Most commentators argue that Islamic terrorism is a fanatical perversion of Islam which deviates from its true teachings. They call for a Western-style modernization of the Muslim world, hoping thereby that radical Islam will be tamed.
This analysis misses the point. The nature of the terrorist threat is unambiguously Islamic and is not so much a deviation from Muslim tradition as an appeal to it. Al Qaeda's ideology draws on two traditions to legitimize itself: one classical, the other modern.
If you are having trouble understanding just where this movement came from or you really believe that this current terror campaign began as a result of George Bush and Tony Blair removing Saddam, this is something you should look at very carefully.
If you believe that U.S. involvement in Mideast Affairs is the reason the terrorists are waging bloody war, then this piece is something you should examine very carefully, paying especially close attention to the dates.
If you are on the fence and don't know who to believe, the voices of appeasment and apology or the voices of reason and concern, then this is for you.
And even if you know this and fully believe this information is accurate, read it.
Take note that it is not written by neocons, but by Europeans. Maybe, just maybe, they are now getting it. But the sad part is, it didn't have to take this long.
5 comments:
G said...
Something along these lines was my original post on my site LA.
Here is the Link to it. Mine is about as long, but it also references a good page on the history of the Crusades. In my opinion, this is directly relevent to what is going on today.
"Not all Muslims are terrorists... But all terrorists are Muslim", why might this be?
"Not all Muslims are terrorists... But all terrorists are Muslim", why might this be?
For the most part, you are correct. But remember, Timothy McVeigh was not Muslim.
I noticed this in the excellent article to which you linked:
"Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), chief ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood,... fused the history of Mohammed's travails with a revolutionary vanguard-type ideology that removed medieval limits on warfare by championing a modern death cult in the quest for a revivified caliphate.
"The ideology instigated by these two figures is fuelled by dreams of a prior Islamic golden age. Al Qaeda sympathizers avidly read European fascist literature..."
Hence, the term Islamofascism.
You are correct in that McVeigh was not Muslim. But wasn't he a white supremacist? Wahhabists are Islamist supremacists. I don't see any difference in principle: both groups have the it's-my-way-or-the-highway mentality. In fact, that mentality is at the root of all despotism.
Once acquired, the quest for absolute power is unquenchable, huh? No retreat, no surrender for those types.
AOW,
I read the IHT almost daily for two solid years, when I lived in West Germany. It's not bad for a liberal MSM outlet.
Other than the Stars and Stripes, it was the only easily attainable english newspaper on the continent. The London Times could be found at some urban news stands. But the PX carried both of these papers and I bought them, almost every morning.
Today, they still have some good articles. And though I don't agree with them all, from a journalisic standpoint, they are very well-written.
Post a Comment