 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
2005.07.15, The Economist – Before one can have any realistic hope of finding effective answers, he or she must at least ask the right questions. The Economist (Muslim Extremism, 2005.07.15) has failded to ask the right questions.
First, the question cited by The Economist misses the point entirely by nakedly assumed that Muslim terrorism begins as mere discontent or personal frustration, in contradiction of widely published Muslim fundamentalist declarations that the conflict is grounded in an ever-increasing and irreconcilable divergence between the moral values of western democracies and those of Islam. Although Muslim moral values are religiously based, the cause of Muslim terrorism is the motivation of Muslim fi•da•yinꞋ – and that remains as much moral as religious. That also is why there is such wide support for, and even wider refusal among Muslims to condemn, the goals proclaimed by Muslim fi•da•yinꞋ.
The second question cited by The Economist is as flawed as the first. The London attack was neither homegrown nor initiated by people in a distant war zone "with a grudge against Britain." The attack was prompted by the zeal of religious fundamentalist Muslims to fight the moral hedonism and degeneracy – "Sodom & Gomorrah on steroids" kuph•ârꞋ – of western democracies, which include Britain, Spain, the U.S., Israel and all other western democracies. This desperation is fueled, fanned and programmed into child-soldier fi•da•yinꞋ, aspiring to become a shâ•hidꞋ, from earliest childhood by a significant portion of ma•drasꞋas in virtually every Arab country. This phenomenon is neither "home-grown" nor a "grudge against Britain." It is, rather, religiously based moral values and zeal motivated by disgust at societal degeneracy.
The Economist also seems to be poorly informed concerning the explosives that were used. It has been reported that the explosives used in the London bombing can be purchased in any pharmacy and were, indeed, mixed in the bathtub of their apartment from a formula anyone can obtain on the internet. Increasingly, the world will find that individual terror cells don’t require "connections with ideological mentors, [or] ultimately fi•da•yinꞋ sponsors, who live overseas"; neither doctrinally nor technically. They know their Islamic religious moral standards without foreign mentors and, when they feel desperate enough at local societal degeneracy to turn to terrorism, everything they need has become accessible on the internet or elementary chemistry books. "Terrorist-hunters," therefore, will unavoidably fail because they have asked the wrong questions, blundered to wrong conclusions and, consequently, are pursuing something that isn’t essential to Muslim terrorism. If the "terrorist-hunters" and many "experts" knew what they were doing, the problem would have been solved long ago. The harsh fact is that, with rare exceptions, the "counter-terrorism experts" insist on distorting the problem to fit their own tunnel-visioned, preconceived commitment to their own relative – "Sodom & Gomorrah on steroids" – moral values instead of trying to grasp, and deal with, the Muslim perspective. Thus, the "experts" are busy solving the problem of a straw man, entirely unaware that their "problem" is Muslim fi•da•yinꞋ.
Idolizing a perceived religious hero, it should be noted, isn’t the same as sponsorship. The examples of "sponsorship" cited by The Economist are nothing more than idolization of a religious hero; if not al-Zarqawi then whoever replaces him. The questions that the experts should be asking are (1) what produces the individual zealous Muslim fi•daiꞋ to seek "foreign godfathers" in the first place and (2) how are they primed to go off as human bombs? For "born Muslims" that answer is not complex. It is stunningly simple: ma•drasꞋas that program child soldiers – child sacrifices (martyrs) – for ji•hâdꞋ and Muslim clerics who inculcate hatred to inspire ji•hâdꞋ, respectively. Where The Economist got it exactly right is in identifying Muslim fi•da•yinꞋ as "an ideological community, held together above all by electronic connections, which seeks inspiration from a common source." However, experts remain in denial, refusing to deal with the primary cause: the religious-moral conflict in which some Quran-based Muslim disgust at democratic "Sodom and Gomorrah on steroids" is justified — a religious-moral disgust, by the way, shared by Bible-based Jews and Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)-based Christians as well. These shared points of opposition to societal degeneracy – among moderate Muslims, moderate Jews and moderate Christians – could serve as bridges to mutual harmony. The key word is "moderate."
One of the important insights of The Economist article was that Muslim fi•da•yinꞋ do more often emerge from a life of sin than from a consistently devout background. However, this shouldn’t be seen as any more consistent than turning from sin to Christianity or to úÌåÉøÈä (Judaism). The problem is not the background they’re coming from but, rather, the peculiarly Islamic perception and methodology of salvation. Failures in life and permanently tainted women (justified or not) are often unable to deal with a lifelong standard of morality and righteousness – but a quick shortcut to paradise via suicide? Now that they can do, they're sick of life and they have nothing to live for anyway. "Sodom & Gomorrah on steroids" produces this cannon fodder by the myriad. It's the Perfect Storm.
Where Judaism requires living a life doing one's utmost to adhere to the criteria of úÌåÉøÈä, (lᵊ-ha•vᵊdilꞋ), Christian "salvation" requires nothing but belief in Jesus – growing hedonists by the myriads. Then Islamic "salvation" offers every failure or any sort instant "salvation" and entrance into paradise, including 72 sexy virgins, by getting killed on the battlefield or blowing himself up as a shâ•hidꞋ to kill immoral kuph•ârꞋ. Similarly, Muslim women who have become regarded as a slut by Muslim society for whatever myriad reason, can atone, become an instant heroin in Islamic society and gain instant entrance into paradise by getting killed in battle or blowing herself up as a shâ•hidꞋ, killing the immoral and degenerate kuph•ârꞋ. What mystery is there in young people choosing the quick and easy faux-path to "salvation" and immediate gratification of everything they want most; in contrast to a long and arduous path of leading an upright life over many years for concepts that require brainpower and a life that requires discipline to build a worthwhile human being of real value? Those who are bling-oriented immediate-gratification, hedonists cannot relate to real, genuine, value or the investment in time and effort required to achieve it.
Traditional methods of infiltration and intelligence are essential and must continue. However, there is, in addition, a far simpler and more effective way to reach the vulnerable potential recruits being targeted by fi•da•yinꞋ: in internet forums and media articles make them come to you. Challenge the validity of their beliefs in the ridiculous notion of being rewarded in a spiritual realm with 72 physical virgins, and the pernicious lie of being admitted into paradise for murdering children of the Creator.
No other religion is mass-producing fi•da•yinꞋ. There is a reason for that. Challenge them at the point where they’re most vulnerable: the basic historical and factual aspects of the earliest extant mss. of the Quran and the philosophical tenets of Islam that, together, lead to fi•da•yinꞋ ji•hâdꞋ that fabricates a "salvation" out of Is•ti•shâdꞋ.
Muslim fi•da•yinꞋ will come out of hiding in droves; out of the cracks and out from under their rocks to defend Islam. Just look at the opinion forums of The New York Times and The Washington Post. Additionally, their arguments are so outrageously contradictory to fact and out of touch with reality that any educated person willing to brush up on history and put in the effort to provide links citing sources can expose as conspicuously absurd.
No one has ever challenged their beliefs before because, until they recently found their old Sword, no one paid much attention to them – and anyone who polemicizes Islam or their false prophet, Muhammad, risks a death fat•wâꞋ. That is exactly the mark of intellectual bankruptcy, the inability to compete in the free marketplace of ideas.
On the other hand, if you don’t challenge their beliefs you’re already under a death fat•wâꞋ — just for being a living "kuph•ârꞋ".
If there aren’t any flaws in Islam then everyone should stop fighting the fi•da•yinꞋ and simply join Islam. No? Then you’d better start telling them why not!!!
If you don’t know why not then you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution; and shouldn’t be sounding off as a so-called expert, regardless of your background, "official authority" or educational pedigree. Learn to attract them out of their hiding places and then put them philosophically and intellectually on the run before Muslim fi•da•yinꞋ can recruit them.
The effectiveness of this approach is already proven: it is those Muslims, who are most rational, scientific and modern-oriented, who have begun to reject and condemn fi•da•yinꞋ terrorism. Yes, fi•da•yinꞋ will indeed continue to meet "like-minded folk in living rooms." But the resulting individuals, increasingly having lost religious and Muslim support, will be so fragmented that they won’t maintain a shadow of today’s effectiveness. They will be reduced to the manageable level and relative ineffectiveness of Christian extremists in the U.S. and Jewish extremists in Israel — a far cry from today’s global threat from fi•da•yinꞋ.
 |
|
 |