By Salim Mansur at the Meighen Institute Excerpts below:
...."At the center of the current convulsion in the Muslim world, or Islamdom, as in Turkey and Egypt, is the contest between Islamists and anti-Islamists, between theocrats and anti-theocrats. This contest is hugely complicated by the turmoil that inevitably accompanies the transition of societies and cultures from pre-modern to modern. Here, the relevant analogy to understanding this convulsion within Islamdom is to recall Christendom's long, tortuous, immensely bloody and violent transition in the making of the modern world. This is the history of the past 500 years, from the Inquisition through to the end of the Cold War -- and to be forgotten at our peril."....
Mr. Mansur tells us what he feels is the very incubator of violence in Islam:
"Islamism is an aberrant strain of Muslim thinking that can be traced back in the Arab-Muslim history to the earliest years of Islam. Its defining characteristic is intolerance of others, including Muslims, and glorification of violence against all who disagree with the Islamist rendition of Islam."....
I'm not sure the strain is, as he writes, "aberrant". The endorsement of violence is throughout the Koran and the more adherent to Islam one becomes, it seems the more violent he becomes.
It can be said that Christianity and Islam have shown brutality. Though history documents these things, I say that the more one draws closer to the Bible and the teachings of Christ, the more tolerant and compassionate they become; the more one absorbs the teaching of Islam and desires to be like Muhammad, the more they embrace violence. This is my opinion and every day this becomes more ingrained in my mind.
..."For the West, the imperative in distinguishing between Islam and Islamism, at least since 9/11, is about working out the appropriate and relevant response to the political-military threats of Islamism and the ambitions of Islamists. This would be a response for containing Islamism and assisting over the long haul anti-Islamist Muslims in the effort to modernize their societies; it would be akin to the response conceived by George Kennan, the American diplomat and State Department official, soon after the Second World War ended, to contain Soviet Communism."...
Some would say this is what President Obama is attempting in his foreign policy. But why would he not have supported the protestors in Iran instead of currying the favor of the mullahs? Why has Obama sided with Iran at the expense of US relations with allies such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, and other Muslim countries who fear a nuclear Iran?
Indeed, this president has transformed the US into a mere cypher among global powers and I feel certain that the US will not get this back, no matter who forms the next administration. The world has seen the intelligence of the American voter and must no longer feel the US is a stable, reliable ally; that any future president who is strong and courageous will be vilified and replaced by one that is acceptable to Hollywood and People magazine.
Yet conservative candidates must feel it is useless to campaign on foreign policy concerns because obtuse Democrat voters cannot wrap their minds around the dangers in this issue.
The world is more dangerous because of the policies of guilt-ridden liberals
The Tunnel Dweller
Full article here.
