Editor's note: Is that a light I see at the end of the tunnel? We are almost done, but if this is all new to you, your long - but worthwhile - journey starts here. Also, the Author wanted me to make it clear that all links were my idea. Sometimes I can be a dolore nell'asino.
Terrorism
I don't need no stinkin' Wikipedia.com to tell me what terrorism is. And, unlike the US Supreme Court's opinion on pornography, I don't need to see it in order to know it.
Terrorism, simply put, is the practice to inflict as much horror, death and destruction on a people, so that they will give the perpetrator whatever they want, in order to halt future acts.
Its very similar to war, but not quite. War attempts to destroy the opposing nation's will to fight by destroying their means of defense (or retaliation), thereby rendering the opposition government impotent. Wars are usually fought hot and fast, as in World War II, or Iraq. Sometimes they are fought excruciatingly slow, as in the Cold War. Terrorism is neither. It's like war in slow motion, like a simmering pot. Instead of a fleet of bombers dispensing death en'mass, the bombs go off, one at a time, over weeks, months, years, decades.
Despite claims to the contrary, terror is not the tool of the powerful, but rather the tool of the weak. Its used by groups and organizations who know they can't stand up to a real army, so they don't. Instead, they hide in the shadows, they blend in with the citizens, they look for vulnerability among the populations, then they strike with great ferociousness and they strike everyday people, just living their lives. Their goal is horrific headlines of blood and body parts everywhere, people screaming in terror. Dead children. Don't like it? Then give them what they want.
I know the first question leaping to a liberal's mind at the above statements: what's the difference between the US' actions in Iraq and al Qeada's actions? After all, the actions of both sides result in the deaths of innocent civilians. But there is a difference. When the US accidentally kills innocent civilians, its not because they are the target, but rather because that's where the targets hide, among the innocent. When terrorists kill, its because innocent civilians are the targets. There is a difference, and I will not budge on this point. There is a difference.
While the overall odds are in favor of powerful nations defeating terrorists, in reality, they have the upper hand. They choose the targets, the timing, the weapons. There is no warning, just gunfire, explosions, and the body count. And let us not forget the headlines. Any terrorist worth his weight knows the modern terrorist battle is fought in the media. They know that very well. And the modern media is only too willing to help them out for the sake of ratings.
The reasons for employing terror tactics are, in my opinion, as varied as the number of terrorists. That is, each terrorist has his or her own reasons for deciding to kill civilians. Perhaps vengeance, hatred, insanity, love of carnage, or maybe its just some sick bastard's method for achieving fame. Politicians will tell you we need to learn the "root causes" of terrorism, so we can help stop them. In my opinion, the biggest root cause is an utter lack of hope for the future, complete despair. But in reality, it's what ever an individual feels is appropriate to strap on a bomb and kill.
I would be academically dishonest if I did not address the issue of 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' but that's a deceptively difficult question to answer, as it means looking at each case individually. What are the terrorists attempting to achieve as opposed to their opponents? For example, let us look at the bloody struggle in North Ireland. Back when I was in highschool, I had a friend who's family was a host for a foreign exchange student. She was a Protestant from Northern Ireland, quite cute, and I'm a sucker for a sexy accent. I cornered her in a bar one time (drinking age was 18 back then) and I asked her, I wanted to know the real story from some one who really knows. I asked her, what was going on and why. First off she assured me it wasn't nearly as bad as the American Press made it out. She worked in a government office (she was an exchange student several years earlier, and by this point she was on vacation in America and made sure to stop by and visit her friends) and had one or two bomb scares, but that was the extent of it. She explained that while she was Irish, she considered herself a British citizen. That one sentence summed it up pretty good. Both sides were fighting for the same thing, their right to their own country. See what I mean about a difficult question to answer? The northern Irish who were Protestants considered Northern Ireland to be their country, and they wanted to remain part of Great Britain. The Catholic Irish considered the British to be invaders, they wanted their country back.
See what I mean?
Since the thrust of this series of writings is America and Iraq, I will not even attempt to cover all terrorist organizations, and will instead concentrate on the ones in the Middle East.
What Al Qeada claims it wants is easy to discern, they've posted their demands many times. Among them are demands that the US sign the Kyoto Accords and the return of Spain to the Muslims. (I wonder if they'd negotiate over France instead?). The whole thing reminds me of the movie Air Heads, or maybe Die Hard. Make outrageous demands to create a diversion for your enemy.
What bin Looser and al Qeada really want, is fairly obvious. World domination, but for now, they'll settle for rulership of the entire Muslim world. They want to use terror to scare western civilization out of the Middle East, thereby stripping Muslim dictators of their powerful supporters and weapon suppliers. Then they can begin knocking off moderate Islamic nations, via revolution, one by one. The eventual, short term goal, is to overthrow the Saudi family and conquer Arabia. Once in control of Islam's holiest sites, they become the standard bearers for Islam. What Islam is, is what they say it is. Knocking off the Pope does not make the killer the Pope. Controlling Mecca and Medina does - more or less - control the voice of Islam.
From the throne of Islam, they can continue to foster terrorism and revolution throughout the Muslim world, until bin Looser can be crowned as the Caliphate, or true successor of Mohammed. Remember previously when I mentioned the reasons for a terrorist to kill? Remember the part about some sick bastard wanting fame?
As the Caliphate of a reborn Muslim empire, bin Looser not only controls the message of Islam, he controls the world's oil supply, as well as the trillions of dollars the Saudis, the Kuwaitis and the Iraqis already have from the past sale of oil. A significant portion of the world's economy.
I believe bin Looser was also counting on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, as a bargaining chip with the rest of the world, but it appears Saddam out foxed him on that one.
But their long term goal is also obvious, world domination. That may sound a bit far fetched, until you dig a little deeper in Wahhabism. It's a very strict form of Islam, in that, any one who doesn't believe in what they do - completely, without question - are infidels, beneath a dog, and worthy only of death. They believe Islam is the only true religion (in particular, their flavor of it), and therefore is destined to control the entire world. Look it up, its in your Quran. That means Shiites, as well as any Muslim who won't tow their line on conformity. Every one in the entire world who differs from them on any issue or point, deservers death. Think about that. A terrorist organization who's declared if you don't accept them as the ultimate authority in the world, you are their enemy.
And to achieve their goal, everyone and anyone must die. Preferably, horribly.
What does that mean for the innocent civilians of the Middle East caught in the middle, as well as the rest of us, should they achieve any manor of success? Take a look at the Taliban in Afghanistan, you'll get a very good idea of their paradise on earth. And it ain't pretty.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Monday, December 19, 2005
Waking up in a new world: Part VIII
Editor's note: Yes, this is part 8. I'm told the ending is on the horizon. All we can do is pray...
If this is your first time here, start at the beginning. Which is usually good advice.
The Middle East
Some eighteen months ago I was reading an opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer in Time magazine about the US coming ashore in the Middle East. He opined that for years, the US was more than willing to sit on their great navy vessels in the Persian Gulf and watch the various countries bash away with each other. His argument was that America could no longer afford to watch, but must become involved with boots on the ground.
[Editor's note: It is quite the claim to state that the US has not been involved in the region.]
[Author's note: Seeing as Europe has been meddling in the Middle East for hundreds, if not thousands of years, I find it rather refreshing that America has managed to keep its hands to itself for so long.]
[Editor's note: If the author is saying that the US looks standoffish in comparison to the worst meddling of the British empire (among others), that is perhaps true - although one could say that the US is trying to make up for that, and that emulating an empire is not becoming a free democracy. But for the sake of continuing on, let's pretend that Mr. Krauthammer's point has some validity, and that the US had turned a blind eye to and tread lightly on the Middle East until now.]
The reason I mention this writing is because he made one outstanding point (among many outstanding points) and that is the Arab League consists of 22 nation members, not one of them freely elected. Monarchs, military dictators, theocrats, thugs and other assorted oppressors. Can you imagine that? An entire region of the world, and not one single government is freely elected by their citizens.
That was back in February of 2003. Today the Arab League looks like this:
• The Hashemite Kingdom Of Jordan
• United Arab Emirates
• Kingdom Of Bahrain
• Republic Of Tunisia
• Democratic And Popular Republic Of Algeria
• Republic Of Djibouti
• Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia
• Rebuplic Of Sudan*
• Arab Rebuplic Of Syria
• Republic Of Somalia
• Republic Of Iraq
• Sultanate Of Oman
• State Of Palestine
• State Of Qatar
• Federal Islamic Republic Of Comoros
• State Of Kuwait
• Republic Of Lebanon
• Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
• Arab Republic Of Egypt
• Kingdom Of Morocco
• Islamic Republic Of Mauritania
• Republic Of Yemen
*That's actually the way it's spelled on the website. Sounds like a real republic to me.
First off I must admit, I find the humor in non-democratic countries naming themselves in a way that would make George Orwell shake his head. "Democratic And Popular Republic Of Algeria." That's a good one! Not only are they "democratic", but they are also "popular". Just read the name. Still don't believe it? Just ask any citizen, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to gush about what a wonderful democracy they have. Please ignore that guy with the AK-47 standing just off camera. He's a representative from the democratic and popular government.
Today, that list no longer contains 22 undemocratic governments, it contains only 21. The Republic of Iraq, will become, on Thursday, a true Republic. It's a start.
(Please note, I sincerely hope that in a relatively short and peaceful amount of time, Lebanon can be considered free and democratic, which moves the tally to 20 - 2.)
Many who openly oppose and protest the war in Iraq would read the above statements and shrug, saying something like, why should we care? What does it mean to us how those people choose to live their lives? It's no sweat off our brow. Wrong, it is sweat off our brow, we desperately and earnestly need to be concerned.
A while back I saw an interview on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I don't remember the gentleman's name, but he was hawking a new book called "No God but God". His take on 9/11 was Islam has been in the midst of a civil war for hundreds of years, and its still going on. Seeing as he's from the Middle East (Iran) I assumed he knew what he was talking about. There are many different forms of Islam, but there are two main factions. One side wants to get along with the rest of the world, become part of the international community, live their lives they way they want, to be religious or not, their own choice. The other is a darker form of Islam.
The darker form of Islam takes a much more literal view of the Quran. That is to say, when God created man, God put certain restrictions on man, such as the need to eat, the need to sleep, etc. Those actions are beyond anyone's control, so they must be anointed from God. Everything else is covered by Islam. When to eat, what to eat, how to eat, which foot to enter a room with first. It's a pretty crushing theology. But even more than that, it's the cleric who translates and interprets the Quran for the commoners. Because they supposedly have studied the Quran sufficiently, they have been granted obscene powers over civilization, by God no less. There is no rigid hierarchy of Islam, there's no Pope or Cardinals or Bishops to openly state a cleric is in violation of Islam by his teachings, and he must be corrected. No, when an Iman, a Mullah, or whatever they call themselves makes a declaration, it is not open to interpretation. Its Sharia, the law.
Bin Looser found a cleric, one Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, to issue a religious decree, in a cave in Afghanistan, that declared Islam at war with the United States and the west. The result was September 11, 2001.
But if this is a civil war inside Islam, how did the US and the West get pulled in? The author's opinion was simply because bin Looser could do it. Western civilization, in general, is an open society. Sure there are laws, some travel hassles, commitments to be met, but for the most part, we're an easy going group of people who just want to live our lives. In other words, we're sitting ducks. September 11, 2001 happened because we weren't paying enough attention to the Middle East. We made it too easy for them to resist.
I've been told by many people that democracy will never flourish in the Middle East because the people aren't civilized enough to make it work. The only way to keep the peace is by the iron fist rule of blood-thirsty dictators. But for me, therein lies the problem. Seeing 21 members of the Arab league are not democratically elected, they are the blood-thirsty strongmen crushing the people of the Middle East. All media outlets are controlled by the state. Just because their news organizations do not show footage of people being dragged from their beds in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again, does not mean it does not happen. The absence of violence does not equal peace.
Remember the post about Saddam? That river blood flowed not only in Iraq, but it flows throughout the entire region. The citizens are crushed beneath the boots of vicious dictators. There is little to no hope that the people can rise up and over throw their leaders, the modern police state has seen to that. Remember the Shiite and Kurd uprising in 1991 against Saddam? 21 Out of 23 provinces rebelled? The vast majority of the country? How'd that work out? Not very well.
When one lives under a vicious dictator, one owns nothing. The government does. Want to build an addition on your house? Take care not to make it to nice, or you just may loose the entire home. I remember watching an interview in post-Saddam Baghdad. The reporter was talking to an entrepreneur who was doubling the size of his restaurant, hiring, buying new equipment. He said that he could never have done that with Saddam in power. If business looked too good, one of Saddam's sons was sure to learn about it and then demand the entire business at the end of a gun.
That's a tremendous amount of power to hold over a person, over a people, over a nation. You can take their homes, their business' and their families on a whim. I read another article in Time after the invasion. It covered just a small example of the brutality. A father was celebrating the marriage of his oldest daughter. One of Saddam's sons showed up uninvited. He demanded to see the father. He said he found the father's younger daughter (14 years old) quite attractive and wanted her delivered to his home. The father pleaded no, after all she was just a child. The baathist said either deliver the girl or else they would kill his entire family, and take the child anyway. The father relented and sent his child to be raped, in order to save the rest of his family. Later the father committed suicide, unable to live with his actions.
And pretty much the entire Middle East is run that way. On the one hand, it keeps a lid on the real crazies, on the other hand it crushes the very life out of the population of an entire region.
My opinion is that this is the major, root cause of Middle East terrorism. The lack of hope, the lack of a future, the lack of any other way. Do nothing, and it will continue. Desperate men do desperate things.
Now this is nothing new. The Middle East has been ruled this way for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There is a difference now, though. That difference is called Weapons of Mass Destruction.
If this is your first time here, start at the beginning. Which is usually good advice.
The Middle East
Some eighteen months ago I was reading an opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer in Time magazine about the US coming ashore in the Middle East. He opined that for years, the US was more than willing to sit on their great navy vessels in the Persian Gulf and watch the various countries bash away with each other. His argument was that America could no longer afford to watch, but must become involved with boots on the ground.
[Editor's note: It is quite the claim to state that the US has not been involved in the region.]
[Author's note: Seeing as Europe has been meddling in the Middle East for hundreds, if not thousands of years, I find it rather refreshing that America has managed to keep its hands to itself for so long.]
[Editor's note: If the author is saying that the US looks standoffish in comparison to the worst meddling of the British empire (among others), that is perhaps true - although one could say that the US is trying to make up for that, and that emulating an empire is not becoming a free democracy. But for the sake of continuing on, let's pretend that Mr. Krauthammer's point has some validity, and that the US had turned a blind eye to and tread lightly on the Middle East until now.]
The reason I mention this writing is because he made one outstanding point (among many outstanding points) and that is the Arab League consists of 22 nation members, not one of them freely elected. Monarchs, military dictators, theocrats, thugs and other assorted oppressors. Can you imagine that? An entire region of the world, and not one single government is freely elected by their citizens.
That was back in February of 2003. Today the Arab League looks like this:
• The Hashemite Kingdom Of Jordan
• United Arab Emirates
• Kingdom Of Bahrain
• Republic Of Tunisia
• Democratic And Popular Republic Of Algeria
• Republic Of Djibouti
• Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia
• Rebuplic Of Sudan*
• Arab Rebuplic Of Syria
• Republic Of Somalia
• Republic Of Iraq
• Sultanate Of Oman
• State Of Palestine
• State Of Qatar
• Federal Islamic Republic Of Comoros
• State Of Kuwait
• Republic Of Lebanon
• Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
• Arab Republic Of Egypt
• Kingdom Of Morocco
• Islamic Republic Of Mauritania
• Republic Of Yemen
*That's actually the way it's spelled on the website. Sounds like a real republic to me.
First off I must admit, I find the humor in non-democratic countries naming themselves in a way that would make George Orwell shake his head. "Democratic And Popular Republic Of Algeria." That's a good one! Not only are they "democratic", but they are also "popular". Just read the name. Still don't believe it? Just ask any citizen, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to gush about what a wonderful democracy they have. Please ignore that guy with the AK-47 standing just off camera. He's a representative from the democratic and popular government.
Today, that list no longer contains 22 undemocratic governments, it contains only 21. The Republic of Iraq, will become, on Thursday, a true Republic. It's a start.
(Please note, I sincerely hope that in a relatively short and peaceful amount of time, Lebanon can be considered free and democratic, which moves the tally to 20 - 2.)
Many who openly oppose and protest the war in Iraq would read the above statements and shrug, saying something like, why should we care? What does it mean to us how those people choose to live their lives? It's no sweat off our brow. Wrong, it is sweat off our brow, we desperately and earnestly need to be concerned.
A while back I saw an interview on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I don't remember the gentleman's name, but he was hawking a new book called "No God but God". His take on 9/11 was Islam has been in the midst of a civil war for hundreds of years, and its still going on. Seeing as he's from the Middle East (Iran) I assumed he knew what he was talking about. There are many different forms of Islam, but there are two main factions. One side wants to get along with the rest of the world, become part of the international community, live their lives they way they want, to be religious or not, their own choice. The other is a darker form of Islam.
The darker form of Islam takes a much more literal view of the Quran. That is to say, when God created man, God put certain restrictions on man, such as the need to eat, the need to sleep, etc. Those actions are beyond anyone's control, so they must be anointed from God. Everything else is covered by Islam. When to eat, what to eat, how to eat, which foot to enter a room with first. It's a pretty crushing theology. But even more than that, it's the cleric who translates and interprets the Quran for the commoners. Because they supposedly have studied the Quran sufficiently, they have been granted obscene powers over civilization, by God no less. There is no rigid hierarchy of Islam, there's no Pope or Cardinals or Bishops to openly state a cleric is in violation of Islam by his teachings, and he must be corrected. No, when an Iman, a Mullah, or whatever they call themselves makes a declaration, it is not open to interpretation. Its Sharia, the law.
Bin Looser found a cleric, one Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, to issue a religious decree, in a cave in Afghanistan, that declared Islam at war with the United States and the west. The result was September 11, 2001.
But if this is a civil war inside Islam, how did the US and the West get pulled in? The author's opinion was simply because bin Looser could do it. Western civilization, in general, is an open society. Sure there are laws, some travel hassles, commitments to be met, but for the most part, we're an easy going group of people who just want to live our lives. In other words, we're sitting ducks. September 11, 2001 happened because we weren't paying enough attention to the Middle East. We made it too easy for them to resist.
I've been told by many people that democracy will never flourish in the Middle East because the people aren't civilized enough to make it work. The only way to keep the peace is by the iron fist rule of blood-thirsty dictators. But for me, therein lies the problem. Seeing 21 members of the Arab league are not democratically elected, they are the blood-thirsty strongmen crushing the people of the Middle East. All media outlets are controlled by the state. Just because their news organizations do not show footage of people being dragged from their beds in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again, does not mean it does not happen. The absence of violence does not equal peace.
Remember the post about Saddam? That river blood flowed not only in Iraq, but it flows throughout the entire region. The citizens are crushed beneath the boots of vicious dictators. There is little to no hope that the people can rise up and over throw their leaders, the modern police state has seen to that. Remember the Shiite and Kurd uprising in 1991 against Saddam? 21 Out of 23 provinces rebelled? The vast majority of the country? How'd that work out? Not very well.
When one lives under a vicious dictator, one owns nothing. The government does. Want to build an addition on your house? Take care not to make it to nice, or you just may loose the entire home. I remember watching an interview in post-Saddam Baghdad. The reporter was talking to an entrepreneur who was doubling the size of his restaurant, hiring, buying new equipment. He said that he could never have done that with Saddam in power. If business looked too good, one of Saddam's sons was sure to learn about it and then demand the entire business at the end of a gun.
That's a tremendous amount of power to hold over a person, over a people, over a nation. You can take their homes, their business' and their families on a whim. I read another article in Time after the invasion. It covered just a small example of the brutality. A father was celebrating the marriage of his oldest daughter. One of Saddam's sons showed up uninvited. He demanded to see the father. He said he found the father's younger daughter (14 years old) quite attractive and wanted her delivered to his home. The father pleaded no, after all she was just a child. The baathist said either deliver the girl or else they would kill his entire family, and take the child anyway. The father relented and sent his child to be raped, in order to save the rest of his family. Later the father committed suicide, unable to live with his actions.
And pretty much the entire Middle East is run that way. On the one hand, it keeps a lid on the real crazies, on the other hand it crushes the very life out of the population of an entire region.
My opinion is that this is the major, root cause of Middle East terrorism. The lack of hope, the lack of a future, the lack of any other way. Do nothing, and it will continue. Desperate men do desperate things.
Now this is nothing new. The Middle East has been ruled this way for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There is a difference now, though. That difference is called Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Waking up in a new world: Part VII
Editor's note: There is no editor's note this time. Except to say, if you don't understand why there is a 'VII' in the title, you should probably start here.
Islamic Fundamentalism
In the movie Scarface, Al Pacino says the line "First you get the money. Then you get the power. Then you get the women." While the last part may or may not have relevance to this topic, without a doubt, the first two do. Power and money. Money is power, and therefore, power is money. Don't believe me? Ask OJ.
In the name of full disclosure, I am a practicing Roman Catholic. And as an inquisitive practitioner I've researched the early Catholic Church, warts and all. And let me tell you, there are plenty of warts. Crusades leap to mind. The Spanish Inquisition. The countless wars to enlarge the greater glory of the Church. How about the concept of "original sin"? Personally, from what I've learned about history, the Church, and human nature, I tend to believe it's a lot more about people in pursuit of power, wrapping themselves in religion, than the religion leading the way to war. When Constantine made Christianity (more specifically "Catholic" "Orthodox" - Greek for "universal" "right-thinking") the official religion of the Roman Empire, I believe he repeated another line from another famous Al Pacino film: "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."
As I mentioned earlier, I've studied the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The Crusades? Sure, they were on a mission from God to protect the Holy Land from the evil infidels. They also occurred as Europe was emerging from the Dark Ages and becoming a much more stable region. This brought to the forefront a serious flaw in European tradition. Daughters were married off for political reasons and to solidify relationships. The eldest son inherited everything, all other sons either joined the Church, joined the army, became a mercenary, or a peasant. Not a very promising future for a large number of well equipped, well trained soldiers, that was rapidly accumulating as the incessant invasions from the Norsemen declined. Coincidence?
The Spanish Inquisition? Sure that was a way to purify Spain of infidels who were polluting the Church. It was also a handy way for the Spanish crown to ethnically cleanse the population of political enemies and undesirables. Declare Roman Catholicism the national religion, keep sending those taxes to Rome, and the Pope will bless just about anything you want.
Its not about religion, its about power. It's always about power. Who has it, who wants it, and what they're willing to do to get it.
Religion in the hands of good people, tends to produce good. Religion in the hands of evil people, tends to produce evil. When it comes to judging those claiming to be religious, I hold the same advice I use for politicians: don't waste your time listening to what's coming out of their mouths, watch what they do. Pat Robertson can recite the Lord's Prayer till he's blue in the face, but when he starts advocating the US whack undesirable leaders of foreign countries, you know where his heart is.
That's why when it comes to the idea of Islamic fundamentalism, I believe religion is only a cover for much more sinister deeds. bin Looser and company can claim to high heaven they are the most devout followers of the one and only true way, but in reality, they are nothing but murderous scum. They can pretend they are the way to salvation, the protectors of God's people, the savior of humanity, but in reality, they kill people. Men, women, children. They blow up people going to work, people taking their parents to the hospital, little kids going to school. [Annoying Editor's note: These women and children were on their way to work and school too...] They claim, that in the end, it doesn't matter. If they were infidels, they deserved death. If they were devout Muslims, they're going to paradise anyways. Nice dogma. And I get laughed at for eating fish on Fridays during Lent.
My research has also lead me to conclude that Islam is more than just a religion to Muslims, it's a very significant portion of the culture that binds the Muslim world together. Whereas we in the west great each other with handshakes, and hellos, in the Muslim world they end just about every sentence with "God willing." It's tradition. For Christians, God manifested Himself in the resurrection of Jesus. There is no Muslim equivalent. Which is why the Quran is so important to them. The words of the Prophet are the manifestation of God. So whereas the Bible is a book to be read, the Quran for Muslims is proof of God, and therefore to be worshipped. Common themes, different traditions.
So I don't hold much weight in the grandiose religious claims of Islamic fundamentalists. They can claim what ever they want, but in the end, they are still killing people all over the world.
Bill Whittle is one of the best authors I've read to emerge from the blogsphere. His book "Silent America: Essays From A Democracy At War" would do far more good if it were required reading in public schools, rather than "Heather has Two Mommies". In one essay, Whittle relates a lesson his father taught him. I don't remember the exact words, but it went something like this: if three or more people in your life think you're a complete, total bastard, it just might be you. Advice worth noting.
Islamic fundamentalists are currently at war in Iraq, India, Kashmir, The Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, America, Great Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Israel, Chechnya, Russia, Australia and Jews everywhere.
Its not about religion, its about power. It's always about power. Who's got it, who wants it, and what they're willing to do to get it.
[Author's note: By the time this gets posted, I fully expect to see a rebuttal from my editor asserting that religion has far too much blood on its hands to be declared innocent. And he does have a valid point. I accept that religion can be used to make good people do evil things. The wave of suicide bombings around the world are more than proof enough. Uneducated, under-educated, and people of low intelligence can be brainwashed to believe they are doing good by driving a car bomb into a crowd of civilians, that they are doing God's work and that they will achieve a place in paradise for their efforts. But also notice, the ones doing the teaching never seem to go along for the ride?]
[Editor's note: What does 'by the time this gets posted' mean? I'm on vacation! (sort of)]
Next: The Middle East
Islamic Fundamentalism
In the movie Scarface, Al Pacino says the line "First you get the money. Then you get the power. Then you get the women." While the last part may or may not have relevance to this topic, without a doubt, the first two do. Power and money. Money is power, and therefore, power is money. Don't believe me? Ask OJ.
In the name of full disclosure, I am a practicing Roman Catholic. And as an inquisitive practitioner I've researched the early Catholic Church, warts and all. And let me tell you, there are plenty of warts. Crusades leap to mind. The Spanish Inquisition. The countless wars to enlarge the greater glory of the Church. How about the concept of "original sin"? Personally, from what I've learned about history, the Church, and human nature, I tend to believe it's a lot more about people in pursuit of power, wrapping themselves in religion, than the religion leading the way to war. When Constantine made Christianity (more specifically "Catholic" "Orthodox" - Greek for "universal" "right-thinking") the official religion of the Roman Empire, I believe he repeated another line from another famous Al Pacino film: "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."
As I mentioned earlier, I've studied the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The Crusades? Sure, they were on a mission from God to protect the Holy Land from the evil infidels. They also occurred as Europe was emerging from the Dark Ages and becoming a much more stable region. This brought to the forefront a serious flaw in European tradition. Daughters were married off for political reasons and to solidify relationships. The eldest son inherited everything, all other sons either joined the Church, joined the army, became a mercenary, or a peasant. Not a very promising future for a large number of well equipped, well trained soldiers, that was rapidly accumulating as the incessant invasions from the Norsemen declined. Coincidence?
The Spanish Inquisition? Sure that was a way to purify Spain of infidels who were polluting the Church. It was also a handy way for the Spanish crown to ethnically cleanse the population of political enemies and undesirables. Declare Roman Catholicism the national religion, keep sending those taxes to Rome, and the Pope will bless just about anything you want.
Its not about religion, its about power. It's always about power. Who has it, who wants it, and what they're willing to do to get it.
Religion in the hands of good people, tends to produce good. Religion in the hands of evil people, tends to produce evil. When it comes to judging those claiming to be religious, I hold the same advice I use for politicians: don't waste your time listening to what's coming out of their mouths, watch what they do. Pat Robertson can recite the Lord's Prayer till he's blue in the face, but when he starts advocating the US whack undesirable leaders of foreign countries, you know where his heart is.
That's why when it comes to the idea of Islamic fundamentalism, I believe religion is only a cover for much more sinister deeds. bin Looser and company can claim to high heaven they are the most devout followers of the one and only true way, but in reality, they are nothing but murderous scum. They can pretend they are the way to salvation, the protectors of God's people, the savior of humanity, but in reality, they kill people. Men, women, children. They blow up people going to work, people taking their parents to the hospital, little kids going to school. [Annoying Editor's note: These women and children were on their way to work and school too...] They claim, that in the end, it doesn't matter. If they were infidels, they deserved death. If they were devout Muslims, they're going to paradise anyways. Nice dogma. And I get laughed at for eating fish on Fridays during Lent.
My research has also lead me to conclude that Islam is more than just a religion to Muslims, it's a very significant portion of the culture that binds the Muslim world together. Whereas we in the west great each other with handshakes, and hellos, in the Muslim world they end just about every sentence with "God willing." It's tradition. For Christians, God manifested Himself in the resurrection of Jesus. There is no Muslim equivalent. Which is why the Quran is so important to them. The words of the Prophet are the manifestation of God. So whereas the Bible is a book to be read, the Quran for Muslims is proof of God, and therefore to be worshipped. Common themes, different traditions.
So I don't hold much weight in the grandiose religious claims of Islamic fundamentalists. They can claim what ever they want, but in the end, they are still killing people all over the world.
Bill Whittle is one of the best authors I've read to emerge from the blogsphere. His book "Silent America: Essays From A Democracy At War" would do far more good if it were required reading in public schools, rather than "Heather has Two Mommies". In one essay, Whittle relates a lesson his father taught him. I don't remember the exact words, but it went something like this: if three or more people in your life think you're a complete, total bastard, it just might be you. Advice worth noting.
Islamic fundamentalists are currently at war in Iraq, India, Kashmir, The Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, America, Great Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Israel, Chechnya, Russia, Australia and Jews everywhere.
Its not about religion, its about power. It's always about power. Who's got it, who wants it, and what they're willing to do to get it.
[Author's note: By the time this gets posted, I fully expect to see a rebuttal from my editor asserting that religion has far too much blood on its hands to be declared innocent. And he does have a valid point. I accept that religion can be used to make good people do evil things. The wave of suicide bombings around the world are more than proof enough. Uneducated, under-educated, and people of low intelligence can be brainwashed to believe they are doing good by driving a car bomb into a crowd of civilians, that they are doing God's work and that they will achieve a place in paradise for their efforts. But also notice, the ones doing the teaching never seem to go along for the ride?]
[Editor's note: What does 'by the time this gets posted' mean? I'm on vacation! (sort of)]
Next: The Middle East
Waking up in a new world: Part VI
Editor's note: No, I will not do a table of contents. If you don't know how to scroll down to find the relevant section that you haven't read yet, you don't deserve to read this blog. Elitism? Maybe.
This post can either be considered a sign of laziness (Editor's view) or a sign of Wikipedia's usefulness (Author's view). It also provides a condundrum to the Editor, as the action of basically copy/pasting from another source brings up issues of copyright and fair use. Although Wikipedia is covered by a very generous license, they do provide a bit of disclaimer when it comes to a verbatim copy. Reading through the lawyerspeak, it does seem kosher to show the article as the Author intended, but I have my hand over the delete key just in case. I was going to suggest just providing the link to the source article, and nothing else, but the Author isn't one to pass up on a chance to bloviate, even with someone else's material. Without further ado....
[Author's note: I can empathize with the editor's reservations on this one. I, for one, do not enjoy posting other people's work in what I claim to be my own thoughts. But while researching Wahhabism, I came across the post at Wikipedia.com. The material was exactly what I wanted to write, I thought it summed up every point I wanted to make. Had I attempted to write my own version, I know I would simply be plagiarizing it, which I refused to do. I also know that Wikipedia.com is an evolving database. While simply linking to the text would have conveyed my message, that doesn't mean a month from now the entire entry won't be completely rewritten. I wanted it in the same form as when I read it.
Final Author's note: I spell checked this email before sending it to the editor for posting. While doing so I fixed his spelling error on the word condundrum. Good help can be hard to find.]
Final Editor's note: As someone becoming increasingly interested in the principles of economics, I believe this truism holds: You get what you pay for. And now, without ANY OTHER ado...
I was doing some research on the web for part six of my rant and came across this from Wikipedia.com. It explains it better than I ever could. See you in part seven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi
Beliefs
Wahhabism accepts the Qur'an and hadith as basic texts. It also accepts various commentaries including Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's Kitab
al-Tawhid ("Book of Monotheism"), and the works of the earlier scholar Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328).
Wahhabis do not follow any specific maddhab (method or school of jurisprudence), but claim to interpret the words of the prophet
Muhammad directly, using the four maddhab for reference. However, they are often associated with the Hanbali maddhab. Wahhabis
hold that some Muslim groups such as Sufism and Shia Islam follow novel (and thus non-Islamic) practices.
Wahhabi theology advocates a puritanical and legalistic stance in matters of faith and religious practice.
Wahhabists see their role as a movement to restore Islam from what they perceive to be innovations, superstitions, deviances, heresies
and idolatries. There are many practices that they believe are contrary to Islam, such as:
The invoking of any prophet, saint or angel in prayer, other than God alone (Wahhabists believe these practices are polytheistic in
nature)
Supplications at graves, whether saints' graves, or the prophet's grave
Celebrating annual feasts for dead saints
Wearing of charms, and believing in their healing power
Practicing magic, or going to sorcerers or witches seeking healing
Innovation in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship)
Erecting elaborate monuments over any grave
Wahhabis ban pictures, some ban photographs (others do not), and celebrating Muhammad's birthday, among many other things, based
on their interpretation of the hadith. Many Wahhabi men grow their beards and wear their traditional dresses above their ankles.
Wahhabis in South Asia are called "Ahl ul Hadith".
Early history of Wahhabism
Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia began with Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab, an Arabian cleric who had come to believe that Sunni Islam
had been corrupted by innovations (bidah) such as Sufism. He discovered the works of the early Muslim thinker Ibn Taymiyya and
started preaching a reformation of Islam based on Ibn Taymiyya's ideas. He was repudiated by his father and brother, who were both
clerics, and expelled from his home village in Najd, in central Arabia.
He then moved to the Najdi town of Diriya and formed an alliance with the Saudi chieftain Muhammad bin Saud. Bin Saud made
Wahhabism the official religion in the First Saudi State. Al Wahhab gave religious legitimacy to Ibn Saud's career of conquest. Ibn
Taymiyya had been controversial in his time because he held that some self-declared Muslims (such as the Mongol conquerors of the
Abbasid caliphate) were in fact unbelievers and that orthodox Muslims could conduct violent jihad against them. Bin Saud believed that
his campaign to restore a pristine Islam justified the conquest of the rest of Arabia.
In 1801, the Saudis attacked the Iraqi city of Kerbala and sacked the Shi'a shrine there. In 1803, Saudis conquered Mecca and Medina
and sacked or demolished various shrines and mosques. The Saudis held the two cities until 1817, until they were retaken by
Mohammed Ali Pasha, acting on behalf of the Ottomans. In 1818, the Ottoman forces invaded Najd, captured the Saudi capital of
Diriya and the Saudi emir Abdullah bin Saud. He and his chief lieutenants were taken to Istanbul and beheaded. However, this did not
destroy Wahhabism in Najd.
The House of Saud returned to power in the Second Saudi State in 1824. The state lasted until 1899, when it was overthrown by the
Emir of Hayel, Mohammed Ibn Rasheed. However, Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud reconquered Riyadh in 1902 and after a number of other
conquests, founded the modern Saudi state, Saudi Arabia in 1932.
Modern spread of Wahhabism
In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty, conquered Mecca and Medina, the Muslim holy cities. This gave them control of the Hajj, the
annual pilgrimage, and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. However, Wahhabism was a minor
current within Islam until the discovery of oil in Arabia, in 1938. Vast oil revenues gave an immense impetus to the spread of
Wahhabism. Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of dollars to create Wahhabi-oriented
religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.
Some Muslims believe that Saudi funding and Wahhabi proselytization have had a strong effect on world-wide Sunni Islam (they may
differ as to whether this is a good thing, or a bad one). Other Muslims say that while the Wahhabis have bought publicity and visibility, it
is not clear that they have convinced even a sizable minority of Muslims outside Saudi Arabia to adopt Wahhabi norms.
This post can either be considered a sign of laziness (Editor's view) or a sign of Wikipedia's usefulness (Author's view). It also provides a condundrum to the Editor, as the action of basically copy/pasting from another source brings up issues of copyright and fair use. Although Wikipedia is covered by a very generous license, they do provide a bit of disclaimer when it comes to a verbatim copy. Reading through the lawyerspeak, it does seem kosher to show the article as the Author intended, but I have my hand over the delete key just in case. I was going to suggest just providing the link to the source article, and nothing else, but the Author isn't one to pass up on a chance to bloviate, even with someone else's material. Without further ado....
[Author's note: I can empathize with the editor's reservations on this one. I, for one, do not enjoy posting other people's work in what I claim to be my own thoughts. But while researching Wahhabism, I came across the post at Wikipedia.com. The material was exactly what I wanted to write, I thought it summed up every point I wanted to make. Had I attempted to write my own version, I know I would simply be plagiarizing it, which I refused to do. I also know that Wikipedia.com is an evolving database. While simply linking to the text would have conveyed my message, that doesn't mean a month from now the entire entry won't be completely rewritten. I wanted it in the same form as when I read it.
Final Author's note: I spell checked this email before sending it to the editor for posting. While doing so I fixed his spelling error on the word condundrum. Good help can be hard to find.]
Final Editor's note: As someone becoming increasingly interested in the principles of economics, I believe this truism holds: You get what you pay for. And now, without ANY OTHER ado...
I was doing some research on the web for part six of my rant and came across this from Wikipedia.com. It explains it better than I ever could. See you in part seven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi
Beliefs
Wahhabism accepts the Qur'an and hadith as basic texts. It also accepts various commentaries including Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's Kitab
al-Tawhid ("Book of Monotheism"), and the works of the earlier scholar Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328).
Wahhabis do not follow any specific maddhab (method or school of jurisprudence), but claim to interpret the words of the prophet
Muhammad directly, using the four maddhab for reference. However, they are often associated with the Hanbali maddhab. Wahhabis
hold that some Muslim groups such as Sufism and Shia Islam follow novel (and thus non-Islamic) practices.
Wahhabi theology advocates a puritanical and legalistic stance in matters of faith and religious practice.
Wahhabists see their role as a movement to restore Islam from what they perceive to be innovations, superstitions, deviances, heresies
and idolatries. There are many practices that they believe are contrary to Islam, such as:
The invoking of any prophet, saint or angel in prayer, other than God alone (Wahhabists believe these practices are polytheistic in
nature)
Supplications at graves, whether saints' graves, or the prophet's grave
Celebrating annual feasts for dead saints
Wearing of charms, and believing in their healing power
Practicing magic, or going to sorcerers or witches seeking healing
Innovation in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship)
Erecting elaborate monuments over any grave
Wahhabis ban pictures, some ban photographs (others do not), and celebrating Muhammad's birthday, among many other things, based
on their interpretation of the hadith. Many Wahhabi men grow their beards and wear their traditional dresses above their ankles.
Wahhabis in South Asia are called "Ahl ul Hadith".
Early history of Wahhabism
Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia began with Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab, an Arabian cleric who had come to believe that Sunni Islam
had been corrupted by innovations (bidah) such as Sufism. He discovered the works of the early Muslim thinker Ibn Taymiyya and
started preaching a reformation of Islam based on Ibn Taymiyya's ideas. He was repudiated by his father and brother, who were both
clerics, and expelled from his home village in Najd, in central Arabia.
He then moved to the Najdi town of Diriya and formed an alliance with the Saudi chieftain Muhammad bin Saud. Bin Saud made
Wahhabism the official religion in the First Saudi State. Al Wahhab gave religious legitimacy to Ibn Saud's career of conquest. Ibn
Taymiyya had been controversial in his time because he held that some self-declared Muslims (such as the Mongol conquerors of the
Abbasid caliphate) were in fact unbelievers and that orthodox Muslims could conduct violent jihad against them. Bin Saud believed that
his campaign to restore a pristine Islam justified the conquest of the rest of Arabia.
In 1801, the Saudis attacked the Iraqi city of Kerbala and sacked the Shi'a shrine there. In 1803, Saudis conquered Mecca and Medina
and sacked or demolished various shrines and mosques. The Saudis held the two cities until 1817, until they were retaken by
Mohammed Ali Pasha, acting on behalf of the Ottomans. In 1818, the Ottoman forces invaded Najd, captured the Saudi capital of
Diriya and the Saudi emir Abdullah bin Saud. He and his chief lieutenants were taken to Istanbul and beheaded. However, this did not
destroy Wahhabism in Najd.
The House of Saud returned to power in the Second Saudi State in 1824. The state lasted until 1899, when it was overthrown by the
Emir of Hayel, Mohammed Ibn Rasheed. However, Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud reconquered Riyadh in 1902 and after a number of other
conquests, founded the modern Saudi state, Saudi Arabia in 1932.
Modern spread of Wahhabism
In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty, conquered Mecca and Medina, the Muslim holy cities. This gave them control of the Hajj, the
annual pilgrimage, and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. However, Wahhabism was a minor
current within Islam until the discovery of oil in Arabia, in 1938. Vast oil revenues gave an immense impetus to the spread of
Wahhabism. Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of dollars to create Wahhabi-oriented
religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.
Some Muslims believe that Saudi funding and Wahhabi proselytization have had a strong effect on world-wide Sunni Islam (they may
differ as to whether this is a good thing, or a bad one). Other Muslims say that while the Wahhabis have bought publicity and visibility, it
is not clear that they have convinced even a sizable minority of Muslims outside Saudi Arabia to adopt Wahhabi norms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)