Tuesday, May 29, 2007

This is not Islam Properly Understood:

Not the Lockean version for which I argued here.

This figure, the American Al Qaeda propaganda chief, Adam Gadahn, sounds as comically maniacal as Fred Phelps. The frightening thing is whereas the Phelps family are hated and marginalized (honestly, I wonder if anyone outside of the fifty or so people in their church supports their message), Mr. Gadahn speaks the Al Qaeda party line. Some small but significant percentage of Muslims actually support this vile evil. Even if it's only 5%, 5% of a billion people is still large enough that it constitutes an ongoing problem that won't go away unless we destroy (hopefully) or otherwise contain them (which in the real world, we might have to settle for).

Listen to his list of demands. There is no way in Hell America or the West should or will make these concessions. And as long as Islamofascists demand them, and are willing to commit terror in furtherance thereof, there will be war. As he notes, Iraq is just one small piece. Even if all of our troops were out tomorrow, Islamofascists like this still abound. And unlike Iraq, they directly threaten freedoms, for which not just the military but ordinary citizens ought to be willing to die. (He says American citizens deserve death simply for criticizing Islam or sending out anti-Islamic messages from our shores. One demands is that the American government gag its citizens from disseminating these messages else we deserve terrorist attacks.)

The big mistake of Iraq, from my perspective, is that it will make the war against Al Qaeda/terrorism more difficult.

And I hate to say this, as much as I like Ron Paul's libertarian message (I know he has no chance anyway) I don't trust him against Al Qaeda. As much as I dislike Rudy Guiliani's authoritarianism and statism, I'd rather have him in charge to fight the terrorists like Gadahn and Bin Laden.

3 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

I'm wary of a one-size-fits-all approach to world religions, that liberal democracy will result if you just Enlighten them enough.

There was always a "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" space between church and state in Xtianity to build on. I'm unaware of one in Islam, which began as a triumphant temporal success.

Now, there are many virtuous things in Islam that subscribe to what might be called natural law, but I'm sure you'll find a number of philosophical items here that will take quite a bit of Enlightening to get around.

Jonathan said...

Thanks. I'm interested in what Islam has to say on natural law. That could be the vessel for smugling enlightenment theory into Islam as it was with Christianity in the Founding era.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I'm all for it, but it looks a tough go. We have not only al-Ghazali to deal with, but Thomas Hobbes as well.