Jihad Watch Advisory Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald comments on this Arab News piece in which Naushad Shamimul Haque identifies several putative causes of jihad terrorism, including poverty and "the West's double standard."
From the Arab News, that appears in, and is supported by, one of the richest countries in the world, the main beneficiary of the greatest transfer of wealth (and entirely unmerited wealth at that) in human history (some $10 trillion from oil-consuming nations to the OPEC members, almost all of them either Arab or predominantly Muslim), comes a remark that attributes the behavior of Muslims, in Muslim countries, and in non-Muslim countries, to "poverty."This is a hard sell, not least becuase Osama Bin Laden came from the second richest family in Saudi Arabia; Ayman al-Zawahiri came from one of the most prosperous and prominent Muslim families in Egypt (his great-uncle Azzam Pasha was the first Secretary-General of the Arab League), and was himself a surgeon; and Muhammad Atta was the spoiled member of an upper-middle-class Egyptian family. Every study of Muslim terrorists shows them to be far above average in their education (including education in the West) and in the economic status of their families. The problem for Infidels is not Muslim "poverty" but Muslim wealth, the wealth that since 1973 has funded mosques and madrasas around the world (which of course help Muslim migrants plant Muslim roots in non-Muslim Europe). Another problem is not merely the wealth, but the idleness which that enormous accidental wealth creates. If the Saudis had to work the way that, for example, Americans and Japanese do, they would have less time to spend going to mosques, memorizing the Qur'an, taking to heart what the imams say in the khutbas. They would even have to worry about pleasing Infidel customers. And the great wealth of some Muslims (all those with oil and gas) has not le them to share any of it with the poor Muslims. Somehow the preposterous assumption has not only been made, but apparently accepted by all concerned, that it is the Infidels who should be keeping afloat Egypt, and Pakistan, and the "Palestinians" and the Jordanians -- any Muslims at all who don't happen to live over a sea of oil.
Instead, it would be far better to constantly turn the spotlight on the greed, and failure to share with fellow Muslims (except insofar as they may be rewarded for activities as Muslim martyrs, or to pay for terrorist activities, or for the direct spread of Islam and the conduct of Da'wa), of the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and denizens of the Emirates.
They will share the wealth for one reason and one reason only: to further the Jihad. Infidels pick up the slack -- building subway systems and water-treatment plants and power plants, and roads and bridges, and schools and hospitals. It is time for that Infidel Jizyah to end; it buys no friends, and it helps to suppress the anger of poor Muslims which should rightly be directed at their wretched governments and at the rich Arabs. Such intra-Arab and intra-Muslim resentments should be encouraged, always and everywhere -- for they are based on a truth that we allow to remain unremarked, and by Infidels, unexploited.
As to "injustice" -- there is certainly a great deal of injustice within Muslim countries. And that reflects Islam itself, but we do not allow Muslims to see the connection between the nature of Islam itself, with its Total Regulation of Life, its Total Explanation of the Universe, and its Total Submission to Authority (for the habit of such submission is not limited to the prostrations in the mosque, but create a habit of mind that cannot easily be shaken). But presumably the writer of this Arab News squib means such "injustices" as -- "Palestine" or "Iraq." In the former case, 0.2% of the land area possessed by Arab Muslims has been reclaimed from the Ottomans who owned it (there was scarcely any private land-ownership in the vilayets that became Mandatory Palestine), by the tribe that had originally lived there, and which gave "Palestine" everything of value that it had ever produced. The "injustice" is that which the relentless Jihad against the Jews has caused: beginning with the million that might have been saved had not the British, appeasing the Arabs, prevented immigration by Europe's Jews all through the 1930s, even though Rumania's Black Sea ports remained open, and a million Jews might have been saved. What the Arabs call "the Arab world" is nothing of the sort. There are Kurds, Berbers, Armenians, Jews, Maronites (who use Arabic but are not Arabs), Copts, and many much smaller groups, reduced over time by the circumambient Muslim Arabs.
As for the "injustice" in Iraq -- that is a strange way to refer to the American invasion that finally removed a monstrous regime that had been in place for 35 years and was prepared to remain for another 35 years. The Iraqis are not grateful: "the Iraqis hate us [the Americans]" one interpreter, himself an Iraqi who identified with the American effort, despairingly told Anne Barnard of The Boston Sunday Globe. But so what? It is not an "injustice" to have rescued the Kurds and the Shi'a, even if some of them are not grateful. And what are the Americans doing now, if not (foolishly) expending money and lives on trying to make Iraq a better place? During the 35 years of Saddam Hussein's reign, not a syllable of protest came from any member of the Arab League about his mass murdering of Kurds and Shi'a Arabs, or about his oppression of those Sunnis who did not fully accept him. But the Americans not only removed him, and his sons, and his aides, but have poured money into the country to rebuild schools, hospitals, water-treatment and power plants, and have done so much that is hardly mentioned -- and for which they have received no real or permanent gratitude from the Iraqis, save for a tiny group of Western-educated ones (Kanan Makiya does not, alas, represent Iraq -- not even close).
And then there is the third in the Muslim roundup of Usual Suspects -- the "West's double standard." What "double standard" would that be? Would it be turning a blind eye to the persecution of Christians and other non-Muslims all over the Islamic world, while Muslim migrants are not only allowed into Western countries by the millions? Would it be the fact that once there, these immigrants are allowed to build mosques and madrasas freely, while Christians in Saudi Arabia are seized and tortured merely for meeting for private worship? Is that "double standard" the one that assures that the aggression of Muslims against non-Muslims, as in the southern Sudan, northern Nigeria, Israel, the Moluccas, East Timor, and the Hindus persecuted and murdered in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Bangladesh, will almost never be brought to the attention of the so-called (but non-existent) "International Community" and its main expression, the Islamintern-dominated United Nations?
There is a "double standard." In Muslim countries non-Muslims are treated with contumely and worse. In non-Muslim countries, Muslims take to the streets ("Death to France" they chanted in the middle of Paris), or use mosques to store false papers and weapons, or demand that the indigenous Infidels modify their own ways of life, their customs and manners, their laws, to accommodate quite different customs, manners, and laws of Muslims, or make threats to intimidate political figures who show some gumption, or even kill those they do not like among the local political and cultural figures (Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn).
Yes, he got it right, that Arab News reporter -- on one thing. There is a "Western double standard." And those who contribute to Jihadwatch, and related sites, are determined to put paid to that double standard, everywhere in the Western world.
OT
Thomas Haidon:
Lately, several people have responded to your posts but it seems as though you don't check back to answer their responses. I picked this thread as one that you would be likely to read.
Please read my responses to your posts on the JW April 26 "Federal Jury Convicts . . . " and the April 29 "What is 'Islamophobia' . . . " threads.
You know what we call visitors who post comments but fail to reply when those comments are challenged, don't you?
CGW
CGW:
I thought Mr. Haidon had begun to see the light; however, it is apparent that the cult of Islam has a severe grip on his mental faculties. Lately, his posts have been more in line with the "I am trying to convince you that there are some good, thoughtful Muslims in the world" than his previous posts in which he actually seemed to agree with Jihadwatchers that there is something wrong with Islam.
Human beings can be real blockheads. I don't know how some people compartmentalize their thought processes. I have met Muslim doctors and nurses who were obviously quite smart about their fields. However, on almost any other subject, they seemed incapable of thinking outside the Islamic box. I don't know how you could read the Qur'an and not immediately know that it was written by a self-serving psychopath who had one convenient revelation after another to justify his course of action at any given time.
It is similar to when I was learning about Mormonism and I read about how Joseph Smith had been visited by the Angel Moroni who told him the location of the golden plates upon which was written the Book of Mormon. (Doesn't that remind you of Muhammad and the Angel Gabriel? It should; their stories are remarkably similar) And of course, Mr. Smith is not allowed to keep the plates to show the world; but he has sworn witnesses who attest to having seen the plates. To the thinking person, your first thought is: "I smell a rat."
Mentat:
You might enjoy Sam Harris's recent book, "End of Faith" where he discusses the remarkable capacity humans have to hold completely contradictory thoughts similtaneously.
Double Standard: No muslims. No mosques.
Waterdragon52:
I am already writing a book like that but I will check it out to see if I can gain any new insights. Thanks. I think the only new insights to be gained on the subject will be found in the hard sciences.
Mentat:
Harris's main theme is that it is high time that people stop being so PC about people who are inspired by "spirituality" and stop giving them a free pass because of their religious beliefs. He also discusses the shades of "peacefulness" found in various religions, finding the Jains the most peaceful and tolerant and, well, you can assume who he finds the least.
For a book written by a philospopher, I have not found it ponderous to read.
Oh,here we go again with the poverty defense
for thugs that kill for Allah.
So what he's really saying is that Muslims are so pre-disposed to violence and murder that the least bit of a challenge to personal moral values and self-control results in a primative response
of attacking any opposing views or persons.
Islamic Nations have the worse human rights abuses
and keeps people ignorant and poor as to secure control and force the views of the "False Prophet" (Muhammed) on them to use the fear of death to keep them in line.
Only a Muslim would condemn an entire sector
of society as a burden just from being in the catagory of the poor,remember,the Nazis propaganda
machine branded the poor and ill as a burden and therefor used this false logic to cleanse Germany of those that will be a future problem because of their inflictions.
Excellent.
Sorry to go OT - the website of Hizb ut Tahrir, always worth keeping an eye on has some stuff about the 'march' last Saturday against 'oppressive' terror laws. You know, the exhausting treck from Marble Arch to Paddington.
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=11206&TagID=8
Pity the Muslim hoards were not quite so weedy at an earlier stage in their history.
I'll put this as simply as I can:
Jihadism is the manifestation of the failure of Islamic civilization - the violent death throes of an expiring anachorism.
I'll put this as simply as I can:
Jihadism is the manifestation of the failure of Islamic civilization. It is the violent death throes of an expiring anachronism.
Rich Arabs have plenty of money to Open Islamic Institutes(i.e. Madrasas) and Mosques. Recently, Saudi Arabian money, $500 million, was used to build just one mosque in a south Indian State. There are hundreds of others being opened in India and elsewhere.
Ultimate aim is to use oil money to spread Islam far and wide. This is happening very subtly, under the guise of peaceful of "peaceful ISLAM". With the Birthrate that muslims have and with oil money, it won't be long that there would be more conflicts around the world. But no one in power is willing to understand it.
I wish to ask these Saudis, why they do not allow other religions to atleast openly pray in Saudi Arabia since they consider it their right to spreadh Islam far and wide using their oil money. But who will bell the CAT. Not Bush or Blair.
It is truly infuriating to note that the Muslim commitment to support the ummah in politics and religion does not extend to economic support. Petroleum supporting countries have access to untold billions or even trillions which could have been used to create industries and job, and systems of education that could have raised millions out of ignorance and poverty.
The wealth is spent on furthering the goals of Islam and in the support of the extravagant lifestyle of the wealthy who complain and point fingers at the West for have a "double standard" or for "doing little to assist the world's poor. In fact the West has contributed billions in wealth transfer for the purchase of oil and in grants and aid money and done so for decades. This is an example of planting a negative propaganda for the purpose of creating and whipping up the jihad against the West for the oil billionaires resent the fact that although they are in possession of the one asset that everyone wants, oil, they are not making the rules.
The ignorant and easily manipulated masses will get for them what the oil has not: power and control of all of the world's wealth and human capital. The lie of the double standard will be repeated until it becomes the truth -- up is down, in is out, and truth are lies.
Mentat:
Harris's main theme is that it is high time that people stop being so PC about people who are inspired by "spirituality" and stop giving them a free pass because of their religious beliefs. He also discusses the shades of "peacefulness" found in various religions, finding the Jains the most peaceful and tolerant and, well, you can assume who he finds the least.
For a book written by a philospopher, I have not found it ponderous to read.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at May 2, 2005 02:51 PM
Yes! The "Cloaking Device" so successfully used by the gang of thugs known as "Islam" is quite simply the fact that they call themselves a religion.
They are nothing more than a revved up Mafia-type organization that suddenly decides to use the "religion" label to disguise their unseemly goals and protect their worse than unseemly behaviors from an appropriate response.
When is a religion not a religion? When it is the sheep's clothing for a wolf.