Violence... The story so far

Editorial

Why do Muslims fight so much among themselves and with other cultures? The short answer is: All societies suffer from some form of it -- each has exteme elements. The long answer is that simple and that complex; for it is not religion in and of itself, but the extremists who hijack it to their own ends.

After all our animal heritage required quick reaction without thinking in all cultures just to survive another day, and to insure another generation. A heritage requiring vigilance and being prepared for quick action against predators arose as a consequence of our Evolutionary Heritage.

Neverthless, we should not be surprised that the Arabic world, stuck in its eleventh century governance system imposed by Islam and deprived of goods and services relative to the West would exhibit high levels of violence. In the hands of extremists, Islam, becomes a violence-preaching religion, fanning the flames and keeping them burning, radicalizing youth for martyrdom.

This is the reality. Bringing peace to Palestine, taking out Iraq, and introducing democracy into the heart of Islam will not bring peace. Those eventualities, as desirable as they might seem to the West, can only bring further strife.

Islam has its extreme fundamentalists, as other religions do. Since Islam is also the state, or influences it heavily, fundamentalism thrives, particularly in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt.

What all this has to do with terrorism is simply this. "This [fundamentalist] version of Islam involves religious leaders instructing their followers that it is their religious duty to kill those who do not share their religious beliefs." Charles Hill, Hoover Digest.

Hill continues: "The religious dimension of the recent terrorist attacks cannot be explained away. The terrorists struck in the name of Islam."

This is the focus and threat we see. Inside Islam, a feudal governance is typical. Rulers are supreme and devout. Clustered around them are family, friends, and hangers-on, all of whom have more power that the person on the street. Being devout, they carry with them the authority of Islam which in effect is God. The fate of those ruled depends on the independence, wisdom, and leadership of the ruler.

Islam does not allow independence in thought, one must surrender to Allah. Never mind that Allah's words are those of the local Mullah. Wisdom is the Qur'an. Obviously no one book can possibly contain all the information needed to compete with creative, open societies. Steeped in the Qur'an, leadership is limited to executing the mullah's words. As drawn, this is, of course, an extreme case. But pressure toward this goal is ever-present. So the general picture is evident.

As a result, every Arab-Islamic regime has been an economic failure. In one sense, Saudi Arabia is an experiment to see if vast oil wealth can provide a spring board for an Arab-Islamic success story. Great leaps forward have been made in infrastructure, private enterprise, and education. Their Islam is a most fundamental variety. The house of Saud gave its dynastic name to the country.

Yet, Saudi Arabia remains a backward country in the eyes of most of the world. Except for oil, its exports are minuscule. Highly educated Saudis are often without work. More than that, in spite of its radical Islamic fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia is denounced by most of the new terror organizations, even as it supports some of them. Bin Laden, a Saudi by birth, issued a fatwa intended to overthrow the house of Saud and take over Mecca and Medina, the very roots of Islam in 1996. This was years before embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the destroyer Cole, the Trade Center, and other targets were bombed by al Qa'ida.

The Iran - Iraq war (1980 - 1988) may be viewed historically as another phase of the Persian-Arab conflict. It was far more complex involving vengeance, religious animosity, and greed. Hussein intended to become the dominant Middle-Eastern power. He failed to properly account for the tenacity of Iran and its people.