April 4, 2006
ALLAH IS DISPLEASED (via Tom Corcoran):
Islam's Imperial Dreams: Muslim political ambitions aren't a reaction to Western encroachments. (Efraim Karsh, April 4, 2006, Opinion Journal)
Among Islamic radicals, ... gloating about the prowess and imminent triumph of their "nation" is as commonplace as recitals of the long and bitter catalog of grievances related to the loss of historical Muslim dominion. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly alluded to the collapse of Ottoman power at the end of World War I and, with it, the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate. "What America is tasting now," he declared in the immediate wake of 9/11, "is only a copy of what we have tasted. Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated." Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy, has pointed still farther into the past, lamenting "the tragedy of al-Andalus"--that is, the end of Islamic rule in Spain in 1492.These historical claims are in turn frequently dismissed by Westerners as delusional, a species of mere self-aggrandizement or propaganda. But the Islamists are perfectly serious, and know what they are doing. Their rhetoric has a millennial warrant, both in doctrine and in fact, and taps into a deep undercurrent that has characterized the political culture of Islam from the beginning. [...]
To Islamic historians, the chronicles of Muslim empire represent a model of shining religious zeal and selfless exertion in the cause of Allah. Many Western historians, for their part, have been inclined to marvel at the perceived sophistication and tolerance of Islamic rule, praising the caliphs' cultivation of the arts and sciences and their apparent willingness to accommodate ethnic and religious minorities. There is some truth in both views, but neither captures the deeper and often more callous impulses at work in the expanding umma set in motion by Muhammad. For successive generations of Islamic rulers, imperial dominion was dictated not by universalistic religious principles but by their prophet's vision of conquest and his summons to fight and subjugate unbelievers.
That the worldly aims of Islam might conflict with its moral and spiritual demands was evident from the start of the caliphate. Though the Umayyad monarchs portrayed their constant wars of expansion as "jihad in the path of Allah," this was largely a façade, concealing an increasingly secular and absolutist rule. Lax in their attitude toward Islamic practices and mores, they were said to have set aside special days for drinking alcohol--specifically forbidden by the prophet--and showed little inhibition about appearing nude before their boon companions and female singers.
The coup staged by the Abbasids in 747-49 was intended to restore Islam's true ways and undo the godless practices of their predecessors; but they too, like the Umayyads, were first and foremost imperial monarchs. For the Abbasids, Islam was a means to consolidating their jurisdiction and enjoying the fruits of conquest. They complied with the stipulations of the nascent religious law (shari'a) only to the extent that it served their needs, and indulged in the same vices--wine, singing girls, and sexual license--that had ruined the reputation of the Umayyads.
Of particular importance to the Abbasids was material splendor. On the occasion of his nephew's coronation as the first Abbasid caliph, Dawud ibn Ali had proclaimed, "We did not rebel in order to grow rich in silver and in gold." Yet it was precisely the ever-increasing pomp of the royal court that would underpin Abbasid prestige. The gem-studded dishes of the caliph's table, the gilded curtains of the palace, the golden tree and ruby-eyed golden elephant that adorned the royal courtyard were a few of the opulent possessions that bore witness to this extravagance. [...]
[N]ow that this war has itself met with a so far determined counterattack by the United States and others, and with a Western intervention in the heart of the House of Islam, it has escalated to a new stage of virulence. In many Middle Eastern countries, Islamist movements, and movements appealing to traditionalist Muslims, are now jockeying fiercely for positions of power, both against the Americans and against secular parties. For the Islamists, the stakes are very high indeed, for if the political elites of the Middle East and elsewhere were ever to reconcile themselves to the reality that there is no Arab or Islamic "nation," but only modern Muslim states with destinies and domestic responsibilities of their own, the imperialist dream would die.
It's important in this regard not to lose sight of the wider benefits to be had from toppling the Ba'ath regime in Syria and destroying the nuclear programs/capabilities of Iran and Pakistan. The economic backwardness of the Middle East and the impunity with which we can determine which governments will be allowed to remain power demonstrates not just the superiority of our culture but that the current ummah has misunderstood what Allah wants of them--there lies the basis for Reformation. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 4, 2006 9:43 AM
The economic backwardness of the Middle East and the impunity with which we can determine which governments will be allowed to remain power demonstrates not just the superiority of our culture but that the current ummah has misunderstood what Allah wants of them--there lies the basis for Reformation.
Maybe. This is provided they have the tradition of scholarship and inquiry that the Catholic church had since the days of Thomas Aquinas, which the reformers borrowed.
However, I have come to the same conclusion you have: it is necessary for kaffirs to dominate muslims to demonstrate the failure of Islam. Then, the relinquishing of control when (if) the reformed Islam arises will be the proof that the reformed Islam is the true one.
we should start printing king george korans in huge numbers, and cover all muslim lands with them.
Posted by: toe at April 4, 2006 12:15 PMIt's not what Allah wants, but Allah and his prophet. Mohammad makes it clear what Allah wants and Mohammad makes the rules.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at April 4, 2006 2:13 PMP:
They do--ours. As David likes to say, the Caliph lives in washington.
Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 2:17 PMoj:
You are assuming they will accept the reality of their position -- but they could deny it, as the following recent interview indicates:
"Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: I have no relation to reality. I am talking about how things should be.
Interviewer: You are a religious sheik, from Al-Azahar University. You cannot say you have no relation to reality.
Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: Reality is a mistake, we must rectify it."
Given attitudes like this, there is no amount of failure sufficient to make them change.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 4, 2006 2:55 PM
Their reality is a mistake that has to rectified, no? And we know that the only way t do that is via liberal democratic protestant capitalism. They'll get there.
Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 3:54 PMDr. Muhammad Wahdan: "Reality is a mistake, we must rectify it."
Remember this exchange that went around about a year ago, between David Suskind and a Bush staffer? Here's a highlight:
Suskind: He says, you know, "You, Suskind, you're in what we call the 'reality-based community'" -- that's actually the term he used.
I said, "The WHAT?"
He says, "The 'reality-based community'.". He said, "you all believe" -- now let me see if I can get this right -- "You all believe that answers to solutions will emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."
I said, "Yeah... YEAH, OF COURSE..."
He says, "Well, let me tell you how we really see it. You see, we're an empire now. And when we act, we kinda create a reality. Events flow from our actions. And because of that, what we do is... essentially... we act, and every time we act we create a whole new set of laws of physics, which you then judiciously study for your solutions, and while you're doing that we'll act again, promulgate a whole other set."
I guess Dr. Wahdan isn't too far off.
Posted by: kitster at April 4, 2006 5:21 PMkitster:
Exactly. The Realists think it good to accept whatever reality they're given. The moralists think we are obliged to improve upon it.
Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 5:25 PMThey've got to get past the prophet's zero-sum view of how the world works. In order for Islam to win others have to lose. There's little room for differing views. The kindness of the prophet toward conquered peoples who submitted to his rules is taken as an example of 'saintly' behavior while cruelty to unbelievers is justice. It's a weird 'religion'. Freedom for adherents while anyone who sees things diffrently can pound sand. One's worth is measured by one's submission rather than one's humanity. The thoughts contained within the Declaration of Independence, for example, could never be derived from the teachings of Islam. Submission is primary, humanity is secondary. In other words, all men are not created equal. Their religion determines their worth. Look no further for the cause of economic backwardness in the Islamic world.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at April 4, 2006 5:47 PMwell, sure except for the major and enduring schisms that already exist. People will accept the Reform of their religion in exchange for a better life and Mohammed be darned.
Posted by: oj at April 4, 2006 6:22 PMEveryone ignores some part of their holy book, including Muslims. The Reformation is just a matter of guiding them as to which sections to ignore.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 4, 2006 10:50 PMDavid-
The Q'ran is not the bible. It's based on the life of one man in a condensed, specific historical period. It's frozen in time, mired in the zeitgeist of the 7th century. If time stood still, it might make sense.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at April 5, 2006 11:29 AMman
Posted by: oj at April 5, 2006 11:33 AMSo, let me get this straight, it's bad if Iran and Pakistan have the bomb, but OK if Isreal & India do.
Sure, that sounds workable.
Posted by: Robert at April 5, 2006 4:07 PMyes, the latter are democratic allies. Just like it was okay for us to have it but we should have stopped the USSR.
Posted by: oj at April 5, 2006 4:10 PMyes, the latter are democratic allies
Stop it ... you're cracking me up.
Hey, I got a bridge you might be interested in buying.
Posted by: Robert at April 5, 2006 4:16 PMRobert: So are England and France the same as Israel and India or more like Iran and Pakistan. And, of course, your logic necessarily leads to the conclusion that we're no better than Iran and Pakistan, so if we can have it they can, too.
By the way, are you claiming that I&I are not democracies or not allies?
Posted by: David Cohen at April 7, 2006 8:46 AM