| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Barry Rubin discusses the meaning of the Bhutto assassination.
Much will be said about Benazir Bhutto's assassination; little will be understood about what it truly means. I'm not speaking here about Pakistan, of course, as important as is that country. But rather the lesson--as if we need any more--for that broad Middle East which begins in Pakistan and ends on the Atlantic Ocean coast.This is a true story. Back in 1946, an American diplomat asked an Iranian editor why his newspaper angrily criticized the United States but never the Soviet Union. The Iranian said that it was obvious. "The Russians," he said, "they kill people."
A dozen years earlier, in 1933, the Iraqi official Sami Shawkat, gave a talk which became one of the most famous texts of Arab nationalism. "There is something more important than money and learning for preserving the honor of a nation and for keeping humiliation at bay," he stated. "That is strength....Strength, as I use the word here, means to excel in the Profession of Death."
What, you might ask, was Shawkat's own profession? He was director-general of Iraq's ministry of education. This was how young people were to be taught and directed; this is where Saddam Hussein came from. Seventy-five years later the subsequent history of Iraq and the rest of the Arab world show just how well Shawkat did his job.
September 11 in the United States; the Bali bombing for Australia; the tube bombing for Britain; the commuter train bombing for Spain, these were all merely byproducts of this pathology. The pathology in question is not Western policy toward the Middle East but rather Middle Eastern policy toward the Middle East.
Ever since I read Shawkat's words as a student, the phrase, "Profession of Death," which gave his article its title, struck me as a pun. On one hand, the word "profession" meant "career."
To be a killer--note well that Shawkat was not talking specifically about soldiers, those who fight, but rather those who murder--was the highest calling of all. It was more important than being a teacher, who forms character; more important than a businessperson, who enriches his country; more important than a doctor who preserves the life of fellow citizens. Destruction was a higher calling than construction. And for sure in the Arabic-speaking world what has been reaped is what has been sowed.
But also the word "profession" here reminds me of "to profess," "to preach." What is of greatest value is for an educator to preach and glorify death. What kind of ideology, what kind of society, what kind of values, does such a priority produce? Look and see.
Like children playing with dynamite, Western intellectuals, journalists, and diplomats fantasize that they are achieving results in the Middle East with their words, promises, apologies, money, and concessions. Yet how can such innocents cope despite--or perhaps because of--all their good intentions with polities and societies whose basic ruling ethos is that of the serial killer?
And what can be achieved when those most forward-looking and most creative, those who want to break with the ideas and methods creating a disastrous mess, the stagnant system which characterizes so much of the Middle East, are systematically murdered? Read the roll: King Abdallah of Jordan, President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri of Lebanon, the bold author Farouq Fawda in Egypt, Iraqi Sunnis who dare seek compromise, Palestinian moderates, Algerian modernists, and thousands of women who seek a moderate degree of freedom.
The radicals are right: dying is a disincentive. And for every one killed how many thousands give in; and for every one threatened how many hundreds give in?
Seventy-five years after Shawkat, Hamas television teaches Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip that their highest aspiration should be to become a suicide bomber, with success measured by how many Jews are killed. And, by the way, the Palestinian Authority's television in the West Bank sends a similar message, albeit not quite as often.
Will billions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) change anything when the men with the guns take what they want? Are PA chief Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, respectively a timid bureaucrat and a well-meaning economist, going to take a bullet for lifting one finger to get a compromise peace with Israel?
How are you going to get a government of national conciliation in Iraq when the insurgents have shown they can gun down any Sunni politician or cleric who steps out of line?
The current supporters of the Lebanese government are probably the bravest politicians in the Arabic-speaking world, men willing to defy death. But how can they stand firm when Western governments rush to engage with the Syrian government that murdered them, and Western media proclaim the moderation of a Damascus ruler who systematically kills those who oppose him?
Can anyone really expect a stable society capable of progress in Pakistan when a large majority of the population expresses admiration for bin Ladin? And what about the Saudi system where, as one local writer put it, the big Usama put into practice what the little Usama learned in a Saudi school.
Don't you get it? The radical forces in the region are not expecting to retain or gain power by negotiating, compromising, or being better understood. They believe they are going to shoot their way into power or, just as good, accept the surrender of those they have intimidated.
That is why so much of the Western analysis and strategies for dealing with the region are a bad joke. Usama bin Ladin understands that, as he once said, people are going to back the strongest horse in the race.
According to all too many people in the Western elites, the way to win is to be the nicest horse.
But doesn't this assessment sound terribly depressing and hopeless? Well, yes and no.
Radical Islamists like to proclaim that they will triumph because they love death while their enemies--that is, soon-to-be-victims--love life.
Be careful what you wish for, though, because you probably will get it. For those who love death the reward is...death.
For those who love life, the outcomes include decent educational systems, living standards, individual rights, and strong economic systems.
All these things, and others that go along with them, are what really produce strength. And isn't it interesting that, contrary to Shawkat, the nations that put the priority on these things enjoy far more honor and suffer far less humiliation than happens with his model.
The profession of death has wrecked most Middle Eastern societies. But it has never succeeded in defeating a free society. It is not an effective tactic for destroying others but only for devastating one's own people.
Who killed Benazir Bhutto? The Sami Shawkat philosophy: alike in its Arab nationalist, Islamist, and Pakistani authoritarian versions which dominate Middle East politics.
Posted by Robert at December 31, 2007 9:31 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Benazir Bhutto?
Seems like this is old news for most Americans; what is important NOW is the upcoming Super Bowl.
To conquer the Americans all the islamist need to do is provide sports channels -- the rest will be a cake walk.
Posted by: witness![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 31, 2007 10:32 AM
Mao Tse-Tung made a similar observation: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
at December 31, 2007 10:52 AM
How are you going to get a government of national conciliation in Iraq when the insurgents have shown they can gun down any Sunni politician or cleric who steps out of line?
If we are to believe those who say that the insurgents/Islamists are "a tiny minority" of Iraqis/Muslims, then it's up to the Iraqi people to make a very loud, very public choice. Those who want national conciliation should have strength in numbers. They should be able to fight and defeat those who would destroy Iraq's future. If they choose to be intimidated and to shrink away from the responsibilities of freedom, then a new era of tyranny will be their lot. It's their choice.
Freedom isn't free.
Posted by: PMK at December 31, 2007 11:26 AM
Mohammad was the Professor of Death.
The "Prophet of Doom", as one website puts it.
All current Islamic morbidity spins off from his malignant first example like webs from a Black Widow spider.
Muslims are his primary victim.
Until the see through the Koran, they remain blind, and ensnared.
Submissive flies wrapped up in Mohammedan gossamer and waiting to be sucked dry by their cynical imams, mad mullahs and anal-sadistic ayatollahs.
Posted by: profitsbeard at December 31, 2007 12:01 PM
profitsbeard:
Perfect.
"This is a true story. Back in 1946, an American diplomat asked an Iranian editor why his newspaper angrily criticized the United States but never the Soviet Union. The Iranian said that it was obvious. "The Russians," he said, "they kill people."
I love that quote. I'm going to show that to all the crazies who America and blame the "American Imperialists" for running the world. If America is an evil Empire, it is the most benevolent evil Empire the world has seen before or will ever see again. If it does end, the nostalgia for the American Empire will never cease.
Posted by: JohnAdams at December 31, 2007 12:52 PM
“Submissive flies wrapped up in Mohammedan gossamer and waiting to be sucked dry by their cynical imams, mad mullahs and anal-sadistic ayatollahs.”
What a “captivating” way to put it!
The life of Muhammad needs to become public knowledge. As you say, profitsbeard, he truly was the Prophet of doom and death. All things evil in Islam flow directly from “al insane al-kamil” (the perfect man) and “uswa husana” (the model of conduct). I have modified my leaflet on Muhammad to include these phrases in the first paragraph.
I also, suspect that many Muslims are unaware of all the bloody, graphic details of Muhammad’s life. The killings, rapes, torture and deception are truly on a monstrous and massive scale. It is time that we put these things in the public square for all to see.
(OT) PMK, if you were close to hand I would buy you a beer or two! “Freedom is not Free” are words I live by and are on my business cards. I have “misuderestimated” you in the past.
Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 31, 2007 1:16 PM
...with polities and societies whose basic ruling ethos is that of the serial killer
And where did those polities and societies get their serial killer ethos from? That's the one thing Mr. Rubin doesn't mention. It wasn't from Sami Shawqat. Sami Shawqat is not the founder of this ethos (some, though not me, might call it a "religion"). This ethos didn't start in 1933 with Sami Shawqat, it started over a thousand years earlier with a man named Mohammad. Mr. Rubin is understandably shocked by the words of Sami Shawqat; but there is nothing special about Sami Shawqat. Mr. Rubin could just as easily quoted any other Muslim politician in 1933, or 1923, or 1903, or 1703, and laid the blame for the jihad at their feet.
that broad Middle East which begins in Pakistan and ends on the Atlantic Ocean coast
What about Thailand? Or Indonesia? Or Xinjiang province in China? Or Sudan? This is not a problem of the Middle East, it is a problem of Islam, and there is not a continent (other than perhaps Antarctica) that is untouched by Islam-inspired violence. He could have quoted Muslim clerics in Dearborn, or Lodi, or Dallas. Should we define the "broad Middle East" to include the U.S.?
Who killed Benazir Bhutto? The Sami Shawkat philosophy
Bzzzzt. Wrong. It is the Mohammad philosophy. Like so many pundits, Mr. Rubin gets the basic facts right (the violence towards outsiders, the discrimination towards women, the uselessness of sending more aid to the "Palestinians" or Iraqis or Afghans or Egyptians, the destructive influence this ethos has had on societies that adhere to it), but then goes to absurd lengths to avoid naming what that ethos is, where it came from, and when it started. Naming Sami Shawqat as the cause of all this is absurd.
Posted by: special_guest at December 31, 2007 1:31 PM
Woops! Freudian slip, the correct quote is “al-insan al- kamil”.
Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 31, 2007 1:48 PM
I'll have what "special_guest" is having.
Posted by: Hugh at December 31, 2007 2:15 PM
A culture that elevates to the status of "the Perfect Man" one who was the consummate terrorist, criminal, narcissist, pedophile, murderer, and thief and committed the blasphemy of claiming that the Creator of the universe said that this behavior was virtuous and glorious is a doomed culture. This political ideology may be the oldest surviving totalitarianism and may have been successful in pushing its borders outward - to the tune of conservatively estimated 260 million human beings murdered - but eventually the hammer of our and God's wrath will crush it in a maelstrom of death and destruction that will be breathtaking. Sooner or later this momentous clash will reach its climax. The sad fact is that the longer we deny what this monster is and appease it, the more sanguinary the climax is going to be for all sides. But it will be most catastrophic for Islam and its domains. Nothing but total destruction awaits it. In the long run humanity will have an enormous millstone around its neck removed.
at December 31, 2007 2:18 PM
"Profession of death" is a term that goes hand-in-hand with Islam and with no other religion. Thus the only way true democracy will ever work in a Muslim country is if the Islam practiced (and enforced) there is a watered-down Islam. True Islam is a death cult for a certain percentage of Islam's followers when they don't get their way.
And I think it important to distinguish between a watered-down Islam and a good Islam. Daniel Pipes, fine man that he is, thinks there is a good Islam lurking out there. Respectfully I disagree with those like Pipes who believe this. Islam with much of its guts ripped out is the only kind of Islam that could ever work with democracy. And even this is problematical. In any case, Islam as an onus to the entire world very much remains the case as we head into a new year filled with all kinds of uncertainties, thanks to that seventh-century Arab merchant whose malevolent influence upon mankind continues unabated.
Posted by: Wellington at December 31, 2007 2:19 PM
Thank you Hugh,
For hitting me over the head with the phrases “al-insan al- kamil” “uswa hasana” enough times for them to sink in. Enough times that I finally grasped the value in them.
When coupled with a bit of Muhammad’s life story, they provide a very effective “key” to help others understand Islam and the BEHAVIOR of Muslims.
at December 31, 2007 2:48 PM
"Thank you Hugh,
For hitting me over the head with the phrases “al-insan al- kamil” “uswa hasana” enough times for them to sink in."
Repetition, which normally one would wish to avoid, must be deliberately embraced in order to make points repeatedly about the nature of Islam. Indeed, whole sentences, even paragraphs, are repeated formulaically, in a way that would make Milman Parry proud, in order to press, through repetition, certain truths designed to undo the untruths of others who use similar repetition, but for the purposes of misleading. My aim is different: to tell the truth.
As for your kind "thank you," I can only reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcAIksVwNsw
Posted by: Hugh at December 31, 2007 5:37 PM
Seconding specialguest and hugh: it's all about 'the mohammed philosopy', the figure of Muhammad and the behaviour inspired by same.
Special guest - follow the link that Spencer gave. The Rubin article is presented in an online journal that has a 'contact' bar. Rewrite your posting above so it's a bit more politic and academic in tone, but with the gist intact - it isn't Sami Shawkat, it's ISLAM! it's MUHAMMAD! - and send it to them, via that 'contact' bar, for Mr Rubin's attention. Mr Rubin ought to have heard about Spencer's work, but just in case he hasn't, give him a heads-up.
My husband is currently reading "The Truth About Muhammad". He is finding the person and the events described therein, so repulsive that he has to keep stopping and 'resting' by reading something else entirely.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 31, 2007 5:48 PM
oops - typo - 'philosophy' not 'philosopy'! (Maybe I stayed up too late last night- New Years Eve).
Hugh - like Davegreybeard I thank you for your repetitions, so necessary because every single day there are, undoubtedly, new visitors here who are hearing those arguments for the very first time.
You and Mr Spencer, though so very different in style, are two of the most lucid writers I have ever had the pleasure of reading.
Indeed as regards you both, despite your differences, I am reminded of what C S Lewis said about G K Chesterton:
'his humour was...the humour which is not in any way separable from the argument but is rather (as Aristotle would say) the 'bloom' on dialectic itself. The sword glitters not because the swordsman set out to make it glitter but because he is fighting for his life and therefore moving it very quickly."
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 31, 2007 6:12 PM
"Be careful what you wish for, though, because you probably will get it. For those who love death the reward is...death".
I'm afraid the meaning of the Bhutto assassination is that a fuse has been lit that slowly burns toward a nuclear holocaust in Pakistan. It was an evil day when the Muslim invaders showed up there centuries ago. The whole place would be better off today if it were all Hindu and the indigenous culture had not been destroyed by the Arab-Persian-Muslim-invaders of India.
Posted by: Frank at December 31, 2007 6:38 PM
I want to chime in with another "Thank you" to Robert and Hugh. I have watched the jihad happening my whole life, and, like Mr. Rubin, had no idea what I was seeing. It was the writings of Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald, and also posters who quoted directly from the Qur'an and hadith, who convinced me to go and read the original documents for myself. And it was Robert and Hugh who provided the historical and theological context for the 1,400 year violent jihad that made everything suddenly snap into focus. I'm sure many JW/DW readers have had the same experience.
Posted by: special_guest at December 31, 2007 7:32 PM
I can also "chime in" with the posting above, and verify that JW/DW has been my single most important resource for understanding the threat of global Jihad.
While Robert's analysis and comments has inspired me to use logic, reason and facts when debating Islam, Hugh's writings have inspired me to use passion (and big words).
Posted by: Xero G at December 31, 2007 10:24 PM
"Be careful what you wish for, though, because you probably will get it. For those who love death the reward is...death".
...................................
Robert, excellent article on the culture of death.
The very day Benazir Bhutto was assassinated I found an astonishing column by Sandip Roy, titled "We South Asians Like Our Leaders Dead". This is such a nakedly shocking statement that I naturally assumed that it would be profoundly critical of this perverse attitude. I was wrong.
He writes: "In death Benazir Bhutto might have managed to do what eluded her in the last years of her life. . . in death, Bhutto showed the world that democracy in her part of the world can be deadly business. In life she was a politician. In death she became a martyr.
South Asians like their martyrs."
...
"Macabre as it may be, this notion of sacrifice is something that thrills us, even if few of us want to really practice it anymore. It is deeply romantic. . . . the allure of sacrifice, almost the expectation of sacrifice in public life runs strong. Politics is dirty business, we are constantly told, but through assassination and execution, tainted politicians can manage an extreme makeover, redeeming not just themselves but the process itself."
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The constant threat of assassination does *nothing* to "redeem" the process of democracy--instead, it warps and corrupts it.
In the last days of the Roman Empire, the threat of violence became so pervasive that only vicous strongmen and idiots ran for the senate. Eventually things became too dangerous even for thugs, and parties ran vain fools as fronts for various factions who worked more safely behind the scenes. This repulsive state of affairs did nothing to "redeem the process".
Roy then goes on to scoff at the idea that it is important to bring Bhutto's killers to justice. In one small way, he is correct--whoever killed her--most likely Al-Quaida--is just a small part of the vast number of jihadis who wanted her dead. But that is not his argument--he feels that finding her killers would somehow "end her story".
Would Americans have "felt better" if John Wilkes Booth had never been apprehended? Would it have made Abraham Lincoln's senseless killing "more romantic"?
It has often been noted that recent assassination attempts on US presidents have been made not by idiological opponents, but by random mentally ill assailants. Famously, the attempt on Gerald Ford's life was made not by a Nixon loyalist, or a supporter of a Democratic rival, but by a mentally unstable man hoping to impress a young actress he had never even met.
Ideological murder of one's political opponents is largely a thing of the past in the civilized world. While I'm sure we'll be seeing some nasty smear ads in the coming months, I have no fears that Rudy Giuliani is planning to have his staffers lie in wait for Mike Huckabee now that he has surged in the polls, or that Obama's people are planning a hit on Hilary Clinton.
Properly, a Democracy can have heroes, but it should never have martyrs. Indira Ghandi claimed that “Martyrdom does not end something, it is only a beginning.”, but she was wrong. The murder of politicians is more likely to scare off decent leaders than inspire them.
Here's a link to Roy's article:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=20e1f2e93e98b8ffdd144dd67d9e1dee
at January 2, 2008 12:56 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)