A religious war?
I read an article the other day that was talking about the war and the reasons for it. The article claimed that the war was not a religious war and that religion was only being used by both sides to sensationalize and justify the war.
Specifically it claimed those on our side are trying to make this war out to be a Christians Vs Muslims war and that this isn’t true. And in a way, I agreed with the author. It’s not a Christians Vs Muslims war. Though I’m not sure that, despite the article’s claim, all that many people on our side are pushing that idea. From what I’ve seen, most people on our side simply believe that the other side is blinded by corrupt leaders and a lack of education. But that aside, I did agree with the author that it wasn’t a Christians Vs Muslims issue. And that got me thinking.
If you read anything that people in the middle east are writing, it becomes very obvious that the other side believes this to be a religious war. And yet, we have no interest in pushing our religions on them. So if we aren’t out there forcing our religions on them, then why do Muslims in these countries feel like their religion is under attack?
They clearly believe their religion is under attack by the West(specifically the US, but also Europe). And yet, we are making no efforts to impose our dominant religion(Christianity) on these Muslim nations. Not even on the ones we have occupied.
So what are we attempting to impose on them? What is the West actively pushing in every nation in the world? The answer is Secular Materialism. The thing we truly worship in this country and in most of the Western world, is secularism. And we are actively attempting to push that on every nation in the world.
In the West, the mainstream thought is that Religion should be tolerated as a basic human right, but is not considered to be important. In our world, religion is no longer central to society. Secular thought processes and ideas are what our society and culture embrace and follow. But since it isn’t a religion, we don’t see it as such. But outsiders(in this case non-Western Muslims) do. And so to them, this is a religious war. A war to protect their society from the religion of the West.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
It is telling how much the Crusades are invoked in speeches given by the militant Islamofacists.
It’s obvious they think they’re still fighting them.
September 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Probably the truth is much more simple:
probably they just see foreign troops in their own countries, killing there people, friends and relatives and do consider this as an act of bad aggression?!
I think this would be the same for you if foreign troops would come to your country.
“Probably” you wouldn’t like this either and could understand that feeling… and the resulting point of view?
Probably you as a people would be interested at least to know the reason for this aggression?!
And if this would have been only certain tales about mystic “weapons” from the assaulting government?
Enough reason to stop fighting and give them your country? And to say “yeah they are very right… Really good and honest people have been invading my country”…?
September 29th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Alexander,
Whatever you or I may think about the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, the war began long before anyone invaded those countries. Remember that there were numerous attacks by Muslim extremists on Western(Mostly US, but also European) targets before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The attackers in those cases claimed to be fighting a religious war in defense of Islam.
So I don’t think that we can blame the current occupations for the feelings by many Muslims of having their religion under attack by the West. Since those feelings were present before the invasions.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Jamie,
you are very right: at the beginning there were some attackers, some terrorists that made awful things in the name of religion. No discussion how wretched such terroristic actions are!
It was made by single fanatic people (or groups).
What you are writing about is WAR. That means one COUNTRY is attacking another one.
That is absolutely not the same level!
For 3 main reasons this doesn’t seem adequate to me:
1.) Until today I have never heard a REAL reason for that invasion in Iraq. There had been no terrorists (before (!) the war). The maintained weapons did not exist there, not even a real (!) suspicion for them! It was a lie, as you know! So where is the justification to begin a WAR?
2.) Even if the terrorists would have been there: it is a kind of “escalation” that has a lot of “collateral damages” – thousands of civilians killed and hurt (raped….) by US-Americans. Can this be right? Will the people in those countries and in the world be able to understand this? Is this really superior moral?
3.) Until today I have no real prove that these means of war (!) are good and adequate to reach their aim: they have not really destroyed those terrorists or their structures. Moreover they have brought many new people there to the terrorists and their ideas. Simple people there see just the aggression and invasion by the foreigners. How can they know about the backgrounds, this history of some terrorists that once made something evil in another country? So they start to be against this injustice, this immorality, this threatening… by the west.
To say it very clear: I’m absolutely against all kind of terroristic attacks and their originators and even hard means for eliminating such cowardish and wretched thoughts and actions seem appropriate to me.
But I do not think that it is right to interchange one wrongfulness with another one.
And I think this approach isn’t Christian, too.
I am sure there would be much more intelligent means to fight against terrorism and terrorists.
I am mourning for that thousands of innocent (!) people on both sides who had to give their health and their lives to this war!
September 30th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Alexander,
My intention in this article was not to critique the validity or lack thereof of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. But rather to try to understand why there is a widespread belief throughout the Middle East among Muslims that the ongoing conflict between western forces around the world against Muslim terrorists is a religious war rather than a territorial war. This belief was present throughout the Middle east long before the Iraq invasion. And is still present even amongst nations that are technically allied with the US.
Also, in the minds of most people in the US, the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations are not separate wars, but are rather individual battles in a worldwide conflict against Muslim terrorists. This is true even for those in the US who are against the Iraq invasion. So when politicians in the US mention the war, they usually are not referring exclusively to Iraq, but rather to the larger conflict. Technically, the Iraq conflict is a separate war from the Afghanistan conflict, but people in the US tend to group them together with all the other conflicts.
So when I mentioned “the war” in my post, I was not singling out the Iraq conflict from the rest of the conflicts that the US is currently involved in. But rather referring to the entire group of conflicts that are taking place in the Middle east and surrounding areas.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Jamie,
if you haven’t a justification for every single war it may seem more “comfortable” to mix them all in one pot… but it is not right!
If you would live in one of those countries that is attacked wrongly you couldn’t accept this point of view, too!
What you are writing for me is one of the dilemmas of this war: “nobody” seems to know what it is really for!
And this is a big part of the difficulty in this “conflict”:
The ones are pretending a war against (their) religion – to find followers that will support those leaders and their interests.
The others are pretending the existence of dangerous weapons and so on – to find followers that will support those leaders and their interests.
The ones are very immoral with terroristic attacks, killing thousands of innocent people.
The others are attacking several countries (ooops this was the wrong one), killing thousands of innocent people.
I would much more prefer a “war” of morality and if it must be… for several people… of ideology.
But if mankind doesn’t understand that we must learn to live together on one planet… we all will be losers.
And this will much more be a matter of communication than a matter of pure military actions.
Here the circle closes:
how can it happen in such a war, with the modern means of communication that the war waging parties don’t seem to be able to communicate their aims and justifications?
Is it because these aren’t there – or aren’t honest?
Or is it just a lack of ability in communication?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
So, your post is finally leading to a very important question:
What are the real values of the “western world”?
What is the western philosophy that should be offered as a positive and exemplary quality to the world?
By which examples and standards should this philosophy then be lived and showed in a demonstrative way?
And in which way this should be demonstrated?
September 30th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
The point I’m trying to make, is not that Western values are better or worse than any other values. My point is that the West is pushing and often forcing those values on the rest of the world. To most Muslims in the middle east, this is seen as an attack on their religion. So they see it as a religious war.
And before we get sidetracked back into the war in Iraq, there are many ways that the west forces it’s values and beliefs on other nations that do not include direct war. That is why the feeling that Islam was under attack by the west existed long before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Our(that is the Western World) “religion” is that of secular materialism. And we are actively attempting to force that “religion” on every nation in the world.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Thank you, Jamie – I’ve got your point.
And you are right!
Only about one sentence I’m not sure:
You wrote:
“We don’t see secularism as a religion, but others(in this case non-Western Muslims) do.”
But isn’t secularism per definition
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism )
considered as a threat by all religions? Especially by a religion that is claiming to be the only one authority that is giving moral and law to a society.
I don’t think that this necessarily means that they have to consider secularism just as another religion.