While reading Richard A Clark’s description of what al Qaeda is I couldn’t help but think back to a previous post in which Ray and I debated the perceived connection between the Muslim faith and terrorism. I argued that Muslims have no greater link to terrorism than Christians, or any other religion for that matter, but that Muslims, especially in American news, just happen to get mentioned more often these days. The reason for that, I argued, was because the faith is most prevalent in third world countries where the population has no representation, but rather, the leadership decides on the country’s agenda. If a radical leader favors the al Qaeda version of Islam (which is like Hitler’s version of Christianity), then that’s what gets established in the country.
Clark’s detailed history of al Qaeda as far back as the Reagan era helps explain why terrorist acts all over the world always end up being traced back to a group that claims to be Muslim. In AGAINST ALL ENEMIES Clark spells out just how extensive and radical al Qaeda really is. From the Middle East, to Eastern Europe, to the Phillipines and Africa, al Qaeda, led by a handful of key, so-called Muslim leaders including Osama bin Laden, seizes every power vacuum as an opportunity to expand their hatred. Sudan’s Hasan al-Turabi, a religious scholar, leader of the National Islamic Front, is one of bin Laden’s co-conspirators. There are a handful of others at that high a level, all with the power and funding of nations. They made sure desperate Muslims in Chechnya were armed, fed, and paid after Russia’s fall. bin Laden made sure help was there when Christian Serbs oppressed Bosnian Muslims, when war lords left power vacuums in Mogadishu, when Christians sought to eliminate Muslims in the Phillipines. When the opportunity arose and the potential for a new Taliban popped up, al Qaeda was there. Their leaders are master strategists who have been planning for years and patiently waiting to set into motion the chain of events ultimately resulting in a Caliphate, or “Muslim Empire.”
But the empire they seek is Muslim only in name. It is their version of Islam, and theirs alone. They prey on poor, desperate Muslims and convince them that their radical version is only a return to the “fundamentals” of their faith, that it can’t coexist with any other faiths, including other Muslims who favor treating others with respect and tolerance. Once recruited, the converts are trained, fed, paid better than they ever have been. It doesn’t take much to convince someone under those circumstances that whatever their bosses are doing must be something good to provide them with a way of life like they’d never known. And when the great white satan invades a Muslim country, it only reinforces their leaders’ call for jihad.
The point is, al Turabi and bin Laden’s version of Islam isn’t the rest of the world’s version of Islam. Sure, they want to create a world based on their version. That’s what megalomaniacs do. That’s what Hitler did. Their goal is the creation of Talibans all over the world and while THEY claim it is in the name of their God, true Muslims don’t accept it any more than true Christians would.
Just as Clark notes that we won’t be effective in our fight against terrorism until we accept al Qaeda’s role, prominence, and vastness and stop chasing false leads and debunked conspiracy theories (like Iraqi Intelligence’s role in 911), so too is it imperative that Christians accept that Muslims have more in common with us than in conflict. Until we can get over that hump and focus on what truly matters, we will likely only continue to play into al Qaeda’s hands by perpetuating the lies that bin Laden uses about Americans when he recruits. If we acted more like Christians, Muslims might stop being so afraid of us that they’re willing to join terrorist organizations. If we made the American way of life more appealing by using our power and wealth to help eliminate some of the desperation that drives people to al Qaeda, we’d have to fight far fewer of those converts. Then maybe when our president announces that “you’re either with us or against us” being with us might seem like a better option. But to those who watched the “us” invade their country, that decision was already made.
3 comments:
Luth, you go for weeks with hardly anything now you innundate us with words of wisdom. Hard to tell where to begin.
"But the empire they seek is Muslim only in name. It is their version of Islam, and theirs alone. They prey on poor, desperate Muslims and convince them that their radical version is only a return to the “fundamentals” of their faith, that it can’t coexist with any other faiths..." Yes, I do believe that many of these terrorists twist their religious beliefs to fit their political agenda. Much like some so-called Christians have. But, I think, Luth, you must be consistent. If you are going to insist that Hitler espoused Christianity, then you must also accept these terrorists as legitimate Muslims. Can't have it both ways.
I work with two Muslims. Are they terrorists? Are they out to kill me? Absolutely not. I think we have a different view of Islam in America than in other parts of the world. I will go out on a limb and say that the Islam has been tempered in America by a higher sense of civility, even compared to Europe. Look at the reaction to those Dutch cartoons lampooning Islam from last summer. Compare reactions. Here in America there was condemnation, but you didn't see the destruction, killing and mass protests you saw in other parts of the world. Now compare the overall Muslim reaction to that of the Christian world when people like Maplethorp lampoon Christianity. Did Christians rise up and murder as result, like the Muslims did? Did we destroy property, like the Muslims did? If a Muslim writes a book that questions their faith or puts it in a bad light, they receive death threats and must go into hiding. Does that happen with Christians? I think anecdotal evidence indicates there is a significant difference between reactions of Christians and Muslims and how it relates to terrorist acts.
Hitler was not a Christian. To call him such is an abomination. It is an offense. He was more cultic than anything trying to form his own religion with himself at the center. He tried to make himself a god.... something along the line of what Bill is talking about below. But, I will address that in the his post below.
The mindset of murder and revenge is not just found with these terrorists. With many Muslim countries in the Middle East and especially Africa, if a Muslim converts to any other religion, they subject themselves to all kinds of recrimination including death. Check out the story of Ayaan Hirsi Ali for a first hand account of how Muslims treat their own as a matter of course in other lands. These are not radical terrorists, but the common everyday Muslims.
I think we do make the mistake of lumping all who claim to be Muslims together, they don't do it themselves, and making general statements. Do I think becoming a Muslim makes one evil? Of course not, as I cited above, the ones I have come in personal contact with are decent people. Those who turn to Islam out of purely religious reasons, are unlikely to be terrorists. Those who use it for political ends are the ones to look out for.
"If we made the American way of life more appealing by using our power and wealth to help eliminate some of the desperation that drives people to al Qaeda, we’d have to fight far fewer of those converts." But, do we realize what that means? We are called the Great Satan because of our way of life which is characterized by what comes out of Hollywood and the drug and sex cultures. Traditional Islam around the world is reacting against the growing influence of the American culture.
Do you know what I fear? The institution of Sharia law in our country as Canada is now struggling with. I fear that someday people will come to realize that we conservative Christians are the moderates. Well, I fear because that means our entire society will change.
"And when the great white satan invades a Muslim country, it only reinforces their leaders’ call for jihad." OK, I have to agree with you on this one. But, I've said all along this war was wrong. We have polarized the situation even more.
Ray,
If I'm having it both ways, then are you suggesting that Hitler WAS a legitimate Christian? I chose him for comparison because I don't believe he represents real Christians anymore than I believe Osama represents real Muslims.
Perhaps I'm not understanding your point, but I don't see that as having it both ways. I belive it's consistent. Neither are what they claim to be.
It's late, I've been grading projects all night. Then I have guard this weekend (my family's tired of that excuse too) but I hope to spend more time reading this soon. Then I'll let you have it!
OK, maybe I misunderstood you about Hitler based also on a previous post. Your first paragraph above clarifies it. And though I did condemn Islam in my post above, I agree that Osama does not represent real Muslims, the Muslims that I know personally.
Post a Comment