Son of Hamas
By Mosab Hassan Yousef
This book first describes in a rational way the evolution of thought and it's subsequent behavior of an Islamic imam’s sanctioning of terror against it's oppressors. He, the father of the author of this book laid claim to the Quran's call for jihad as the protagonist agent. His claim however was one of default based both on the manipulation of men of power and the doctrine of the Quran. Son of Hamas details the systematic oppression of Palestinians, and police mentality akin to that of the 1770 British in our American rise to independence, the Palestinian mind, and their systematic method for continuous agitation of people to foster terror.
As Mosab Yousef approaches his father on the terrorist's killing of innocent Jews his father's answer implies the notion that they are not people. Yousef in the telling of the story draws on his reading of Act:8 where the people stone Stephen and Saul approves. In the context of the story to this point Mosab draws a parallel between the bible and the Quran. He asserts both giving approval to murder. With the Quran approval is found on the top rung of Islamic mandates, jihad. He doesn't quote it in his book so I immediately read Act:8 where the approval was found in forgiveness. In this divergence is the seed for Mosab to move away from the violence between Muslims and Jews and towards Christianity and eventually becomes a baptized Christian.
As the story is told the reader gets first hand experience of how an adult world of violence can shape a child’s mind. Beginning at pre-adolescence in Mosabs life the setting is pre second intifada (1980’s) and at a time where there was a segregation of Muslim Palestinian communities and Jewish communities in Israel and from a child’s view the life style of the Jew was a”one-over-the-other” arrangement where the Jew was far better off. The reality of strife had not set in until the burials at his local cemetery began to increase. This brought Mosab closer to the reality of the situation at hand from a Palestinian perspective. Being as such Mosab sympathized with his people and began throwing rocks and taking up arms, without full understanding the consequences.
Mosabs antics find him in a Israeli prison where the conditions from capture to detainment was brutal and torturous. An American reader fully appraised with our own self criticism would be aghast at the description of his treatment. At this point of the book the reader becomes critical of Israel in its oppression and torture of Palestinians. However this view is soon to change.
Appreciating that Mosab Hassen Yousef was actually the son of the Imam who is deemed one of the founding fathers of Hamas the Israeli intelligence agency decided to recruit him as a spy. To provide a cover rather than release him immediately they put him in a prison where conditions provided by the Israelis were better and this prison was largely dedicated to Hamas prisoners. As it turns out inside that prison Mosab witnesses a much harsher torture regime inflicted by Hamas on Hamas people to be sure they hold to their terrorist ways. Where Mosab’s agreement to spy had yet to be put to the test, what he witnessed convinced him that perhaps the Palestinian people were being manipulated by their own people. This eased his conscience on his role as a spy.
In his role as a spy the details of how Hamas activity works around a fog of procedure aimed at always keeping the Palistanian people agitated and dis-satisfied with their Israeli neighbor. Mosab begins to realize that perhaps the Palestinians were not being oppressed and the military law was merely a reaction to Palestinian civil unrest. The book clearly points to Yasser Arafat as a master puppeteer at the head of the PLA for his own selfish gains. When a peace agreement was offered for a Palestinian State within the State of Israel most Palestinians saw it as a workable solution for peace and were willing to sign the agreement. Arafat did not sign it and it is Mosab’s feeling from what he heard from inside is that agreement would mean an end to the bountiful flow if international funding to the PLA treasury for continued conflict. It was this flow of funding that caused people to stop their productive lives working side by side with Jews and instead takes up arms against them. This created friction between Hamas and the PLA and positioned the PLA to sell out both Hamas and his father to portray Hamas as the terrorist cell. Mosab’s father was manipulated to make statements in behalf of Hammas’s cause without knowing where the power was coming form or what the real agenda of the statements were. He, still ignorant to cause and effect of his actions, conceded in the name of Islam. With the death of Arafat the manipulation continued leaving Mosab and his father, the loved and blindly followed Imam puzzled as to who was pulling the strings. As it turns out, the men at the controls are actually not devout Muslims. They were men of selfish ambition taking advantage of a people’s religious doctrine that encourages jihad. I have read many other books where this is the case.
While this is a book review, the details are in this must read book. It helps a westerner including Russians and those of our brothers in India who daily meet with Muslim born terrorism, better understand the mind of a Muslim involved in terror. It helps you better understand how that mind is formulated. That Muslim mind is formulated from within Islam’s current agenda and not strictly founded in the Quran. The Western reaction has yet to find the keys to peace and wont if they allow the argument to be founded in a book debate. Ironically, is it truly a question of surrender to Islam, as the Quran spells out? While the doctrine of Christianity says surrender to God is the path to peace, one begins to question whether God and Allah are the same concept.
Alternatively, like in WWII’s Hitler it takes evil minds with ambitious agendas to dupe a people. Those people must have a historic formulation of traits that allow for the deception to give birth to terror, to be dupped. It is my opinion that the teachings of Islam lay the ground work for easy manipulation of people to commit terrorist acts. Today we see it in Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Russia, India, Europe, and here in America. Islam’s doctrine is suspect, but not the culprit. Because there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence where I will mention the word madrasa, the question seems to loom; are we at war with Islam or are we at war with terrorist, who happen to be Muslim? Is the answer in our strategy to fight that war? It was once a strategy that States that harbor the seeds to terrorism (madrassas) were the enemy. The new strategy is we are not at war with Islam and will never be at war with Islam as emphatically stated by our current president Obama. The word terrorist, code for gorilla soldiers, soldiers who are recruited in these Stated funded madrassas, soldiers who plot not in jungles or hills but in back rooms of our neighborhoods, has yet to be used in a strategy to combat those that intend us harm. In fact the word combat is now not applied to our mission in Iraq, albeit we have 4,500 combat trained U.S. soldiers still engaged in combat there. This new Obama strategy is akin to the strategy that was our undoing in Vietnam and Neville Chamberlain’s strategy in 1938. Is Obama the dupped ore is he part of the duping agenda of the power brokers of Islam? The fact that I raise that question alone raises another question. If we have doubt, do we have the right commander in chief?
In the end of the book Mosab is offered a ticket out of Israel. The offer was to Europe. Mosab refused as he saw his new home in America. This is something to be proud of and Mosab is someone that we should pay attention to. His message helps to understand what is going on yet falls short of the magic key to peace. Mosab Hassan Yousef’s visa is running out. He is at risk of having to return to a land where he would likely be meet doom. Since this legal immigrant is a contributing member of the American society with a message that must be heard by all people, could our questionable leader make a step to remove the doubt and write an executive order, a power he is fond of, to keep Mosab in a place where he can contribute to peace?
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Israel Test
The Israel Test
By George Gilder
What is your attitude toward people who excel you in the creation of wealth or in other accomplishment? Do you aspire to their excellence, or do you seethe at it? Do you admire and celebrate exceptional achievement, or do you impugn it and seek to tear it down? This in a nut shell is the Israel Test. In summary, some people admire success; some people envy it. The "enviers" hate Israel. I found while reading the book that those who fail the Israel test do so not with just Jews or Israelis but with all those who excel beyond their capabilities. It is rather the many people who collectively despise the minds of the few that this book is about. For it is the critical thinking mind that produces the fertile ground to advance mankind and the multitudes that envy the wealth they so justifiably earned.
But it is really more than that and this book peels back the layers of the onion and provides a cross-sectional view effect and cause. Specifically he describes accomplishments of Jews and then colludes with their causes. In the process he takes a critical view on leftward leaning thinkers like Barak Obama as they are never a cause for success in the form of a nurturing perspective. However they may be the cause from a survival or self defense perspective. In the mind of Gilder, Barak Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad albeit one Sunni and the other Shea, find themselves of like minds. Notice both men advance their agendas, by attacking their opponent to distract from the flaws of their own agenda. With this thought in mind you can imagine the “pearl in store” for Israel and America and really appreciate what it is that is at stake should they lose their momentum.
The book does an amazing bit of enlightenment to readers not familiar with accomplishments of Jews in America, Jews in Israel, and then Jews of the world. Ironically, while the book is about Jewish contributions to the world and therefore their necessity in the world, it is just as much about the foundation of capitalism within a democracy that allows for a people to move mankind forward. There is always a nagging question on the readers mind; surely excellence cannot be the sole domain of Jews can it? Without a capitalistic economy on a free democracy, the world would be stuck in a time warp of pre-industrial revolution era....Where Islam had been until oil brought a new dynamic on world order. Gilder takes a high horse posture in his presentation of Jewish accomplishment to set the reader up for the test, to answer the opening questions of this review.
On capitalism Gilder writes, “What makes capitalism succeed is not chiefly it's structure of incentives but it's use of knowledge and experience... Under capitalism knowledge grows apace with wealth. Democracy without capitalism has no content, since no power centers outside the state can form and sustain themselves. Without capitalism and free trade, self determination is a pretext for constant civil war, as each shard of nationality is sharpened into a sword implanted in it's own holy specified agenda, presumably defended by the United States or the United Nations. The critical test for democracy is it's ability to free human energies and intellect on the frontiers of human accomplishment.” To test to see if there is something evidently in the human mind, even when carefully honed at Oxford or at Sorbonne, that hesitates to believe in capitalism?
The actual trial on Israel , a Test on mankind as Gilder calls it, of which is taking ample space above the fold on the front pages of world newspapers does not completely hold Israeli’s without flaw. But he demonstrates that not only could Jewish people make adjustments to their own mistakes they were able to for the first time in the history of Palestinian people provide for an improvement in their standard of living. Gilder provides statistics of the land prior to the State of Israel and then specifically illustrates that in the time post the 1967 Six Day War and prior to the 1987 intifada, Palestinians saw significant, 40% year over year, gains in their living standard as they worked side by side with Jews. The trial is not about a fight over a small piece of land, but rather the Muslim’s refusal to work for and acknowledge a Jew for his accomplishments. In this the Muslims fail the Test. At a higher level “The Test “is about all mans’ willingness to work for and in the graciousness of those few people that make the standard of life for all better.
Gilder at times may appear to come across as an “in your face Jew”. However he is everything but and you learn that what is in your face is likely your own denial that the facts. So what is in your face is not Gilder but your own subconscious as Guilder enlightens you with ample cause and effect to demonstrate the world’s dependence on our passing the Israel Test. Where Israel is at the apex of a test for man kind is the culmination of Jewish success second only to the United States against a world of Islamic hatred for them. In this gauntlet under the umbrella of the United States as US citizens Jewish entrepreneurial prowess was given birth in a new and modern world. They then made their pilgrimage to Israel and continued under the protection of Western powers to found a democracy underwritten by capitalism and perpetuated entrepreneurial contributions enhance the living conditions of mankind.
They did this on a small piece of unproductive land that laid fallow under Islamic rule for 1,500 years. Could this test be applied else where? Will time allow India to demonstrate the same prowess? Absolutely and the reason for this is India like many western powers that have found success, are based in the freedoms within democratic law that allow the engines of capitalism to produce the advancement required to meet the needs of a modern world. I bring India in to the equation so that you can read the book and when challenged by the word Jew simply substitute Indian. This is not to slight either peoples, but rather to help you over come the “Jew in your face” reaction and afford a little objectivity as the facts settle in. When you read Gilders final chapter on his own Israel Test, you will appreciate that it is not an insult to awaken to a need for recognition and acceptance of the hand that feeds you, whether it be America, Israeli, Chinese, Japanese, or Indian. Gilder’s Israel Test is just that wake up call.
My notes:
Page 26 after the Arabs refused all offers of land for peace in the wake of the 1967 war, the Israelis inherited it by default. Under Israeli management, economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza surged for some twenty years? And the number of Arabs grew for roughly one million to almost three million in some 261 new towns while the number of Jews in territories rose merely 250,000, settled on land not exceeding 2% of the area of the West Bank. As the Israelis spurred development, Arabs thronged in to participate in it. Between 1967 and the first intifada in 1987, Arab settlers moving in from Jordan and other countries out numbered Israeli settlers by a factor of ten.
Page 27 Hostility toward Jews stems not from any alleged legal violation or untoward violence but from there exceptional virtues. This is the essence of anti-Semitism.
Page 46. In the 19th century Jews purchased land in Palestine a barren land under Arab rule with a poor economy they built an economy that attracted Arab and Jew alike. Arab population surged to 1.35 million the Jews grew to 650 thousand. The peace-process brought millions of dollars in foreign aid which shifted Palestinians from entrepreneurs to codependent ghetto violent male gangs and welfare queens.
Page 59. The concept of economic autarky is the chief cause of the poverty in the world. No one can be rich alone. Wealth is an effect of sharing and collaboration between an elite of capitalists and the insurgent new business rising around them. It is an effect of willingness of the young and less educated or less talented to work for the educated and able. It is a product of apprenticeship and learning followed by entrepreneurial rivalry. The success of the Israeli economy is not an imbalance that crates invidious gaps, it is a gap that summons new energies and new wealth.
All capitalist advance generates imbalances and disequilibrium. Growth is an effect of the dis-equilibrating activities of entrepreneurs, the creative destruction unleashed by rate feats of excellence.
Page 75 by delving down deep in the atom we rise up to a level of mathematical abstraction only glimpsed in the previous experimental science of the visible world.
But we do not, as Von Neumann supremely understood, rise all the way up. As Kurt Godel demonstrated in early twentieth century, and Von Neumann’s Goedel's first interpreter and greatest prophet, repeatedly showed, the symbolic logic driving both math an science - the computer and the quantum - is ultimately axiomatic. It cannot prove itself in it's own term but must rely on a set of assumptions outside the system.
Wealth springs from the minds of men, and, above all from the minds of a relatively few men who operate at the nexus of word and world - on the boarders of math and manufacturer - in the realm of the algorithm.
Page 81 Mathematics ultimately would repose on a foundation of faith. The universe rests on a logical coherence that cannot be proven but to which men must commit if they are to create
Page 104 until 1957 Israel was a high wage, secure job economy. It's economy was not producing. The absence of competition was a result in part of virtually complete protection from foreign competition afforded by import and exchange controls
Page 106 in the mid 1980's Yitzhak Shamir followed Reagan’s example and shortly after the USSR folded and allowed millions of scientist Jews to flee ti Israel. Being anti communist and intellectual gave Israel the engine to jolt them to scientific achievement at first rate based on entrepreneurial capitalism. Their brain power drew in capital which produced technological advancement at pace with the United States.
Page 109. The same forces of freedom unleashed on Israel in the 1990's could well dictate that fortunes will disappear within a few generations. It is a rigid rule of capitalism lm that over funded banks, are disasters waiting to happen, while small sums in the hands of a few exceptional men can yield equally unexpected riches.
Page127 Von Neuman was the paramount figure of the twentieth century science because he was the li k between the pioneered of quantum theory and the machines that won WWII, that prevailed in the Cold War, and the enabled the emergence of a global economy tied together and fructified by the internet. The entire saga is one fabric, woven largely by Jews.
Page 139 the Arab-Israeli conflict everywhere understood (wrongly in my view) as an impossibility embittered dispute over absurdly small patches of geography. The promise of a global network seamlessly providing near-infinite bandwidth indifferent to application is the promise, like almost every major economic advance for the past two hundred years, to render geography trivial.
Page148 Biological beings partake of the Godel proof of the limitations of symbolic logic - it's dependence on axioms that it cannot prove. Like mathematics, biological science depends on and transcends an orderly cosmos of monotheistic faith.
Page 155 Biology is a set of living algorithmic entities. Compile the biological entities into a database and apply the algorithms, and you can find the pathways to the inner logic of life.
The algorithmic thinking that fuels such ventures comes naturally to the gifted few. Without permitting the gifted and diligent to emerge, prevail, create, and ultimately rule the cpanding heights, there is no way to have a successful system based on the algorithms of a new economy.
Page 155 the Talpion system needs to be captured verbatim in the review. The system has vaulted Israel and India in engineering prowess.
Page 165. The successful allocation of capital, like the launch of a new technology, is an elegant expression if the capitalist law that mind rules and matter serves, just as squandering of capital can create havoc far beyond that wrought by any scarcity of goods.
Page 167 in the Period fro 1984 - 1990 evry significant reduction in top marginal tax rates anywhere I. The world for which we have decent data: economic growth surged, inflation fell ( down to 11 percent by 1993$, and tax receipts rose. And Netanyahu's reduction in personal tax rates continues - to a planned 39 percent by year 2015 down from 60% in 1980.
Page 173 Crucial to Netanyahu's is the power as a global financial center to transform the economics of the Middle East. Israel can become the "Hong Kong of the Desert" ultimately reshaped the Chinese economy of it's own image when Deng Xiaoping mimicked it's free economics in his free-zone program. Even the Taiwan and Communist China became turned capitalist and most of Taiwan’s investment moved to the mainland. Under Netanyahu, Israel can become a similar force in the Middle East, reaching out ti Palestinians and other Arabs.
My challenge is why can't this same approach be made in Iraq, Iran or any other country in the Middle East? Is entrepreneurial spirit lacking in Muslim people? Or do their Imams subdue it? There exists an equal comparisons by analysis available between India and The Muslim world.
Page 184 Conspicuous weakness is a prime cause of war.
Page 195. Von Neuman was always concerned with dynamic processes and saw that economic systems could not achieve equilibrium outside an environment of growth. Capitalism by nature is a positive sum game, in which every transaction theoretically can yield two or more winners. As long as the exchanges are voluntary, they will not occur unless both parties believe they will gain from them
Page 197. Newman's message is that civilization depends on long time horizons in repetitive games. In a single exchange, the rational policy is predatory. If predatory action brings success, a player is never induced to extend the time horizon. By accommodating aggression, a nation invites it. Peace requires the imposition of penalties on aggression.
A crucial element in all games is the discount rate, which determines the time value of the reward, the terms in which one can trade benefits now for the benefits over the long run. In economics this factor is quantified as the rate is quantified as the rate of interest.
Capitalism works because if it's long time horizons and low discount rates that optimize behavior. The time element is crucial to the deepening of capital and the generation of positive sum games.
The more players focus on politics rather than on economics, the more the game tends to deteriorate. Without capitalism, democracy is a zero sum game that leads to conflict and war.
Page 217 Netanyahu told Congress after 9/11 that there is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign states...Terrorist are not suspended in mid air. The train, arm, and indoctrinate their killers fro safe havens in terrorists countries.... Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, North Korea. Until the world community applies 100% of their policy to not feed them in any way from business to negotiating with them terrorism will flourish at some level.
Over all notion of land for peace is in opposition to this idea.
Page 237 with regard to Israel' s survival not only are they the canary in the coal mine, they are an integral part of the coal mine
By George Gilder
What is your attitude toward people who excel you in the creation of wealth or in other accomplishment? Do you aspire to their excellence, or do you seethe at it? Do you admire and celebrate exceptional achievement, or do you impugn it and seek to tear it down? This in a nut shell is the Israel Test. In summary, some people admire success; some people envy it. The "enviers" hate Israel. I found while reading the book that those who fail the Israel test do so not with just Jews or Israelis but with all those who excel beyond their capabilities. It is rather the many people who collectively despise the minds of the few that this book is about. For it is the critical thinking mind that produces the fertile ground to advance mankind and the multitudes that envy the wealth they so justifiably earned.
But it is really more than that and this book peels back the layers of the onion and provides a cross-sectional view effect and cause. Specifically he describes accomplishments of Jews and then colludes with their causes. In the process he takes a critical view on leftward leaning thinkers like Barak Obama as they are never a cause for success in the form of a nurturing perspective. However they may be the cause from a survival or self defense perspective. In the mind of Gilder, Barak Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad albeit one Sunni and the other Shea, find themselves of like minds. Notice both men advance their agendas, by attacking their opponent to distract from the flaws of their own agenda. With this thought in mind you can imagine the “pearl in store” for Israel and America and really appreciate what it is that is at stake should they lose their momentum.
The book does an amazing bit of enlightenment to readers not familiar with accomplishments of Jews in America, Jews in Israel, and then Jews of the world. Ironically, while the book is about Jewish contributions to the world and therefore their necessity in the world, it is just as much about the foundation of capitalism within a democracy that allows for a people to move mankind forward. There is always a nagging question on the readers mind; surely excellence cannot be the sole domain of Jews can it? Without a capitalistic economy on a free democracy, the world would be stuck in a time warp of pre-industrial revolution era....Where Islam had been until oil brought a new dynamic on world order. Gilder takes a high horse posture in his presentation of Jewish accomplishment to set the reader up for the test, to answer the opening questions of this review.
On capitalism Gilder writes, “What makes capitalism succeed is not chiefly it's structure of incentives but it's use of knowledge and experience... Under capitalism knowledge grows apace with wealth. Democracy without capitalism has no content, since no power centers outside the state can form and sustain themselves. Without capitalism and free trade, self determination is a pretext for constant civil war, as each shard of nationality is sharpened into a sword implanted in it's own holy specified agenda, presumably defended by the United States or the United Nations. The critical test for democracy is it's ability to free human energies and intellect on the frontiers of human accomplishment.” To test to see if there is something evidently in the human mind, even when carefully honed at Oxford or at Sorbonne, that hesitates to believe in capitalism?
The actual trial on Israel , a Test on mankind as Gilder calls it, of which is taking ample space above the fold on the front pages of world newspapers does not completely hold Israeli’s without flaw. But he demonstrates that not only could Jewish people make adjustments to their own mistakes they were able to for the first time in the history of Palestinian people provide for an improvement in their standard of living. Gilder provides statistics of the land prior to the State of Israel and then specifically illustrates that in the time post the 1967 Six Day War and prior to the 1987 intifada, Palestinians saw significant, 40% year over year, gains in their living standard as they worked side by side with Jews. The trial is not about a fight over a small piece of land, but rather the Muslim’s refusal to work for and acknowledge a Jew for his accomplishments. In this the Muslims fail the Test. At a higher level “The Test “is about all mans’ willingness to work for and in the graciousness of those few people that make the standard of life for all better.
Gilder at times may appear to come across as an “in your face Jew”. However he is everything but and you learn that what is in your face is likely your own denial that the facts. So what is in your face is not Gilder but your own subconscious as Guilder enlightens you with ample cause and effect to demonstrate the world’s dependence on our passing the Israel Test. Where Israel is at the apex of a test for man kind is the culmination of Jewish success second only to the United States against a world of Islamic hatred for them. In this gauntlet under the umbrella of the United States as US citizens Jewish entrepreneurial prowess was given birth in a new and modern world. They then made their pilgrimage to Israel and continued under the protection of Western powers to found a democracy underwritten by capitalism and perpetuated entrepreneurial contributions enhance the living conditions of mankind.
They did this on a small piece of unproductive land that laid fallow under Islamic rule for 1,500 years. Could this test be applied else where? Will time allow India to demonstrate the same prowess? Absolutely and the reason for this is India like many western powers that have found success, are based in the freedoms within democratic law that allow the engines of capitalism to produce the advancement required to meet the needs of a modern world. I bring India in to the equation so that you can read the book and when challenged by the word Jew simply substitute Indian. This is not to slight either peoples, but rather to help you over come the “Jew in your face” reaction and afford a little objectivity as the facts settle in. When you read Gilders final chapter on his own Israel Test, you will appreciate that it is not an insult to awaken to a need for recognition and acceptance of the hand that feeds you, whether it be America, Israeli, Chinese, Japanese, or Indian. Gilder’s Israel Test is just that wake up call.
My notes:
Page 26 after the Arabs refused all offers of land for peace in the wake of the 1967 war, the Israelis inherited it by default. Under Israeli management, economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza surged for some twenty years? And the number of Arabs grew for roughly one million to almost three million in some 261 new towns while the number of Jews in territories rose merely 250,000, settled on land not exceeding 2% of the area of the West Bank. As the Israelis spurred development, Arabs thronged in to participate in it. Between 1967 and the first intifada in 1987, Arab settlers moving in from Jordan and other countries out numbered Israeli settlers by a factor of ten.
Page 27 Hostility toward Jews stems not from any alleged legal violation or untoward violence but from there exceptional virtues. This is the essence of anti-Semitism.
Page 46. In the 19th century Jews purchased land in Palestine a barren land under Arab rule with a poor economy they built an economy that attracted Arab and Jew alike. Arab population surged to 1.35 million the Jews grew to 650 thousand. The peace-process brought millions of dollars in foreign aid which shifted Palestinians from entrepreneurs to codependent ghetto violent male gangs and welfare queens.
Page 59. The concept of economic autarky is the chief cause of the poverty in the world. No one can be rich alone. Wealth is an effect of sharing and collaboration between an elite of capitalists and the insurgent new business rising around them. It is an effect of willingness of the young and less educated or less talented to work for the educated and able. It is a product of apprenticeship and learning followed by entrepreneurial rivalry. The success of the Israeli economy is not an imbalance that crates invidious gaps, it is a gap that summons new energies and new wealth.
All capitalist advance generates imbalances and disequilibrium. Growth is an effect of the dis-equilibrating activities of entrepreneurs, the creative destruction unleashed by rate feats of excellence.
Page 75 by delving down deep in the atom we rise up to a level of mathematical abstraction only glimpsed in the previous experimental science of the visible world.
But we do not, as Von Neumann supremely understood, rise all the way up. As Kurt Godel demonstrated in early twentieth century, and Von Neumann’s Goedel's first interpreter and greatest prophet, repeatedly showed, the symbolic logic driving both math an science - the computer and the quantum - is ultimately axiomatic. It cannot prove itself in it's own term but must rely on a set of assumptions outside the system.
Wealth springs from the minds of men, and, above all from the minds of a relatively few men who operate at the nexus of word and world - on the boarders of math and manufacturer - in the realm of the algorithm.
Page 81 Mathematics ultimately would repose on a foundation of faith. The universe rests on a logical coherence that cannot be proven but to which men must commit if they are to create
Page 104 until 1957 Israel was a high wage, secure job economy. It's economy was not producing. The absence of competition was a result in part of virtually complete protection from foreign competition afforded by import and exchange controls
Page 106 in the mid 1980's Yitzhak Shamir followed Reagan’s example and shortly after the USSR folded and allowed millions of scientist Jews to flee ti Israel. Being anti communist and intellectual gave Israel the engine to jolt them to scientific achievement at first rate based on entrepreneurial capitalism. Their brain power drew in capital which produced technological advancement at pace with the United States.
Page 109. The same forces of freedom unleashed on Israel in the 1990's could well dictate that fortunes will disappear within a few generations. It is a rigid rule of capitalism lm that over funded banks, are disasters waiting to happen, while small sums in the hands of a few exceptional men can yield equally unexpected riches.
Page127 Von Neuman was the paramount figure of the twentieth century science because he was the li k between the pioneered of quantum theory and the machines that won WWII, that prevailed in the Cold War, and the enabled the emergence of a global economy tied together and fructified by the internet. The entire saga is one fabric, woven largely by Jews.
Page 139 the Arab-Israeli conflict everywhere understood (wrongly in my view) as an impossibility embittered dispute over absurdly small patches of geography. The promise of a global network seamlessly providing near-infinite bandwidth indifferent to application is the promise, like almost every major economic advance for the past two hundred years, to render geography trivial.
Page148 Biological beings partake of the Godel proof of the limitations of symbolic logic - it's dependence on axioms that it cannot prove. Like mathematics, biological science depends on and transcends an orderly cosmos of monotheistic faith.
Page 155 Biology is a set of living algorithmic entities. Compile the biological entities into a database and apply the algorithms, and you can find the pathways to the inner logic of life.
The algorithmic thinking that fuels such ventures comes naturally to the gifted few. Without permitting the gifted and diligent to emerge, prevail, create, and ultimately rule the cpanding heights, there is no way to have a successful system based on the algorithms of a new economy.
Page 155 the Talpion system needs to be captured verbatim in the review. The system has vaulted Israel and India in engineering prowess.
Page 165. The successful allocation of capital, like the launch of a new technology, is an elegant expression if the capitalist law that mind rules and matter serves, just as squandering of capital can create havoc far beyond that wrought by any scarcity of goods.
Page 167 in the Period fro 1984 - 1990 evry significant reduction in top marginal tax rates anywhere I. The world for which we have decent data: economic growth surged, inflation fell ( down to 11 percent by 1993$, and tax receipts rose. And Netanyahu's reduction in personal tax rates continues - to a planned 39 percent by year 2015 down from 60% in 1980.
Page 173 Crucial to Netanyahu's is the power as a global financial center to transform the economics of the Middle East. Israel can become the "Hong Kong of the Desert" ultimately reshaped the Chinese economy of it's own image when Deng Xiaoping mimicked it's free economics in his free-zone program. Even the Taiwan and Communist China became turned capitalist and most of Taiwan’s investment moved to the mainland. Under Netanyahu, Israel can become a similar force in the Middle East, reaching out ti Palestinians and other Arabs.
My challenge is why can't this same approach be made in Iraq, Iran or any other country in the Middle East? Is entrepreneurial spirit lacking in Muslim people? Or do their Imams subdue it? There exists an equal comparisons by analysis available between India and The Muslim world.
Page 184 Conspicuous weakness is a prime cause of war.
Page 195. Von Neuman was always concerned with dynamic processes and saw that economic systems could not achieve equilibrium outside an environment of growth. Capitalism by nature is a positive sum game, in which every transaction theoretically can yield two or more winners. As long as the exchanges are voluntary, they will not occur unless both parties believe they will gain from them
Page 197. Newman's message is that civilization depends on long time horizons in repetitive games. In a single exchange, the rational policy is predatory. If predatory action brings success, a player is never induced to extend the time horizon. By accommodating aggression, a nation invites it. Peace requires the imposition of penalties on aggression.
A crucial element in all games is the discount rate, which determines the time value of the reward, the terms in which one can trade benefits now for the benefits over the long run. In economics this factor is quantified as the rate is quantified as the rate of interest.
Capitalism works because if it's long time horizons and low discount rates that optimize behavior. The time element is crucial to the deepening of capital and the generation of positive sum games.
The more players focus on politics rather than on economics, the more the game tends to deteriorate. Without capitalism, democracy is a zero sum game that leads to conflict and war.
Page 217 Netanyahu told Congress after 9/11 that there is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign states...Terrorist are not suspended in mid air. The train, arm, and indoctrinate their killers fro safe havens in terrorists countries.... Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, North Korea. Until the world community applies 100% of their policy to not feed them in any way from business to negotiating with them terrorism will flourish at some level.
Over all notion of land for peace is in opposition to this idea.
Page 237 with regard to Israel' s survival not only are they the canary in the coal mine, they are an integral part of the coal mine
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
By Robert Spencer
While I was in an airport traveling from here to there, a destination forgotten, I encountered and Egyptian man who overheard my disgruntled comment on the less than truthful press being blasted over the TV monitor to those waiting for their plane. As we boarded he approached me and said, “my friend I see you are disturbed by the views of your press.” He went on saying “ I am Egyptian and converted from Muslim to Christian, you Americans do not know the whole story of Islam therefore cannot understand the truth.” He recommended this book to me. The following is my review and reaction. I will begin by saying that if you are one to be easily upset by opposing views, this review and the book are not for you. It may be politically incorrect.
I believe the author’s intent was to cause a paradigm shift in the Western readers mind. He strikes an alarm bell as to why one should wake up from a sleepy passive acceptance of a force aimed at ones freedom. Our Western Civilization thrives in a Democracy where elected government and constitutional law prevail. Why do democratic governments not feel threatened by the possibility of actually being subjugated to Sharia Law of Islam? A democracy has the mechanism to institutionalize a separate church and state to a degree the people find acceptable. They secure this with a military that can fend off an invasion of ideals that would oppress their people.
However the political culture Islam proscribes is quite different. In Islam, Sharia Law provides a continuance of Islamic rule and dominance over your free will. The “laws of thought” that serve as the core of this dominance are found written in many places in the Qur’an (Koran). The Hadith (more Islamic documents) interpretations put into law that which is written in the Qu’ran. Why do Muslims insist on Sharia Law? Sharia Law secures a physical disciplinary consequence to those who go against what is written in the Qur’an, thereby providing a legal mechanism of population control that cannot be contested without a fight to the finish.
So you could then respond with the aged old cliché that religion is the root cause of all wars. The paradigm shift nestled in this book is that it is not the religious practices that the West should be concerned but rather the Sharia Law (which really by default is a religious practice) that comes with it. The author sets course on a brief history lesson to put the word Crusades in perspective suitable to allow a paradigm shift to occur. The Crusades: where they religions wars or were they really a fight for individual rights? So lets follow the author’s thinking as he sets the basis for the propagation of Islam and then wraps it in a brief historical review.
Islam’s call to war is quoted over 100 different places in the Qur’an in this book. It is then trumpeted by the modern interpretations taught in four leading schools on Islam where readings from the Hadith and Islam Law books, derivatives of the Koran galvanize a religion founded in war. The Hadith translates the ancient language of the Koran into a context that can be understood today. The book points out that Osama bin Laden’s readings after September 11, were from the Law Books on Islam calling for three options for non-Muslims.
i. Accept Islam (convert)
ii. Pay the jizya, the poll tax on non-Muslims, which is the cornerstone of an entire system of “Dhimmitude” is to humiliate non-Muslims.
iii. War with Muslims
The historical timeline of Islam finds Mohammad warring first with his kin in Arabia and then his successors carried it forward across Northern Africa, Spain and Eastern Europe from 639 through 1100. The Christians began their Crusade Wars, first called for by Pope Urban in the 11th Century and these lasted about 250 years. Yes it is again cliché to indict the Catholic Church for a call to action actions carried out by noble men of realms of the Western World. Not to say that the Church was without it’s own faults, the call for defense of Christianity was championed by noble men, among them from England, Richard the Lionhearted and from France, Godfrey of Bouillon. Not all battles were directly attributed to the Church nor do historians agree upon their descriptions. The Crusade Wars did not result in the colonization of lands or the building of any Empire under the flag of the Catholic Church or any Kingdom’s flag. But rather Muslims were allowed to live freely in the land won back by Christians. This is of course not the case in Muslim territory where Christians were subjected to cruel treatment called Dhimmitude; which for better understanding amongst us modern Westerners could be correlated to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. The Crusades came to an end when Western Europe became preoccupied with their own battles. The Muslim Turks took advantage of the situation and snatched much of Eastern Europe; we knew that land as the Ottoman Empire until 1918,
The book demonstrates that the Crusades were not a Christian conquest of Islam, but rather they were a series of battles to gain back Europe’s civil rights. And yes it was a brutal fight for freedom. So were our American Revolution and the Civil War. To apologize for this would be like apologizing to Hitler, Genghis Kahn, Sadam Hussein, Milosovich or any other brutal person who led the abuse and oppression of a society. The book indirectly poses this question: if I were put in a position to apologize, would I rather make an apology to this list of men than find myself apologizing to my children and family around me for not standing up to or waking up to the realities of disparate ideologies that could by design deny you the freedoms of choice.
So: to apply the lessons of the past to the modern world, why should the Western World be on guard against Islam? Sharia Law as it is levied by the authority of Mohammed and administered by the practitioners of the Islamic faith.
a. Islam is a religion of war. The Qur’an is a book of war, if a warrior wrote the Qur’an it is likely that his words promote dominance by force. The books sites many verse from the Qur’an as evidence to the affirmative.
b. Mohammad is a Prophet of War, Islam was spread by the sword right from the very beginning.
c. Islam promotes one to lie, steal, and kill. The Qur’an preaches a peaceful society amongst Muslims, but promotes jihad using and tactic of deceit to not just vanquish “non-believers but to mutilate them.” I write this reaction to make a point also made in the book where the Koran is clear that according to their Allah when a Muslim engages in war they don’t just kill their foe, but to mutilate them and parade them around in order to humiliate them. We saw this in Mogadishu and we are now seeing it in Iraq. This is what we in the West should have been prepared for. (example: the female aid worker who’s naked torso (minus limbs and head) was thrown into the street in Iraq)
d. Islam oppresses women
e. Islam is anti-Science
f. Islamic Unity, today’s jihads are orchestrated to return the world to Islamic rule much like the 700+ years they experienced from 600 to 1400
In the face of these realities Islamophobia has become a real word with ominous consequence. As I read the pages of this book and reflected back to the news clips where the visual was always the shot of bin Laden shooting an automatic weapon and the audio was a brief sound byte of a declaration of war on America. It seems the news glossed over the importance of those words and have since buried them. I say this because this book makes it two things clear: first, Islam’s doctrine is to wage war against non-Muslims and that means this doctrine could come from any country that stands fanatically behind the Koran. Second, unlike most Westerners (who are not well-studied on Islam), Muslims are well studied on the West as they view us through their Koran-based paradigm.
The most critical path we are on regarding Islamophobia; the author sites cases now in Western Courts putting freedom of speech is at risk. There are cases abroad where people who have spoken against Islam were tried and convicted for “hate crimes”. This is contrary to Muslim activity where they are allowed to “spin” terrorist activity to find justification. It is also contrary to Muslim activity were they can publicly assemble and shout words in affirmation to the likes of Osama bin Laden as was the case in Dearborn Michigan. Yes, our reaction to the human bombs against innocent people or the hanging of soldiers could always begin with shock of the morbid brutality of their actions. But then the educated mind would react to this not with a call to decease; but rational call to vanquish such hostile behavior. And to be clear I am not promoting killing, I am promoting the abolition of the behavior. When I contrast Abu Garab to the burning and hanging of Americans from a bridge, I peel back to the next layer of the onion to the people’s reaction. Our Christian dominated West reacted with apology and corrective action. The Muslims paraded in the streets. We should expect more of the same from them. And to the next layer this book goes against everything that is politically correct and brings out a comparative analysis of the teachings of each faith to explain why.
The author provides a solution that is spread across our government, the press, and we the people. The government must draw a harder line with other governments who promote Sharia Law, and the oppression of human rights. The author writes “If any moderate Islam project were to succeed, it will do so only by identifying elements in Islam that give rise to violence…” I would start with countries that allow madrassas and terrorist training camps. The press must start telling the whole truth as opposed to reporting only facts that support their views. We the people need to bone up on exactly what this “war on terror” is all about. The author writes, “This is not a war on terror. Terror is a tactic not an opponent. To wage a war on terror is like waging a war on bombs. Refusal to identify the enemy is extremely dangerous: It leaves those who refuse vulnerable to being blind sided.” The enemy is the teaching of Islam. Yes, “fundamentalist” are said to have hijacked a faith. But Islam is a faith where its origin and continued practice is in war. Rather than wage a war on weapons of mass destruction would “we the people” have allowed our current president, actually say it is good enough to wage a war on those countries that hold and promote the ideals of fundamental Islam. Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt could not take the country to war on ideals, so what makes Bush any different. The answer is magically “NO; because that would be intermixing church and state and using our military to do so. Only Lincoln was allowed to wage a war on disparate ideals. But could we rather wage a war on those that promote the ideals of Islam and the subsequent Sharia Law…”we the people” would have to first become as educated about our enemy as they are of us. We would have to learn how to separate Islam from Sharia Law and War.
This war we are currently engaged in that began when? …in 2003, 2001, 1991, 1967, 1943, 1400, it is a war that Mohammad began on the deserts between Mecca and Medina against his own people who at the time were non-Muslims. That conquest left much of Europe in the hands of Muslims, exposed to the brutal consequence of Sharia law. I have been to “Chop-Chop Square” as Westerners call it In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and yes they still have public stoning and the like. What is driven home in this book is that Islamic way of life well rooted in the bedrock of the Koran and is beyond belief and faith. It is a real call to war against anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim not practicing the words of the Koran
The author’s basic tenant is that the Qur’an and its complimentary Hadith are at the root of much of the dysfunctional social outcomes of Islam. One who is not familiar with these characteristics may find the book to be a militant call to arms. Given that the author dedicates only 270 pages to his two themes, combined with his casual vernacular, makes it a target for criticism. And as such you could say he has fueled the flames of a 1400-year conflict. However, first there is 1400 years of history leaving a trail that while Islamic society may give ground to individual freedom for periods of time, there comes a point that they violently snap back. Second, the doctrine of Islam is destructive to its own well-being. Third, it is Islamic doctrine that Muslims must dominate the world through any means.
Could it have been possible for President Bush or any American President to say in 2001 that this war is not a war on terror but a war on Islamic fundamentalist? Albeit the case, for political correctness he had to spin his call to war on the “Terrorists” “of any ilk” and then on Iraq (one of such ilk) with an eminent threat called weapons of mass destruction. He could have gone in a different direction when he said “you are either with us or your are against us”. That is where he (and we the people) went wrong. However, would history then put Bush along side Pope Urban as starting a religious war that has been in fact on-going, when all he was doing was proactively defending freedom. The author does leave you with a call to action. First, he is prodding you to wake up to reality. Second, whatever we do to defend ourselves, know what we are defending; our free(d) will.
Related web sites:
http://jihadwatch.org/
http://answering-islam.org.uk/
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/top_ten_shar
ia.htm
By Robert Spencer
While I was in an airport traveling from here to there, a destination forgotten, I encountered and Egyptian man who overheard my disgruntled comment on the less than truthful press being blasted over the TV monitor to those waiting for their plane. As we boarded he approached me and said, “my friend I see you are disturbed by the views of your press.” He went on saying “ I am Egyptian and converted from Muslim to Christian, you Americans do not know the whole story of Islam therefore cannot understand the truth.” He recommended this book to me. The following is my review and reaction. I will begin by saying that if you are one to be easily upset by opposing views, this review and the book are not for you. It may be politically incorrect.
I believe the author’s intent was to cause a paradigm shift in the Western readers mind. He strikes an alarm bell as to why one should wake up from a sleepy passive acceptance of a force aimed at ones freedom. Our Western Civilization thrives in a Democracy where elected government and constitutional law prevail. Why do democratic governments not feel threatened by the possibility of actually being subjugated to Sharia Law of Islam? A democracy has the mechanism to institutionalize a separate church and state to a degree the people find acceptable. They secure this with a military that can fend off an invasion of ideals that would oppress their people.
However the political culture Islam proscribes is quite different. In Islam, Sharia Law provides a continuance of Islamic rule and dominance over your free will. The “laws of thought” that serve as the core of this dominance are found written in many places in the Qur’an (Koran). The Hadith (more Islamic documents) interpretations put into law that which is written in the Qu’ran. Why do Muslims insist on Sharia Law? Sharia Law secures a physical disciplinary consequence to those who go against what is written in the Qur’an, thereby providing a legal mechanism of population control that cannot be contested without a fight to the finish.
So you could then respond with the aged old cliché that religion is the root cause of all wars. The paradigm shift nestled in this book is that it is not the religious practices that the West should be concerned but rather the Sharia Law (which really by default is a religious practice) that comes with it. The author sets course on a brief history lesson to put the word Crusades in perspective suitable to allow a paradigm shift to occur. The Crusades: where they religions wars or were they really a fight for individual rights? So lets follow the author’s thinking as he sets the basis for the propagation of Islam and then wraps it in a brief historical review.
Islam’s call to war is quoted over 100 different places in the Qur’an in this book. It is then trumpeted by the modern interpretations taught in four leading schools on Islam where readings from the Hadith and Islam Law books, derivatives of the Koran galvanize a religion founded in war. The Hadith translates the ancient language of the Koran into a context that can be understood today. The book points out that Osama bin Laden’s readings after September 11, were from the Law Books on Islam calling for three options for non-Muslims.
i. Accept Islam (convert)
ii. Pay the jizya, the poll tax on non-Muslims, which is the cornerstone of an entire system of “Dhimmitude” is to humiliate non-Muslims.
iii. War with Muslims
The historical timeline of Islam finds Mohammad warring first with his kin in Arabia and then his successors carried it forward across Northern Africa, Spain and Eastern Europe from 639 through 1100. The Christians began their Crusade Wars, first called for by Pope Urban in the 11th Century and these lasted about 250 years. Yes it is again cliché to indict the Catholic Church for a call to action actions carried out by noble men of realms of the Western World. Not to say that the Church was without it’s own faults, the call for defense of Christianity was championed by noble men, among them from England, Richard the Lionhearted and from France, Godfrey of Bouillon. Not all battles were directly attributed to the Church nor do historians agree upon their descriptions. The Crusade Wars did not result in the colonization of lands or the building of any Empire under the flag of the Catholic Church or any Kingdom’s flag. But rather Muslims were allowed to live freely in the land won back by Christians. This is of course not the case in Muslim territory where Christians were subjected to cruel treatment called Dhimmitude; which for better understanding amongst us modern Westerners could be correlated to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. The Crusades came to an end when Western Europe became preoccupied with their own battles. The Muslim Turks took advantage of the situation and snatched much of Eastern Europe; we knew that land as the Ottoman Empire until 1918,
The book demonstrates that the Crusades were not a Christian conquest of Islam, but rather they were a series of battles to gain back Europe’s civil rights. And yes it was a brutal fight for freedom. So were our American Revolution and the Civil War. To apologize for this would be like apologizing to Hitler, Genghis Kahn, Sadam Hussein, Milosovich or any other brutal person who led the abuse and oppression of a society. The book indirectly poses this question: if I were put in a position to apologize, would I rather make an apology to this list of men than find myself apologizing to my children and family around me for not standing up to or waking up to the realities of disparate ideologies that could by design deny you the freedoms of choice.
So: to apply the lessons of the past to the modern world, why should the Western World be on guard against Islam? Sharia Law as it is levied by the authority of Mohammed and administered by the practitioners of the Islamic faith.
a. Islam is a religion of war. The Qur’an is a book of war, if a warrior wrote the Qur’an it is likely that his words promote dominance by force. The books sites many verse from the Qur’an as evidence to the affirmative.
b. Mohammad is a Prophet of War, Islam was spread by the sword right from the very beginning.
c. Islam promotes one to lie, steal, and kill. The Qur’an preaches a peaceful society amongst Muslims, but promotes jihad using and tactic of deceit to not just vanquish “non-believers but to mutilate them.” I write this reaction to make a point also made in the book where the Koran is clear that according to their Allah when a Muslim engages in war they don’t just kill their foe, but to mutilate them and parade them around in order to humiliate them. We saw this in Mogadishu and we are now seeing it in Iraq. This is what we in the West should have been prepared for. (example: the female aid worker who’s naked torso (minus limbs and head) was thrown into the street in Iraq)
d. Islam oppresses women
e. Islam is anti-Science
f. Islamic Unity, today’s jihads are orchestrated to return the world to Islamic rule much like the 700+ years they experienced from 600 to 1400
In the face of these realities Islamophobia has become a real word with ominous consequence. As I read the pages of this book and reflected back to the news clips where the visual was always the shot of bin Laden shooting an automatic weapon and the audio was a brief sound byte of a declaration of war on America. It seems the news glossed over the importance of those words and have since buried them. I say this because this book makes it two things clear: first, Islam’s doctrine is to wage war against non-Muslims and that means this doctrine could come from any country that stands fanatically behind the Koran. Second, unlike most Westerners (who are not well-studied on Islam), Muslims are well studied on the West as they view us through their Koran-based paradigm.
The most critical path we are on regarding Islamophobia; the author sites cases now in Western Courts putting freedom of speech is at risk. There are cases abroad where people who have spoken against Islam were tried and convicted for “hate crimes”. This is contrary to Muslim activity where they are allowed to “spin” terrorist activity to find justification. It is also contrary to Muslim activity were they can publicly assemble and shout words in affirmation to the likes of Osama bin Laden as was the case in Dearborn Michigan. Yes, our reaction to the human bombs against innocent people or the hanging of soldiers could always begin with shock of the morbid brutality of their actions. But then the educated mind would react to this not with a call to decease; but rational call to vanquish such hostile behavior. And to be clear I am not promoting killing, I am promoting the abolition of the behavior. When I contrast Abu Garab to the burning and hanging of Americans from a bridge, I peel back to the next layer of the onion to the people’s reaction. Our Christian dominated West reacted with apology and corrective action. The Muslims paraded in the streets. We should expect more of the same from them. And to the next layer this book goes against everything that is politically correct and brings out a comparative analysis of the teachings of each faith to explain why.
The author provides a solution that is spread across our government, the press, and we the people. The government must draw a harder line with other governments who promote Sharia Law, and the oppression of human rights. The author writes “If any moderate Islam project were to succeed, it will do so only by identifying elements in Islam that give rise to violence…” I would start with countries that allow madrassas and terrorist training camps. The press must start telling the whole truth as opposed to reporting only facts that support their views. We the people need to bone up on exactly what this “war on terror” is all about. The author writes, “This is not a war on terror. Terror is a tactic not an opponent. To wage a war on terror is like waging a war on bombs. Refusal to identify the enemy is extremely dangerous: It leaves those who refuse vulnerable to being blind sided.” The enemy is the teaching of Islam. Yes, “fundamentalist” are said to have hijacked a faith. But Islam is a faith where its origin and continued practice is in war. Rather than wage a war on weapons of mass destruction would “we the people” have allowed our current president, actually say it is good enough to wage a war on those countries that hold and promote the ideals of fundamental Islam. Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt could not take the country to war on ideals, so what makes Bush any different. The answer is magically “NO; because that would be intermixing church and state and using our military to do so. Only Lincoln was allowed to wage a war on disparate ideals. But could we rather wage a war on those that promote the ideals of Islam and the subsequent Sharia Law…”we the people” would have to first become as educated about our enemy as they are of us. We would have to learn how to separate Islam from Sharia Law and War.
This war we are currently engaged in that began when? …in 2003, 2001, 1991, 1967, 1943, 1400, it is a war that Mohammad began on the deserts between Mecca and Medina against his own people who at the time were non-Muslims. That conquest left much of Europe in the hands of Muslims, exposed to the brutal consequence of Sharia law. I have been to “Chop-Chop Square” as Westerners call it In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and yes they still have public stoning and the like. What is driven home in this book is that Islamic way of life well rooted in the bedrock of the Koran and is beyond belief and faith. It is a real call to war against anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim not practicing the words of the Koran
The author’s basic tenant is that the Qur’an and its complimentary Hadith are at the root of much of the dysfunctional social outcomes of Islam. One who is not familiar with these characteristics may find the book to be a militant call to arms. Given that the author dedicates only 270 pages to his two themes, combined with his casual vernacular, makes it a target for criticism. And as such you could say he has fueled the flames of a 1400-year conflict. However, first there is 1400 years of history leaving a trail that while Islamic society may give ground to individual freedom for periods of time, there comes a point that they violently snap back. Second, the doctrine of Islam is destructive to its own well-being. Third, it is Islamic doctrine that Muslims must dominate the world through any means.
Could it have been possible for President Bush or any American President to say in 2001 that this war is not a war on terror but a war on Islamic fundamentalist? Albeit the case, for political correctness he had to spin his call to war on the “Terrorists” “of any ilk” and then on Iraq (one of such ilk) with an eminent threat called weapons of mass destruction. He could have gone in a different direction when he said “you are either with us or your are against us”. That is where he (and we the people) went wrong. However, would history then put Bush along side Pope Urban as starting a religious war that has been in fact on-going, when all he was doing was proactively defending freedom. The author does leave you with a call to action. First, he is prodding you to wake up to reality. Second, whatever we do to defend ourselves, know what we are defending; our free(d) will.
Related web sites:
http://jihadwatch.org/
http://answering-islam.org.uk/
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/top_ten_shar
ia.htm
Persian Puzzle
Persian Puzzle
By Kenneth Pollack
I picked this book up chiefly because of recent news in Iran and secondarily because of an Iranian friend I had in New York. He often spoke of the rich Persian culture and spoke Farsi with his children. I have an Iranian tapestry in my hallway and eat Amir’s pistachios from Iran when I get them. True enough you read early on in the book about Darius, Xerxus, and Cyrus with an emphasis on Cyrus’ conquering of Babylon. In this conquest Cyrus frees the Jews and returns them to their homeland, Palestine. This point I find interesting as the primer landmark contradiction in the Persian/Iranian history; a history that only evolved to the name Iran at the insistence of Reza Shah Pahlavi in the 1920’s. This is a point in history that flies in the face of the current Iranian theocracy and supports one of the tenants of American sanctions on Iran for their sponsored terrorism, anti-peace in the Middle East and the “destruction” of Israel.
Pollack prepares a backdrop for which he lays room for the reader to contemplate many moral questions while reading the book. I found it interesting to read that Persia over history is a land fragmented by mountains and deserts with no significant navigable rivers. Holding a band of people together to be the world’s first superpower was no small feat. A feat that today’s Iranians are still so proud of that it permeates in their civil consciousness. I saw this in my friends Amir and Mondona, and better appreciate this now.
Oddly enough the Arabian conquest brought Islam to Persia a religion that over shadowed Zoroastrianism and threw Persia into a state of civil unrest and contradiction ever since. The one hundred year period prior to our current political situation (1979 to present) is a story of repressive dictatorships over a new sovereign state. The first Shah who regained his family’s through a coup and internal unrest saw himself much in the liking to Mussolini, and Franco. Pollack associates this mentality to Kadafi, Arafat, and a few of Egypt’s recent leaders. Notice he separates these inept leaders from the terrorist of Hitler, Stalin and Hussein. The important similarity to all was while encumbered with internal instability in conjunction with a fear of foreign domination; these recent rulers absconded power and ruled their people poorly.
The irony of Iranian leadership of the 19th and 20th centuries is similar to that of Poland. There were regions of people with a desire to lead themselves but displayed no proven capability to do so. Reza Shah Pahlavi was only an example of a line of leaders who lived in fear of Russia and Great Britain. The imposition of either of two foreign powers was self-inflicted to a certain degree. Persia’s fear of Russia gave reason to draw Great Britain into their sphere of influence, yet it was Great Britain with the dominant tools to lead. With the imbalance in skills as they were, Great Britain took advantage of all business activity. The discovery of oil exacerbated the imbalance. The weak leaders whether the Shah or Prime Minister Mosaddeq, could not manage the divergent demands on internal policy.
After World War II Iran began to invite the Unites States in to counter balance their triad of problematic and conflicting issues. Like all poor leaders their focus on military led themselves to financial ruin on every other front. It is important to have read that the United States were reluctant participants brought in at the invitation of Iran, no matter what was perceived through the fog of the coups for a leader. Unfortunately with our preoccupation with the spread of Communism at the time, no matter who was in the White House, we did not live up to the expectations of Iran’s leaders or their people. Later our pre-occupation with Viet Nam caused the Johnson administration to lose sight of the call for internal reform that was heard and revered by the Kennedy administration.
The CIA participation in the stacked 1953 election (now called a coup by Iran and somehow tolerated by the United States) between Pahlavi and Mosaddeq gave all the justifiable appearances of our meddling in another countries affairs. And it was justified, a mistake by the Eisenhower administration. What is important to know says Pollack is our agenda was not about oil. The agenda was to bring someone into power that would stand up to the Soviets, which paradoxically was indeed an agenda of the Iranian people. To accuse the USA of propping up a puppet regime is somewhat misguided according to Pollack. The Shah was dependent on the United States initially for economic reasons and we supplied ample aid. Unfortunately, this money was redirected to the military while his people were oppressed. Over time the Shah thumbed his nose up to American calls for human rights. The Shahs new found oil wealth, thanks to American intervention over the British in behalf of Iran, allowed him this option and left American influence neutered. By the time Carter became aware and made a call for human rights, it was too late.
I found it very interesting that even Pollack describes the events of 1953 as a CIA directed stacked election and then goes on later in his book to name that event as a coup. In Pollack’s defense, after reading the events surrounding every election of the 20th century, one would conclude that the words election and coup in Iran are synonymous.
It is important to appreciate why Iran, the theocratic government hates the United States, and why Iran conducts its foreign affairs as though it can thumb its nose at the United States to the extent that it can wage terrorist war against us. With a xenophobic persona caused by fear of both the USSR and Britain, Iran’s request to the United o mediate and or counteract the situation was not executed with clarity. With a revolving door in leadership every four years in the White House, a consistent policy and or named responsible person could not be defined. During pre and near post WWII the revolving door in Iran was even less clear. Elections in Iran through this same period were closely parallel to coups. Upon this canvas, one can easily visualize a people’s propensity to take aim at the tallest participant as it stands above the smoke.
Once we got on that slippery slope the only course was and is down. While it was common practice to offer a choice of two evils and prompting voter disenfranchisement to the extent that the candidates would get assassinated the CIA wrongly engaged in this in 1953. What the CIA did was bombard the Iranian people with election propaganda to get the Shah elected. THAT’S IT!!!. According to the author. After this election/coup, from Eisenhower through Ford, the United States largely turned a blind eye to the Shah’s shenanigans; largely due to our focus on anti communism threats elsewhere in the world. The Iranian people felt betrayed in two ways. First we did not give them the attention they asked for. Second, the Shah on his own accord and with no pressure from the United States oppressed his people. Not speaking out on human rights violations committed by the Shah was a slap in their face.
Iran has learned through the hostage taking in 1979 and through the 1980s that they could influence policy in America. Khomeni realized that his capital in the Embassy hostages was already spent. But he despised Carter for his double talk. Carter spoke strongly against human rights violations around the world and did nothing in Iran. When he allowed the Shah into the US for surgery it was an insult to Iran. Carter’s response incorporated a fundamental mistake in making it clear that the hostages were to come back alive, this is despite that every hostage taken swore an oath that the Unites States interests came first. (Implying first before their own lives). Khomeni leveraged this in negotiations and sucked everything he could out of the US and embarrassed us publicly with his booty. The only thing Reagan did to free the hostages was get sworn in to office. The very minute this took place the hostages were set free. Thus the author puts forth the theory that an Iran got even for what the CIA did in 1953. Khomeni learned another lesson, that the United States was weak and its people did not have the stomach for conflict. He took Reagan to task by taking hostages in Lebanon. While Reagan did not make the same mistake as Carter he made a different one. He negotiated with terrorist in the Iran Contra fiasco. It was not until 1991 that all the hostages were set free.
Reagan ’s continued reluctance to engage directly in the Iran Iraq war demonstrated to Iran American weakness or intolerance to war. It was clearly stated that Iran had intentions to march through Iraq and straight to Israel. Khomeni’s agenda was an Islamic World. Reagan’s agenda was a continued resistance through the support of other armies where American interests were involved. Our eventual involvement through our Naval escorts of Kuwaiti ships did nothing to show American strength and everything to show a continued American betrayal. Through the Clinton administration America’s continuance to tolerate terrorist activity emboldened Hezbollah and al Queida. Theocracy leadership with a whip to its people and a stick to its neighbors internationally became a theme.
With regard to Pollack’s assessments of all the administrations foreign policy, he found something to criticize in every administration with exception to Kennedy the G.H. Bush. I found it interesting that a consistent theme of criticism of both Carter and Reagan was not being firm enough with Iran over terrorism, Pollack only mentions the Bahran Towers, and gives plausible argument for the Clinton Administration not taking a firm hand against Iran. His argument being that after full disclosure from Saudi Arabia, that Iran organized the assault, a new Khatami government was in power. This contradicts the Madeline Albrights assessment that un-elected hands controlled Iran. Pollack later recommends that any act of terrorism would be responded to with force regardless of regime change, so he leaves the reader somewhat confused. Additionally the other incidents of terrorism against the United States during the Clinton administration were not addressed to the same degree as both Carter and Reagan. This in itself is a puzzle within a puzzle. Pollack paints a picture where Iran became use to American weakness in the face of terrorism, but asserts that Iran was not specifically involved, and then claims Iran spreads terrorism; a foggy area for this expert author.
The book title becomes relevant in describing Iran. It is a country conflicted by its leadership that does not appear to represent the voice of its people. In 1997, with 91% of the people voting, more that 70% of the vote was in favor of reform from the “hardline” mullahs, the Madeline Albright speech of 1999 to Iran in an effort for rapprochement contained two critical words, “un-elected hands”. Every other word in the speech was aimed at a rapprochement of the two countries. While the elected Khatami government did take notice of those two words, they were willing to overlook them. Kahamen’i, the new un-elected Supreme Leader assumed control in delivering a very negative reply to the Clinton administration. To quote Pollack “Indeed it is unfortunate that this was all that came from it, but by trying so hard to start a process of rapprochement with the Khatami government, the Clinton administration gave the George W Bush administration the perfect argument to demand a harder line on Iran from America’s allies.”
If Clinton’s stick were equal in size to his carrot, would he have handed George W. Bush a different set of cards? In fact Pollack was equally generous to G.W. Bush. He speaks of the strategies between Clinton and Bush as complementary being that Iran always took the carrot and left the United States with nothing but the stick, a stick that for many reasons detailed in the book can be used for nothing but waving in the air. Pollack suggest that Clinton handed Bush the stick. Pollack reiterates that over the course of our relationship with Iran, and particularly in the last 25 years, their negotiating style called for the United States to put all concessions on the table for which they take them and leave. However Pollack demonstrates many cases where Iran does respond to the stick.
In Pollack’s closing chapters he describes a three-part strategy to become good neighbors with Iran. He claims that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is the number one concern; because if successful Iran’s complete persona of xenophobia changes. (a root cause resolution dynamic not explored universally by the author) The first is through a “Grand Bargain” whereby each side lay down their concessions, detailed in the book. The second is through international diplomacy where all nations of the world lay out a new world protocol among nations, detailed in the book. And the third part being military might. Because this is three-part strategy is introduced only after Pollack makes a case for the failure of each strategy independently, you the reader must pay close attention to the intricate relations between all three and the “trip wires” that would transition from one policy to another. In the end you begin to see the edges of the Persian Puzzle. You may even have your colored pieces in their proper piles, but there is no way the puzzle get completed in this book. You also begin to appreciate a requirement for a tremendous staff in our State Department to piece this all together. In retrospect I found the details and criticism in the early going of the book to be much sharper. There is enough history provided to appreciate the general feeling of the common man that Iran holds anxieties towards America. There is also enough history provided to be sure that Iran has much to be responsible for in their anxiety about many things internally and externally, including The West. This gives true meaning to the saying only history will tell. I can only hope that Pollack will be around in 50 years so that at age 99 I will read his sequel.
Epilogue: I am always taken back by: those in America that unilaterally condemns “THIS ADMINISTRATION”; when I contrast it to the following quote in the book by Ayatollah Khomeni upon burying two prostitutes up to their chest and had them stoned to death by the public. Bear in mind there was not trial. He said, “ Criminals should not be tried. The trial of a criminal is against human rights. Human rights demand that we should have killed them in the first place.” It is similarly described in the book where the leftist student Revolutionaries physically, and physiologically abused many hostages and Ayatollah Khomeni gave his seal of approval to these acts. To the Ayatollah perceptions were more important than truth; a reality he can hold to without a free press and a fair judicial system.
This country does have a judicial process, free press and core values aimed at liberty. On the moral questions raised, it appears that making compromises to those opposing this freewill is counterproductive. It is time we all turn up the volume on the beacon on the hill and stand together for what we are for regardless of WHICH ADMINISTRATION. The situation in the Middle East is very complicated. Pollack is much more versed than myself and his views are highly regarded. But he does not have a clear answer a proven answer. So why would we blame him while serving under Clinton or any other American for not solving this puzzle? I believe this strategy is the key in Pollack’s book the he touches but fails to utilize this KEY to simplify is three-part strategy. Pollock glosses over it, but ever since the Czar of Russia recognized the will of the people were not behind Napoleon, he knew the French would retreat regardless of what happened on the battlefield. A beacon on the hill is for liberty and anti terrorism. Let it shine through our people and our press. But let us shine what unites us, rather than that which divides us.
By Kenneth Pollack
I picked this book up chiefly because of recent news in Iran and secondarily because of an Iranian friend I had in New York. He often spoke of the rich Persian culture and spoke Farsi with his children. I have an Iranian tapestry in my hallway and eat Amir’s pistachios from Iran when I get them. True enough you read early on in the book about Darius, Xerxus, and Cyrus with an emphasis on Cyrus’ conquering of Babylon. In this conquest Cyrus frees the Jews and returns them to their homeland, Palestine. This point I find interesting as the primer landmark contradiction in the Persian/Iranian history; a history that only evolved to the name Iran at the insistence of Reza Shah Pahlavi in the 1920’s. This is a point in history that flies in the face of the current Iranian theocracy and supports one of the tenants of American sanctions on Iran for their sponsored terrorism, anti-peace in the Middle East and the “destruction” of Israel.
Pollack prepares a backdrop for which he lays room for the reader to contemplate many moral questions while reading the book. I found it interesting to read that Persia over history is a land fragmented by mountains and deserts with no significant navigable rivers. Holding a band of people together to be the world’s first superpower was no small feat. A feat that today’s Iranians are still so proud of that it permeates in their civil consciousness. I saw this in my friends Amir and Mondona, and better appreciate this now.
Oddly enough the Arabian conquest brought Islam to Persia a religion that over shadowed Zoroastrianism and threw Persia into a state of civil unrest and contradiction ever since. The one hundred year period prior to our current political situation (1979 to present) is a story of repressive dictatorships over a new sovereign state. The first Shah who regained his family’s through a coup and internal unrest saw himself much in the liking to Mussolini, and Franco. Pollack associates this mentality to Kadafi, Arafat, and a few of Egypt’s recent leaders. Notice he separates these inept leaders from the terrorist of Hitler, Stalin and Hussein. The important similarity to all was while encumbered with internal instability in conjunction with a fear of foreign domination; these recent rulers absconded power and ruled their people poorly.
The irony of Iranian leadership of the 19th and 20th centuries is similar to that of Poland. There were regions of people with a desire to lead themselves but displayed no proven capability to do so. Reza Shah Pahlavi was only an example of a line of leaders who lived in fear of Russia and Great Britain. The imposition of either of two foreign powers was self-inflicted to a certain degree. Persia’s fear of Russia gave reason to draw Great Britain into their sphere of influence, yet it was Great Britain with the dominant tools to lead. With the imbalance in skills as they were, Great Britain took advantage of all business activity. The discovery of oil exacerbated the imbalance. The weak leaders whether the Shah or Prime Minister Mosaddeq, could not manage the divergent demands on internal policy.
After World War II Iran began to invite the Unites States in to counter balance their triad of problematic and conflicting issues. Like all poor leaders their focus on military led themselves to financial ruin on every other front. It is important to have read that the United States were reluctant participants brought in at the invitation of Iran, no matter what was perceived through the fog of the coups for a leader. Unfortunately with our preoccupation with the spread of Communism at the time, no matter who was in the White House, we did not live up to the expectations of Iran’s leaders or their people. Later our pre-occupation with Viet Nam caused the Johnson administration to lose sight of the call for internal reform that was heard and revered by the Kennedy administration.
The CIA participation in the stacked 1953 election (now called a coup by Iran and somehow tolerated by the United States) between Pahlavi and Mosaddeq gave all the justifiable appearances of our meddling in another countries affairs. And it was justified, a mistake by the Eisenhower administration. What is important to know says Pollack is our agenda was not about oil. The agenda was to bring someone into power that would stand up to the Soviets, which paradoxically was indeed an agenda of the Iranian people. To accuse the USA of propping up a puppet regime is somewhat misguided according to Pollack. The Shah was dependent on the United States initially for economic reasons and we supplied ample aid. Unfortunately, this money was redirected to the military while his people were oppressed. Over time the Shah thumbed his nose up to American calls for human rights. The Shahs new found oil wealth, thanks to American intervention over the British in behalf of Iran, allowed him this option and left American influence neutered. By the time Carter became aware and made a call for human rights, it was too late.
I found it very interesting that even Pollack describes the events of 1953 as a CIA directed stacked election and then goes on later in his book to name that event as a coup. In Pollack’s defense, after reading the events surrounding every election of the 20th century, one would conclude that the words election and coup in Iran are synonymous.
It is important to appreciate why Iran, the theocratic government hates the United States, and why Iran conducts its foreign affairs as though it can thumb its nose at the United States to the extent that it can wage terrorist war against us. With a xenophobic persona caused by fear of both the USSR and Britain, Iran’s request to the United o mediate and or counteract the situation was not executed with clarity. With a revolving door in leadership every four years in the White House, a consistent policy and or named responsible person could not be defined. During pre and near post WWII the revolving door in Iran was even less clear. Elections in Iran through this same period were closely parallel to coups. Upon this canvas, one can easily visualize a people’s propensity to take aim at the tallest participant as it stands above the smoke.
Once we got on that slippery slope the only course was and is down. While it was common practice to offer a choice of two evils and prompting voter disenfranchisement to the extent that the candidates would get assassinated the CIA wrongly engaged in this in 1953. What the CIA did was bombard the Iranian people with election propaganda to get the Shah elected. THAT’S IT!!!. According to the author. After this election/coup, from Eisenhower through Ford, the United States largely turned a blind eye to the Shah’s shenanigans; largely due to our focus on anti communism threats elsewhere in the world. The Iranian people felt betrayed in two ways. First we did not give them the attention they asked for. Second, the Shah on his own accord and with no pressure from the United States oppressed his people. Not speaking out on human rights violations committed by the Shah was a slap in their face.
Iran has learned through the hostage taking in 1979 and through the 1980s that they could influence policy in America. Khomeni realized that his capital in the Embassy hostages was already spent. But he despised Carter for his double talk. Carter spoke strongly against human rights violations around the world and did nothing in Iran. When he allowed the Shah into the US for surgery it was an insult to Iran. Carter’s response incorporated a fundamental mistake in making it clear that the hostages were to come back alive, this is despite that every hostage taken swore an oath that the Unites States interests came first. (Implying first before their own lives). Khomeni leveraged this in negotiations and sucked everything he could out of the US and embarrassed us publicly with his booty. The only thing Reagan did to free the hostages was get sworn in to office. The very minute this took place the hostages were set free. Thus the author puts forth the theory that an Iran got even for what the CIA did in 1953. Khomeni learned another lesson, that the United States was weak and its people did not have the stomach for conflict. He took Reagan to task by taking hostages in Lebanon. While Reagan did not make the same mistake as Carter he made a different one. He negotiated with terrorist in the Iran Contra fiasco. It was not until 1991 that all the hostages were set free.
Reagan ’s continued reluctance to engage directly in the Iran Iraq war demonstrated to Iran American weakness or intolerance to war. It was clearly stated that Iran had intentions to march through Iraq and straight to Israel. Khomeni’s agenda was an Islamic World. Reagan’s agenda was a continued resistance through the support of other armies where American interests were involved. Our eventual involvement through our Naval escorts of Kuwaiti ships did nothing to show American strength and everything to show a continued American betrayal. Through the Clinton administration America’s continuance to tolerate terrorist activity emboldened Hezbollah and al Queida. Theocracy leadership with a whip to its people and a stick to its neighbors internationally became a theme.
With regard to Pollack’s assessments of all the administrations foreign policy, he found something to criticize in every administration with exception to Kennedy the G.H. Bush. I found it interesting that a consistent theme of criticism of both Carter and Reagan was not being firm enough with Iran over terrorism, Pollack only mentions the Bahran Towers, and gives plausible argument for the Clinton Administration not taking a firm hand against Iran. His argument being that after full disclosure from Saudi Arabia, that Iran organized the assault, a new Khatami government was in power. This contradicts the Madeline Albrights assessment that un-elected hands controlled Iran. Pollack later recommends that any act of terrorism would be responded to with force regardless of regime change, so he leaves the reader somewhat confused. Additionally the other incidents of terrorism against the United States during the Clinton administration were not addressed to the same degree as both Carter and Reagan. This in itself is a puzzle within a puzzle. Pollack paints a picture where Iran became use to American weakness in the face of terrorism, but asserts that Iran was not specifically involved, and then claims Iran spreads terrorism; a foggy area for this expert author.
The book title becomes relevant in describing Iran. It is a country conflicted by its leadership that does not appear to represent the voice of its people. In 1997, with 91% of the people voting, more that 70% of the vote was in favor of reform from the “hardline” mullahs, the Madeline Albright speech of 1999 to Iran in an effort for rapprochement contained two critical words, “un-elected hands”. Every other word in the speech was aimed at a rapprochement of the two countries. While the elected Khatami government did take notice of those two words, they were willing to overlook them. Kahamen’i, the new un-elected Supreme Leader assumed control in delivering a very negative reply to the Clinton administration. To quote Pollack “Indeed it is unfortunate that this was all that came from it, but by trying so hard to start a process of rapprochement with the Khatami government, the Clinton administration gave the George W Bush administration the perfect argument to demand a harder line on Iran from America’s allies.”
If Clinton’s stick were equal in size to his carrot, would he have handed George W. Bush a different set of cards? In fact Pollack was equally generous to G.W. Bush. He speaks of the strategies between Clinton and Bush as complementary being that Iran always took the carrot and left the United States with nothing but the stick, a stick that for many reasons detailed in the book can be used for nothing but waving in the air. Pollack suggest that Clinton handed Bush the stick. Pollack reiterates that over the course of our relationship with Iran, and particularly in the last 25 years, their negotiating style called for the United States to put all concessions on the table for which they take them and leave. However Pollack demonstrates many cases where Iran does respond to the stick.
In Pollack’s closing chapters he describes a three-part strategy to become good neighbors with Iran. He claims that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is the number one concern; because if successful Iran’s complete persona of xenophobia changes. (a root cause resolution dynamic not explored universally by the author) The first is through a “Grand Bargain” whereby each side lay down their concessions, detailed in the book. The second is through international diplomacy where all nations of the world lay out a new world protocol among nations, detailed in the book. And the third part being military might. Because this is three-part strategy is introduced only after Pollack makes a case for the failure of each strategy independently, you the reader must pay close attention to the intricate relations between all three and the “trip wires” that would transition from one policy to another. In the end you begin to see the edges of the Persian Puzzle. You may even have your colored pieces in their proper piles, but there is no way the puzzle get completed in this book. You also begin to appreciate a requirement for a tremendous staff in our State Department to piece this all together. In retrospect I found the details and criticism in the early going of the book to be much sharper. There is enough history provided to appreciate the general feeling of the common man that Iran holds anxieties towards America. There is also enough history provided to be sure that Iran has much to be responsible for in their anxiety about many things internally and externally, including The West. This gives true meaning to the saying only history will tell. I can only hope that Pollack will be around in 50 years so that at age 99 I will read his sequel.
Epilogue: I am always taken back by: those in America that unilaterally condemns “THIS ADMINISTRATION”; when I contrast it to the following quote in the book by Ayatollah Khomeni upon burying two prostitutes up to their chest and had them stoned to death by the public. Bear in mind there was not trial. He said, “ Criminals should not be tried. The trial of a criminal is against human rights. Human rights demand that we should have killed them in the first place.” It is similarly described in the book where the leftist student Revolutionaries physically, and physiologically abused many hostages and Ayatollah Khomeni gave his seal of approval to these acts. To the Ayatollah perceptions were more important than truth; a reality he can hold to without a free press and a fair judicial system.
This country does have a judicial process, free press and core values aimed at liberty. On the moral questions raised, it appears that making compromises to those opposing this freewill is counterproductive. It is time we all turn up the volume on the beacon on the hill and stand together for what we are for regardless of WHICH ADMINISTRATION. The situation in the Middle East is very complicated. Pollack is much more versed than myself and his views are highly regarded. But he does not have a clear answer a proven answer. So why would we blame him while serving under Clinton or any other American for not solving this puzzle? I believe this strategy is the key in Pollack’s book the he touches but fails to utilize this KEY to simplify is three-part strategy. Pollock glosses over it, but ever since the Czar of Russia recognized the will of the people were not behind Napoleon, he knew the French would retreat regardless of what happened on the battlefield. A beacon on the hill is for liberty and anti terrorism. Let it shine through our people and our press. But let us shine what unites us, rather than that which divides us.
The Arabs
The Arabs
By David Lamb
This review is a rambling review in the same sense that David Lamb rambles through Arab Nations drawing salient points to cast a spotlight on the diversity factor of Arabs from the perspective of a western paradigm. This book is by a Western author who largely paints a contemptual picture of Arabs. For instance he suggest that jihad would be considered the "sixth pillar of Islam" and would define jihad as holy war. These statements would be an insult to a Muslim. And these printed words, read by the millions of Westerners would most certainly breed contempt. He then weaves nuggets of fact, about Islam that grates across the fabric of our core values. Separations of church and state rules are diametrically opposed when comparing Christianity and Islam. The facts laid out are consistent with most everything I have read. It connects the past with the present, which may give insight into the future.
The book actually takes you on a tour of all the Arab nations in an effort to give you a feel for how life would be in that country. For instance: The author describes Cairo as a city in decline of major proportion. The reasons why are: 1.) Centralization of all Egyptian commerce in Cairo, 2) a constant state of hot or cold war with Israel, 3.) Nassar's burst of socialistic policy from 1973 to 1990, 4.) over population from a baby boom growing at the rate of a 1,000 people per day. The population density in Cairo is 240,000 people per square mile. People actually rent living space in cemeteries underneath tombs. It should be interesting to note that the United States has spent $62M in aid to help Egypt institute birth control. The downward spiral in Cairo's economy has led the desperate young to seek out Islam as a refuge.
In drawing the similarities and differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, the author threads his Arab tour with a history lesson on the origin if Islam. While the faiths were largely similar, they shared a common enemy; their differences began early as a result of mistrust in sharing power in the city of Medina. Because Mohammed fled Mecca, the birthplace of Islam, for his own safety his new home of Medina was already populated and controlled by Jews. While they at first shared the same God and rituals, the Jews rejected Mohammed as an Arabian prophet and untrained. The rejection caused Mohammed to change the orientation of his newly formed religion towards Mecca and away from Jerusalem. The differences between Jews and Muslims were sewn and the Muslims. Soon after the Muslims prevail in a 25 day battle with the culmination of the beheading of 600 of the defeated Jews. It was interesting to read that Mohammed sprouted Islam by force. He literally funded Islam’s beginning by raiding pagan tribes. Eventually the pagan sold out to Mohammed so that they could share in the booty of the raids. As a result Islam began to flourish. It seems that these beginnings draw similarity to that of Judaism yet sharp contrast to those of Christianity. Christians had their turn later as I understand things.
The author suggest that the brush fire beginning of Islam was not aimed at conquest or conversion but merely a continuation of the Bedouin skirmishing tradition that was primarily carried out for economic reasons. Kind of like Yugoslavia 1,400 years later. And I would suggest most other wars alleged to be of religious nature on the surface.
The schism between the Shiites and the Sunni helps clarify jihad within Islam. As history has it, Shiites believe the correct descendant to Mohammed is Ali and not Abu Bakr. The warring sides had the Shiite leader Husayn sacrificing his life to the Sunnis and hence giving mayrtarism a comparable sense of sacrament. This fanatisism is vested in only the Shiites or if indeed the Sunnis hold marterism in the same light. In the course of the reading about the conquests of the Muslims I reflect upon the Crusade Wars in the 12th and 13th centuries and realize the meaning of Diaspora and it's impact on the Jews. Of course, the Jews did spend a few centuries oppressing the Christians and significant amount of energy opposing the Muslims in their early days. So today could one simply say turn about is fair play. What has changed!!!!?
As Lamb describes the making of a terrorist, he begins with Kadafi in Libya. Kadafi is described as a man capable of deep thought and no reason yet apparently a popular characteristic of some Arab leaders. Kadafi has taken an oil rich country to third world status. I am especially intrigued by Kadafi’s raise to fame on the heels of Egypt’s Nassar and then immediate decline after the bombing of his compound in Tripoli. The Arab world power centers of Cairo, Libya and Lebanon have found themselves in a self-induced world of hapless poverty. The west, through colonialism and then support of Israel are the natural scapegoats for their demise. We clarify this in the Arab mind when we engage in warfare on their soil. Lebanon became a breeding ground for terrorist as we shelled their soil from the US New Jersey. Iran, a country that suffered years of US backed aristocracy and British extortion of oil money found an easy recruit to even their score. The Arab issue is not “land for peace”, an initiative that began with Nixon. It is about an inferiority complex towards their Jewish neighbors with a strong Western guardian.
George Washington warned in his farewell address against doing precisely what the United States is doing in the Middle East today. He admonished the young people to be neutral and to observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivating peace and harmony with each. He said the United States should avoid permanent, inveterate antipathies toward some nations and passionate attachments to others. Such attachments engender a variety of evils and lead to the illusion of an imaginary common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into participation in quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. As long as the Arabs continue to ban democratic outlet and the US remains insensitive to Arabs while supporting Israel then terrorist activity will flourish.
The author offers three paths towards eradicating terrorism. First, is to assassinate terrorist leaders. Second is to impose sanctions against terrorist states, and third is to engage in diplomacy with Arabs states. Alternatively, as our recent world history shows us we have indeed gone to war in behalf of Muslim people three times, in Kosvo, Somalia, and Kuwait. To the point on diplomacy, given the assumption that war is the last step in bringing a diplomatic solution, we failed. Sanctions against Iraq come under an ever-increasing scrutiny by world leaders. This leaves the assassination route, one not legal, as the one to try. I suspect the reason why the virtues of global economics are not explored, is because of the internal Muslim leadership's non-participation on Western terms.
The author makes his position no secret on the fight against terrorism. "Is to conduct not massive air strikes but covert, selective assassination campaign against terrorist leaders. I find this ironic coming from a person who makes a living as a journalist. The classic mantra of academic left finds no home when our own are being killed in our home. This is medicine both left and right needed to unite under one flag for the security of one people. Yet, it is painfully brought out that the drastic swing to the left in post Nixon years leaves us with laws that render the recommended option illegal here in our home of the free.
Interesting trivia and digression in thought constructed by the author: Dawn is when there is enough light so that a person can distinguish a black thread from a white thread at arms length. Yet in Islam, science is indeed at loggerheads as to precisely when Ramadan begins and ends. When and in what time zone is the official beginning? The decision is vested in the authority of the guy in Saudi Arabia holding the threads who has control over the astrominy in the observatory. There is no word for fundamentalism in Arabic. Usouliyya (basic principles) comes close. The author states that " in any religion the believer is asked to put intelligence on the shelf, which is harmless enough. But when it has militant overtones it is self-righteous, irrational, anti-intellectual and dangerous. " He further suggest that the current movement back to the mosque does not represent an artistic or religious rebirth. He suggests that movement is a religious revival that gets louder and angrier with louder and angrier demands of the western world. The Six-Day War set off this revival, where Arab's vision of a Pan Arab nation dissolved. The 1973, Egyptian counter offensive gave the Arabs new found momentum in their fundamental roots to the extent that imposing an oil embargo was just a taste of things to come. It is not about land for peace; it is about the Arabs being second rate to the region's superpower.
Those poor miss understood Arabs. Why you ask? They do not invest in a level of public relations that is commensurate to the issues at hand. In contrast while a journalist in Israel has red phones on their desks for interviews with public officials, the same journalist would wait weeks for a visa in an Arab country and then wait days to get an interview with a officer of the person actually sought after. Granting high profile interviews with western news network is the exception and only due to extreme circumstance. During the interview the Arabs will not say what they mean; because pride and dignity are more important than what we in the West recognize as the truth.
This book led me to conclude that from a global perspective, we are very different people in our core values and thought. We have parted company long ago. The way back is not right around the corner. Yet I can set on the stoop of my New York apartment with a Muslim a Jew and me an Irish Catholic, and we see life the same way. Go figure.
By David Lamb
This review is a rambling review in the same sense that David Lamb rambles through Arab Nations drawing salient points to cast a spotlight on the diversity factor of Arabs from the perspective of a western paradigm. This book is by a Western author who largely paints a contemptual picture of Arabs. For instance he suggest that jihad would be considered the "sixth pillar of Islam" and would define jihad as holy war. These statements would be an insult to a Muslim. And these printed words, read by the millions of Westerners would most certainly breed contempt. He then weaves nuggets of fact, about Islam that grates across the fabric of our core values. Separations of church and state rules are diametrically opposed when comparing Christianity and Islam. The facts laid out are consistent with most everything I have read. It connects the past with the present, which may give insight into the future.
The book actually takes you on a tour of all the Arab nations in an effort to give you a feel for how life would be in that country. For instance: The author describes Cairo as a city in decline of major proportion. The reasons why are: 1.) Centralization of all Egyptian commerce in Cairo, 2) a constant state of hot or cold war with Israel, 3.) Nassar's burst of socialistic policy from 1973 to 1990, 4.) over population from a baby boom growing at the rate of a 1,000 people per day. The population density in Cairo is 240,000 people per square mile. People actually rent living space in cemeteries underneath tombs. It should be interesting to note that the United States has spent $62M in aid to help Egypt institute birth control. The downward spiral in Cairo's economy has led the desperate young to seek out Islam as a refuge.
In drawing the similarities and differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, the author threads his Arab tour with a history lesson on the origin if Islam. While the faiths were largely similar, they shared a common enemy; their differences began early as a result of mistrust in sharing power in the city of Medina. Because Mohammed fled Mecca, the birthplace of Islam, for his own safety his new home of Medina was already populated and controlled by Jews. While they at first shared the same God and rituals, the Jews rejected Mohammed as an Arabian prophet and untrained. The rejection caused Mohammed to change the orientation of his newly formed religion towards Mecca and away from Jerusalem. The differences between Jews and Muslims were sewn and the Muslims. Soon after the Muslims prevail in a 25 day battle with the culmination of the beheading of 600 of the defeated Jews. It was interesting to read that Mohammed sprouted Islam by force. He literally funded Islam’s beginning by raiding pagan tribes. Eventually the pagan sold out to Mohammed so that they could share in the booty of the raids. As a result Islam began to flourish. It seems that these beginnings draw similarity to that of Judaism yet sharp contrast to those of Christianity. Christians had their turn later as I understand things.
The author suggest that the brush fire beginning of Islam was not aimed at conquest or conversion but merely a continuation of the Bedouin skirmishing tradition that was primarily carried out for economic reasons. Kind of like Yugoslavia 1,400 years later. And I would suggest most other wars alleged to be of religious nature on the surface.
The schism between the Shiites and the Sunni helps clarify jihad within Islam. As history has it, Shiites believe the correct descendant to Mohammed is Ali and not Abu Bakr. The warring sides had the Shiite leader Husayn sacrificing his life to the Sunnis and hence giving mayrtarism a comparable sense of sacrament. This fanatisism is vested in only the Shiites or if indeed the Sunnis hold marterism in the same light. In the course of the reading about the conquests of the Muslims I reflect upon the Crusade Wars in the 12th and 13th centuries and realize the meaning of Diaspora and it's impact on the Jews. Of course, the Jews did spend a few centuries oppressing the Christians and significant amount of energy opposing the Muslims in their early days. So today could one simply say turn about is fair play. What has changed!!!!?
As Lamb describes the making of a terrorist, he begins with Kadafi in Libya. Kadafi is described as a man capable of deep thought and no reason yet apparently a popular characteristic of some Arab leaders. Kadafi has taken an oil rich country to third world status. I am especially intrigued by Kadafi’s raise to fame on the heels of Egypt’s Nassar and then immediate decline after the bombing of his compound in Tripoli. The Arab world power centers of Cairo, Libya and Lebanon have found themselves in a self-induced world of hapless poverty. The west, through colonialism and then support of Israel are the natural scapegoats for their demise. We clarify this in the Arab mind when we engage in warfare on their soil. Lebanon became a breeding ground for terrorist as we shelled their soil from the US New Jersey. Iran, a country that suffered years of US backed aristocracy and British extortion of oil money found an easy recruit to even their score. The Arab issue is not “land for peace”, an initiative that began with Nixon. It is about an inferiority complex towards their Jewish neighbors with a strong Western guardian.
George Washington warned in his farewell address against doing precisely what the United States is doing in the Middle East today. He admonished the young people to be neutral and to observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivating peace and harmony with each. He said the United States should avoid permanent, inveterate antipathies toward some nations and passionate attachments to others. Such attachments engender a variety of evils and lead to the illusion of an imaginary common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into participation in quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. As long as the Arabs continue to ban democratic outlet and the US remains insensitive to Arabs while supporting Israel then terrorist activity will flourish.
The author offers three paths towards eradicating terrorism. First, is to assassinate terrorist leaders. Second is to impose sanctions against terrorist states, and third is to engage in diplomacy with Arabs states. Alternatively, as our recent world history shows us we have indeed gone to war in behalf of Muslim people three times, in Kosvo, Somalia, and Kuwait. To the point on diplomacy, given the assumption that war is the last step in bringing a diplomatic solution, we failed. Sanctions against Iraq come under an ever-increasing scrutiny by world leaders. This leaves the assassination route, one not legal, as the one to try. I suspect the reason why the virtues of global economics are not explored, is because of the internal Muslim leadership's non-participation on Western terms.
The author makes his position no secret on the fight against terrorism. "Is to conduct not massive air strikes but covert, selective assassination campaign against terrorist leaders. I find this ironic coming from a person who makes a living as a journalist. The classic mantra of academic left finds no home when our own are being killed in our home. This is medicine both left and right needed to unite under one flag for the security of one people. Yet, it is painfully brought out that the drastic swing to the left in post Nixon years leaves us with laws that render the recommended option illegal here in our home of the free.
Interesting trivia and digression in thought constructed by the author: Dawn is when there is enough light so that a person can distinguish a black thread from a white thread at arms length. Yet in Islam, science is indeed at loggerheads as to precisely when Ramadan begins and ends. When and in what time zone is the official beginning? The decision is vested in the authority of the guy in Saudi Arabia holding the threads who has control over the astrominy in the observatory. There is no word for fundamentalism in Arabic. Usouliyya (basic principles) comes close. The author states that " in any religion the believer is asked to put intelligence on the shelf, which is harmless enough. But when it has militant overtones it is self-righteous, irrational, anti-intellectual and dangerous. " He further suggest that the current movement back to the mosque does not represent an artistic or religious rebirth. He suggests that movement is a religious revival that gets louder and angrier with louder and angrier demands of the western world. The Six-Day War set off this revival, where Arab's vision of a Pan Arab nation dissolved. The 1973, Egyptian counter offensive gave the Arabs new found momentum in their fundamental roots to the extent that imposing an oil embargo was just a taste of things to come. It is not about land for peace; it is about the Arabs being second rate to the region's superpower.
Those poor miss understood Arabs. Why you ask? They do not invest in a level of public relations that is commensurate to the issues at hand. In contrast while a journalist in Israel has red phones on their desks for interviews with public officials, the same journalist would wait weeks for a visa in an Arab country and then wait days to get an interview with a officer of the person actually sought after. Granting high profile interviews with western news network is the exception and only due to extreme circumstance. During the interview the Arabs will not say what they mean; because pride and dignity are more important than what we in the West recognize as the truth.
This book led me to conclude that from a global perspective, we are very different people in our core values and thought. We have parted company long ago. The way back is not right around the corner. Yet I can set on the stoop of my New York apartment with a Muslim a Jew and me an Irish Catholic, and we see life the same way. Go figure.
Islamic Imperialism
Islamic Imperialism
By Efram Karsh
I picked this book up in a lending library of the Unity Church in the people’s republic of Boulder. How a book from such a controversial author found its way there is beyond me. This book makes it very clear that our struggle is not about religious conflicts, but about the imperialist desires of the caliphate rulers of Muslim faith beginning with Muhammad. The author introduces his thesis with the following quotes:
· “ I was ordered to fight all men until they say “There is no god but Allah””
o Prophet Muhammad’s farewell address, March 632
· “ I shall cross the sea to their island to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah”
o Saladin, January 1189
· “We will export our revolution through out the world...until the calls there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” are echoed all over the world.”
o Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, 1979
· “I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no God but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad,
o Osama bin Laden, November 2001
Karsh then describes the backdrop history to color in the events those statements spawned. Within the fine brush strokes of this history you discover that Islam has been warring more amongst themselves than they have with infidels. They often found alliances with infidels convenient in their quests to rule their own Muslim world. Case in point; both Iran and Iraq went to the United States to supply their war with each other. This was very common during the crusades. The history is full of egregious Islamic deception rooted in a selfish quest for power.
I have read many books on the diplomacy surrounding war and in particular Islamic rationale for war with the West. They are consistent with Muhammad in his farewell address on the surface. However underneath there is a selfish quest for power on the part of a Caliph gone mad. What this book does is clearly demonstrates that the calls to Allah are mere rhetorical diversions to their real ambitions. Karsh labels it imperialism. A topic of world history in most cases and unfortunately continues as news in our newspapers today.
Karsh concludes with a call for Islam’s recognition of the concepts of nation states as a recognition of an everlasting fate-accompli, within their own world as well as their outside world. While Karsh makes this call he misses the errors made by the World Powers of the time in 1919 who did not draw up the boarders of the many small Islamic states that actually existed in the form of a millet system within the umma. Each region would be ruled by a caliph, imam or some voice of Allah, in competition akin to a survival of the fittest Muslim drama. This persisted up through and under the theme of Ottoman suzerainty and for the first in time in 1919 since the 800’s, Islam was not considered a power of any sort. He briefly suggest that on a larger scale beyond the Middle East Muslims favor democratic process found in republic states, as an example that his call has proven itself successful elsewhere. Interestingly, in those regions there is not the same degree of an overwelming thirst for power from Islamic origin
To sum up Karsh’s message he characterizes the plight that Nasser took Egypt through in 20th century. It represents the character of every Muslim Imperialist described not only in this book, but many others I have read. It goes as follows:
“that an idolized person had appeared who wanted his will to have, throughout the Arab countries, a degree of holiness, greatness and power which not even God’s prophets possessed… He ha made us feel every possible means that in Egypt and even the whole Arab world there could be only found one intelligence, one single power that could be relied on; the only thing ahead would be ruin. Thus was Fascism, Hitlerism, and Nasserism; all of them stand on a single base, which is elimination of minds and wills other than the minds of the leader.”
I am going to leave it there. I cannot improve on that. I equally do not have a solution. As current events unfold, there is an imperialism syndrome in the world today. There is a lot of jockeying and positioning for what I see as an eminent WWIII, or otherwise put the Crimean war, “take four”. Islam poses more of an immediate threat to both Russia, and China. Yet, they are happy to let the worlds leading power take it on the chin on their behalf and then rub salt in the wound. If it were not the United States it would simply be a different country taking the brunt of conflict, as history has shown.
In the past the quest for power seems to have had no protagonist other than a thurst for power. There is a sense of scarcity, which is only now blamed on oil, which drives a need for dominion that perpetuates imperial thinking as our Western world has equally demonstrated. As folks look to blame our current administration for not winning the peace, I struggle to find where any one else has ever done that. Wilson had it right in ideals, but he and the rest of the world failed to figure how to execute upon them.
To take a spin off of the authors assertion “A prominent Muslim Brother, Qutb, held lofty ideals about the original years of pure Islam (622-61). He described the degeneration in Islam’s direction. But he like too many of his predecessors, beginning with Mohammad, translated his interpretation of man’s jahiliya into a jihad. To be fair Qutb viewed jahiliya, man ruling man in ignorance or absence of God consciousness, to exist both within Islam and beyond.” History's big picture shows he is right. We continue to recognize the problem, but our response is wrong. If we are on a path for peace (big IF) we seem to keep getting in our own way.
Foot notes from my reading
Islamic Imperialism
Fatimin clan gave Islam its first real imperial presence
P 70 It seems little known how strong the Islamic foot hold was in Rome (Italy) in the years just prior to the crusades
p69 With Islamic power and position between far east and Europe in conjunction with Jews excluded from farming they evolved as the worlds businessmen. The crusades recognized this and began their Diaspora. This rote was taken over by Italian cities of Venice and Amalfi
p. 75-76 The Crusades must be viewed as a two-sided war with two divided factions. With Christians their was a schism between Rome and Constantinople. With Islam there was a schism between Shiites and Sunni.
p.79 Both sides of the Crusade wars were utterly convinced of the superiority of their religion. But their actions were guided by far more earthly combination of territorial and material ambitions.
p.96 Tsarina Catherine’s aspirations to wipe out the Ottoman Empire were thwarted by the rise and threat of Napoleon
p. 107 The Ottoman were courted by both sides at the beginning of WWI. They chose Germany as a way to expand Islam into Russia. A decision made in both fear of Russia and conquest of Asia, which became the U. S.S.R.
p. 119-123 It is interesting to read that Iran learned to despise Russia and England as early 1700. At that time the Orient was at a crossroad. Russia wanted the Black Sea. England needed Iran as a buffer. The battle for the Middle East made rivals of England and Russia. As Napoleon had aspirations on India, France allied with Russia.
What is intriguing here is Britain’s Imperial aspirations in the region. Other than defense of India, only an Empire on an uncherished land was in the offering. Russia on the other hand did have material cause in the 1800's
The Arab Caesar, Egyptian President Nasser, abducted power by converting from castigating Arabs to revering a pan Arab UAR. While oil may have had a part in his motives, and expelling the Imperial British who sponsored Israel, the author makes it quite clear that Nasser had one self serving interest for power.
In this same chapter the author makes it real clear that their is no Muslim unity. He has painted a landscape of a millennium of internal Islamic power plays holding out that Nasser is just one more.
p. 178 While Hakims quote on the previous page represents a history of power mongering, all worth quoting, Hakim states: What made Nasser's blunders more galling, was his total hostility to the idea of accountability.
p. 183 To further illustrate a Muslim empire agenda, cloaked in Muslim anti-Semitic posturing, Saddam extorted Kuwait for its oil until it could not comply. Then he simply invaded.
p 184 Today empire builders of Muslim decent wrap themselves around anti Israel sentiment to gain a pan Arab favor. This backfired for Iraq which took the Palestinian allies down with them. Arabs saw Palestine as a trader. But It was Israel who threw the PLO, a bankrupt organization, a lifeline
215-216 A Muslim brother Qutb held lofty ideals about the original years of pure Islam (622-61). He described the degeneration in Islam’s direction. But he like too many of his predecessors, beginning with Mohammad, translated his interpretation of man (jahiliya) into a jihad.
To be fair Qutb viewed jahiliya, man ruling man in ignorance or absence of God consciousness, to exist both within Islam and beyond. History's big picture shows he is right.
By Efram Karsh
I picked this book up in a lending library of the Unity Church in the people’s republic of Boulder. How a book from such a controversial author found its way there is beyond me. This book makes it very clear that our struggle is not about religious conflicts, but about the imperialist desires of the caliphate rulers of Muslim faith beginning with Muhammad. The author introduces his thesis with the following quotes:
· “ I was ordered to fight all men until they say “There is no god but Allah””
o Prophet Muhammad’s farewell address, March 632
· “ I shall cross the sea to their island to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah”
o Saladin, January 1189
· “We will export our revolution through out the world...until the calls there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” are echoed all over the world.”
o Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, 1979
· “I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no God but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad,
o Osama bin Laden, November 2001
Karsh then describes the backdrop history to color in the events those statements spawned. Within the fine brush strokes of this history you discover that Islam has been warring more amongst themselves than they have with infidels. They often found alliances with infidels convenient in their quests to rule their own Muslim world. Case in point; both Iran and Iraq went to the United States to supply their war with each other. This was very common during the crusades. The history is full of egregious Islamic deception rooted in a selfish quest for power.
I have read many books on the diplomacy surrounding war and in particular Islamic rationale for war with the West. They are consistent with Muhammad in his farewell address on the surface. However underneath there is a selfish quest for power on the part of a Caliph gone mad. What this book does is clearly demonstrates that the calls to Allah are mere rhetorical diversions to their real ambitions. Karsh labels it imperialism. A topic of world history in most cases and unfortunately continues as news in our newspapers today.
Karsh concludes with a call for Islam’s recognition of the concepts of nation states as a recognition of an everlasting fate-accompli, within their own world as well as their outside world. While Karsh makes this call he misses the errors made by the World Powers of the time in 1919 who did not draw up the boarders of the many small Islamic states that actually existed in the form of a millet system within the umma. Each region would be ruled by a caliph, imam or some voice of Allah, in competition akin to a survival of the fittest Muslim drama. This persisted up through and under the theme of Ottoman suzerainty and for the first in time in 1919 since the 800’s, Islam was not considered a power of any sort. He briefly suggest that on a larger scale beyond the Middle East Muslims favor democratic process found in republic states, as an example that his call has proven itself successful elsewhere. Interestingly, in those regions there is not the same degree of an overwelming thirst for power from Islamic origin
To sum up Karsh’s message he characterizes the plight that Nasser took Egypt through in 20th century. It represents the character of every Muslim Imperialist described not only in this book, but many others I have read. It goes as follows:
“that an idolized person had appeared who wanted his will to have, throughout the Arab countries, a degree of holiness, greatness and power which not even God’s prophets possessed… He ha made us feel every possible means that in Egypt and even the whole Arab world there could be only found one intelligence, one single power that could be relied on; the only thing ahead would be ruin. Thus was Fascism, Hitlerism, and Nasserism; all of them stand on a single base, which is elimination of minds and wills other than the minds of the leader.”
I am going to leave it there. I cannot improve on that. I equally do not have a solution. As current events unfold, there is an imperialism syndrome in the world today. There is a lot of jockeying and positioning for what I see as an eminent WWIII, or otherwise put the Crimean war, “take four”. Islam poses more of an immediate threat to both Russia, and China. Yet, they are happy to let the worlds leading power take it on the chin on their behalf and then rub salt in the wound. If it were not the United States it would simply be a different country taking the brunt of conflict, as history has shown.
In the past the quest for power seems to have had no protagonist other than a thurst for power. There is a sense of scarcity, which is only now blamed on oil, which drives a need for dominion that perpetuates imperial thinking as our Western world has equally demonstrated. As folks look to blame our current administration for not winning the peace, I struggle to find where any one else has ever done that. Wilson had it right in ideals, but he and the rest of the world failed to figure how to execute upon them.
To take a spin off of the authors assertion “A prominent Muslim Brother, Qutb, held lofty ideals about the original years of pure Islam (622-61). He described the degeneration in Islam’s direction. But he like too many of his predecessors, beginning with Mohammad, translated his interpretation of man’s jahiliya into a jihad. To be fair Qutb viewed jahiliya, man ruling man in ignorance or absence of God consciousness, to exist both within Islam and beyond.” History's big picture shows he is right. We continue to recognize the problem, but our response is wrong. If we are on a path for peace (big IF) we seem to keep getting in our own way.
Foot notes from my reading
Islamic Imperialism
Fatimin clan gave Islam its first real imperial presence
P 70 It seems little known how strong the Islamic foot hold was in Rome (Italy) in the years just prior to the crusades
p69 With Islamic power and position between far east and Europe in conjunction with Jews excluded from farming they evolved as the worlds businessmen. The crusades recognized this and began their Diaspora. This rote was taken over by Italian cities of Venice and Amalfi
p. 75-76 The Crusades must be viewed as a two-sided war with two divided factions. With Christians their was a schism between Rome and Constantinople. With Islam there was a schism between Shiites and Sunni.
p.79 Both sides of the Crusade wars were utterly convinced of the superiority of their religion. But their actions were guided by far more earthly combination of territorial and material ambitions.
p.96 Tsarina Catherine’s aspirations to wipe out the Ottoman Empire were thwarted by the rise and threat of Napoleon
p. 107 The Ottoman were courted by both sides at the beginning of WWI. They chose Germany as a way to expand Islam into Russia. A decision made in both fear of Russia and conquest of Asia, which became the U. S.S.R.
p. 119-123 It is interesting to read that Iran learned to despise Russia and England as early 1700. At that time the Orient was at a crossroad. Russia wanted the Black Sea. England needed Iran as a buffer. The battle for the Middle East made rivals of England and Russia. As Napoleon had aspirations on India, France allied with Russia.
What is intriguing here is Britain’s Imperial aspirations in the region. Other than defense of India, only an Empire on an uncherished land was in the offering. Russia on the other hand did have material cause in the 1800's
The Arab Caesar, Egyptian President Nasser, abducted power by converting from castigating Arabs to revering a pan Arab UAR. While oil may have had a part in his motives, and expelling the Imperial British who sponsored Israel, the author makes it quite clear that Nasser had one self serving interest for power.
In this same chapter the author makes it real clear that their is no Muslim unity. He has painted a landscape of a millennium of internal Islamic power plays holding out that Nasser is just one more.
p. 178 While Hakims quote on the previous page represents a history of power mongering, all worth quoting, Hakim states: What made Nasser's blunders more galling, was his total hostility to the idea of accountability.
p. 183 To further illustrate a Muslim empire agenda, cloaked in Muslim anti-Semitic posturing, Saddam extorted Kuwait for its oil until it could not comply. Then he simply invaded.
p 184 Today empire builders of Muslim decent wrap themselves around anti Israel sentiment to gain a pan Arab favor. This backfired for Iraq which took the Palestinian allies down with them. Arabs saw Palestine as a trader. But It was Israel who threw the PLO, a bankrupt organization, a lifeline
215-216 A Muslim brother Qutb held lofty ideals about the original years of pure Islam (622-61). He described the degeneration in Islam’s direction. But he like too many of his predecessors, beginning with Mohammad, translated his interpretation of man (jahiliya) into a jihad.
To be fair Qutb viewed jahiliya, man ruling man in ignorance or absence of God consciousness, to exist both within Islam and beyond. History's big picture shows he is right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)