what I was reading
was the output of a provincial mind. Note how first there is an "equating" of WWII with the elective war in Iraq. And then the "Islamic fundamentalism" talk. With apparently no understanding that, first, the terminology itself tries to force Islam into a Christian template, and second, his argument undercuts his … argument. Fundamentalism in Christianity arose in response to the increasingly allegorical view of the bible. There is no such view of the Qur’an, and hence no fundamentalist reaction. What some call Islamic fundamentalism is really mainstream Islam. In that sense, I suppose it is fundamental, but that belies any fringe element connotation. In this category, I would place the ideas of greater and lesser jihad and ummah.
Now there certainly are extremist Islamic sects – e.g. Wahhabism. If one uses this to define Islamic fundamentalism, then this is where his argument dissolves. He says
Islamic Fundamentalism is a socio-economic response to lack of economic and social opportunity.
There are certainly places in the Arabic world that lack economic opportunity, but Saudi Arabia, the source of Wahhabism, isn’t one of them. The quote
If you want to prevent Islamic fundamentalism, you have to give them "the good life".. You have to give them economic opportunity
is just inconsistent with the Middle East reality. It reveals that provincial mind, I referred to earlier. The whole world wants to be just like Americans, and all we have to do is let them. This simplistic approach is killing people daily.
JMO
lurqer |
