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
Thursday, December 15, 2005
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.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Waking up in a new world: Part V
Editor's note: I think we may run out of Roman numerals. Anyway, as another worker drone once said, I'm not even supposed to be here today. But here I am, and here is another post in the possibly never-ending series that could have been called: Why I (the writer) think the invasion of Iraq was a necessary and justifiable action. I have another title for it, but decorum prevents me from typing it out. And if you think this expanding table of contents is fun, I've got a few choice words for you too:
Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
Back to your regularly scheduled programming....
[Author's note: Perhaps this will help the editor]
Islamic Fundamentalism.
I know I promised Islamic Fundamentalism, but in order to cover the most extreme whacko parts, we need to learn something about Islam first.
Back in my younger days, I never thought much about Islam. not sure when exactly I first even heard of it. I do remember studying it somewhat in ninth grade social studies class. In the golden days of educational reform (the 1970's) the subjects of history, geography and civics were all jumbled together into one class called social studies. My teacher, Mr. Case, said we were going to spend a few weeks studying religion. Since we students were mostly Christian - if any religion - he said we'd skip over that and concentrate on Islam, Hindu and Buddhists. Made sense at the time. Since I don't remember anything I learned on the subject in that class, I assume it was pretty bland and uninformative.
Islam continued to bore me for years afterwards, and it wasn't until September 12, 2001 that I took a real hard look at it. To begin with, from newspaper and magazines articles. I bought a National Geographic book in the winter of 2002, "The World of Islam" which was a collection of articles published by the magazine over the last 100 years. I learned a good deal more about western civilization's bias' towards Islam than I learned about Islam itself. And I don't mean that sarcastically, the West had some pretty big stereotypes about Arabs. I've continued to read about it since. Sun Tzu, who wrote a masterpiece called "The Art Of War", which is still required reading at some military academies, once opined "know your enemy". I was determined to do just that.
Islam comes down from the Prophet Mohammed, who is said to be a direct descendent of the father of monotheism. Abraham is considered the father of three modern religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Now I must say, there is interesting reading on Abraham in the book of Genesis. It's almost too funny. Can you imagine being a stable hand in Abe's house, when this crazed, old, 99 year old guy comes rushing into your room - brandishing a knife - and screaming God himself declared that Abe must circumcise every male in his house before dawn? I don't know about you, but I would be both skeptical and scared as all hell.
Abraham had a wife, Sarah, and a concubine,named Hagar. They both gave him sons. Sarah was the mother of Isaac, Hagar the mother of Ishmael. The Old Testament tells us that God told Abraham to take his son, climb a mountain, build an alter, and sacrifice his son as proof of his devotion to God. The Old Testament states that Abraham did just that, and at the moment he was about to slice his son's throat (an awful lot of that over in the Middle East, isn't there?), an angel stayed his hand. The son went down the mountain, never to return home, Abraham went back to Sarah. The story has an underlying parable about how when kids grow up, they really need to get the hell out of the house at some point. But on the subject at hand, what's important is which son was chosen to be sacrificed. Jews and Christians believe it was Sarah's son Isaac. Muslims believe it was the Hagar's son Ishmael.
Isaac descended the mountain and went on to father the twelve tribes of Israel (which is in fact, the name of one of the twelve tribes, the largest). Later, Joseph would lead them into Egypt, for what he thought was at the time, gainful employment, only to turn into slavery. Ishmael went on to father the tribes of Arabia. There's the kicker. Both Christianity/Jewish and Islam claim to be the rightful heirs of Abraham, and thereby the one true God. On a side note, the Hebrews languished in slavery till Moses came along and helped convince the Pharaoh that it wasn't such a cool idea. After parting the Red Sea, and hiking off to Mount Sinai where he received the 10 Commandments, Moses came down and found the tribes of Israel really partying it up - and not in a good way. Moses broke the stone tablets, condemning the non-believers to hell. I mention this because some Muslim scholars believe that even if Isaac was the chosen son, Hebrews gave up any claim to be the chosen people of God when they sinned in shadow of the mountain, in front of God.
After wondering around the desert for 40 years (geeze, can't anyone ask directions?) the Hebrews entered the "land of milk and honey", the chosen land, the land promised by God, the River Jordan valley. They promptly made war against the inhabitants, the tribes of Ishmael, and the two groups have been at each other's throats ever since. Some people think all this trouble with Israel and Palestinians can be solved with a few treaties and swapping some land around. History, good people, look to history!
This story has always made me wonder. It's apparent that all three religions have the same roots, they believe many of the same things, so why can't we all just get along? Islam venerates the Virgin Mary and believes Jesus was a prophet who just got carried away. Some times it's almost surreal. So close, yet so far apart.
Being a Roman Catholic, I know about the Latin Rite (Roman Catholic), and the Eastern Rite. I also know of the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, orthodox being the Greek word for "right-thinking." I couldn't even begin to list all the various flavors of Protestant religions. Lutheran, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Evangelical, Church of Latter-Day Saints, those people who dance with rattlesnakes, and let's not forget every one's favorite, Jehovah Witnesses. (On a side note, I do enjoy when they come knocking on the door questioning if I go to church, and if so what scriptures were read, because I go to Church and I remember what I read. It leaves them speechless. And there's nothing like the sight of a Jehovah Witness, slack-jawed, stunned into silence. Not that there's anything wrong with being a Jehovah Witness.)
Since Christians can't seem to agree on the correct method of worship, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Islam also comes in various flavors. I believe the largest sect is Sunni, followed by Shiite.
When Mohammed finally expired, not surprisingly, there was a power struggle. One group of Muslims thought the companions of Mohammed knew him best, and therefore were most capable of continuing his teaching and work. Another group believed the position of leader of the religion should be hereditary, so there was a split. Imagine that, humans not agreeing on religion? The group that held the companions best capable eventually evolved into the Sunnas, which means "way" or "custom" as in the way of the prophet. Their chosen leader was referred to as the Caliphate (remember this word, we will come back to it), or "successor", as in successor to the prophet. The other sect evolved into the Shiite, which means Shia of Ali, or followers of Ali, the original, closest living relative of Mohammed at the time of his death.
So there was this uneasy state between the two groups, riled up by different interpretations of the Quran. Well it finally hit the rotating oscillator when the third Caliphate decided that Shiites were not true Muslims, but rather "kafirs" (nonbelievers, that category would include everyone on the planet who is not a Sunni) and needed to be dispatched (remember that too). A war erupted (I thought Islam was a religion of peace?) which climaxed with the death of the leaders of Shiites in Najaf. In modern Iraq, there is a huge Mosque in Najaf to memorialize the death of the leaders of Shiites, it's currently the Mosque of Grand Ayatollah Ali Hussein al-Sistani, considered the religious leader of the Iraqi Shiites. It was also the Mosque that Muqtada as-Sadar's army hid in when attacked by the US Marines a year or two ago. They hid behind their holy walls and dared the Marines to attack, hoping to ignite a civil war. Hiding in the sanctuary of a holy Mosque while taking pot shots at American soldiers. I'll save the righteous indignation for when we get to modern Iraq.
In case you might have missed it, Shiites show up at least once a year on the news, in a large procession, beating themselves with chains, whips, cutting themselves to draw blood. This is done during the festival to memorialize the Shiite deaths at the hands of the Sunnis. One of the few recorded incidents I've come across where Muslims did, in fact, fight to the death. Its considered one of, if not the, holiest aspect of Shiites. It may seem strange to me, but I can only imagine what Shiites think when my Church proclaims every Sunday that the Eucharist, is in fact, the "body and blood" of the Christ.
Under Saddam, the march was outlawed. Can't say as I blame him much. If I was the head of 20% of a nation oppressing 60% of the population, I wouldn't want to see them all armed and working themselves into a bloody hysteria.
Next, Wahhabism.
Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
Back to your regularly scheduled programming....
[Author's note: Perhaps this will help the editor]
Islamic Fundamentalism.
I know I promised Islamic Fundamentalism, but in order to cover the most extreme whacko parts, we need to learn something about Islam first.
Back in my younger days, I never thought much about Islam. not sure when exactly I first even heard of it. I do remember studying it somewhat in ninth grade social studies class. In the golden days of educational reform (the 1970's) the subjects of history, geography and civics were all jumbled together into one class called social studies. My teacher, Mr. Case, said we were going to spend a few weeks studying religion. Since we students were mostly Christian - if any religion - he said we'd skip over that and concentrate on Islam, Hindu and Buddhists. Made sense at the time. Since I don't remember anything I learned on the subject in that class, I assume it was pretty bland and uninformative.
Islam continued to bore me for years afterwards, and it wasn't until September 12, 2001 that I took a real hard look at it. To begin with, from newspaper and magazines articles. I bought a National Geographic book in the winter of 2002, "The World of Islam" which was a collection of articles published by the magazine over the last 100 years. I learned a good deal more about western civilization's bias' towards Islam than I learned about Islam itself. And I don't mean that sarcastically, the West had some pretty big stereotypes about Arabs. I've continued to read about it since. Sun Tzu, who wrote a masterpiece called "The Art Of War", which is still required reading at some military academies, once opined "know your enemy". I was determined to do just that.
Islam comes down from the Prophet Mohammed, who is said to be a direct descendent of the father of monotheism. Abraham is considered the father of three modern religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Now I must say, there is interesting reading on Abraham in the book of Genesis. It's almost too funny. Can you imagine being a stable hand in Abe's house, when this crazed, old, 99 year old guy comes rushing into your room - brandishing a knife - and screaming God himself declared that Abe must circumcise every male in his house before dawn? I don't know about you, but I would be both skeptical and scared as all hell.
Abraham had a wife, Sarah, and a concubine,named Hagar. They both gave him sons. Sarah was the mother of Isaac, Hagar the mother of Ishmael. The Old Testament tells us that God told Abraham to take his son, climb a mountain, build an alter, and sacrifice his son as proof of his devotion to God. The Old Testament states that Abraham did just that, and at the moment he was about to slice his son's throat (an awful lot of that over in the Middle East, isn't there?), an angel stayed his hand. The son went down the mountain, never to return home, Abraham went back to Sarah. The story has an underlying parable about how when kids grow up, they really need to get the hell out of the house at some point. But on the subject at hand, what's important is which son was chosen to be sacrificed. Jews and Christians believe it was Sarah's son Isaac. Muslims believe it was the Hagar's son Ishmael.
Isaac descended the mountain and went on to father the twelve tribes of Israel (which is in fact, the name of one of the twelve tribes, the largest). Later, Joseph would lead them into Egypt, for what he thought was at the time, gainful employment, only to turn into slavery. Ishmael went on to father the tribes of Arabia. There's the kicker. Both Christianity/Jewish and Islam claim to be the rightful heirs of Abraham, and thereby the one true God. On a side note, the Hebrews languished in slavery till Moses came along and helped convince the Pharaoh that it wasn't such a cool idea. After parting the Red Sea, and hiking off to Mount Sinai where he received the 10 Commandments, Moses came down and found the tribes of Israel really partying it up - and not in a good way. Moses broke the stone tablets, condemning the non-believers to hell. I mention this because some Muslim scholars believe that even if Isaac was the chosen son, Hebrews gave up any claim to be the chosen people of God when they sinned in shadow of the mountain, in front of God.
After wondering around the desert for 40 years (geeze, can't anyone ask directions?) the Hebrews entered the "land of milk and honey", the chosen land, the land promised by God, the River Jordan valley. They promptly made war against the inhabitants, the tribes of Ishmael, and the two groups have been at each other's throats ever since. Some people think all this trouble with Israel and Palestinians can be solved with a few treaties and swapping some land around. History, good people, look to history!
This story has always made me wonder. It's apparent that all three religions have the same roots, they believe many of the same things, so why can't we all just get along? Islam venerates the Virgin Mary and believes Jesus was a prophet who just got carried away. Some times it's almost surreal. So close, yet so far apart.
Being a Roman Catholic, I know about the Latin Rite (Roman Catholic), and the Eastern Rite. I also know of the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, orthodox being the Greek word for "right-thinking." I couldn't even begin to list all the various flavors of Protestant religions. Lutheran, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Evangelical, Church of Latter-Day Saints, those people who dance with rattlesnakes, and let's not forget every one's favorite, Jehovah Witnesses. (On a side note, I do enjoy when they come knocking on the door questioning if I go to church, and if so what scriptures were read, because I go to Church and I remember what I read. It leaves them speechless. And there's nothing like the sight of a Jehovah Witness, slack-jawed, stunned into silence. Not that there's anything wrong with being a Jehovah Witness.)
Since Christians can't seem to agree on the correct method of worship, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Islam also comes in various flavors. I believe the largest sect is Sunni, followed by Shiite.
When Mohammed finally expired, not surprisingly, there was a power struggle. One group of Muslims thought the companions of Mohammed knew him best, and therefore were most capable of continuing his teaching and work. Another group believed the position of leader of the religion should be hereditary, so there was a split. Imagine that, humans not agreeing on religion? The group that held the companions best capable eventually evolved into the Sunnas, which means "way" or "custom" as in the way of the prophet. Their chosen leader was referred to as the Caliphate (remember this word, we will come back to it), or "successor", as in successor to the prophet. The other sect evolved into the Shiite, which means Shia of Ali, or followers of Ali, the original, closest living relative of Mohammed at the time of his death.
So there was this uneasy state between the two groups, riled up by different interpretations of the Quran. Well it finally hit the rotating oscillator when the third Caliphate decided that Shiites were not true Muslims, but rather "kafirs" (nonbelievers, that category would include everyone on the planet who is not a Sunni) and needed to be dispatched (remember that too). A war erupted (I thought Islam was a religion of peace?) which climaxed with the death of the leaders of Shiites in Najaf. In modern Iraq, there is a huge Mosque in Najaf to memorialize the death of the leaders of Shiites, it's currently the Mosque of Grand Ayatollah Ali Hussein al-Sistani, considered the religious leader of the Iraqi Shiites. It was also the Mosque that Muqtada as-Sadar's army hid in when attacked by the US Marines a year or two ago. They hid behind their holy walls and dared the Marines to attack, hoping to ignite a civil war. Hiding in the sanctuary of a holy Mosque while taking pot shots at American soldiers. I'll save the righteous indignation for when we get to modern Iraq.
In case you might have missed it, Shiites show up at least once a year on the news, in a large procession, beating themselves with chains, whips, cutting themselves to draw blood. This is done during the festival to memorialize the Shiite deaths at the hands of the Sunnis. One of the few recorded incidents I've come across where Muslims did, in fact, fight to the death. Its considered one of, if not the, holiest aspect of Shiites. It may seem strange to me, but I can only imagine what Shiites think when my Church proclaims every Sunday that the Eucharist, is in fact, the "body and blood" of the Christ.
Under Saddam, the march was outlawed. Can't say as I blame him much. If I was the head of 20% of a nation oppressing 60% of the population, I wouldn't want to see them all armed and working themselves into a bloody hysteria.
Next, Wahhabism.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Waking up in a new world: Part IV
Editor's note: Don't be one of those people who reads the last page of a book first:
Part I then Part II then Part III then this one, in that order, thank you very much.
Once again, I must apologize for the lack of links and the unedited post. I'm on vacation, dammit!
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Kind of strange term if you think about it. As compared to what, weapons of minimum destruction? I don't remember exactly when it entered the popular lexicon, but it basically covers weapons that can kill vast numbers of people, with a minimal amount of effort or cost. Probably the first WMD's were the atom bombs dropped by the US on Japan. I still have debates about whether or not that was a necessary evil, or war crime. I'm of the persuasion that it saved the lives of some 3,000,000 American soldiers. Judging by Japan's history of refusing to surrender, and refusal to surrender in battles leading up to the bombings, I see no indication they would not fight to the death for their homeland.
Since that time, weapons that have been called WMDs tend to be of the flavor of nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, easily dispersed with the push of a button. Nukes blow up, big time, and cause the rubble to be radioactive. Chemical weapons usually kill you by searing any number of different parts of the human body, lungs, central nervous system, burn the skin off your body, etc. Biological weapons are usually diseases, viruses, or another type of agent found in nature that can be easily controlled by the attacker but not those on the receiving end. For example, one side has a vaccination for a disease the other side lacks.
Saddam had these weapons. I know it for a fact. I have seen the pictures on the news of the Iranian veterans with their broken and burned bodies. I've seen footage of the dead Kurds and Shiites from the 1991 uprising. They existed, guaranteed 100% true. I watched Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, reporting from a WMD warehouse in Iraq, interviewing Scott Ridder, then head of the UN inspection team. He was explaining to Rather why it was taking so long to dispose of all those weapons. Its because there were so many of them. The warehouse was huge, packed to the rafters. The weapons were found, stored, cataloged, and the destruction process was taking place. See, with WMDs, you can't just throw them into the garbage, or burry them in a land fill. They need to be handled very carefully, and the process was taking place.
But it wasn't over. As the memory of the first Gulf War faded from American pop culture, so did news on the progress of the destruction. Scott Ridder was constantly arguing to the American press that President Clinton was not giving the inspectors the backing they needed to complete the mission. The fewer people paid attention, the bolder Saddam got. Finally, the team had had enough and they pulled out, leaving behind some 20,000+ tons of the stuff that had not yet been destroyed. That's not even counting any that hadn't been found yet, or any news ones that might have been produced in clandestine operations.
By the time the UN pulled inspectors out of Iraq for good on December 16, 1998 the inspectors had discovered and destroyed some 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons, 48 missiles and 817 of 819 Russian supplied long range missiles. Also tons and tons of gear used in making, weponizing and launching them. The secret chemical weapon plant at al-Hakim had produced 500,000 liters of biological agents alone, which means there was at a minimum 20,000 liters floating around Iraq.
(gift to editor: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack )
In the run up to the second Gulf War, Scott Ridder campaigned relentlessly to halt the invasion. Being one of the UN inspectors, he knew what was found and still floating around. He knew the capabilities of Iraq. He knew the efforts to which Iraq went to keep their WMD operation active. He knew there were weapons, because he saw them.
There is no doubt that no conclusive WMD evidence has been found since the fall of Saddam. Now one person might be able to deduce that there were no WMDs. From there its only a small stretch to say there never were. But its a lie, Saddam had them, Saddam used them, the UN had found many of them. The weapons existed. The question to me, is not did they exist, but where are they now?
Let's play a little game I like to use as a debating tool. Its called "what is more likely", shall we? When the US began occupying Iraq, the push was on to find the weapons and neutralize them as soon as possible. Our ever lovable CBS Evening News was back on the scene. They were interviewing one of the top scientists from Saddam's WMD program. The Dr., a woman, stated all those weapons left over by the UN had been destroyed years ago. Perish the thought, they were destroyed so long ago, she couldn't even remember when.
What makes more sense:
A) Saddam, out of the goodness of his own heart, and his compassion for humanity, destroyed all those evil weapons, but didn't want to bother the UN, so he kept the destruction quiet, and continued to suffer under the crippling restrictions of UN sanctions.
or:
B) Saddam kept his weapons, moved them underground, continued to make them as best he could under UN sanctions. When it became obvious that the US was preparing for war a second time (it took about 14 months just to get the US Army in position for the invasion), he either hid them in Iraq, sent them to allies abroad, or both.
Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Howard Dean tend to agree with option A. My money is on option B.
Now about Islamic Fundamentalism.
Part I then Part II then Part III then this one, in that order, thank you very much.
Once again, I must apologize for the lack of links and the unedited post. I'm on vacation, dammit!
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Kind of strange term if you think about it. As compared to what, weapons of minimum destruction? I don't remember exactly when it entered the popular lexicon, but it basically covers weapons that can kill vast numbers of people, with a minimal amount of effort or cost. Probably the first WMD's were the atom bombs dropped by the US on Japan. I still have debates about whether or not that was a necessary evil, or war crime. I'm of the persuasion that it saved the lives of some 3,000,000 American soldiers. Judging by Japan's history of refusing to surrender, and refusal to surrender in battles leading up to the bombings, I see no indication they would not fight to the death for their homeland.
Since that time, weapons that have been called WMDs tend to be of the flavor of nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, easily dispersed with the push of a button. Nukes blow up, big time, and cause the rubble to be radioactive. Chemical weapons usually kill you by searing any number of different parts of the human body, lungs, central nervous system, burn the skin off your body, etc. Biological weapons are usually diseases, viruses, or another type of agent found in nature that can be easily controlled by the attacker but not those on the receiving end. For example, one side has a vaccination for a disease the other side lacks.
Saddam had these weapons. I know it for a fact. I have seen the pictures on the news of the Iranian veterans with their broken and burned bodies. I've seen footage of the dead Kurds and Shiites from the 1991 uprising. They existed, guaranteed 100% true. I watched Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, reporting from a WMD warehouse in Iraq, interviewing Scott Ridder, then head of the UN inspection team. He was explaining to Rather why it was taking so long to dispose of all those weapons. Its because there were so many of them. The warehouse was huge, packed to the rafters. The weapons were found, stored, cataloged, and the destruction process was taking place. See, with WMDs, you can't just throw them into the garbage, or burry them in a land fill. They need to be handled very carefully, and the process was taking place.
But it wasn't over. As the memory of the first Gulf War faded from American pop culture, so did news on the progress of the destruction. Scott Ridder was constantly arguing to the American press that President Clinton was not giving the inspectors the backing they needed to complete the mission. The fewer people paid attention, the bolder Saddam got. Finally, the team had had enough and they pulled out, leaving behind some 20,000+ tons of the stuff that had not yet been destroyed. That's not even counting any that hadn't been found yet, or any news ones that might have been produced in clandestine operations.
By the time the UN pulled inspectors out of Iraq for good on December 16, 1998 the inspectors had discovered and destroyed some 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons, 48 missiles and 817 of 819 Russian supplied long range missiles. Also tons and tons of gear used in making, weponizing and launching them. The secret chemical weapon plant at al-Hakim had produced 500,000 liters of biological agents alone, which means there was at a minimum 20,000 liters floating around Iraq.
(gift to editor: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack )
In the run up to the second Gulf War, Scott Ridder campaigned relentlessly to halt the invasion. Being one of the UN inspectors, he knew what was found and still floating around. He knew the capabilities of Iraq. He knew the efforts to which Iraq went to keep their WMD operation active. He knew there were weapons, because he saw them.
There is no doubt that no conclusive WMD evidence has been found since the fall of Saddam. Now one person might be able to deduce that there were no WMDs. From there its only a small stretch to say there never were. But its a lie, Saddam had them, Saddam used them, the UN had found many of them. The weapons existed. The question to me, is not did they exist, but where are they now?
Let's play a little game I like to use as a debating tool. Its called "what is more likely", shall we? When the US began occupying Iraq, the push was on to find the weapons and neutralize them as soon as possible. Our ever lovable CBS Evening News was back on the scene. They were interviewing one of the top scientists from Saddam's WMD program. The Dr., a woman, stated all those weapons left over by the UN had been destroyed years ago. Perish the thought, they were destroyed so long ago, she couldn't even remember when.
What makes more sense:
A) Saddam, out of the goodness of his own heart, and his compassion for humanity, destroyed all those evil weapons, but didn't want to bother the UN, so he kept the destruction quiet, and continued to suffer under the crippling restrictions of UN sanctions.
or:
B) Saddam kept his weapons, moved them underground, continued to make them as best he could under UN sanctions. When it became obvious that the US was preparing for war a second time (it took about 14 months just to get the US Army in position for the invasion), he either hid them in Iraq, sent them to allies abroad, or both.
Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Howard Dean tend to agree with option A. My money is on option B.
Now about Islamic Fundamentalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)