The War on Terror is not the War on Islam

How can it be when scenes like this are common place? This is the casket of one of our fallen Soldiers.  Mohsin Naqvi.  He gave his life fighting against the monsters who have co-opted Islam into their insidious aims to crush freedom in the lands of Muslim peoples and ultimately all peoples across the globe.  The kid on the floor mourning is Hassan Naqvi.   Is there someone who has the nerve to tell this kid that Islam killed his brother.

Islam is not the enemy.  Wahhabism is the enemy.  Extremism is the enemy.   Extemism in any form.  Political, civil, religious, cultural.  It matters not.

16 comments on “The War on Terror is not the War on Islam

  1. When my World History students study Islam (which happens to be right now) I remind them who started the violence between Muslims and Christians. It was the Christians! During the Crusades, European Christians marched into Jerusalem and slaughter thousands of Muslims, many of them praying in the temple. They were on a “holy war” to free Jerusalem from the infidels and build the kingdom of God.

    I teach my students that very few Muslims are terroritsts. By age 15, that idea is already planted in their minds.

  2. No offense, but that is simply revisionist history. You should probably stop teaching your students this. The crusades were a reaction to Islamic imperialism.

    Look at the histories again. Mohammad and his followers struck at Christendom first. The Islamic Empire conquered a crumbling empire piece by piece. They conquered the weak in the manner of all who had come before them. From Darius and Xeerxes to Alexander to Hannibal and Scipio to Ceaser to Charles Martel. Jerusalem was once part of the Christian world. Next to Sophia Hagia it was was once the center of the Christian world. It fell to Islamic expansion before the first crusade.

    Prior to the first crusade, much of Spain had fallen. Jerusalem had fallen. Syria and Egypt had fallen. All of these were Christian lands.

    If your ideas about Christianity attacking first is truth, then explain this.

    I can not stand ignorance of any kind. And if you are teaching your students this, you are spreading ignorance.

  3. Hi alphaheretic,

    it was not Muslims who conquered Christian lands. We gave you three choices:
    1) Accept Islam
    2) Live under us by paying an amount of money for your protection and you don’t need to fight in our wars/battles
    3) Fight

    Sadly, you guys chose option 3 but later on you had to surrender and we then took the places we did.

  4. OOH! Wonderful. lol

    I’m not Christian. You never gave me a choice of anything.

    That’s not a choice. Those “choices” are simply your way of deluding yourselves into believing that you gave/give others a choice.

    My choice would be abolition of the spirit and the abandonment of religion. They are all spiritual slavery at any rate. Islam and Christianity both. Hindu as well.

    That’s simply my opinion. I’m sure you’ll hate me for it. Even though your religion is said to be a religion of love and peace. wink wink

  5. Well, the choices showcase the religion of peace & its adherents bent of mind & proof of the damage islam can do to humans. This religion is so evil that the followers take pride in evilness & its irrationality..

    Mr Bunch, Would you still taech the same to ur students.. Rather Teach ur students truth & something benevolent

  6. SOME Muslims. Not all. I know many Muslims who do not believe in the wars and violence of the Wahhabis.

    Islam is no more inherently evil than is Christianity.

    That said. The apostate strain that seems to have overtaken all sense in the Muslim world needs to be stamped out. Eradicated. Wahhabism. The Deobandi. These need to be gone. With extreme prejudice. The Saudi Arabian rulers who spread this mental disease need to go with it.

    Islam can be reformed in much the same way as Christianity was reformed.

  7. Muslims did build an empire. They also preserved the writing of European history, including Christian texts, in their libraries and Houses of Wisdom while Europe languished in the Middle Ages. Muslims did concur Christian lands; and they let the Christians go on translating and preserving their sacred documents. Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians (ancient Persian faith) were considered protected in Muslim empires. They paid higher taxes than Muslims, but the Muslim leaders were tolerant of other faiths. It was the Christians who launched the Crusades to free Jerusalem from the hands of the infidels (Muslims). They slaughtered 10,000 Muslims as they prayed in the temple. Their goal was to build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth – that kingdom that the Bible says would not be made of human hands – and have Jerusalem as its capital.

    My degree is in history and political science. I have the texts to back my history up. I am a historian first, theologian second. I have no agenda is making Islam seem better than it is. Around A.D. 1,000 or so, Muslims in Arabia were tolerant of other cultures and their faiths. Women could own property, receive an inheritance, even allowed to divorce. Women in Muslim societies of this time were more free than European Christian women. It used to be Islam that was tolerant and Christianity that was violent and intolerant. That’s not revisionist history; that’s the truth being concealed from our students today by adults who want them to believe all Muslims are terrorists.

  8. Conquer not concur.

    It really desn’t matter what your degree is if you are teaching lies or half truths. Neither side in this drama are free of guilt. Islam of 1,000 years ago is not the same as Islam of 5oo years ago. And it is definitely not the same as the radicals and apostates of the Wahhabi and Deobandi sects that believe that all should submit or die with a seeming heavy preference for death.

    Teach the truth. Not your revisionist version of the truth. You seem to have idealized Islam. How does it matter to todays women who are being forced behind the (veil) hijab that their sisters in 1000 AD were freer than European women of that day. It doesn’t.

  9. Christians also preserved those writings. They did so in the British Isles as well as within Muslim lands and other places. There is no denying that as enlightenment waned and war and violence overtook Europe in the centuries after the fall of Rome that Europe was intermittently overcome with zeal for their Christian God and destroyed much learning. But since the enlightenment, the West has been on swing towards learning and the light while the lands that were conquered by Islam swung in the opposite direction. If it weren’t for oil, they would still be there.

    Islam is now in a medieval type age. Much like Europe after the fall of Rome.

  10. Does it matter what the hell happened thousands and thousands of years ago?

    It sounds like the little whining kid “Awww, mommy, I’m allowed to kill, he started it!!!”

    No. Killing is happening, War is happening, atrocities are being committed. I don’t care if Islam punched you first, Christianity, you need to stop beating the crap out of each other. Thanks.

  11. I agree that it matters little who struck first. I’m simply tired of the fallacy that passes for history for numb nuts politically correct folks out there. This guy has a degree history and political science and somehow comes away with “Christians started it” as a logical base from which to instruct his pupils. Insanity. He’s letting his political bias get in the way of truth. Typical of the two American political parties. Truth is only truth when it serves their interests. Otherwise, it’s spin city.

  12. Alphaheretic said that “neither side is free from guilt.” That is my point, not a “he started it” argument.

    My point is that today in America, Islam is portrayed as a religion of violence, the enemy of both Americans and Chrsitians worldwide. It’s no wonder that Muslims today don’t trust Christians. Our people do not remember the history of the middle ages nor the Crusades. Today their is violence on both sides, Christian and Muslim. There is violence between the sects of Islam. ‘Neither side is free from guilt’ is what I wanted readers to understand. Christians are also guilty of murder and bloodshed in the name of religion, and to prove that point I brought up how the Christians struck first in the European Crusades of the Middle Ages.

    The history lesson is not as simple as teaching our kids that Muslims are violent and Islam is an evil faith. It used to be that Muslims were tolerant, particularly toward Jews and Christians, and it was the Christians who perpectuated violence. Just because it isn’t that way today, and I realize that, doesn’t mean it never happened. That would be revisionist history. We (Chrsitians) are not innocent; Muslims know that, we have forgotten.

  13. This seems to have been your point:

    “When my World History students study Islam (which happens to be right now) I remind them who started the violence between Muslims and Christians. It was the Christians! ”

    And it is neither true nor valid.

    If you are teaching your students that tripe, you are teaching them your false view of history. Period.

    My opinion is that you should teach them the truth. Not politically correct spin.

  14. If you don’t mind I’m probably going to end up ranting on the entire subject, so my apologies from the beginning.
    First of all, a few points about Dave’s above post. The fact that neither side is free from guilt is certainly true. Of course, the Muslims don’t care so much about the Crusades; they’re mad about the crap we left them with during the Cold War. If anything they ought to be mad at Britain (we’re just a more visible target) because a huge portion of the cause of all the strife in the region is British Imperialism. The Durand Line in Afghanistan was their idea, yet it is blamed on us. Not that America is flawless or anything, we’ve done a nice job of screwing things up for ourselves there as well. And I’m not going to argue the point that retaliation for wrongs, which is what al-Qaeda is doing, is justified or anything because it’s not. I suppose my first point is that it is an incredibly complicated dynamic that no one really understands thoroughly. And so the issue is simplified and twisted beyond recognition in the foul names of Political Correctness and supposed Patriotism.
    Yes, under no circumstances should you teach something that is an oversimplification, or worse a simple falsehood. On the other hand, for the past 7 years or so there’s been massive amounts of anti-Islam propaganda out there, Of course there are practices in those countries that are simply detestable, there is no excuse to discriminate against Muslims. I’ve found this simplification comes mainly from the Political Correctness geeks and the anti-Muslim war hawks. Looking at what Clark has been saying it seems like his teaching is more complicated than his first post would suggest, thank FSM. Anyway, I’m not too worried over details of ancient history. International relations in the Middle East and it’s relation to Islam is an immensely complicated issue, and I think the real problem is that kids are never taught about it in school. How many graduating students from my high school could tell you the difference between a Sunni and a Shi-ite? Myself and one other. How about, how many could name the president of Afghanistan? How many could name the prime minister of Iraq? How many could tell you who the most influential men in Iraq are at any given time? How many knew who Muqtada al-Sadr is? How many could say that they followed the Battle of Basra. The answer to all of those would be me and my friend. Here’s another thing, accurate and unbiased coverage of the Middle East is few and far between. The Battle of Basra, which no one has heard of, was a huge event, just to name one. Yet the entire weekend it was happening CNN and FOX and MSNBC (yeah, they’re all at fault) reported on celebrities, and U.S. politics. There’s more important things (shocking, isn’t it?) than the latest gaffe Obama made or whatever. In any case I had to go to the BBC to get any coverage whatsoever. If you want a half decent interview with Karzai you have to go to al-Jazeera, for FSM’s sake. Well, that’s an exaggeration; he’s interviewed with CNN and a few others I believe as well. But I digress. You want to see further evidence of the foolishness of the politicians and the media? First of all, the Sunni Shi’ite conflict. That who dynamic is only partially true. In some cases it is a problem, in some cases not. What I’ve always found is that the battles are fought between fundamentalist and more modern Muslims, regardless of factional lines. How about Iran? We hate them, they hate us, they’re working against our interests, and so on and so forth, right? Yeah, not so much. Believe me, there’s no love lost between us and Iran but more often than not Iran is fighting on our side in Iraq. Yeah, that’s right. Iranian, Iraqi, and U.S. soldiers work together frequently. Why? It’s in Iran’s self interest to have a stable Iraq. They hate the insurgency and violence as much as we do. And that fellow Ahmadinejad? Not important. He’s a buffoon really, and all the real power of the Iranian government comes from other places. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.
    That or rather those are the problems really. And misunderstanding of this issues leads to terrible foreign policy for our government and worse, it leads to more and longer extended violence. For diplomacy to exist and gain support we need an educated public. For a war to gain support all you need is a guy with some flags in the back saying “You’re for us or you’re against us.” And of course, anti-war support just needs a few college kids with peace signs. As frustrating as it is no one really understands the issues, because they’re never taught the issues. Not by the schools, and especially not by the media.

  15. The truth must be sought. It never simply lands in your lap.

    Some of what you say runs counter to what I’ve experienced on the ground and the things that people have told me on the ground. But I don’t know all of the facts. So I’ll leave it at that. For instance, Iran and it’s soldiers fighting with ours. The SF/Delta guys that I know have fought against Iranian soldiers. Not with them.

    In Iraq, you need one name really. al Sistani. That’s all. Everyone else comes second. al Sistani is probably the most influential Shi’ite cleric in the world. Even more so than Ayatollah Khamanei.

    Having traveled in the Middle East for the past ten years, I’ve met a few Muslims here and here. lol Many of them have long traditional/cultural memories and still remember the crusades as well as colonialism.

    You are correct on old Ahmadinejad. Dude is a nut case.

    It is too bad regarding Iran. We should have been allies. If it weren’t for Churchill and Eden, we would have been. Too bad. What a different world this would be now.

    What the heck is “FSM?”

  16. Yeah, we’ve fought with and against Iran. It’s been flip-flopping, I believe, depending on who we were going after. This april they were working with us to get al-Sadr…

    True about al-Sistani as well. And yet, if you walk out into the streets of any major American city and ask anyone who that is…blank stares. Whether he is more influential than Khamanei I think really depends on where you are, though. And never underestimate al-Sadr, especially since he and al-Sistani haven’t necessarily got along in the past (to say the least…) He’ a jerk though, lol. Al-Sistani is much nicer.

    Ahmadinejad’s nuts indeed. Really, really nuts *rolls eyes*

    FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s a long story.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s