Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/28/2001 8:20:58 AM EDT
Now this is a really good commentary on the choice that is facing both the Arabs and the Moslem religion. It's by David Pryce-Jones and is posted on NationalReviewOnline. The article is found at: [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/pj101501.shtml[/url] From the article entitled 'An Arab Moment of Truth' - "For the past half century and more, the Muslim world has been free and independent, with every opportunity to organize as it wishes. And this is the heart of the issue: The Muslim world is a political and social disaster for all to see. With the arguable exception of Turkey, it consists of a series of despotisms, each with an absolute ruler whose ultimate justification is his strength and will. A family or a clique gathers around the ruler under the protection of the state apparatus of secret police and military repression. To the powerful, the spoils; to the weak, submission. No rights, no freedom of expression, no loyal opposition, no rule of law, no redress except through violence, conspiracy, a coup, and ultimate civil war. "Whose fault is this? The huge majority of Muslims understand that they are responsible for themselves. They know what they have to put up with. Describing the daily corruption and injustices of despotism, they ask the aching question, 'What can we do?' Muhammad Haikal was once the spokesman of Gamal Abdul Nasser, the ruler who set Egypt back for decades. Haikal was no friend of the West either, but he could write: 'The Arab and Muslim world is completely naked. [None of us] can claim any more that he is independent. We have proved we are not modern. We have proved that we are not religious in the real sense of the word. We have proved that we cannot afford democracy.' Today Ahmad Bishara, a prominent Kuwaiti, says that Arabs and Muslims 'should engage in deep soul-searching' about their institutions and culture." "In the first months of 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran. He was a Muslim equivalent of Lenin. He gave a quite different answer to the existential question of Muslim identity. Muslim society was a failure, he concurred with secular critics like Haikal, and one cause of this was the people's abandonment of their faith. Islam had made its believers great and powerful in centuries past, and it would do so again. But there was another overriding cause of the general backsliding. Over the long term, Khomeini held, the West had had the cunning and deliberate intention of destroying Islam. Why the West would have such a wanton and malign ambition he did not explain. But he crystallized a mindset with revolutionary implications: Muslims were not responsible for their plight, it was all the fault of the West, to be rectified by war." Eric The(Hopeful,ButCynical)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/28/2001 9:54:41 PM EDT
.
Link Posted: 9/29/2001 9:42:00 AM EDT
They do have well written and thought out articles. Periodicals on the left are usually more emotional, coupled with tendencies toward fact distortion.
Top Top