Monday, September 22, 2008

Radical Islam as our enemy

This stuff is well known Lefty. Wahhabism originated in Saudi Arabia in the 18th Century. Salafism came along later. They were both Fundamentalist in nature. Maududi wrote and was very influential in the days before and after Pakistan became an independent nation. The Muslim Brothers, influenced by Wahhabism, were influential about the same time in Egypt. Sayyid Qutb was a Muslim Brother. The Shiite equivalent was just as influential if not more so through the work of Khomeini. Islamism, Radical Islam, is a (if not the) predominant religious viewpoint in the Middle East. It is not a small fringe belief held by a few radicals. Osama bin Laden is but one follower of the teachings of Sayyid Qutb. Yes, in earlier times Islam was more peaceful, but we don’t live in those times.

However, you are mistaken in arguing that Islam was more peaceful than Christianity or Judaism. Islam has always been militant. It encountered Judaism and Christianity by conquering nations that held those beliefs. Muslim slaughtered Christians for about 200 years before the first crusade was launched to regain the Holy Lands.

Colonization of the Middle East? What are you talking about? Algeria was colonized by the French but that is the only nation in the Middle East that was colonized to the best of my recollection. I hope you aren’t saying that Israel was a colony.

Do you want to know whom we are fighting when we are fighting back? We are fighting against the Militant Islamists who have declared war against us. You must have noticed that they have been attacking us. Their attacks escalated until they climaxed with 9/11 and then we decided to fight back. You must have missed it. So you think these people who have declared war against us and attacked us are innocent people? That is an interesting Leftist viewpoint but difficult to prove. Someone attacking you, your family, your friends or your allies isn’t normally going to come across as innocent.

Saddam’s Iraq not the enemy? Iraq had a Baathist form of government influenced by Nassar which advocated Pan-Arabism. This was the modern equivalent of the Ummah advocated by Mohammad. The Ummah doesn’t have borders. It is one people. Saddam sought to achieve Pan-Arabism. It was his ambition and he pursued it with diligence until he was at last stopped by UN forces in 1991. He was stopped but he didn’t give up his dream. And you think Saddam and his Sunni Baathists innocent? One needs a hefty pair of blinders to believe that. Baathists and Islamists had roughly the same goals. They disagreed as to who ought to run things.

Islamism and its Baathist equivalent was organized murder. It is evil. It wholeheartedly needs to be opposed.

Lawrence Helm

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Arabism & Islamism converge, both are forms of BIGOTRY.

ARABISM = RACISM

The global virus of racist Arabism has claimed/claims millions of victims, it includes:

Kurds (under Saddam or Syria), Berbers, Jews (inside Israel - the genocide campaign since the massacre in 1929 by the Mufti Haj Amin Al Husseini until today, or in the Arab world or on 'Arab street' in Europe, etc.), Africans (genocide in Sudan, oppression in Egypt, Slavery in Mauritania, etc.)...

Lawrence Helm said...

I agree that the Arabs have killed a lot of people, but I fail to see that it makes them any worse or enhances our understanding of them to call them "bigots" or "racists." Maybe you could elaborate.

Lawrence Helm

Anonymous said...

Dear Lawrence, I think the comment was made that today the LARGEST RACISM & CONFLICTS / bloodshed as a result of it, is ARABISM.

His or her point was probably about the motives of these conflicts, stemming out of intolerance, for example, Arabs vs Israel is nothiu
ng but bigotry, long before the "occupation" excuse was invented... when the Mufti started to massacre Jews in Hebron in the 1920s...

I would add though that radical Islamic bigotry ecceeds Arabism's bloodshed - today in age.

In the case of Islamo Arabs vs Israel BOTH bigotry forces "play" against democratic and mostly non-Arab non-Muslim Israel, which is why it's so powerful.

Lawrence Helm said...

Anonymous,

You may be right, but I took him or her to be placing a PC overlay, an overlay which makes being politically correct, i.e., avoiding being considered "racist" at all costs more important than the actual wars being fought between Islamists and their enemies -- something I don't agree with.

And in response to what you say, I wonder if the expression "bigotry" adds anything or whether it is misleading. We were in a war against the Japanese and called them "Japs." Were we bigoted when we did so? Good grief, who cares? After the war they became our best friends and remain so today. Why wouldn't it be better to say we are, if we want to be effective fighters, prejudiced against our "enemy" whoever he might be. Later, when he is no longer our enemy, he can be our friend.

So much has been discovered through genetics in recent years as to make terms like "racism" almost anachronistic. The amount of genetic material making up the differences between the races is almost undetectable it is so small -- even between the most remote peoples, say the aborigines of Australia and the Belgians.

What remains is, and we see it in Europe today, mistrust of those who aren't like us; which is a cultural rather than a racist thing. There may even be a species-survival aspect to that, i.e., being suspicious of strangers would have more survival benefit than not being suspicious of strangers. Europe is having a lot of trouble making the transition into the sort of egalitarianism their intellectually elite want them to attain.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S. we are all strangers -- and have gotten used to it, especially in places like the one I live in, Southern California.

The Arab Islamists fancy themselves better than the non-Arab Islamists which is a form of bigotry I suppose. Also, Islamists treat all non-Muslims as being inferior. If they must be lived with let them become dhimmis.

Lawrence Helm