Tweet
www.aljazeerah.info, Dalton, Georgia, USA
March 22 2004
Opinions Editorial
Is Islam Trying to Conquer the World by Sword?
By Habib Siddiqui
An allegation that is widespread these days in the United States is
that Muslims are trying to conquer the world with sword. The
anti-Islamic hawks repeat this mantra like a brain-dead devotee. Alan
Caruba is one such paranoid journalist. He claims, `Since the birth
of the Islamic revolution, begun by the late Ayatollah Khomeini of
Iran, Islam has been attempting to conquer the modern world by the
sword.'
One has to be totally out of touch with reality to make such a silly
and wacky observation. In contradistinction to Caruba's accusation,
what we find is Christian Zionists collaborating with neoconservative
Zionist Jewish intellectuals (the protégés of Prof. Leo Strauss of
University of Chicago) to establish global hegemony. They misled the
world with false accusations about WMDs in order to justify the
invasion of Iraq. Strategic deception - the `Big Lie' technique to
deceive others - is kosher in their political arsenal. They are the
Machiavellian ideologues that preach tyranny as the purest form of
statecraft. They exploit fear of an `enemy' to get to political power
and to sustain that process of hanging on to it. They manipulate 9/11
the same way Nazis manipulated the Reichstag Fire of Feb. 27, 1933.
Their criminal doctrine of `regime change' is a carbon copy of
Hitler's threat to Eduard Benes in 1938. Bush invaded Iraq on the
same type of pretext used by Hitler for his 1939 invasion of Poland.
The `Patriot Act' drafts, Guantanamo Bay base and related doctrines
of Ashcroft are copies of the Nazi concentration camps and related
dogma in law developed by fascist intellectuals like Carl Schmitt of
Germany. It is this cabal inside the Bush Administration that desires
and works for world domination, and surely not Muslims. Their
intellectual forefathers were responsible for creating fascists like
Mussolini, Hitler and Franco from the 1922-1945 pages of modern
history. Lust for spilling of human blood is a hallmark of their
mindset.
The blueprint for world domination can be seen in the drafts,
documents and books published (since 1991) by this neo-con cabal that
now influences the Bush Administration. Among the strategies spelled
out by Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby (in 1992 to then Defense
Secretary Dick Cheney) are: `Deterring potential competitors from
even aspiring to a larger regional or global role,' and taking
preemptive action against states suspected of developing WMDs.
Then came the `Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm'
(proposed in 1996 by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert,
David & Meyrav Wurmser and others) to be followed by the `Project for
the New American Century' (proposed by William Kristol and Robert
Kagan in consultation with collaborators at the American Enterprise
Institute in 1997). In an open letter to President Clinton on Jan.
26, 1998, PNAC called for immediate `regime change' in Iraq. Most of
the signatories of that letter now are well placed in the current
Bush Administration. While Iraq was the latest nation (after
Taliban-run Afghanistan) to undergo a regime change, it won't be the
last one if Bush were to prevail in the next election.
If Caruba were right we would have expected Muslim nation-states to
wage wars against non-Muslim territories. Instead, what we notice is
Christian and Jewish states that have been invading Muslim
nation-states. Indonesia was forced to secede East Timor; and already
plans are in place to secede southern Sudan from the rest of the
country. Armenian Christians also grabbed Nagorno-Karabakh. The
Orthodox Christians in Serbia and Russia killed nearly half a million
Muslims in the Balkans and Chechnya in just the last decade alone.
The USA and UK, two Christian countries with born-again Christian
heads of state, killed another half a million infants in Iraq through
a criminally imposed embargo over Iraq. In little over two years,
they have killed tens of thousand civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq,
the two Muslim countries that they now militarily occupy. Through
their unilateral and preemptive strikes they have dumped decades of
international laws into oblivion.
Not a single Muslim soldier is stationed in any non-Muslim country
(outside UN peace-keeping duty). On the other hand, there are nearly
half a million Christian forces that are now stationed, albeit as
unwanted guests, in several Muslim countries. Are these the signs of
Muslims `attempting to conquer the modern world by the sword'? One
must be hallucinating to even propose something like this.
If we go a little bit back in history, we find how these powerful
Christian nations helped to implant the Zionist state within the
heart of Islam. It is a story of how the Muslims in the Middle East
would be cruelly penalized for the monumental crime of European
Christianity, committed against European Jewry. Logically, the Jewish
state should have come out of the belly of Europe where the Jewish
Holocaust occurred, and not in the Middle East. But Christian Europe
never had a penchant for a non-Christian, much less a Jew who had
been vilified for centuries as a `Christ-killer'; `pluralism' and
`multi-culturalism' are oxymoronic terms in European vocabulary. So,
they gave the European Jewry a piece of land that they did not own,
without even bothering to consult with the legitimate owner who was
robbed. What could be more criminal than a process that led to
uprooting of nearly three quarter of a million Palestinians from
their ancestral homes?
It reminds me of a story. A very notorious criminal was known to have
much influence in his territory. Once he robbed one of his neighbors.
The victim complained the matter to the local judge who himself was
one of the beneficiaries of the robber. The evidence against the
robber, however, was so strong that the judge ruled that the victim
be compensated. Inside the courtroom there was an outsider who was
watching the court procedure with much curiosity. After the verdict
was read, the accused called that outsider to come close to him. He
then quickly manhandled the non-local, robbed him of his money, and
compensated from it the local victim. The local victim was now
satisfied. The outsider was very furious. When he complained the
matter to the judge, the latter had him beaten and thrown out from
the courtroom for causing disturbance.
Does this story help to understand the plight of the Palestinian
people?
The Zionists were happy to settle the Diaspora Jews in the land of
their prophets. They owned only 6% of the land, but were allotted 56%
by their former persecutors. But that was not enough. In 1949,
shortly after declaring independence unilaterally, the Zionists took
possession of nearly 80% of the land by driving out Palestinians. In
1967 Six-Day War, they occupied the remainder territory. And much in
common with Herzl's vision, the state of Israel, since its
establishment, has been acting as a `rampart' of the West against its
Muslim neighbors. The USA has armed the Jewish state so outlandishly
that it acts like the Pharaoh and kills Arabs without feeling an iota
of guilt. Just in the last three years alone, since the second
Intifadah, more than 3000 Palestinians were murdered execution-style
by the Jewish state with tacit, and sometimes explicit, approval of
the Bush Administration.
The USA armed the Catholic Philippines to kill thousands of Moro
Muslims - the natives of the territory. Let us also not forget the
near extinction of the Muslims in those islands whose survivors have
been forced to take refuge in the southern Mindanao Islands as a
result of the Spanish-style Inquisition that they faced since the
days when the Catholic Spaniards moved into the territory.
After the fall of King Zahir Shah, Afghan Muslims were also exploited
by America as guinea pigs to engage the Soviet Army in a prolonged
war that would be responsible for the break up of the Soviet Union.
In that process, more than two millions Muslims were killed and the
entire country turned into a rubble.
One cannot forget the fact that most Muslim nation-states achieved
`political independence' after centuries of colonization from
Christian Europe. However, other forms of domination by Christian
West continued in the post-colonial era. So, most of these
nation-states were independent only in name, but in reality were
mortgaged to big Christian powers of the West. CIA would come to play
the role of king/dictator-maker. Democracy would be hijacked. The US
Embassies would be used as spy nests and control rooms to dictate how
the state would be run. Popular Muslim leaders would be toppled
through military coups (with tacit support from Washington) and
replaced by repressive regimes whose allegiance would be more to
these foreign masters than to their own people. Some examples are
Iran, Indonesia, Iraq and Bangladesh. The entire Iranian nation was
`hijacked' for nearly a quarter century by the CIA before the Islamic
Revolution reclaimed the country back for its people in 1979. The
fall of the Shah was something that caught Washington by surprise and
the ensuing hostage crisis at the `spy-den' only maddened her. The
CIA even tried to bring down the new regime but miserably failed in
its effort.
Washington enticed Saddam (now viewed as the `bad' guy, but then the
much adored figure by Rumsfeld, Kissinger & Co.) to destabilize the
Islamic regime, which brought about the prolonged Iran-Iraq war.
Christian America and its allies and stooges in the Middle East
helped the Saddam regime with military and economic supplies. The
trigger-happy US Navy even brought down a passenger plane carrying
some 250 Iranian passengers. The UK and USA were responsible for
training and transferring biological warfare to Iraq, which the
latter used against both the Kurds and Iranians, something that
Washington not only did not condemn then, but also blocked UN
resolutions that would have condemned such war crimes. The oil also
became a curse for the Middle East. It invited neo-imperial
Anglo-American forces for establishing their hegemony.
For sustaining its grip of world domination, the Christian West also
ensured that the Muslim nation-states never realize self-sufficiency,
not just in economy but also in defense and technology. Through IAEA
it would also try to ensure that not a single Muslim nation-state
ever become a nuclear power. Abdul Qadir Khan fooled them and
developed the first bomb for a Muslim state. Since then IAEA is extra
vigilant not to allow a repeat of such an incident. Frustrated by
decades of embargo, Libya has recently caved in to pressure and
disbanded the program.
So, what we see is that it was rather the Christian West that have
had tried to conquer the world by not only its daisy cutters,
laser-guided bombs and missiles, but also through agencies like the
UN, IAEA, IMF, World Bank and other world agencies, let alone its
missionary troops that are dispatched to save the `soul' of `heathen'
Muslims.
Caruba's charge that Islam has been trying to conquer modern world is
debunked by history. It is outright criminal and mendacious to the
core. His analysis lacks scholarship and gives a bad name to
journalism.
Dr. Habib Siddiqui can be reached at [email protected]. He submitted this
article to Al-Jazeerah on March 17, 2004.
March 22 2004
Opinions Editorial
Is Islam Trying to Conquer the World by Sword?
By Habib Siddiqui
An allegation that is widespread these days in the United States is
that Muslims are trying to conquer the world with sword. The
anti-Islamic hawks repeat this mantra like a brain-dead devotee. Alan
Caruba is one such paranoid journalist. He claims, `Since the birth
of the Islamic revolution, begun by the late Ayatollah Khomeini of
Iran, Islam has been attempting to conquer the modern world by the
sword.'
One has to be totally out of touch with reality to make such a silly
and wacky observation. In contradistinction to Caruba's accusation,
what we find is Christian Zionists collaborating with neoconservative
Zionist Jewish intellectuals (the protégés of Prof. Leo Strauss of
University of Chicago) to establish global hegemony. They misled the
world with false accusations about WMDs in order to justify the
invasion of Iraq. Strategic deception - the `Big Lie' technique to
deceive others - is kosher in their political arsenal. They are the
Machiavellian ideologues that preach tyranny as the purest form of
statecraft. They exploit fear of an `enemy' to get to political power
and to sustain that process of hanging on to it. They manipulate 9/11
the same way Nazis manipulated the Reichstag Fire of Feb. 27, 1933.
Their criminal doctrine of `regime change' is a carbon copy of
Hitler's threat to Eduard Benes in 1938. Bush invaded Iraq on the
same type of pretext used by Hitler for his 1939 invasion of Poland.
The `Patriot Act' drafts, Guantanamo Bay base and related doctrines
of Ashcroft are copies of the Nazi concentration camps and related
dogma in law developed by fascist intellectuals like Carl Schmitt of
Germany. It is this cabal inside the Bush Administration that desires
and works for world domination, and surely not Muslims. Their
intellectual forefathers were responsible for creating fascists like
Mussolini, Hitler and Franco from the 1922-1945 pages of modern
history. Lust for spilling of human blood is a hallmark of their
mindset.
The blueprint for world domination can be seen in the drafts,
documents and books published (since 1991) by this neo-con cabal that
now influences the Bush Administration. Among the strategies spelled
out by Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby (in 1992 to then Defense
Secretary Dick Cheney) are: `Deterring potential competitors from
even aspiring to a larger regional or global role,' and taking
preemptive action against states suspected of developing WMDs.
Then came the `Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm'
(proposed in 1996 by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert,
David & Meyrav Wurmser and others) to be followed by the `Project for
the New American Century' (proposed by William Kristol and Robert
Kagan in consultation with collaborators at the American Enterprise
Institute in 1997). In an open letter to President Clinton on Jan.
26, 1998, PNAC called for immediate `regime change' in Iraq. Most of
the signatories of that letter now are well placed in the current
Bush Administration. While Iraq was the latest nation (after
Taliban-run Afghanistan) to undergo a regime change, it won't be the
last one if Bush were to prevail in the next election.
If Caruba were right we would have expected Muslim nation-states to
wage wars against non-Muslim territories. Instead, what we notice is
Christian and Jewish states that have been invading Muslim
nation-states. Indonesia was forced to secede East Timor; and already
plans are in place to secede southern Sudan from the rest of the
country. Armenian Christians also grabbed Nagorno-Karabakh. The
Orthodox Christians in Serbia and Russia killed nearly half a million
Muslims in the Balkans and Chechnya in just the last decade alone.
The USA and UK, two Christian countries with born-again Christian
heads of state, killed another half a million infants in Iraq through
a criminally imposed embargo over Iraq. In little over two years,
they have killed tens of thousand civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq,
the two Muslim countries that they now militarily occupy. Through
their unilateral and preemptive strikes they have dumped decades of
international laws into oblivion.
Not a single Muslim soldier is stationed in any non-Muslim country
(outside UN peace-keeping duty). On the other hand, there are nearly
half a million Christian forces that are now stationed, albeit as
unwanted guests, in several Muslim countries. Are these the signs of
Muslims `attempting to conquer the modern world by the sword'? One
must be hallucinating to even propose something like this.
If we go a little bit back in history, we find how these powerful
Christian nations helped to implant the Zionist state within the
heart of Islam. It is a story of how the Muslims in the Middle East
would be cruelly penalized for the monumental crime of European
Christianity, committed against European Jewry. Logically, the Jewish
state should have come out of the belly of Europe where the Jewish
Holocaust occurred, and not in the Middle East. But Christian Europe
never had a penchant for a non-Christian, much less a Jew who had
been vilified for centuries as a `Christ-killer'; `pluralism' and
`multi-culturalism' are oxymoronic terms in European vocabulary. So,
they gave the European Jewry a piece of land that they did not own,
without even bothering to consult with the legitimate owner who was
robbed. What could be more criminal than a process that led to
uprooting of nearly three quarter of a million Palestinians from
their ancestral homes?
It reminds me of a story. A very notorious criminal was known to have
much influence in his territory. Once he robbed one of his neighbors.
The victim complained the matter to the local judge who himself was
one of the beneficiaries of the robber. The evidence against the
robber, however, was so strong that the judge ruled that the victim
be compensated. Inside the courtroom there was an outsider who was
watching the court procedure with much curiosity. After the verdict
was read, the accused called that outsider to come close to him. He
then quickly manhandled the non-local, robbed him of his money, and
compensated from it the local victim. The local victim was now
satisfied. The outsider was very furious. When he complained the
matter to the judge, the latter had him beaten and thrown out from
the courtroom for causing disturbance.
Does this story help to understand the plight of the Palestinian
people?
The Zionists were happy to settle the Diaspora Jews in the land of
their prophets. They owned only 6% of the land, but were allotted 56%
by their former persecutors. But that was not enough. In 1949,
shortly after declaring independence unilaterally, the Zionists took
possession of nearly 80% of the land by driving out Palestinians. In
1967 Six-Day War, they occupied the remainder territory. And much in
common with Herzl's vision, the state of Israel, since its
establishment, has been acting as a `rampart' of the West against its
Muslim neighbors. The USA has armed the Jewish state so outlandishly
that it acts like the Pharaoh and kills Arabs without feeling an iota
of guilt. Just in the last three years alone, since the second
Intifadah, more than 3000 Palestinians were murdered execution-style
by the Jewish state with tacit, and sometimes explicit, approval of
the Bush Administration.
The USA armed the Catholic Philippines to kill thousands of Moro
Muslims - the natives of the territory. Let us also not forget the
near extinction of the Muslims in those islands whose survivors have
been forced to take refuge in the southern Mindanao Islands as a
result of the Spanish-style Inquisition that they faced since the
days when the Catholic Spaniards moved into the territory.
After the fall of King Zahir Shah, Afghan Muslims were also exploited
by America as guinea pigs to engage the Soviet Army in a prolonged
war that would be responsible for the break up of the Soviet Union.
In that process, more than two millions Muslims were killed and the
entire country turned into a rubble.
One cannot forget the fact that most Muslim nation-states achieved
`political independence' after centuries of colonization from
Christian Europe. However, other forms of domination by Christian
West continued in the post-colonial era. So, most of these
nation-states were independent only in name, but in reality were
mortgaged to big Christian powers of the West. CIA would come to play
the role of king/dictator-maker. Democracy would be hijacked. The US
Embassies would be used as spy nests and control rooms to dictate how
the state would be run. Popular Muslim leaders would be toppled
through military coups (with tacit support from Washington) and
replaced by repressive regimes whose allegiance would be more to
these foreign masters than to their own people. Some examples are
Iran, Indonesia, Iraq and Bangladesh. The entire Iranian nation was
`hijacked' for nearly a quarter century by the CIA before the Islamic
Revolution reclaimed the country back for its people in 1979. The
fall of the Shah was something that caught Washington by surprise and
the ensuing hostage crisis at the `spy-den' only maddened her. The
CIA even tried to bring down the new regime but miserably failed in
its effort.
Washington enticed Saddam (now viewed as the `bad' guy, but then the
much adored figure by Rumsfeld, Kissinger & Co.) to destabilize the
Islamic regime, which brought about the prolonged Iran-Iraq war.
Christian America and its allies and stooges in the Middle East
helped the Saddam regime with military and economic supplies. The
trigger-happy US Navy even brought down a passenger plane carrying
some 250 Iranian passengers. The UK and USA were responsible for
training and transferring biological warfare to Iraq, which the
latter used against both the Kurds and Iranians, something that
Washington not only did not condemn then, but also blocked UN
resolutions that would have condemned such war crimes. The oil also
became a curse for the Middle East. It invited neo-imperial
Anglo-American forces for establishing their hegemony.
For sustaining its grip of world domination, the Christian West also
ensured that the Muslim nation-states never realize self-sufficiency,
not just in economy but also in defense and technology. Through IAEA
it would also try to ensure that not a single Muslim nation-state
ever become a nuclear power. Abdul Qadir Khan fooled them and
developed the first bomb for a Muslim state. Since then IAEA is extra
vigilant not to allow a repeat of such an incident. Frustrated by
decades of embargo, Libya has recently caved in to pressure and
disbanded the program.
So, what we see is that it was rather the Christian West that have
had tried to conquer the world by not only its daisy cutters,
laser-guided bombs and missiles, but also through agencies like the
UN, IAEA, IMF, World Bank and other world agencies, let alone its
missionary troops that are dispatched to save the `soul' of `heathen'
Muslims.
Caruba's charge that Islam has been trying to conquer modern world is
debunked by history. It is outright criminal and mendacious to the
core. His analysis lacks scholarship and gives a bad name to
journalism.
Dr. Habib Siddiqui can be reached at [email protected]. He submitted this
article to Al-Jazeerah on March 17, 2004.