Tweet
The claim that Islam is a naturally violent relegion is a massive one, whihc calls for serious evidence. I must say that it has certainly failed to materialize ever here in Poly.
I had the great ability, while in college, to work at one of the biggest academic research libs. in the world. Many times, I would go read the back issues of Time and newsweek, both serties going back to their foundations, in the 1920's. Reading the accounts of WW2 were particvularly interesting. One good thing about Newsmagazines as a source of history is that while the author is full of existing prejudices, they are free of the future prejudices authors of history books have.
Well, I decided to look at the issues dealing with the Iranina revoltuion, and back then, in early 1979, Newsweek had to come out with an issue to try to introduce Islam to Americans. Why, because Islam was not much of an issue for them back then. Mullahs, and Ayatohllas and the Talibn, Wahhabism and Mujahadeen were al terms that had no meanig back then. In fact, much of the coverage of the Iranina revoltuion asked more about the Soviet role, than any worryng about Khomeini. Why? Becuase back in 1979 Islamist violence was a non-issue. The Hostage crisis, the assasination of Saddat, Hizbullah, Afghanistan, and all else were in the future.
Now, if Islam is so inherently violent, if the Quran is such a dealy book, were was this violence in 1972? That only 30 years folks, fine, longer than the life of 90% of Poly posters, but in the life of a 1400 year old relegion, nothing. Yet in 1972 none of the violence we speak of today existed. The question to ask then is why, in these last 30 years, has this violence come forward. Alkso important is why it matters so much for the West.
IN the 1960's and early 70's, Asia was the cusp. Millions dead in Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia each. Half a million suspected communists were killed by Suharto in the mid 60's.
IN the early 70's and 1980's, it was Latin America. Thousands in Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua. Tens of thousands in Colombia, Peru, El Salvador. 150,000 in Guatemala.
From the 60's to today, violenece in Southern Africa: Sierra Leon, Liberia, Angola, Ethiopia, Angola, the bloodbaths of Central Africa. (Very few Muslims)
From the early 80's to today, violenece accross the muslim world were Islam itself is an issue. The deadliest of all these conflicts is Sudan, in Africa, with 2.5 million dead. The next bloodiest, Algeria, were well over 100,000 died in the late 90's. After a decade Kashmir may approach 100,000. All the other conflcits are way behind. So even if Islam is violent, as far as body count goes, it has been small. All acts of terrorism against the West and Israel in the last 50 years may have killed 7000 people, tops. That's one day of violence in all christian Rwanda back in 1994, in fact,less.
Has Islam been hijacked? How does one Hijack a relegion of 1 billion peolple? I find the question silly. 99.9% of Muslims have never been part fo a violent Islamist organization. 1/10% is of course still 1 million people, but that hardly tells you about the life of the 999,999 Million others.
What about the question of why?
Well, look back at 1972. Who rules the Islamist world? Authoritarian regimes, for the most part secularizing. Some with the US, others with the USSR. And accross the board, they failed. They failed to significantly improve the lives of their citizens. These failures lead to revolution, to upheaval. Some regimes, like Pakistan, turned to islam to woo the crowd. Others, like Egypt and Syria, were strong enough to crush any opposition. Others, like the Shah, fell. And as resentment and revoltuion came, the superpowers stepped in to influence the game. One of the tools the US and conservative allies used was to foster radical islam, for Islamists hate Communists. The great infamous system of Madrasas finaced by Saudi Arabia? They came in the late 70's and 80's as the Saudis and the US sought to destroy socialists and communists.
The failure of the authoritarian and secularizing regimes, wether they were right or left, left many to look for a solutuion. And there was a new way, the way of modern Political islam. It had been building its foundations, primarilly in Egypt, since the 1920's. But it was too weak to take on the right backed by the US and UK, or socialists, backed by the USSR. But when both groups failed to imporve things, their chance came.
I had the great ability, while in college, to work at one of the biggest academic research libs. in the world. Many times, I would go read the back issues of Time and newsweek, both serties going back to their foundations, in the 1920's. Reading the accounts of WW2 were particvularly interesting. One good thing about Newsmagazines as a source of history is that while the author is full of existing prejudices, they are free of the future prejudices authors of history books have.
Well, I decided to look at the issues dealing with the Iranina revoltuion, and back then, in early 1979, Newsweek had to come out with an issue to try to introduce Islam to Americans. Why, because Islam was not much of an issue for them back then. Mullahs, and Ayatohllas and the Talibn, Wahhabism and Mujahadeen were al terms that had no meanig back then. In fact, much of the coverage of the Iranina revoltuion asked more about the Soviet role, than any worryng about Khomeini. Why? Becuase back in 1979 Islamist violence was a non-issue. The Hostage crisis, the assasination of Saddat, Hizbullah, Afghanistan, and all else were in the future.
Now, if Islam is so inherently violent, if the Quran is such a dealy book, were was this violence in 1972? That only 30 years folks, fine, longer than the life of 90% of Poly posters, but in the life of a 1400 year old relegion, nothing. Yet in 1972 none of the violence we speak of today existed. The question to ask then is why, in these last 30 years, has this violence come forward. Alkso important is why it matters so much for the West.
IN the 1960's and early 70's, Asia was the cusp. Millions dead in Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia each. Half a million suspected communists were killed by Suharto in the mid 60's.
IN the early 70's and 1980's, it was Latin America. Thousands in Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua. Tens of thousands in Colombia, Peru, El Salvador. 150,000 in Guatemala.
From the 60's to today, violenece in Southern Africa: Sierra Leon, Liberia, Angola, Ethiopia, Angola, the bloodbaths of Central Africa. (Very few Muslims)
From the early 80's to today, violenece accross the muslim world were Islam itself is an issue. The deadliest of all these conflicts is Sudan, in Africa, with 2.5 million dead. The next bloodiest, Algeria, were well over 100,000 died in the late 90's. After a decade Kashmir may approach 100,000. All the other conflcits are way behind. So even if Islam is violent, as far as body count goes, it has been small. All acts of terrorism against the West and Israel in the last 50 years may have killed 7000 people, tops. That's one day of violence in all christian Rwanda back in 1994, in fact,less.
Has Islam been hijacked? How does one Hijack a relegion of 1 billion peolple? I find the question silly. 99.9% of Muslims have never been part fo a violent Islamist organization. 1/10% is of course still 1 million people, but that hardly tells you about the life of the 999,999 Million others.
What about the question of why?
Well, look back at 1972. Who rules the Islamist world? Authoritarian regimes, for the most part secularizing. Some with the US, others with the USSR. And accross the board, they failed. They failed to significantly improve the lives of their citizens. These failures lead to revolution, to upheaval. Some regimes, like Pakistan, turned to islam to woo the crowd. Others, like Egypt and Syria, were strong enough to crush any opposition. Others, like the Shah, fell. And as resentment and revoltuion came, the superpowers stepped in to influence the game. One of the tools the US and conservative allies used was to foster radical islam, for Islamists hate Communists. The great infamous system of Madrasas finaced by Saudi Arabia? They came in the late 70's and 80's as the Saudis and the US sought to destroy socialists and communists.
The failure of the authoritarian and secularizing regimes, wether they were right or left, left many to look for a solutuion. And there was a new way, the way of modern Political islam. It had been building its foundations, primarilly in Egypt, since the 1920's. But it was too weak to take on the right backed by the US and UK, or socialists, backed by the USSR. But when both groups failed to imporve things, their chance came.
?
Comment