Great article, except I do have one essential disagreement with this author. Contrary to the authors statement, Islam HAS been reformed. The reformers were Wahhabists and Salfists, i.e., a return to Muhammad and the salafs. Islam cannot be modernized. In order to Modernize Islam, one would have to remove Muhammad and removing Muhammad makes one a Ridda (Apostate), the punishment for which is death. Further, Islam is counter to Democracy and self-rule. Only Allahs rules are allowed, i.e., Islamic (Sharia) Law. Excerpt: Many scholars mark the post-World War I partition of the Ottoman Empire as the origin of Islamist opposition to the West.[1] The idea that the Middle East would be a tolerant, prosperous contributor to the global environment today if World War I victors had left intact the Ottoman Empire is a premise in the literature accompanying the rise of twentieth-century jihadism. Historian David Fromkin argued in his influential A Peace to End All Peace that present day Muslim unrest is the direct result of Winston Churchills early twentieth-century decisions.[2] British journalist Robert Fisk also holds British officials responsible although he prefers to blame Arthur Balfour, foreign secretary between 1916 and 1919.[3] Both authors are wrong, though, to base their theories of grievance on such arbitrary demarcation of eras. The roots of jihadism and its opposition to the United States as part of the non-Muslim West were cast long before World War I erupted. The interaction between the United States and Muslim states and societies dates back to American independence.[4] Contemporary jihadism is not the result of accumulated grievance; rather it has for cultural reasons been an integral factor in Islamic societies interaction with the United States. meforum.org/1830/the-fallacy-of-grievance-based-terrorism#_ftn21
Posted on: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 04:39:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015