ON ROOTS OF TERRORISM In an article published in the New York Sun, Daniel Pipes asks " What do the terrorists want ?"He thinks tha...
https://iskablogs.blogspot.com/2005/07/on-roots-of-terrorism-in-article.html
ON ROOTS OF TERRORISM
In an article published in the New York Sun, Daniel Pipes asks "What do the terrorists want?"He thinks that "the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. He quotes an Al-Qaeda leader "Due to the blessings of jihad, America's countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon." and the murderer of Van Gogh: "Islam will be victorious through the blood of martyrs who spread its light in every dark corner of this earth."
Is it true that there is a significant rise of Muslim nationalism all over the world or is it sporadic and induced by local situations? I can't tell much of the world, but in Muslim majority democratic Bangladesh, the religious right wing party Jamaat-e-Islami wants an Islamic state through democratic way, but their share of popularity is much below than the other parties. My question is if they cannot do it in their own country of 140 million people (80% Muslims), how the so called vision (if any) of Muslims to rule the world will ever materialize?
I think Daniel Pipes did not shed a light to the reasons for the grudge against the US or its allies Britain et al. Many miss out the vital point - the Western military presence in Muslim dominated Arab world. Here is one Iraqi's apologist thoughts on the terrorists:
Your side:
1. Wants to spread democracy, and made my country (Iraq) a pawn in your scheme
2. Your Presidents send troops to achieve the objective
3. You will kill as many people (Collateral Damage) as necessary to achieve the objective
Do you realize that each and every one of you is personally responsible for every dead Iraqi child, mother, father and brother. You live in a democracy, which means that your presidents and your armies are merely representatives of your popular will. You pay your taxes to buy the guns and bombs used by your soldiers to come an kill my family. Yes, the soldier pulls the trigger, do you all sleep well at night knowing that you paid for the bullet that put was put in mother's head; do you sleep well knowing that the bomb that that broke my 11 year old nephew's body into a million pieces was personally paid by you; do you sleep well knowing that your messengers of death are doing your bidding well?
My side:
1. I want revenge for the deaths of my family and friends
2. There are people who are willing to do that for me - the Islamic Extermists
3. Yes, they have very different agendas as well, but they are doing my bidding - taking my revenge.
4. Your people die, you call them innocents, but I call them the financiers (voters) of the bullets put in my family's head.
Personally, they are not innocent to me. You are not innocent to me. Just like you kill my living to accomplish your goals, the Islamic Extremists kill your living to accomplish their goals If anything, I am more innocent to you because I had no role in appointing the suicide bombers, or financing their bombs, unlike you who finance their mercenaries and weapons.
Seems sarcastic, isn't it? Just as many Muslims are against the US's invasion of Iraq without UN's mandate many are also against these nonsense logics. I am afraid the terrorists like Al-Qaeda is cashing on this hatred, the medieval 'an eye for an eye' notion by brainwashing the effected Muslims. And until the military do not pull out from Iraq or Afghanistan, this hatred will be there.
There are debates about the failed role of 'moderate Muslims' to convince Muslims that 'the theology and ideology of jihad is wrong'. Even there are questions about the existence of 'moderate Muslims'. But my view on this is that by passing the ball to so called moderate Muslims court we are failing to examine the root cause of this hatred. Apart from the countries which are directly affected by the war and repression, many Muslims around the world are too busy with their own lives rather than driven by the so called Islamic nationalism as to become the next jihadi. Its a question of basic survival instincts. Unless an animal is attacked it tries to live in it's own world without disturbing others. So it is wrong to misinterpret some nationalistic zeal of the effected Muslims as a notion of every Muslim of the world. People wear religion, religion do not wear them. And one hatred triggers counter hatred which may lead to more chaos (like another crusade?). Should we go backwards? The global rise of terrorism and their apologists are fed by the very sins, the occupations and the political manipulations that the West constantly ignore as a root cause.
In an article published in the New York Sun, Daniel Pipes asks "What do the terrorists want?"He thinks that "the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. He quotes an Al-Qaeda leader "Due to the blessings of jihad, America's countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon." and the murderer of Van Gogh: "Islam will be victorious through the blood of martyrs who spread its light in every dark corner of this earth."
Is it true that there is a significant rise of Muslim nationalism all over the world or is it sporadic and induced by local situations? I can't tell much of the world, but in Muslim majority democratic Bangladesh, the religious right wing party Jamaat-e-Islami wants an Islamic state through democratic way, but their share of popularity is much below than the other parties. My question is if they cannot do it in their own country of 140 million people (80% Muslims), how the so called vision (if any) of Muslims to rule the world will ever materialize?
I think Daniel Pipes did not shed a light to the reasons for the grudge against the US or its allies Britain et al. Many miss out the vital point - the Western military presence in Muslim dominated Arab world. Here is one Iraqi's apologist thoughts on the terrorists:
Your side:
1. Wants to spread democracy, and made my country (Iraq) a pawn in your scheme
2. Your Presidents send troops to achieve the objective
3. You will kill as many people (Collateral Damage) as necessary to achieve the objective
Do you realize that each and every one of you is personally responsible for every dead Iraqi child, mother, father and brother. You live in a democracy, which means that your presidents and your armies are merely representatives of your popular will. You pay your taxes to buy the guns and bombs used by your soldiers to come an kill my family. Yes, the soldier pulls the trigger, do you all sleep well at night knowing that you paid for the bullet that put was put in mother's head; do you sleep well knowing that the bomb that that broke my 11 year old nephew's body into a million pieces was personally paid by you; do you sleep well knowing that your messengers of death are doing your bidding well?
My side:
1. I want revenge for the deaths of my family and friends
2. There are people who are willing to do that for me - the Islamic Extermists
3. Yes, they have very different agendas as well, but they are doing my bidding - taking my revenge.
4. Your people die, you call them innocents, but I call them the financiers (voters) of the bullets put in my family's head.
Personally, they are not innocent to me. You are not innocent to me. Just like you kill my living to accomplish your goals, the Islamic Extremists kill your living to accomplish their goals If anything, I am more innocent to you because I had no role in appointing the suicide bombers, or financing their bombs, unlike you who finance their mercenaries and weapons.
Seems sarcastic, isn't it? Just as many Muslims are against the US's invasion of Iraq without UN's mandate many are also against these nonsense logics. I am afraid the terrorists like Al-Qaeda is cashing on this hatred, the medieval 'an eye for an eye' notion by brainwashing the effected Muslims. And until the military do not pull out from Iraq or Afghanistan, this hatred will be there.
There are debates about the failed role of 'moderate Muslims' to convince Muslims that 'the theology and ideology of jihad is wrong'. Even there are questions about the existence of 'moderate Muslims'. But my view on this is that by passing the ball to so called moderate Muslims court we are failing to examine the root cause of this hatred. Apart from the countries which are directly affected by the war and repression, many Muslims around the world are too busy with their own lives rather than driven by the so called Islamic nationalism as to become the next jihadi. Its a question of basic survival instincts. Unless an animal is attacked it tries to live in it's own world without disturbing others. So it is wrong to misinterpret some nationalistic zeal of the effected Muslims as a notion of every Muslim of the world. People wear religion, religion do not wear them. And one hatred triggers counter hatred which may lead to more chaos (like another crusade?). Should we go backwards? The global rise of terrorism and their apologists are fed by the very sins, the occupations and the political manipulations that the West constantly ignore as a root cause.
"No human race is superior; no religious faith is inferior. All collective judgments are wrong. Only racists make them."
