| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Israel-Palestine | |
| Islam has lost its way | |
| 2004-05-14 | |
| By SHMULEY BOTEACH Supporters and opponents of the war in Iraq finally have something to agree on. Both are justifiably sickened by the abusive photographs coming out of Abu Ghraib prison. Both argue that American credibility has been eroded in the Arab world and that the photographs have inflamed Islamic hatred of America. Get real. The Arabs hate America with or without these photographs. They detested the United States before these pictures were published, and they would detest the US had these pictures never been taken. They hate us when we liberate them, and they hate us when we are wicked enough to abuse them. In short, they hate us no matter what. Indeed, many Arabs have reached a point of such implacable hatred toward America and Israel that it has become positively self-destructive. They are even incapable of identifying their own interests. When Abraham Lincoln humbly sauntered through the conquered Confederate capital of Richmond on April 2, 1865, he was mobbed by ecstatic crowds of newly freed slaves who held their children up to see the great emancipator. But President George W. Bush had to sneak into Baghdad last Thanksgiving in absolute secrecy. The Arabs hate their own liberators. Bullets, rather than gratitude, currently welcome the soldiers who freed them from the butcher of Baghdad. But the Arab world is incapable of offering a thank you because that sense of indebtedness would only increase their sense of humiliation at the hands of America. Let us be blunt. Muslim civilization is losing its ability to mold good and decent people. A religion that once distinguished itself for its benevolence and religious tolerance is producing a generation of hate-filled malcontents. Many Arabs and Muslims talk about their ’humiliation.’ Indeed, Mahathir Muhammad mentioned the word "humiliation" five times in his infamous anti-Semitic address at the Organization of the Islamic Conference. How strange that the Arabs do not seem to be embarrassed at the fact that they are now the poorest people on Earth, have a female illiteracy rate of more than 50%, have translated fewer books into Arabic over the past 1,000 years than Spain does in a single year, and are giving birth to children who in all likelihood will never taste a single day of political freedom. What does humiliate them, however, is the sight of American soldiers in their cities trying to build power grids and help them formulate a constitution. Imagine a man who, due to being a hothead, cannot hold a job, fails to support his family, and watches his illiterate children walk around in dirty rags. His family’s lowly station causes him no embarrassment. But what does humiliate him is when kindly neighbors leave food parcels at his doorstep. He hates them because they make him feel beholden. This warped sense of Arab pride is the major cause of Arab hatred. But in truth, it no longer matters why the Arabs hate us. The far more important question is how to respond. Alarmingly, many American commentators are now arguing that since the Arabs are so implacably hostile, it is better to fight a dirty war against them and be successful than fight a humane war and fail. Rather than lose soldiers in deadly street-to-street combat, should we not just pulverize Fallujah and carpet-bomb Najaf? Since neither the US nor Israel will ever be given credit for its humane war tactics, and the torture of a few rogue soldiers will be used to misrepresent all American soldiers as sadists, why not just remove the restraints and inflict a crushing blow upon Arab terrorism? Here is the answer: If we do so, not only is it immoral but because it is immoral, we will ultimately lose the war. America and Israel are strong not because they have market economies but because they are good. And if there is one lesson history has taught us it is that, in the end, good always triumphs over evil. Any country that is interested in its long-term survival better had ensure that it is an upright and virtuous society or, as history has shown, it will not last. Far from being an obscure theological concept, the triumph of good over evil is a demonstrable human truth. When countries are good, their populations become proud to be their citizens and will therefore sacrifice greatly on the country’s behalf. Israelis have little compunction about putting in so much time for military service because they absolutely believe in the justice of their cause. Contrast that with the Arab armies, where conscripts are taken by the barrel of a gun to serve, which accounts for their usually dismal performance in war. Good always triumphs over evil because people are honored to be associated with the good and will fight doggedly to be attached to the light. Hitler’s armies lost the Second World War because the darkness of his cause could ultimately never inspire his divisions the way the cause of liberty could inspire the Allies. We often hear that the Arabs are a proud nation, but that is in appearance only. If the Palestinians were a proud people, they would pick up bricks to build schools and universities rather than hurl them at Israeli soldiers. No people could be proud of the direction Arab civilization seems to be taking. A once-majestic civilization that has now become synonymous with religious murder, violence, and poverty has little to take pride in. And since self-esteem cannot motivate them, the only thing the Arabs have left is hatred. But what they really hate is themselves. Little do the Arabs realize that part of the reason that they hate themselves is that they have become so immoral. Time will tell whether they will summon the courage to better their actions rather than blame others for their ills. But the lesson for the United States and Israel is that so long as they never impugn the justice of their cause with tragic abuses such as at Abu Ghraib, they will continue to inspire new generations of patriots who are willing to irrigate the tree of liberty even if, as Thomas Jefferson said, it must be done with the blood of patriots.
| |
| Posted by:Bill Nelson |
| #17 I almost missed this article and I think it's great. Oh sure, lots of what he says is what we wish were true rather than what is...but so what? You catch more flies with honey. I thought he did a great job of expressing what ails the Islamic world and what makes us strong. I give it a bravo (despite it's wishful flaws). |
| Posted by: B 2004-05-16 8:58:27 AM |
| #16 Intelligent post, AzCat. Way back when, St. Basil the Great ran an underground schools for Orthodox Christian boys, when the bad guys took over, because the Arabs wouldn't allow Christians to be educated. Always the same story. Still, I wonder if it might be important to distinguish between Islamic fanatics, and the nominal Moslems, who really don't give a sh-t about Islam. The latter aren't that bad, really. They mostly just like to talk and party. Or, if they consider themselves religious, they live by a code coming from pre-Islamic times, through which they interpret Islam in their personal lives. BUT it still bugs me: How come the "better" Moslems never call the "badder" Moslems to account? Are they afraid of them? I think they're afraid of them. Sounds like missy Carland had to "submit" to her Islamic man and change her tune. Ha!! Even though she's living in the West. Imagine that . . . |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-05-14 5:22:27 PM |
| #15 Nice link Angie, pow! Dripping Sarcasm, exactly as I read it. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-05-14 12:50:05 PM |
| #14 Professor Bunyip says that Carland was not always singing this same song. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2004-05-14 10:41:02 AM |
| #13 Notice tht Ms. Carland is doing her honors (and most likely earned her degrees) in a western society and not in someplace like Iran or Saudi-Arabia under Islamic rule. The Chairman of the Islamic Council of Victoria called it 'Unfortunate' (not false...). In fact all of those quoted were living in the West. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-05-14 9:32:24 AM |
| #12 Ms. Carland's response was difficult to understand, speaking from inside her burqa |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-14 8:13:57 AM |
| #11 ...Ms Carland said she had two degrees, was doing her honours and "certainly do not walk behind my husband". Wait till her husband gets a load of this, she is gonna get her *ss whipped. |
| Posted by: Ol_Dirty_American 2004-05-14 7:27:22 AM |
| #10 Even if allah came upto me in the street and offered me 100 virgins and $10million . I would tell him i would rather have my honest bang for buck lady , an honest conscience and a solid unbiased education than what he seems to offer . |
| Posted by: MacNails 2004-05-14 7:24:16 AM |
| #9 re: #6 First off, Go Gene Go! However, after reading the article, you can't help but smile when you think that there must be a better spokesman for moments when it's time to call someone "vile". Still, he's git a great way with words, and since most everyone else seems afraid to call it like is, why not Gene Simmons? And, as for this excerpt: Umm...Muslim of the year? WTF? ...Ms Carland said she had two degrees, was doing her honours and "certainly do not walk behind my husband". Osama says," Not yet." |
| Posted by: Dripping Sarcasm 2004-05-14 5:34:17 AM |
| #8 I respect Rabbi Boteach, but as is sometimes the case with him, he wanders all over the map, sometimes totally correct, and then suddenly it's almost as if he were making up facts. The most glaring example is his assertion of Islam as a "religion that once distinguished itself for its benevolence and religious tolerance...", and, "...A once-majestic civilization...". The truth is that at one point in history, the Caliphate was the ruling power over much of the civilized world. I guess that you would have to refer to them as majestic, since they were the kings of much of the world, but, as Azcat mentions, they got that way by accumulation, not by invention. Of greater concern to me is that Rabbi Boteach, who should really know better, is perpetuating that myth of Islam's "golden age" when they were benevolent and tolerant. The laws of Dhimmi always applied, and while Jews and Christians weren't immediately killed for the sake of their being Jewish or Christian, they were always considered the second class citizens. Rather than just copy this web site, I recommend anyone who's interested click on over to this brief encapsulation: http://www.geocities.com/muslimfreethinkers/jews_islam.htm of what it was like to be a "protected people" in the so-called golden age of Islam. After reading this, decide for yourself if the rulers of that time were truly benevolent, or just saying, "I'm the boss, and by my greatness, i allow you to live and work here because I feel pity for you lesser creatures. Still, don't even think of doing..... or you will be killed horribly, and all the possesions you have only because I allow you to have them, will be forfeit.' |
| Posted by: Dripping Sarcasm 2004-05-14 5:16:01 AM |
| #7 I think it is wrong to characterize this as a war between the West and Islam. Its really a war for the soul of Western civilization. The real war is between tranzi socialists who view everyone in the world as the same and all systems more or less equal, with only a few quaint customs making us different, and those who view Western society as a unique achievement that must be defended at all costs and to allow to be taken over by Islamicists or Communists for that matter would be a tradegy of unimaginable proportions. |
| Posted by: Phil_B 2004-05-14 5:01:08 AM |
| #6 Gene Simmons (May Yahwah Make Him Immortal) attacks Muslims. Link "Shout it! Shout it out LOUD!" |
| Posted by: KISS Army of Satan 2004-05-14 2:51:37 AM |
| #5 His premise is wrong: Islamic society has always been parasitic. It gained new ideas only by conquering new territories but lost the momentum of those intellectual infustions as the new citizens of the empire were subjugated and forced to convert to a "religion" that mandated every aspect of their lives while demanding that they give up the very intellectual inquiry from which ideas and in turn societal, technological, and artistic advancement spring. Islamic society today is what it has always been, a prideful, angry, wretched failure that lashes out violently at everything within reach, particularly those things that demonstrate its abject failure (i.e., nearly every other society on the face of the planet). |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-05-14 1:44:34 AM |
| #4 When Abraham Lincoln humbly sauntered through the conquered Confederate capital of Richmond on April 2, 1865, he was mobbed by ecstatic crowds of newly freed slaves who held their children up to see the great emancipator. But President George W. Bush had to sneak into Baghdad last Thanksgiving in absolute secrecy. The Arabs hate their own liberators. This is a terrible analogy. Or rather, it's a terrible contrast because the situations are actually quite similar - he just draws the wrong conclusions. The lesson is: Reconstruction is a long, dirty, unpleasant, and heartbreaking work (for both the occupier and occupied) but it must go on all the same. |
| Posted by: John in Tokyo 2004-05-14 1:32:54 AM |
| #3 Twaddle. I've seen it in print (I haven't independently checked this)that the Wehrmacht never lost a battle where the odds were anything like even and that they managed to inflict a 2:1 casualty rate on the enemy over WWII despite the very difficult fighting retreat from Russia(never a rout). The fact is the total casualties of the Soviet Union in all services from all causes is just over 11 million. I think the Wehrmacht and its allies lost around 9 million total. Not quite the 'rout' numbers some would have you believe. Don't get me wrong, the Wehrmacht inflicted horrific casualties early on in the war in Russia, primarily from prisoners. It is worth noting that during the battle of Moscow, the German Army lost 300,000 men in irrecoverable losses, which by the time the battle was fought, ground units were down to half strength. Thus, the percetage of the losses at the end of the balle was about a third of thier forces. And this from a Red Army nearly wrecked by six months of losses. The 'odds' were quite a bit 'even.' And so the story of combat losses for the Germans continue through the remainder of the war. The idea that Germans always fought where the odds were even is absurd. Fact is both armies throughout the war (the Red Army to a far lesser extent at the start and a far greater extent at the end ), first the Germans, and later the Red Army learned that operational manuver room can be gained by concentrating forces where the enemy was weakest and where the expectation of success was the greatest. At the tactical level and there are plenty of decsriptions of battles to go along with this, plenty of battles took place where forces were 'even' and the Soviets won handily, primarily because of many many other factors (weather, errors in judgement by intel on enemy's disposition, strength and plans, supply problems, political interference, etc). Ultimately Hitler lost the war because he failed to listen to his generals and failed to place his economy on a war footing. Rafael: The Wehrmacht was not better equipped. The USSR had a superb army in 1941, the only problem being Stalin's paranoia wrecked the best of his officers and what was left to fight Hitler were crony's of Uncle Joe. The Red Army was well equipped with very good equipment, much of it on par with the Wehrmacht, some of it inferior. New Soviet aircraft being deployed in 1941 was of excellent quality, Hitler destroyed on the ground thousands of obselete aircraft, and captured thousands of obselete armor vehicles. The successes of the Wehrmacht can be attributed to incredibly poor judgement at the grand strategic level and a dearth of well educated, militarily focussed officers in the Red Army. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-05-14 1:29:46 AM |
| #2 the Wehrmacht never lost a battle where the odds were anything like even That's because they were better equipped (except in the air). |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-14 1:11:32 AM |
| #1 "Hitler’s armies lost the Second World War because the darkness of his cause could ultimately never inspire his divisions the way the cause of liberty could inspire the Allies." Twaddle. I've seen it in print (I haven't independently checked this)that the Wehrmacht never lost a battle where the odds were anything like even and that they managed to inflict a 2:1 casualty rate on the enemy over WWII despite the very difficult fighting retreat from Russia(never a rout).Check also the biographies of some of the Luftwaffe guys like Rudel, Galland etc. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4828 2004-05-14 12:50:21 AM |