|
September 21, 2001
The Retreat
from "Infinite Justice":
Inclusive Rhetoric too Clever by a
Half
by Eugene Narrett, Ph.D.
US-NATO strategy for waging the war against
Pan-Islamic terrorism is to secure as broad as
possible a coalition, at least in the initial
stages of the war. Toward that end, President Bush
has stroked a mass media whose religion is
multi-culturalism, Islamic (and some European)
governments by emphasizing that American is not at
war with Islam but with radicals who have
"hijacked" that religion and "hold it hostage."
Toward that end, it is said that the original name
for America's battle plan ("infinite justice") was
simply a "tentative, working title" that will be
withdrawn because it is offensive to Muslims.
No, this is not the 1940s, albeit the President
did indicate, the evening of September 20 that the
Islamic "radicals" are the heirs of the Nazis. (It
would have been accurate, and reassuring if he
could have brought himself to mention the
Communists, too, but that might have offended our
'friends' in China and Russia, though most of the
latter, one would think, are glad to have shaken
off Marx & Lenin).
One of the most destructive aspects of
post-Modern relativism is the moral equivalence
applied to very different behaviors, cultures,
nations and religions. This equivalence permeated
President Bush's September 20 speech. He mentioned
prayers for America and Americans in Hebrew and in
Arabic. The reality was that Israel declared a day
of national mourning, donated thousands of liters
of blood and tons of medical supplies and teams,
while streets and newspapers in Arab lands rang
with jubilation, threats and taunts of America.
Yet a day after synagogues around the world
chose the Jewish high holy days to invoke G-d's
blessings and protection on America, its people and
armed forces, Mr. Bush only mentioned a prayer at a
mosque in Cairo. Perhaps there was one mosque among
the thousands there that asked for blessings on
America, but the Egyptian, Palestinian, Iraqi,
Iranian and Pakistani people and media have already
spoken a very different story (see my "Mubrak!
Mubrak! ". It also was a very different story
at Farrkahn's mosque in Chicago, Sept. 16,
CNSnews.com).
It is instructive to measure attempts to
distinguish Islam from Islamic "extremism" by
considering the "Fatwa" issued (09-18) against
Pakistan's dictator, General Musharraf by the
Shari'a court of Lahore, Pakistan and its
affiliates in London, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon,
Yemen, Kuwait and elsewhere. General Musharraf has
long supported the Taliban and Islamic militias
attacking India in Kashmir. His nation shelters a
host of terrorist groups and recruits terrorists.
Yet he now has incurred the wrath of Shari'a
(Islamic law) officials in his own land by
assenting to America's demand that the Taliban hand
over bin Laden.
This minimal and self-serving tactic to avoid an
American strike earned dictator Musharraf the wrath
of Islamic law. The court stated, "the USA are at
war with Muslims," and have "committed various
atrocities against the Umma " (community of Muslim
believers). The Court added, "there must be a
complete boycott of diplomatic and
[commercial] relations with the US and
their people [Americans] forbidden to enter
any Muslim land."
The evidence is that Muslims simply do not buy
the "pluralism" or "pluralistic" distinctions that
American political leaders find it expedient to
assert. If not, why have they waited until now,
when the hammer is raised, to speak out, and even
now only here and there? The sanctions the Fatwa
demands against Muslims that in any way assist or
even praise the Kufir ("infidels") show that Islam
does not buy the "I'm okay, you're okay" diversity
that its western apologists interminably proffer.
"Any Muslims so involved [with the Kufr]
become Murtad Harbi ["apostates," carriers of
war] and Allah warns us, 'the punishment for
those who wage war against Allahâ -- |is that
they should be murdered or crucified or have their
hands and feet cut off on opposite sides." This is
not the "Allah" about whom President Bush so glibly
spoke. And these apostates (Muslims who in any way
assist non-Muslims in efforts against pan-Islamic
terrorists), whether man or woman, "he or she has
no sanctity in their life and therefore must be
killed whether they ask for repentance or not.
Their marriage becomes invalid, their children and
money are forfeit. They can receive no inheritance
nor pass an inheritance to others."
The Shari'a of Lahore-Syria-London, etc called
on "all Muslims to move quickly and capture those
Apostates and criminals involved in these crimes,
especially the ruler of Pakistan, King Fahd of
Saudi Arabia" and others. This is perfect cover for
the militantly Islamic and anti-Western (not
anti-Western money or military protection, just
anti-western culture) rulers named as apostates.
General Musharraf had joined the dictator of Syria,
Bashar Asad (who with Yasser Arafat hosts the
largest number of long-established terror groups)
in demanding that America exclude Israel and India
from the anti-terror coalition. This is rather like
Hitler demanding that America not ally itself with
Britain and the Polish army-in-exile. Israel and
India, respectively, are the two nations most
targeted by terrorism in the name of Islam, and
likely to be most staunch as allies of America,
along with Britain and Turkey).
Perhaps this week's unguent and inclusive
rhetoric is merely tailored to phase one of this
war that must, because of the Clinton
Administration's degradation of the military
(slashed 40% in 8 years) must proceed incrementally
and, one hopes, with due stealth. Perhaps the
Executive Branch wants as much Arab assistance or
at least acquiescence as possible before turning
against Syria, Iran, the PLO and Sudan in phases 2
and 3 of the campaign. (Iraq will be hit soon, from
Turkey and the Persian Gulf).
But it is possible that there is something at
play as fatal as the relentless pressures of the
pro-Saudi State Department and its big oil backers,
and that is a conceptual inability to grasp the
'otherness' of Islam and its fundamental hostility
to the west. Professor Paul Eidelberg,
distinguished author and President of the
Foundation for Constitutional Democracy suggests
that "Islam is an enemy that multi-cultural
American is incapable of conquering." The ideology
of inclusion cannot grasp that "authentic,
resurgent Islam" sees the world as divided into dar
al Islam ("the realm of peace") and dar al Harb,
"the realm of war. Any State not ruled totally by
Shari'a (a Khalifa state, as frequently demanded by
Arafat's Mufti of Jerusalem, Ikrama Sabri) is
considered part of the realm of war. Muslims may
make temporary treaties with such, as circumstances
require, but they are committed to Jihad and Fatah,
"conquest."
Interrogated September 17 by Israeli police,
Mufti Sabri gave the lie to President Bush's
strained efforts to distinguish "radical Muslims"
from Islam. Questioned about his call to worshipers
to assist as Allah destroys America, Britain and
Israel, Sabri rejoined, "I only quoted well-known
verses from the Qura'an that are mentioned in every
sermon." When the Israelis requested that he "not
incite Muslims against Jews," he denounced them for
"suppressing our freedom of religion" (the
Jerusalem Times [an Arab paper],
09-21-01). There's a statement of what "freedom of
religion" means in Islam: destroy the Kufr!
For months, mainstream Egyptian journalists have
insisted that "the issue no longer concerns the
Arab-Israeli conflict. The real issue is the
Arab-American conflict" (Mahmoud Abdul Murad, Al
Akhbar, 08-26-01). Americans who wish to
understand what's in store for them from 'friends'
like Egypt should consult Joseph Bodansky's
Islamic Anti-Semitism as a Political
Instrument (Houston, 1999). Then review the
recent fatwa against collaboration with the Kufr to
clarify the need to distinguish friends from
foe.
Muslims sense the deep-rooted connections
between America and Israel, even if many in the
west have forgotten or repudiated them. Read the
last pages of John Winthrop's sermon, "A Model on
Christian Charity" delivered to the Puritans aboard
the Arabella in 1630. It extensively quotes Moshe,
Isaiah and Micah and uses the covenant, G-d and
laws of Israel as a model for the colonies that
became the USA.
Judaism is the immune system of Western culture,
its basis for distinguishing good from evil, light
from dark, friend from foe, self from not self. But
major institutions in the West have been at war
with its roots and health for centuries. The result
is the "pluralism" and relativism that weaken its
claims to stand for good, as reflected in its
barely half-hearted, tentative embrace of Israel,
front line in the war against Pan-Islamic
imperialism.
America's friends in this long-brewing war are
NATO, Russia, Japan, Israel and India. Those who
don't hang together will hang separately. This
one's for keeps and the declaration of war on
terrorist-harboring and sponsoring States should
come soon for the sake of American civil liberties,
the freedoms now being so often invoked.
Narrett
Archive
Dr. Eugene Narrett is a writer
and teacher in Massachusetts and is the author of
Gathered
Against Jerusalem: Essays on a False
Peace (Dec. 2000).
His new book, Israel Awakened: A Chronicle of
the Oslo War, is currently available at
www.1stbooks.com/bookview/7421.
Because
The Radical Academy publishes essays and articles
on its website does not imply acceptance or
approval of the comments or opinions expressed by
the author of the material. Nor is the Academy
responsible for any misrepresentation of the facts
included. It is your job to be a critical
reader.
Enrich
your life with a book about politics and current
events...
Enrich
your political & social life with a politics or
news magazine...
|