The Quest for A Clash of Civilizations

[Thinkerman]

Islam in U.S. Cross Hairs

12/26/2002 - Political Religious Social - Article Ref: IC0212-1813

By: Siraj Islam Mufti, Ph.D

IslamiCity* -

 

 

Although President Bush has characterized "Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others", increasingly a large number of foreign policy hawks have joined the religious conservatives in taking issue with this characterization.

 

Increasingly, they are engaged in advocating a civilization clash that targets Muslims in conflict with the West, led by the United States.

 

Thus, with the current war cries against Iraq growing louder, the stage is being set for campaigns against Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Libya followed by other Muslim countries in their turn.

 

Kenneth Adelman, who serves on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, said this about Islam: "The more you examine the religion, the more militaristic it seems. After all, its founder, Mohammed, was a warrior, not a peace advocate like Jesus."

 

Another member of this board, Eliot Cohen writing in a Wall Street Journal editorial argued that the enemy of the U.S. is not terrorism "but militant Islam." Paul Weyrich, who has influence in the White House, recently wrote that he is concerned about President Bush's "constant promotion of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance just like Judaism or Christianity. It is neither."

 

These comments follow those of conservative Christian leaders such as Jerry Vines, a former Southern Baptist president and evangelist Franklin Graham, who early on stigmatized Islam.

 

Then, although he later apologized, Jerry Falwell appearing on CBS "60 Minutes" reviled the Prophet of Islam as a "Terrorist."

 

And the unapologetic televangelist Pat Robertson continues to cast aspersions on Islam, Muslims and the Prophet of Islam.

 

Thus Ibrahim Hooper, a representative of the Council on American and Islamic Relations, an American Muslim advocacy group, commented, "These right wingers are trying to set up a civilization conflict with all their might in the same way as Osama bin Laden. We're trying our darnedest to prevent it, but every day it's looking more and more like it's heading in that direction."

 

First, it is important not to confuse a religion with the actions of certain persons. Otherwise, one could equate genocide committed by Hitler and the Nazis, or Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs, with Christianity.

 

Islam espouses the same principles of peace, love and tolerance as Christianity. To garner respect for the Prophet, I would refer them to the recent PBS documentary, "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet", co-produced by Michel Wolfe and Alexander Kronemer.

 

Second, any talk of violence without due attention to its underlying causes, is counterproductive.

 

Among others, Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada linked the September 11 terrorist attacks to the attitude of the West Ð particularly, the way the U.S. "flexes its muscle" and imposes its "values" around the globe.

 

And the former U.S. President, Jimmy Carter is troubled by this new belligerent "face of America."

 

The current growth of anti-Americanism is not restricted to the Muslim countries, but is also widespread in Europe because it considers the U.S. as arrogant and unilateralist as a superpower.

 

Most European governments are opposed to war on Iraq, and large street protests are common occurrence in their countries.

 

A British field marshal commented that an attack on Iraq is likely to "add petrol to the fire."

 

The FBI and CIA reports also indicate that this attack will further inflame the Middle East and the Muslim world.

 

The neo-conservatives are pursuing a unidirectional monologue, basing the U.S. foreign policy on their imperialist designs. This is dangerous, because it is coercive and thus bound to create more conflicts.

 

They must acknowledge that this world is composed of diverse entities, each with its own distinct tradition, values, needs and interests.

 

Therefore, the prevalent neocolonialist attitude towards the world's Muslims must be replaced with equity and fairness.

 

And, through cross-cultural dialog and open, free exchange of ideas, it must create an environment conducive to the peaceful coexistence and betterment of humankind as a whole.

[Thinkerman]

Salams My dear nomads.

 

Although no one has yet managed to come around to read the first article, i still thought i would add an additional artice to the topic because it also links into the original question, or assertion i should say. That is "The quest for a clash of 'civilizations'", and all that entails such a clash.

 

well anyway here is the article.

 

UN inspectors fear Bush will ignore them

 

Peter Beaumont, and Ed Vulliamy in New York

Sunday January 5, 2003

The Observer

 

UN weapons inspectors in Iraq fear their work - which has failed to turn up any evidence thus far of weapons of mass destruction - will still be used as an excuse to trigger a US-led invasion of Iraq.

Leaks from the inspections teams - and the two agencies in charge of them, Unmovic and the International Atomic Energy Agency - have fuelled an increasingly frenetic diplomatic effort among opponents of the war.

 

The weapons inspection teams in Iraq have visited breweries and former nuclear plants, and raided missile factories and pharmaceutical production lines. They have examined former weapons factories and interviewed scientists and university technicians. As of yesterday they had checked 230 sites in all. If one is to believe the few inspectors who have been prepared to be interviewed anonymously, they have found absolutely nothing.

 

Nuclear weapons sites that the British and the Americans claimed as late as last September had been reactivated have been revealed as rusting, disabled shambles. It may be that Iraq has squirrelled away its most portable weapons and components. But as one inspector complained to the LA Times last week, they had found 'zilch'.

 

He is not alone in his assessment. Another inspector in Baghdad complained to Newsday : 'If our goal is to catch them with their pants down, we are definitely losing. We haven't found an iota of concealed material yet.'

 

Other reports have suggested that there have been just two violations uncovered in Iraq - neither of them involving weapons of mass destruction.

 

And as UN officials in New York prepared to order a final massive blitz to find Iraq's alleged stock of hidden weapons, they told The Observer their conclusion is that either they do not exist or they 'have been outfoxed'.

 

With barely three weeks to go before the inspectors must produce their report to the UN Security Council on 27 January - and with President George Bush pouring new troops and materiel into the region - America and its closest ally, the UK, appear to be losing the propaganda war to Iraq.

 

Iraqi officials have taken to announcing on a daily basis, as each round of inspections finishes, what the inspectors know - that they have found nothing.

 

Neither the vast nuclear and chemical laboratories alleged by the Iraqi opposition and hawks in the US administration, nor the mobile biological laboratories said to be travelling the wastelands of Iraq, have been traced. And as time runs out before the UN deadline, even British Cabinet sources have started to trim their more bellicose statements of last year, admitting in private briefings that the prospect of war was now '60-40 against'.

 

Although Downing Street has refused to comment on reports that Ministers believe a war on Iraq can be avoided, both Tony Blair and the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, are still hopeful that military conflict can be avoided by diplomatic means, putting them at odds with Bush, who told cheering US servicemen that Saddam had chosen the path of 'defiance' and that they could be called on to 'liberate Iraq'.

 

The new British assessment comes in the face of ever increasing opposition to an invasion of Iraq in the region, as even Turkey - America's strongest ally and main beneficiary of military aid in the area after Israel - has embarked on a round of energetic diplomacy to avoid a war. Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul arrived in Syria yesterday for a brief visit to reinforce Turkey's relations with the Arab world in view of a prospective war.

 

Turkey says it is opposed to military action in Iraq, its southeastern neighbour. But it also depends on Washington's support for massive IMF loans and has not ruled out allowing American forces to use Turkish bases to launch attacks on Iraq.

 

The Turkish diplomatic effort has come amid increasing evidence of efforts by Iraq's neighbours to formulate a proposal to persuade America and Britain to allow them to persuade Saddam Hussein to step down and - perhaps - seek exile, thus averting war.

 

'It has been the private view for some time of a number of Iraq's neighbours that there should be a clean regime change without war against Iraq,' said one European diplomat last week. 'There have been suggestions in the last couple of weeks that this is a serious effort and that they would like the opportunity to persuade Saddam to go.'

 

Yesterday, as they set up a new base near Mosul in northern Iraq, UN inspectors were more aware than ever that it was their work that would be likely to trigger a war. Some of the inspectors are understood to be convinced that their mission has become a 'set-up job' and America will attack Iraq regardless of what they find.

 

Hans Blix is due to report to the UN ahead of the deadline, say officials - perhaps as early as a week from now.

 

In the meantime, the inspectors intend to embark on one final round of spot inspections, using a fleet of US and Russian helicopters to swoop on sites identified by new intelligence material finally submitted to them from Washington.

[Thinkerman]

Salams Ppl, here is also another article which i thought i would post, its another worthwhile read, depressing as it is. Again i think it more than ties in with my original assertion. We are all am sure in no doubt what the Hawkish USA Administration and the various instruemnets it uses desire out of the cuming war with Iraq. And if your read the following article you can quite clearly see that the us has been up to this form a long time ago.

 

Published on Saturday, January 4, 2003 by the Independent/UK

The Double Standards, Dubious Morality and Duplicity of This Fight Against Terror

Meanwhile, we are ploughing on to war in Iraq, which has oil, but avoiding war in Korea, which does not have oil

 

by Robert Fisk

 

I think I'm getting the picture. North Korea breaks all its nuclear agreements with the United States, throws out UN inspectors and sets off to make a bomb a year, and President Bush says it's "a diplomatic issue". Iraq hands over a 12,000-page account of its weapons production and allows UN inspectors to roam all over the country, and – after they've found not a jam-jar of dangerous chemicals in 230 raids – President Bush announces that Iraq is a threat to America, has not disarmed and may have to be invaded. So that's it, then.

 

How, readers keep asking me in the most eloquent of letters, does he get away with it? Indeed, how does Tony Blair get away with it? Not long ago in the House of Commons, our dear Prime Minister was announcing in his usual schoolmasterly tones – the ones used on particularly inattentive or dim boys in class – that Saddam's factories of mass destruction were "up [pause] and running [pause] now." But the Dear Leader in Pyongyang does have factories that are "up [pause] and running [pause] now". And Tony Blair is silent.

 

Why do we tolerate this? Why do Americans? Over the past few days, there has been just the smallest of hints that the American media – the biggest and most culpable backer of the White House's campaign of mendacity – has been, ever so timidly, asking a few questions. Months after The Independent first began to draw its readers' attention to Donald Rumsfeld's chummy personal visits to Saddam in Baghdad at the height of Iraq's use of poison gas against Iran in 1983, The Washington Post has at last decided to tell its own readers a bit of what was going on. The reporter Michael Dobbs includes the usual weasel clauses ("opinions differ among Middle East experts... whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction"), but the thrust is there: we created the monster and Mr Rumsfeld played his part in doing so.

 

But no American – or British – newspaper has dared to investigate another, almost equally dangerous, relationship that the present US administration is forging behind our backs: with the military-supported regime in Algeria. For 10 years now, one of the world's dirtiest wars has been fought out in this country, supposedly between "Islamists" and "security forces", in which almost 200,000 people – mostly civilians – have been killed. But over the past five years there has been growing evidence that elements of those same security forces were involved in some of the bloodiest massacres, including the throat-cutting of babies. The Independent has published the most detailed reports of Algerian police torture and of the extrajudicial executions of women as well as men. Yet the US, as part of its obscene "war on terror", has cozied up to the Algerian regime. It is helping to re-arm Algeria's army and promised more assistance. William Burns, the US Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, announced that Washington "has much to learn from Algeria on ways to fight terrorism".

 

And of course, he's right. The Algerian security forces can instruct the Americans on how to make a male or female prisoner believe that they are going to suffocate. The method – US personnel can find the experts in this particular torture technique working in the basement of the Château Neuf police station in central Algiers – is to cover the trussed-up victim's mouth with a rag and then soak it with cleaning fluid. The prisoner slowly suffocates. There's also, of course, the usual nail-pulling and the usual wires attached to penises and vaginas and – I'll always remember the eye-witness description – the rape of an old woman in a police station, from which she emerged, covered in blood, urging other prisoners to resist.

 

Some of the witnesses to these abominations were Algerian police officers who had sought sanctuary in London. But rest assured, Mr Burns is right, America has much to learn from the Algerians. Already, for example – don't ask why this never reached the newspapers – the Algerian army chief of staff has been warmly welcomed at Nato's southern command headquarters at Naples.

 

And the Americans are learning. A national security official attached to the CIA divulged last month that when it came to prisoners, "our guys may kick them around a little in the adrenaline of the immediate aftermath (sic)." Another US "national security" official announced that "pain control in wounded patients is a very subjective thing". But let's be fair. The Americans may have learnt this wickedness from the Algerians. They could just as well have learned it from the Taliban.

 

Meanwhile, inside the US, the profiling of Muslims goes on apace. On 17 November, thousands of Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans, Afghans, Bahrainis, Eritreans, Lebanese, Moroccans, Omanis, Qataris, Somalis, Tunisians, Yemenis and Emiratis turned up at federal offices to be finger-printed. The New York Times – the most chicken of all the American papers in covering the post-9/11 story – revealed (only in paragraph five of its report, of course) that "over the past week, agency officials... have handcuffed and detained hundreds of men who showed up to be finger-printed. In some cases the men had expired student or work visas; in other cases, the men could not provide adequate documentation of their immigration status."

 

In Los Angeles, the cops ran out of plastic handcuffs as they herded men off to the lockup. Of the 1,000 men arrested without trial or charges after 11 September, many were native-born Americans.

 

Indeed, many Americans don't even know what the chilling acronym of the "US Patriot Act" even stands for. "Patriot" is not a reference to patriotism. The name stands for the "United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act". America's $200m (£125m) "Total Awareness Program" will permit the US government to monitor citizens' e-mail and internet activity and collect data on the movement of all Americans. And although we have not been told about this by our journalists, the US administration is now pestering European governments for the contents of their own citizens' data files. The most recent – and most preposterous – of these claims came in a US demand for access to the computer records of the French national airline, Air France, so that it could "profile" thousands of its passengers. All this is beyond the wildest dreams of Saddam and the Dear Leader Kim.

 

The new rules even worm their way into academia. Take the friendly little university of Purdue in Indiana, where I lectured a few weeks ago. With federal funds, it's now setting up an "Institute for Homeland Security", whose 18 "experts" will include executives from Boeing and Hewlett-Packard and US Defense and State Department officials, to organize"research programs" around "critical mission areas". What, I wonder, are these areas to be? Surely nothing to do with injustice in the Middle East, the Arab-Israeli conflict or the presence of thousands of US troops on Arab lands. After all, it was Richard Perle, the most sinister of George Bush's pro-Israeli advisers, who stated last year that "terrorism must be decontextualized".

 

Meanwhile, we are – on that very basis – ploughing on to war in Iraq, which has oil, but avoiding war in Korea, which does not have oil. And our leaders are getting away with it. In doing so, we are threatening the innocent, torturing our prisoners and "learning" from men who should be in the dock for war crimes. This, then, is our true memorial to the men and women so cruelly murdered in the crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001.

 

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[La Fidele]

Those were all very profound articles, Shujui, thanks!

In response to the first, you're right to infer that there's a compulsion to see Huntington's vision in reality. I swear, it is so disheartening to see such ignorant and misinforming comments made so arrogantly by these individuals. But what I've learnt to realize is that this is something of a political stunt, really. America is jumping on the radical right bandwagon along with the rest of Europe, where almost all of Western European states are facing the re-emergence of facist parties (Germany, Hungary, Austria, France, Italy, etc.). They're all looking for someone to blame for their problems. Most often, the European counterparts attribute unemployment to Muslims and other immigrant groups...I'm not too sure what the Americans are trying to hide behind yet. And in a way, there is some power attained by making such radical stands. Parties or groups like these captivate a sector of the population who are looking for a fresh voice with new ideas, no matter how illogical they may be. What better example is there than the ascent of the Nazi party?

Anyways, that's just one perspective at looking at these manipulative statements. It's amazing to witness these people turning a blind eye to the true facts of Islam.

 

Secondly, Robert Fisk is so admirable! I wonder if this is the unrestrained voice of an objective (if not slightly biased) journalist in the midst of Western media propaganda?

[Thinkerman]

Salams Again.

 

Am glad that some one had found the time to read the articles, and enjoy them lol. I was starting to re think whether it was worthwhile posting such topics to begin with, but " all's well that ends wells".

 

Anyway back to the topic, yes without a shadow of a doubt (in mind @ least) this Insesent aggresive pursuit of Nothing else but war really cannot be viewed as anything else but a desire to see a Clash of some sort or another.

 

The likely fall outs and the resulting consequences would (whatever shape or form the take) play right into the hands of the various Foriegn policy hawks, and Religious conservatives and Lobbies that have a vested economic and Geo-pilitical interest.

 

In this New era of total un disguised imperial desires a new equvilant of the old Iron Wall has perhaps been erected starting from occupied Palestine, runing right through the middle-east, streaching through central and south asia and doesnt stop until N koera and china. The common denominator that links all this different region = America, its interference, its presence their in some form or another, oil, and some opposition to it's presense and the regime in power by the ppl of that country.

 

But what to do.

 

Am a firm Believer that sooner rather than later The us, will find that they have spread themselves far to thinly over to great an area, and have picled to many fights @ one time. You can see N.Koera trying to expolit this now, and once the war begins only allah (SWT) who knows what else will follow.

 

All i know is that my sympathies wont lie with any Solidiers partaking in this Un just war, and certainly i will be praying that allah Humbles them and Gives the Iraqis victory in some form or another.

[lol]

THnx shujui for posting these articles, I think its fair to raise the awareness of the Muslims to these false allegations, that tend to violate our religious believes. Correct me if I am wrong, but I lay the blame on the Muslim governments that let the christians to stomp on our Gracious name of Prophet Mohamed ( scw). Brother, the arabs kiss the asses of these facists that decieve their own people in order to impliment their own selfish interests while omitting the passive side of Islam.

 

I believe this has been an on going process that for some reason couldn't surface till now. And like I always thought, Muslims have been framed to take the blame for the Sept. 11 event.

 

Anyways keep the good joob you are doing Shujui, you are one hell of an expressionist, who is true to his believe.

[Thinkerman]

Thx hibo for the words of encouragmet.

 

Am glad you found the articles interesting Hibo. It is a bigg topic that i was trying to Coe worse more nomads to join into but nevermind. I just though that they were excellent articles to read soi shared them with you guys.

 

source

www.islamicity.com

 

 

It is a shame Hibo, and yes i agree that quite a large apportionment of blame in my opinon should go directly to so many leaders of the regimes in various muslim countries. They can be only described as being Incompetant and grossly negligent in the way the govern their countries affairs.

 

But going back to the orginal assertion that i made. I think most ppl with common sense, whether in education or not, Muslim or non-muslim could say (if their being objective) that on the basis of evidence pprovided by the pro-war coalition the simple isnt a case for going to war with iraq. If anything teh case made would be to not go to war wioth Iraq and indeed start reviewing the foriedn policy aims. But thats taking a naive point of view for the sake of making the point. Clearly the know exactly what there doing.

 

The various existing contradictions that are constantly echoed daily i.e. 'Iraq in is breach of un resloutin' bal bla bla whilst the convinantly ignore Israel's countless Breaches of Un resoultions just further adds more suspision to what their real aims and asspiriations are.

 

In the end it does sadly come down to a somle number of very prominant powerful lobby groups that have specific agendas in the middle east and muslim countries, especially those that aspire to have islamic regimes and have some natural resources.

 

Like i said in my last thread i think that their arrogance has taken them perhaps to far on this occasion, God only Knows what will happen. But i wouldnt be supprised to see them humbled in one way shape of form, infact am praying for it.

 

And Finaly i would just end by saying that in their constant pursuit of war and use of Verilantly Inflamatory languages such as 'crusade' 'army of liberators' and indeed 'they are a threat to our civilazion' they probably will acheive the polarization that they desire ( and althouh this in my view a bad thing) this am sure will back fire on them and the will just exprience more acts of terror and they will see their blood lose increase.

 

well any thx for ur response much Appreciated

[Thinkerman]

An update if anyone is interested in reading

 

 

There need be no clash of civilizations

 

 

Jonathan Power

 

So far so good, at least on the wider level. While internally Iraq seems on the edge of chaos, the much-heralded clash of civilizations between the Muslim and Judeo-Christian worlds has yet to become apparent.

 

We have anger and despair aplenty in the Arab and Muslim worlds. But very little rushing to the standard and there was no great pilgrimage of warriors to join the fight, as happened when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan 20 years ago, and then, having driven the Red Army out, were left to ferment in that mountainous redoubt.

 

With the armaments supplied by the CIA, the Mujahedeen were transformed into al-Qaida that became, for a relatively brief moment as these things go, "the greatest threat to the homeland that America has ever known."

 

Nevertheless, a "Cold War" between much of the Muslim world and the West is certainly in full swing. Winston Churchill, who coined the phrase "Iron Curtain," was not the inventor of the "Cold War." That, "La Guerra Fria," was the term used by 13th century Spaniards to describe their complicated and uneasy relationship with the Muslims of the Mediterranean.

 

There is a process, especially in American political discourse, that tends to overstate dangers. The most egregious example was Vietnam with its theology of falling dominoes. Similarly, in retrospect, it is quite clear that the menace of Soviet military strength was overstated almost to the point of ludicrousness.

 

As for the clash of civilizations, it should be apparent by now, and the second Gulf War has made it clearer than ever, that the Islamic world is not that homogeneous and is riven by fault lines, even as it shares one important historical experience — the imposition of Western culture, first by force of arms and more recently by the twin influences of the market place and economic modernization.

 

Moreover, unlike Western and Chinese civilizations, Islam does not possess a core state of overwhelming influence and power around which the others can rally and identify.

 

Egypt 30 years ago tried that role and was found wanting. Over the last two years, despite the rhetoric, the bluster, the wishful thinking, the conspiracy theories that linked Israel to the Sept 11 atrocity, there is no great well of sympathy in the Islamic world for Osama bin Laden or, come to that, Saddam Hussein.

 

Bin Laden, as the war historian Michael Howard wrote in Foreign Affairs, is about as representative of Islam as is the Northern Ireland firebrand, Ian Paisley, representative of Christianity

 

In his book "The Clash of Civilizations," Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington made a grave error — to see the appeal of the West, which he fears is being rejected by the Islamic world, in terms of modern culture and contemporary financial priorities. What he missed is the impact that spreading notions of human rights are having deep within the Islamic world, as they are everywhere.

 

Islam, as Christianity before it, is evolving at a rapid pace. St Thomas Aquinas advocated putting heretics to death and the Protestant reformer Jean Calvin had one outspoken dissident executed. And it is only a generation ago that political observers used to note that the Catholic countries of southern Europe and Latin America were constitutionally and philosophically unable to take to democracy. But Islam is changing very fast. It is more than beginning to think about democracy.

 

If the Islamic world is as potentially dangerous as is suggested, then the best long-term counter weapon is not added security in the Western world or war-making but removing the main cause of friction — America's overdependence on Middle Eastern oil, American soldiers based in the Gulf and the lack of a viable homeland for the Palestinians — together with the vigorous and credible pursuit of human rights, the backbone of freedom for people of every religious persuasion. (Arab News)

 

April 28, 2003

[Matkey]

Shujui-1, aslaama alaykum my brother,

I have also read some of your other postings; they are very enlightening.

 

It is true that there isn’t single Islamic state, which is counterpart to US hegemony; and i don’t think that there will be one any time soon. However, U.S is paving the way for the emergence of Islamic states or empire by attacking all these muslim countries in order to insert government that conforms to its ideology. For example, Iraqi people were thought to be enthusiastic about adopting democratic state after US ousted Sadam’s regime. On the contrary, most of them want an Islamic state. US miscalculation post-war in is still to be seen…whoever the next target (Syria, Egypt, Libya, and so on) might be, it will mark the beginning of the reinstatement of Islamic state. Look at the people in these countries such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the likes, who are discontent with US policy. but all the Arab regime did nothing, except restrain muslims from opposing or rejecting the kufar’s ideology and culture.

 

As the situation stands in many parts of muslim nations, it is less likely to see a muslim country emerging as counter hegemony. My argument is that it is too early to rule out Huntington’s prediction about future war between Islam and the west. After all, it has been only a decade since disintegration of Soviet Union. It is true that muslims has always been perceived as an enemy, but it was the last eight or ten years that Islam became the central theme of US foreign policy.

[Matkey]

Did Huntington mention the war of Armageddon, or the end times? i just wanted to know if his premises were based on the biblical perspective or the current international system. Post-september eleven, many people are becoming interested in discussing the final battle between islam and kufar/west. Please disregard my question if it is ambiguous.

 

thanks

[Thinkerman]

As the situation stands in many parts of muslim nations, it is less likely to see a muslim country emerging as counter hegemony. My argument is that it is too early to rule out Huntington’s prediction about future war between Islam and the west. After all, it has been only a decade since disintegration of Soviet Union. It is true that muslims has always been perceived as an enemy, but it was the last eight or ten years that Islam became the central theme of US foreign policy.

I would go along with that. Clear only Allah knows what will unfold next. But if we can go by the last decade perhaps even further back than that, you can quite plasuible conclude that there will be a clash of 'civiliastion'.

 

However What really interested me was the Fact that some commentators managed to pick up on the what i was seeing, both Bush and his administartion of Neo-Con's and indeed arguable Osama Bin Laden where trying to protract a clash of civilisation for their own respective agenda's, and both would stand to win.

 

Anyway getting back to your first contribution. I again also agree with you there i think although these series of events that have unfolded recently ,amongst the back drop of the on-going israel brutulaisation of our palestinina brothers, might not lead to islamic states in the short term in muslim countries. They have serverd to finally awaken the muslims as one on the international stage for the first time in a long time it seems to me. And although the people in Iraq might not get The islamic state the have already demonstarted they desire.....i thinking indeed i pray inshallah that the revival of the islamic state the Khilafa will not be to far aware in the future because it is what is needed for the how world not just the muslims.

[Baashi]

Edward Said and Bernard Lewis would be good read. Especially Edward Said who is an Arab-American with impressive academic credentials...he is the author of 'Orientalism' or 'Al-mustashraqiin'. They both talked about clash of civilisation that Huntigton alluded to. The other day, about 3 wks ago, I've seen an interview with Bernard Lewis on C-SPAN. He put to rest all my baises about him...he came across as very learned and rational person. He said this about democracy and westren governance and their 'crusade' to propogate their values across the world especially Islamic world: He siad, and I'm parapharsing him , Islamist beleive that the notion of separation of church and state is a christian cure for christian desease.

 

There are links that u may find his articles..that is Edaward Said.

 

www.antiwar.com go to viewpoint section his last post was i gues feb or march

 

www.harpers.org He has a long article attacking Hungtinton and Bernard Lewis that raised concerns at the time about his agenda. here it is http://www.harpers.org/online/impossible_histories/impossible_histories.php3?pg=1 this is must read article.

 

check this one too www.utoronto.ca/csus/pm/key.htm

[Waaq]

The "Clash of Civilizations" as coined by Huntington, and adopted by many in the mainstream media, is merely a representation of the arrogance of the west. In my opinion, the clash as articulated by Huntington, is disbelief at the rejection of their value system by others, namely the Islamic world. They can not understand that people would desire to live differently then them. Modern western society is still driven by the notion that they must somehow help the "savage" peoples of the world, through the spread of their values. This is affectionately known as "modernization". We see this now in Iraq, as Rumsfield flat out rejects the notion of some form of Islamic government, as inherently not "democracy". Then the invetitable comments about what is wrong with those backwards people.

 

my two cents...

 

Mahad

[Thinkerman]

Thx for the contribution Ladies and gents they are much appreciated.

[Matkey]

aslaama alaykum,

 

Baashi,

 

thanks for recommending the article, Impossible History, by Edward Said. Indeed it was very enlightening. i have heard the name, but didn't know he is well known scholar.