Posted on 01/01/2003 10:03:47 PM PST by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In a truly free election in Saudi Arabia, with the royal family on the sidelines bereft of the divine right of kings, and Osama Bin Laden as a candidate for prime minister, the world's most wanted terrorist would win hands down. So spoke, albeit privately, one of the most important non-royals, who manages a big chunk of the royal family's financial portfolio.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
People can rewrite their religious tenets - the Mormons do it all the time, and Judaism is a mishmash of reinterpretations and commentaries on reinterpretations by every bearded scribbler since Abraham - but it's become more difficult ever since technology has made the previous, supposedly discredited "tenets" are available for any and all to debate.
Even assuming that the principles of violence in Islam only date back to the 13th Century (which I doubt, considering what happened in the 9th Century) the so-called Islamic "moderates" are going to have a steep uphill battle to convince all of the Islamic "extremists" that destroying American buildings in the name of Allah is probably not what Allah wants. Somehow, I don't see them succeeding in our lifetime...
and of course, if the origins of Islamic violence really *do* go back to the very beginning, well... does anyone want to claim that the world will *ever* see the end of religious "fundamentalism" of *any* sort?
Iraqi Aftershocks: Being on the wrong side of history won’t be pretty
Slowly we are coming to the last few moves of a yearlong and tedious game. Saddam Hussein supposes that through delay, denial, and obstruction he can for a second decade stymie weapons inspectors and international bureaucrats, and thereby outfox the United States — in the process snatching victory from his rendezvous with ruin. He has slowly boxed himself into a corner in which he must deny the presence of weapons that he — and the world — knows exist.
When that revelation of their existence occurs, checkmate looms, and the wages of war follow — some time, I imagine, between mid-January and early March. Few who now express empathy, if not support, will join in Saddam's jihad. The Arab world, after all, can tolerate well enough genocide and torture, but not at all the humiliation of riding a sickly horse.
The results will have ramifications that make those in Afghanistan pale in comparison — and perhaps change both the complexion of the present war and the Middle East itself in ways we can now scarcely imagine. Current polls reflect widespread dislike of the United States in the Middle East. But what will such surveys reveal in six months, when an odious Saddam Hussein is removed and something follows far better than both him and the other autocrats in the region? Look at the change in Kabul for the answer.
Arnaud de Borchgrave is mistaken in making those analogies. Martin Luther was quite radical and his reforms were followed by very bloody religious wars. Also Luther was trying to decentralise the Church and to make every Christian to base his faith on the Bible.
Muslims are already decentralised and base their religion on the Koran.
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.