Posted on 04/15/2002 6:06:27 PM PDT by swarthyguy
A consistent theme given prominence in the impending war of civilizations is the secularization of the Muslim world. With the United States gaining its world superiority, it is now being pushed with the utmost vigor and has become a sine qua non for its dealings with Muslim countries.
The problem is that secularism is a purely Western construct, developed in the particular European environment in response to Church excesses and the ensuing antagonism it produced, furthered by internecine Christian wars of the time, culminating in the separation of church and state. Thus, secularism, as it evolved, is based on the exclusion of faith having any significant role in human affairs and is devoid of the essentiality of transcendence with its vital role in human existence. This is the opposite of the Muslim experience with Islam. Rather than letting them lead their lives in accordance with their Islamic aspirations, the U.S. is intent on imposing a Western secular value system upon Muslims. In order to accomplish this objective, Islamic schools and mosques have now become the major targets.
Since every measure taken after September 11 is labeled as a “war on terrorism,” Islamic schools and mosques are not immune and are being projected as the breeding grounds of terrorism. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times writing in a column in the November 27, 2001, issue believes that the West is “not fighting to eradicate ‘terrorism.’ Terrorism is just a tool … [it is] fighting to defeat an ideology: religious totalitarianism. … But unlike Nazism, religious totalitarianism can’t be fought by armies alone. It has to be fought in schools, mosques, churches and synagogues, and can be defeated only with the help of imams, rabbis and priests.”
There are many secularist leaders within Muslim countries who are ready and willing to do the job: for example, General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. In a speech to his nation on January 12, 2002, he attempted to prove that every ill afflicting his country, and Muslims in general, is because of the “misinterpretation” of Islam, and if cured of it, Pakistan could become a “progressive” heaven on earth for other Muslims to emulate. As a result, he has since then instituted restrictions on the building of new mosques and ordered that all religious schools henceforth be registered and their curricula “improved” by including secular subject matters. The U.S. administration was pushing for these changes all along, and now has promised some help in “reforming the education” of Pakistani youngsters.
Thus Pakistan is “progressing” on the lines that Egypt already is, where religious education is in state hands and the construction of mosques is placed under strict restrictions: requiring a deposition of surety with a bank and the acquisition of a permit from the relevant government ministry. Such is the case with most other Muslim countries.
General Pervez Musharraf is pushing forward the secularization of Pakistan
This was great news for Western leaders, especially the media, since Pakistan is home to strong Islamic movements. They appreciated the “leadership” qualities of Musharraf and his “vision” of “a new course for the Muslim world.” As an example, the January 28 issue of Newsweek adorned him with a lengthy five-page article entitled “Pakistan’s Striving Son.” Admiring his unique courage, it said, “his government launched a series of dramatic policies that, if successful, will mean a real about-face for Pakistan. … Not only Musharraf wants to move Pakistan away from its long and troubled drift into theocracy, but he says he hopes to set an example that other Islamic countries with fundamentalist undercurrents will follow” (Mind you, Islam does not advocate rule by clergy or any elitist group, but it is egalitarian, and stands for popular vicegerency of humans under the sovereignty of God).
Then comparing him with Anwar Sadat of Egypt, it says, “Musharraf exhibits similar daring and vision, and also similar hubris. Many Pakistanis fear, and some of them wish, that he may yet meet Sadat’s bloody fate.” The same magazine had earlier called him a weak military dictator with a dilemma. Even now, it stated, “Musharraf is touchy when his democratic credentials are challenged. He pledges to hold parliamentary elections in October, but also plans to remain in place as president. ‘I have to do it not just for my sake, but for the sake of the nation,’ he says (echoing a line dear to many a dictator)” (Italics added).
The West, in all honesty, must admit that terrorism cannot be associated with any particular religion or people; and for that matter, it should also examine itself. Europe and the U.S. have by far the greater amount of terrorism, as apparent from the daily incidents of homicide reported in U.S. towns and metropolises. For example, in the U.S., 22,000 innocent civilians die every year as a result of heavy firearm shooting: because a growing number of fanatics (among them children) have in some cases suddenly started firing indiscriminately at persons in their vicinity - in schools, workplaces, and other places. And the government is unable to check this widespread terror among its citizens. Yet, it plays the role of policeman for the world, arrogating to itself the right to categorize whomever it wants to label as “terrorist.”
This blame is specifically directed at Islam and Muslims. Writing in the March 18, 2002, issue of the Washington Times, Anthony Sullivan and Louis Cantori, two well-known Middle East experts, write, “There is the policy posture that suggests Washington’s agreement with the notion that Islam is inherently a “fanatic” religion. … The demonization of Islam is troubling in two respects. First, it may be understood to justify establishment of an American world empire. Any such American imperium would assuredly not prove to be in the long-term interests of the United States. This policy orientation, of course, reflects views which are expressed regularly by American neoconservatives.” Further, that “the apparent association of Islam with fanaticism is related to an additional troubling phenomenon. This association suggests that both government officials and journalists have not understood how categorical and widespread the condemnation by prominent Muslim religious leaders of what occurred on September 11 has been” (Italics added).
Let us also look at Islamic schools in Muslim countries, which have been following the same curricula for generations and hundred of years. Like other religious schools, their primary goal is to teach the Islamic faith, its scholarship, and its ethical and moral principles. Their curriculum encompasses reading of the Qur’an and its Tafsir (exegesis) provided by a reputed scholar, along with Hadith (sayings of the Prophet of Islam) and Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) literature at the advanced level. There is nothing in the courses taught that could be remotely associated with terrorist teachings, such as the mechanics and use of firearms. In fact, incidences of violence are very low among graduates from these schools. On the other hand, it is the secular schools, colleges and universities (those inherited from the colonial period, and added on to) where armed groups exist and where incidents of terror and death take place. To those critics who often give the example of the Taliban one could ask the question, where did they learn this art? It was during the war with the former Soviet Union from where they received their training, along with the active assistance of the U.S. If this is true, as is generally acknowledged, then why are those who trained them accusing others of its occurrence in places where it is not?
In order to fight terrorism, the West and the U.S. would have to address the causes that lead to it. Terrorism is an act of desperation by those deprived of their rights; all it needs in order for it to end are just and fair solutions. Muslim desperation with the U.S., extending from a few terrorists to their predominantly large peace loving populations (totaling 1.3 billion in more than 55 countries), is largely due to the following reasons:
It is unjustly aligned with Israel against the Palestinians, while Israel violates its agreed upon accords and continues the Occupation, raiding Palestinian homes and killing civilians and children with U.S. supplied tanks, gunships and F16s.
It has instituted mindless cruel sanctions on Iraq, which has caused the death of more than 500,000 children and another 500,000 adults, mostly the elderly. And in general, it not only backs, but also ensures that their ruthless rulers remain entrenched in the status quo.
The real root cause of problems of the West is its adoption of Godless secularism that, along with its associated atheism, has led to its crass materialism, hedonism and moral and environmental decay. It has produced grave problems in its society, causing its disintegration, which is also very evident in its basic institution of the family. It is because of the absence of ethical and moral education that Western society is suffering from decadence, with constant increase in daily occurrences of crime and drug use, juvenile delinquency, violence, sex exploitation and abuse, along with rampant racism. Admittedly, Muslim societies suffer from grave problems of economic and political leadership, but their family institutions are strong and they possess a long tradition of firmly established values emanating from their mosques and religious schools.
Indeed, the current phenomenon of satellites beaming their shows into most homes in the Muslim world provides a stark contrast: that with the importation of secular values, the problems peculiar to the West are now emerging in the Muslim societies as well. Is this what the West wants to propagate to others? Shouldn’t it rather seek remedy for its grave moral and societal problems, rather than throw them onto the world stage?
The right course would be for the West and the U.S. to refrain from blind advocacy of secularism as the solution for Muslims and to conversely seek and adopt mutually beneficial ways of life in cooperation with them. Many Western intellectuals are conscious of the immorality of their social order and its implications for future social economy. Therefore, these leaders of conscience, rather than acquiescing in eroding the eternal transcendental nature of Islam and replacing it with spiritually blind, transient, relativistic and valueless secularism, should join forces with their counterparts from Muslim countries. They should thus work conscientiously to restore transcendence to their society - that is groping for it, in the prevailing darkness of minds - with their extant God-given goodness. Only when they are so engaged sincerely, they would, hopefully, through their unrelenting activism be able to convince government leaders and politicians not to become captives of arrogance and give in to wrongful ways, thereby arriving at a beneficial norm for the good of humankind.
I guess I was brought to this line of thought by reading how Ataturk pretty well tamed Islam in a few years in Turkey using similar techniques.
Whereas, Islam which never has any excesses and is a religion of peace, has done nothing to provoke any antagonism. Infidels are antagonistic because that is a characteristic of infidels. You know what infidels are like dontcha?
NOT!
Of course, Islam can be practiced in the US using the approach I described. I'm basically saying that the part of Islam which causes Islam to be excessively prone to violence and discrimination to non Muslims be defined as not part of Islam, and discarded from the religion by law.
Basically, my approach is that no religion can act as a cover for criminal behavior or insurrection. It's just a matter of degree as compared to allowing 'religious' human sacrifice, sex with animals, cannibalism, etc. Are we saying we're not secular because we don't allow the religious practice of these criminal behaviors? Then why should we give Islam a free hand to plot mischief under the guise of 'religion'?
Incitement to violence, perhaps ?
I'm glad someone has thought of a way to address this. I've been torn between the idea of freedom of religion and the sense that Islam doesn' t seem to have a place in a democratic, freedom -loving society such ours. I have been truly concerned about the influx of Muslims to this country because of the totalitarian worldview which this religion seems to espouse. As many westerners who have lived in Dar es Sallam (the land of Islam) have said, as long as muslims are in the minority, they will present the "Islam is peace" face to the world. But, because of the totalitarian spirit of their worldview,i.e., that it encompasses everything, I have a difficult time seeing how it could be the majority religion of a society and not be a constraint on the freedom of non-believers at minimum.
Your suggestion about expunging parts of their scriptures or teachings, while extreme, call to mind the requirements imposed on settlers of Utah, who, when they wanted to join the Union as a state, were requred to prohibit polygamy as a legal right. I don't know if it was expunged within the LDS teachings, but it is not permissable (legally) in Utah.
All I know is, I do not want the kind of Muslim influence here (heavily financed and politically oriented to a foreign end) as is seen in Europe, especially with imams who plead innocence as to the "political" nature of their mosque.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.