[lit-ideas] Re: Five Years Ago
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:36:20 -0700
That's one of the dumbest things I've heard all month, Irene. In your
fervor to blame America for everything, you keep yourself ignorant of the
Islamists actions in Egypt (Qutb, executed in 1966, was the intellectual of
the Muslim Brothers, the prototype Islamist organization). In Iran in 1980,
Khomeini called for Jihad against Iraq which resulted in the death of
1,000,000). In Algeria in 1992 the FIS called for a Jihad that ultimately
resulted in the death of 200,000). And you are overwhelmed by 10,000 who
aren't even dead yet? Pshaw. Do you know that ordinary Baathist
insurgents, the ones who ought to be tried with Saddam, aren't Jihadists?
They are ordinary insurgents. Do you know the difference?
Who in the region of Iraq would care if Iraq became a viable democracy? Do
you think everyone round about is neutral about that? Maybe it won't
succeed, but if it does, if Iraq becomes a viable democracy, then all the
nations round about with their anti-democratic tyrannies, will feel
threatened. Why will they feel threatened, Irene? Because Iraq will have
moved in the direction of Liberalism. It will have made a step or two
toward becoming a Liberal Democracy. The tyrannies will feel that their
days are numbered, and they will be. That is why the tyrannies like Iran
and Syria are encouraging troops to go across their borders to fight against
democracy in Iraq. Leftists too hate democracy so they are rooting (like
you are, Irene) for democracy's enemies.
Do you recall what it means to be a Liberal Democracy? Any Liberal who
understood what it meant to be a Liberal supported Liberal Democracy.
Shoot, I believe in Liberal Democracy so that makes me a Liberal. What do
you believe in Irene? You hate Liberal Democracy. You hate the idea that
Iraq might become a Liberal Democracy. You support Liberal-Democracy's
enemies.
Iraq might fail to become a democracy, but it will have been a noble effort
to have encouraged the Iraqis who wanted to make the attempt, who thought
they could succeed. And if it does fail, those who hate freedom, who hate
Liberal Democracy, who hate America, who supported those who undermined the
Iraqi government's efforts, will be able to claim victory. You'll be able to
claim victory then, Irene. But in the meantime many of us are pulling for
the Iraqi government to succeed. We are attempting to get Iran and Syria to
quit sending men to undermine the Iraqi-governments efforts. Of course
there is no hope of shutting up the bleating, anti-American Leftists: one of
the downsides of freedom.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 7:58 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Five Years Ago
"The thing about Qutb and the suicide attacks is that he took the Jihad into
new regions."
No, we took Jihad into new regions. Before Iraq Jihad was something a few
fanatics believed in, I forget the numbers, something like one in 10,000.
After Iraq, Jihad recruitment is something like 100 out of 10,000. Still
small, but still 100 times bigger, and growing.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/12/2006 10:37:11 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Five Years Ago
Well, if Judy is any example, the assertion that I read only those who agree
with me is morphing, and how could it not since I have on at least two
occasions listed the books I have read in the past couple of years and only
a small portion fit the Conservative pattern. But her qualification is that
I ignore the ones who say something different. That seems to be her quaint
way of saying that I dont accept everything I read, and I admit it; mea
culpa. I can read both Amis and Hitchens for example, while not agreeing
with their anti-Christian bias and having a severe problem with Hitchens
believing he was always right even though like Horowitz he has given up
positions he once held.
Besides, I dont really know if someone like Amis has studied Islamism or
Sayyid Qutb more than I have. I didnt really read anything new in the Amis
article, but I like the way he writes.
The thing about Qutb and the suicide attacks is that he took the Jihad into
new regions. In the past there were only the greater and lesser jihads.
The greater was very like the Christian Ephesians 6 wrestling not against
flesh and blood but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the
powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the
heavenly realms. [NIV] The lesser Jihad was to be used in self-defense. As
a result of Qutb the focus of the jihad has been expanded to include
infidels just because they are infidels. They dont need to be attacking
Muslims such that the lesser Jihad can be legitimately employed. Defense is
no longer a necessary condition. It is okay to be offensive against them.
Also, since Fundamentalism is a condit ion of Islamism, Muslim leaders who
dont embrace Islamism are also to be treated as infidels. It is okay to
assassinate them. Beyond that, Qutb who got a bit mystical while writing In
the Shadow of the Koran while in an Egyptian prison saw the Jihad as the way
to continue Mohammads advance. Who told Muslims they should stop where
they were. Did Mohammad stop before he was dead? Certainly not. And
neither should we. We should carry our Jihad into the land of the infidel
and never stop until all the world has been converted to Islam.
Perhaps all Islamist Muslims do not become Jihadists, but they ought to and
they know they ought to. It is incumbent upon them. In the Christian
milieu I grew up in, any one who wanted to be a really committed Christian
considered going into the ministry or becoming a missionary -- and the
bravest or most committed of the missionaries would go to deepest darkest
Africa. Today the bravest might go to an Islamic nation where they
regularly kill missionaries. But at the same time we all knew we could be
Christians in good standing without going into the ministry or becoming
missionaries. But the Muslim who accepts the teachings of Sayyid Qutb,
i.e., becomes an Islamist, if he is a really committed Muslim will kill an
infidel. Those who don t want to kill infidels will feel they are
second-class Muslims and hope Allah will accept them into paradise despite
their weakness. Before Qutb it wasnt that way.
In both Christianity and Islam there are traditions that honor martyrs. The
Christian has read Christ who said, unless you confess me before men, Ill
not confess you before my heavenly father. Thus, a true Christian would
not deny Christ even if it meant the auto de fe. A modern day Islamists may
legitimately demonstrate the sincerity of his belief by killing an infidel,
or if asked by a mullah or someone with Islamic authority, he (or she) will
gladly accept martyrdom by becoming a suicide bomber.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
