Wiag wrote:
"It strikes me odd, that being able to make a statement to the world, he failed so badly to make a case for Islam."
I think he did make his case. He is not a very smart man, although he is not stupid either. He did make his case only he was long winded and the listeners did not understand the significance of what was being said to them. So they thougt he was talking nonsense.
I get the same feeling with van Gogh's mother when she is interviewed. She obviously does not understand were the assassin is coming from. The chasm is just too wide.
The point of my piece is also that he is not one of the brains of the organisation but just a footslogger, a "zandhaas" in the language of the old mass armies. (In Hebrew it is called a "Rosh Katan" I think, meaning "small head" or a "low army rank").
The brains are people like Abu Hamza. And the laws of Western society is that they can protect themselves using the cloak of religion. Because traditional religion has always built up European society, from the year 325 till 1850 and later on, the laws are such that they protect religion, because Christianity knows its place in Western society.
Because Islam is not only spiritual, but also a political and a legal framework the protection of Westen law can be used to built up an organisation that looks religious and spiritual from the outside, but whose spirituality is the spirit of the warrior. And it is a warrior armed not just with sword and lance, but also with a law and a concept of social organisation that must overcome Infidel law and social organisation.
The recruiter, people like Redouan the Syrian and Abu Hamza, are the factory. They take young impressionable Muslims with grudges and confusion and give them answers and a vision. Then, when they are ready they can be launched at the infidels or they launch themselves.
Wiag:
"And I'm even more baffled by all that is happening nowadays, because I would think Islam would benefit more if it showed 'reason' instead of 'discontent and anger'."
I think that Mohammed Bouyeri tried to explain himself and that he used exactly the same logic as Abu Hamza, straight from the Qoran. Submit the infidel by force and take his possessions. But those who listen must understand what he is talking about. And I repeat, Mohammed is just a "footslogger", he is not particularly eloquent or persuasive.
In order to understand what was said an understanding of the Qoran and the history of Islam is required.
1 comment:
I wrote "And I'm even more baffled by all that is happening nowadays, because I would think Islam would benefit more if it showed 'reason' instead of 'discontent and anger'."
To be a little bit more precise, I would think Islam in the Western world would benefit more. I think the current lashing out will only have adverse effects, and will make the division between muslims and the rest of the population in e.g. Europe grow wider.
I think it's a good thing and politicians might be woken up by the current events, although I think it will destabilise western society even more, and I fear most countries in Europe will not have an answer. Worse still, I think (far) right winged political parties won't have an answer just like the left has shown in the last two decades they don't have one.
Post a Comment