253]

Wow! You said a mouthful...

I never thought about it like that... but, you are right. They don't have the capacity to think in those terms, therefore, no one else does either... so, it has to be what we are doing to them and not just the fact that we are.

Which is the crux of the problem. They don't hate us because of the things we have, they hate us because we are not Islam, and because we are not Islam, it is their religious duty to "convert us at the edge of the sword" and if we won't be converted then to kill us with that sword.

All you have to do is look at the history of the Middle East and Islam's dealings with all other religions and people who were not Islam.

What is the expression... "those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it."

[cake_crumb]

"Therefore they must logically ascribe the motivations of religious believers to other things, like class struggle, economic factors, psychological conditions, etc."

It's called "conditioned response". We all had at least one teacher or several college professors who blamed every social ill, no matter what it was, one of the conditions you name....and knew about a hundred students offhand who thought the same way. Now they can't think any other way.

They're trying SO hard to be logical and objective that they are acting illogical and unobjective.