Assume bin Laden prefers Bush because he thinks Bush’s actions will help him recruit more “martyrs”, while not being able to diminish Al Qaeda’s capabilities.
Also assume that Joe prefers Bush because he thinks he will ba able to greatly diminish Al Qaeda’s capabilities.
Is Joe wrong in prefering Bush, just because Osama prefers Bush? (Joe may be wrong to think that Bush will diminish Al Qaeda, but that is not relevant here)
Also, we don’t even know what Osama thinks.
Maybe he prefers Bush, because he believes he can advance his cause and do more recruiting.
Maybe he prefers Kerry, because he believes Al Qaeda can thrive and do more destruction.
How would we know?
So, in summary, this whole question is irrelevant because we cannot know whom Osama wants to be president, and even if we did, we can’t simply do exactly the opposite because his reasons for wanting Candidate A over Candidate B might be based on false assumptions about the two candidates.
Well, it is perhaps more complicated than that. Firstly, among Islamists there is often a generalized animosity for other religious groups and a specialized animosity for particular groups (just as in Christian-dominated North America there is a less than favourable average perception of groups such as Muslims); secondly, although there is not necessarily a rulebook, few Islamists or Islamic fundamentalists I know of would take a fanatic Christian over a moderate Christian, simply because there is bound to be more friction and disagreement between two fanatics of different faiths than there is between one fanatic and one moderate. I suppose that goes for any religion.
Depending on who our fanatical subjects are, I would say they find both repellent. And don’t forget that, historically speaking, the enemies of Muslim fanatics have traditionally been Christians and Jews.
Fair points, but they ignore the sentiment held by practically all fanatics, that their religion is the religion. Technically speaking, an atheist in Islam is usually considered “worse” than a non-Muslim of other Abrahamic faith, but in practice (and particularly among fanatics) Islam and Christianity have generated far more friction and resentment than have Islam and secularism (in fact, in cases such as Egypt and Iraq, secularism and Islam have coexisted for decades, albeit with frcitions).
The religio-centric and egotist point of view held by fanatics in general would seem to suggest that a moderate of another faith is moderately misguided, whereas an extremist of another faith is extremely misguided; my own experiences in the wonderful world of Islamic fundamentalism certainly support this view, but of course it tends to boil down to the individual and the particular ideology in force.
Agreed, and I think that’s probably the bottom line. Taling about what AQ “thinks” probably just obscures the fact that it’s a lot of individuals, all acting from varied sets of motives.
Curious: What is your experience with Islamic fundamentalism? I have Muslim freinds but, at least around me, they all act “moderate.”
Hastert’s comments are beneath contempt, as were Dick Cheney’s earlier. What is even sadder than the fact that people of such positions could utter such smears is that they are an effective campaign tactic.
I don’t know about animosity, but I believe (no cite, can’t remember where I read it) that Muslims – not just Islamists, but Muslims generally – consider non-Muslims unclean, in a ritualistic sense. Like dogs. If a Muslim washed his hands for prayers and then touched a dog, he would have to wash his hands again; same if he touched an infidel. I guess that’s why non-Muslims aren’t allowed to visit Mecca.
First let me point out that holy sites or rituals that are restricted to the faithful only are not uncommon in many religions, so let’s not jump to conclusions based on rumours.
As far as I know it usually requires an extremist (or at the very least, bigoted) approach to adopt a hostile position, i.e. to brand “unclean” any number of items or even people. Ayatollah Khomeini came up with a grand list of the 11 most impure things, though he inexplicably neglected to include his putrid, diseased intellect along with semen (bad news for the swallowers) dogs, urine, etc. Anyone who wants a chuckle at the expense of this moron will be delighted with this summary of his pronouncements:
Honestly, I was searching for a good link to Khomeini’s 11, and this site was the second result! At any rate, non-Muslims, in the fine company of sweaty shit-gobbling dromedaries, are impure according to Khomeini, and, I suppose, according to his most ardent followers (I very much doubt that all Shi’ites subscribe to this silliness, but he was a very influential man).
Of course, Saudi Arabia is roughly 85% Sunni, so not bound to listen too hard to Shi’ite ayatollahs, but Wahabbism is the prominent Sunni expression in the state and among the most extremist forms of Islam. Wahabbism, in case anyone is unclear, is a repressive, retrograde, and frequently abhorrent form of Sunni Islam formally instituted in 1932 when the al-Saud family founded the kingdom.
I can’t pretend to speak for Wahabbism, which I would consider a psychotic state religion (mind you, still better than the alternative), however I do have some general knowledge of Islam and living experience in Muslim countries. Regarding Mosques, from the Koran:
“The mosques of Allah shall be visited and maintained by such as believe in Allah and the Last Day, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, and fear none except Allah. It is they who are expected to be on true guidance.” 9.18 (Yusuf Ali)
I suppose that in Saudi Arabia non-Muslims may be barred from mosques based on such scripture, if they are indeed barred, but Saudi Arabia is a particular case. In other countries it is much less of an issue, and in fact I would think it highly unlikely to meet a tourist in a Muslim country who has not gone to see at least a few mosques. Heck, Muhammed supposedly provided the example by praying in mosques with hypocrites, or false believers, so I am not sure what scriptural justification exists (if any) from barring non-Muslims from mosques.
Regarding the highest of Islam’s holy sites, I believe the thinking is that such places should be sanctuaries for Muslims who want to express and revel in their faith. Non-Muslims have been given dispensation to enter Mecca for tasks ranging from communications infrastructure development to anti-terrorist strikes, and no arguments about “uncleanliness” were made to my knowledge, though I do not doubt there are the usual cretins who would hold such beliefs.
I have also heard the explanation that non-Muslims are unlikely to be aware or respectful of certain laws that must be adhered to in an extremely holy site such as Mecca.
Mecca’s importance to Islam cannot be overstated or exaggerated. I think Muslims today simply do not want their holiest site to be a tourist attraction, thinking it should be dedicated to believers only, and of course they are also following an ancient tradition.
Mecca was supposedly the site where the Black Stone was sent to earth at the time of Adam and Eve. Abraham and his son Ishmael followed God’s command to build the Ka’bah around it, which over the years attracted many pilgrims and worshippers. It seems that after the death of the patriarch, idolatry on the site became widespread. When Muhammed came along, he had to “reclaim” Mecca from hundreds of other gods, and cast them out to preserve the ancient holiness of the site. I think that since then (year 630 CE) Mecca has been exclusively Muslim ground as well as the centre of Islam and its holiest site.
The injunction against non-Muslims seems to date back from that time, so my guess is it arose of a combination of historical and religious factors. It would also be interesting to take a look at other restricted holy sites from other faiths, Abrahamic and non, and see what they have to say about the matter (although I don’t think there are many other restricted holy sites quite the size of Mecca).
Let me also point out that the comments and responses to Khomeini’s scatological obsessions are really worth reading – I certainly had a good laugh. Highly irreverent, yes, but for Khomeini and similar extremists I will occasionally depart from my more or less respectful stance and call it a coffee-break.
Well, where does one start without generalizing unfairly… for one thing, I have lived in a few Muslim countries (including Egypt) , so I have been exposed directly to extremist groups in a way you perhaps haven’t. Extremists abroad tend to be more careful of what they say and sometimes even more moderate, but extremists among other extremists of the same flavour can really get going. I’m thinking this goes equally for Egyptian fundamentalists as well as Bible-belt thumpers.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to ignore or hijack, in fact I would think your Atlantic story works well together with the other sources and reasoning I cited. The problem is I have not yet read more than a few extracts, as there seems to be no reproduction or cached version on the Internet at present. This is the longest excerpt I have found, and it’s barely the introduction.
Perhaps someone with an online subscription or the print edition and patience for typing could kindly post the relevant bits here? Not that it’s any stretch of the imagination to consider that an inept president who prefers to start wars over imaginary threats rather than pursue active concerns would continue to be excellent for “clashes of civilizations”.