Tweet
Opinion Editorials, VA
July 26 2005
Let's think this through - Islamic Terrorism
Steve Rumsey
Some in the western world have been calling on Muslim leaders to
speak out more about the terrorist attacks going on around the world.
Some see this as the answer to terrorism. I would like to point out
some other facts that may put another angle on this issue. There is
much more to the terrorism problem than getting some Muslim leaders
to speak out against terrorism. Additionally, can we please get past
the point of thinking that a politician holds the answers about
Islam?
First, let's look at the issue of violence as a means to an end.
Within my home, I often tell my kids that you may get angry about
something, which is ok, but how you deal with that anger is something
different. You can use words to tell me how you feel and discuss the
matter - That is acceptable. You may not, as a hypothetical example,
throw a chair through the window - That is unacceptable behavior.
I apply this to all of life, which includes religion. For a 21st
century Jew, if they hold to an Orthodox view of the Torah, and the
dietary laws set by Moses, they may not eat pork, for example,
whereas a more Liberal Jew may. A Christian who holds an Orthodox
view of the scriptures will share their faith with others through
proselytizing, due to the `Great Commission' set about by Jesus,
whereas a more liberal Christian may not see that as a command. An
Orthodox Muslim may bow towards Mecca five times per day to pray,
while a more liberal or secular Muslim may not. All of these actions
are acceptable and are carried out every day around the world.
However, if a Holy Book sanctions unacceptable behavior, now we have
a problem. Terrorism is that unacceptable behavior. The problem isn't
that hundreds of millions may participate in this behavior, but that
many tens of thousands will - and are.
The Koran says Allah's will is for the world to be under Islamic
rule. When Ayatollah Khomeini said, `Holy War means the conquest of
all non-Muslim territories,' he didn't pull that out of thin air.
Notice which words he used - `conquest' and `non-Muslim.'
Throughout it's history, Islam was spread by military conquest. And
before anyone says, `What about the Crusades?' please remember that
they were started after 500 years of Jihad. The Islamic Jihad, or, in
Ayatollah Khomeini's words, `war of conquest,' has been waged since
the 7th century, with relatively few pauses. Here is just a sampling
of Islamic Jihads and the well-known people and places involved: An
Islamic expedition raid was launched on Cyprus in 649 A.D., which, by
the way, became part of the `Barbary Coast pirates' who terrorized
Mediterranean Europe until 1830. Ferdinand & Isabella of Spain
defeated the Muslims in 1492, in which Christopher Columbus was at
the turning over of power ceremony. A young John Smith, of Pocahontas
fame, helped fight against the Muslims in 1600. In North Africa,
Napoleon fought against Jihads in Egypt from 1798 to 1830. In 1804,
our Lt. Stephen Decatur launched a rescue of the USS Philadelphia,
which had been captured by Barbary Coast Muslims. Lawrence of Arabia
aided and advised the Arabs to attack Muslim Turkish strong points in
Arabia. When the Muslim Turks ransacked Smyrna, terrorizing its Greek
and Armenian residents, Ernest Hemingway was there, as a reporter for
the Toronto Star. In 1941, the Bosnian Muslims raised a Waffen SS
Division of 21,000 men known as the Handzar Division, named after the
fearsome scimitar weapon of former wars. During WWII, the Grand Mufti
of Jerusalem preached a holy war against the Jews and their British
allies. He later was photographed while doing the Nazi salute, while
reviewing the Handzar Division troops. One of his infamous radio
addresses on March 1, 1944 contained this memorable section, `...kill
the Jews wherever you find them...for this pleases God, history and
religion.' See Paul Fregosi's book on Jihad for more examples.
So, when Muslim extremist Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Dutch
filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, says, `I was motivated by the law that
commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his
prophet,' we don't need a further explanation. Since there are plenty
of verses in the Koran that he and other extremists pull from, why do
we need to look further?
After the London bombings, Inayat Bungalwala of the Muslim Council of
Britain said, `The scale of disenchantment amongst Muslim youth is
very clear to see...Various factors are at play: underachievement in
education; a high rate of unemployment; discrimination in the
workplace; social exclusion, and also the government's own policies,
especially in Iraq.' Ironically, many minority groups all over the
world experience those same problems, but they don't resort to
blowing up innocent people. When investigating the Iqra Learning
Centre in the UK, the shop owner, speaking about the suicide bombers
and a DVD he once viewed, said that the Muslim persecutions around
the world was probably the fuel that drove them to kill innocent
people in the UK. Interestingly enough, Christians have those same
types of DVDs showing Christian persecution in Africa, China and a
host of other places. I never hear of Christian Jihad's in those
countries. Remember, Christians killed by lions in the Roman Empire
are called Martyrs, while Islamic extremists that blow up innocents
are also called Martyrs. Also, when the Taliban blew up ancient
Buddha statues in Afghanistan, I don't remember reading about
Buddhist Jihads launched against the Taliban.
There is something different about the responses to persecution.
Fundamentalist Christians don't launch Jihads and world domination
military conquests for several reasons, but two primary ones: One,
Jesus never commanded that of his followers and actually preached the
opposite. Two, the Christian Scriptures plainly state that Christians
will never be the majority in the world. Herein lies the problem: The
extremist Muslim's view of their scared writings says the exact
opposite: One, Muslims are commanded to launch Jihads, wage military
wars of conquest, and to use violence if necessary to carry out
Allah's will and two, it is Allah's will that one day the whole world
be under Islamic rule.
I thank God that the vast majority of Muslims do not believe that
part of their sacred writings. Liberal or Secular Muslims are most
interested in fitting in to society, making a good life for their
families and being tolerant of other faiths. However, the Muslim
extremists are not `hijacking' Islam nor twisting their sacred
writings to say what they want. No, they are simply taking, in
context, certain sections of their writings and putting primary focus
on them. Unfortunately, the Islamic texts that they're focusing on
are those same texts that justify killing infidels.
The answer isn't getting more Muslim leaders to stand up and denounce
bombings, hijackings, murders and `Muslim wars for independence'
being fought all over the world. No, the logical first step would be
for Muslim leaders to admit the violent Jihad sacred texts exist,
they are not being taken out of context by Bin Laden and others, and
that those sections of texts are to be banned or flatly repudiated by
all Muslim scholars. Can we please look at the facts and deal with
the problem on that level? Can we also commit to the idea that no
high-ranking politician is ever going to say these things? Can we
actually have scholars from both sides of the issue debate these
points in public, with radio or television coverage? Can we have
truthful, unbiased, non-politically correct coverage of these issues
by the media? After all, our lives and our family's lives are at
stake.
Steve Rumsey, MBA is an investment advisor and resides in Southern
California.
July 26 2005
Let's think this through - Islamic Terrorism
Steve Rumsey
Some in the western world have been calling on Muslim leaders to
speak out more about the terrorist attacks going on around the world.
Some see this as the answer to terrorism. I would like to point out
some other facts that may put another angle on this issue. There is
much more to the terrorism problem than getting some Muslim leaders
to speak out against terrorism. Additionally, can we please get past
the point of thinking that a politician holds the answers about
Islam?
First, let's look at the issue of violence as a means to an end.
Within my home, I often tell my kids that you may get angry about
something, which is ok, but how you deal with that anger is something
different. You can use words to tell me how you feel and discuss the
matter - That is acceptable. You may not, as a hypothetical example,
throw a chair through the window - That is unacceptable behavior.
I apply this to all of life, which includes religion. For a 21st
century Jew, if they hold to an Orthodox view of the Torah, and the
dietary laws set by Moses, they may not eat pork, for example,
whereas a more Liberal Jew may. A Christian who holds an Orthodox
view of the scriptures will share their faith with others through
proselytizing, due to the `Great Commission' set about by Jesus,
whereas a more liberal Christian may not see that as a command. An
Orthodox Muslim may bow towards Mecca five times per day to pray,
while a more liberal or secular Muslim may not. All of these actions
are acceptable and are carried out every day around the world.
However, if a Holy Book sanctions unacceptable behavior, now we have
a problem. Terrorism is that unacceptable behavior. The problem isn't
that hundreds of millions may participate in this behavior, but that
many tens of thousands will - and are.
The Koran says Allah's will is for the world to be under Islamic
rule. When Ayatollah Khomeini said, `Holy War means the conquest of
all non-Muslim territories,' he didn't pull that out of thin air.
Notice which words he used - `conquest' and `non-Muslim.'
Throughout it's history, Islam was spread by military conquest. And
before anyone says, `What about the Crusades?' please remember that
they were started after 500 years of Jihad. The Islamic Jihad, or, in
Ayatollah Khomeini's words, `war of conquest,' has been waged since
the 7th century, with relatively few pauses. Here is just a sampling
of Islamic Jihads and the well-known people and places involved: An
Islamic expedition raid was launched on Cyprus in 649 A.D., which, by
the way, became part of the `Barbary Coast pirates' who terrorized
Mediterranean Europe until 1830. Ferdinand & Isabella of Spain
defeated the Muslims in 1492, in which Christopher Columbus was at
the turning over of power ceremony. A young John Smith, of Pocahontas
fame, helped fight against the Muslims in 1600. In North Africa,
Napoleon fought against Jihads in Egypt from 1798 to 1830. In 1804,
our Lt. Stephen Decatur launched a rescue of the USS Philadelphia,
which had been captured by Barbary Coast Muslims. Lawrence of Arabia
aided and advised the Arabs to attack Muslim Turkish strong points in
Arabia. When the Muslim Turks ransacked Smyrna, terrorizing its Greek
and Armenian residents, Ernest Hemingway was there, as a reporter for
the Toronto Star. In 1941, the Bosnian Muslims raised a Waffen SS
Division of 21,000 men known as the Handzar Division, named after the
fearsome scimitar weapon of former wars. During WWII, the Grand Mufti
of Jerusalem preached a holy war against the Jews and their British
allies. He later was photographed while doing the Nazi salute, while
reviewing the Handzar Division troops. One of his infamous radio
addresses on March 1, 1944 contained this memorable section, `...kill
the Jews wherever you find them...for this pleases God, history and
religion.' See Paul Fregosi's book on Jihad for more examples.
So, when Muslim extremist Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Dutch
filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, says, `I was motivated by the law that
commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his
prophet,' we don't need a further explanation. Since there are plenty
of verses in the Koran that he and other extremists pull from, why do
we need to look further?
After the London bombings, Inayat Bungalwala of the Muslim Council of
Britain said, `The scale of disenchantment amongst Muslim youth is
very clear to see...Various factors are at play: underachievement in
education; a high rate of unemployment; discrimination in the
workplace; social exclusion, and also the government's own policies,
especially in Iraq.' Ironically, many minority groups all over the
world experience those same problems, but they don't resort to
blowing up innocent people. When investigating the Iqra Learning
Centre in the UK, the shop owner, speaking about the suicide bombers
and a DVD he once viewed, said that the Muslim persecutions around
the world was probably the fuel that drove them to kill innocent
people in the UK. Interestingly enough, Christians have those same
types of DVDs showing Christian persecution in Africa, China and a
host of other places. I never hear of Christian Jihad's in those
countries. Remember, Christians killed by lions in the Roman Empire
are called Martyrs, while Islamic extremists that blow up innocents
are also called Martyrs. Also, when the Taliban blew up ancient
Buddha statues in Afghanistan, I don't remember reading about
Buddhist Jihads launched against the Taliban.
There is something different about the responses to persecution.
Fundamentalist Christians don't launch Jihads and world domination
military conquests for several reasons, but two primary ones: One,
Jesus never commanded that of his followers and actually preached the
opposite. Two, the Christian Scriptures plainly state that Christians
will never be the majority in the world. Herein lies the problem: The
extremist Muslim's view of their scared writings says the exact
opposite: One, Muslims are commanded to launch Jihads, wage military
wars of conquest, and to use violence if necessary to carry out
Allah's will and two, it is Allah's will that one day the whole world
be under Islamic rule.
I thank God that the vast majority of Muslims do not believe that
part of their sacred writings. Liberal or Secular Muslims are most
interested in fitting in to society, making a good life for their
families and being tolerant of other faiths. However, the Muslim
extremists are not `hijacking' Islam nor twisting their sacred
writings to say what they want. No, they are simply taking, in
context, certain sections of their writings and putting primary focus
on them. Unfortunately, the Islamic texts that they're focusing on
are those same texts that justify killing infidels.
The answer isn't getting more Muslim leaders to stand up and denounce
bombings, hijackings, murders and `Muslim wars for independence'
being fought all over the world. No, the logical first step would be
for Muslim leaders to admit the violent Jihad sacred texts exist,
they are not being taken out of context by Bin Laden and others, and
that those sections of texts are to be banned or flatly repudiated by
all Muslim scholars. Can we please look at the facts and deal with
the problem on that level? Can we also commit to the idea that no
high-ranking politician is ever going to say these things? Can we
actually have scholars from both sides of the issue debate these
points in public, with radio or television coverage? Can we have
truthful, unbiased, non-politically correct coverage of these issues
by the media? After all, our lives and our family's lives are at
stake.
Steve Rumsey, MBA is an investment advisor and resides in Southern
California.
Comment