Islam
In the minds of Muslim idealists, the world of Islam was formerly led by a glorious succession of caliphs – religious rulers esteemed as highly as the most powerful potentates of Rome. Various dynasties reigned from Medina, Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo, and last of all from Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Turks now known as Istanbul.
The Ottoman dynasty ended catastrophically after World War I, when the last of the caliphs was deposed. The last great Muslim empire was partitioned, with all but its Turkish heartland divided between the victorious Western allies. Islamists have never forgiven the West for this humiliation, and their internal rivalries are only surpassed by their shared hatred of the West and Israel.
Dreams of global rule by Islam fuel the ambitions of al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban and other subversive Muslim groups. Like the fascists of the 1930’s, their leaders are autocrats who allow no dissent, and anti-Semitism is one of their major tenets. They carefully study Hitler’s book Mein Kampf under its Muslim title Jihadi. So fascism is back — but now driven by the radical creed of Mohammed!
Even the shallowest review of the Kor’an and Muslim history reveals that terrorism and violence are endemic to most forms of Islam, but advocates of liberal multi-culturalism are still unwilling to concede this point.
We must pray that their misguided concessions to Islam will be disavowed by governments throughout the Western world, and that our leaders will effectively address the perils we face.
Steve Hagerman
Grand Junction
This letter has not been edited.
Interesting but perhaps incomplete in some important ways.
To say that violence is endemic to “most” forms of Islam without mentioning which forms it is not common to is unfortunate.
The Suffi Muslims might be an example worth mentioning, and Mr.Hagerman might mention a few more.
Also to single Muslims out, while rhetorically coherent, ignores that the other Abrahamic religious traditions are equally prone to violence, particularly noticeable if one doesn’t draw the frame of reference tightly around current events.
It becomes quite obvious when the curtain is drawn back to include several hundred years of history.
It is also worth noting that the Muslims protected the Jews from Christian violence for a considerable time.
Finally, if one brings up propensity for violence as a feature of a specific religious tradition, it begs the question of a ranking amongst others.
Such a ranking of all known religious traditions and their propensity towards violence would indeed be instructive, and perhaps lead us to think that Witches, Jains, and Suffi Muslims may be far less dangerous people to live amongst than the religions we most commonly live amongst in the US.
We aren't living in the Golden Age of the Umayyad's anymore. Sufi Muslim's are a minority that were violently suppressed themselves during their original incubation. The infighting between the Sunni's and the Shii'es and the Shii'es and the Shii'es themselves are landmark moments only mirrored in "those other Abrahamic faiths" by the bloodletting after Martin Luther.
We ARE looking through the scope of current event, because current and future events are the one's we can attempt to create policy and intervene on. The Pope hasn't been rallying religious warriors for a new crusade, and hasn't since the 15thC, whereas the mullah's have called for jihad time and time again.
No, the ball rests on the so called "moderate" muslims to take a firm stand against terrorism and unrest. No more saying "we do not condone, but we understand". Attacks on civilians and democratically elected authority ARE NOT CIVILIZED METHODS of political redress. Until the moderates do some housekeeping, there will be the perception, which IS historically founded, that IS a religion of war.
But hey, after all, I live in the house of war, so perhaps I'm a bit biased.