A christian blog with a decidedly biblical perspective on the world and events around us. Look around, read, enjoy and feel free to comment. Interesting story, send us the info via our contact page. Subscribe by clicking here.
Subscribe to RSS
Don’t Be Fooled by What You See
Saints of God, don’t look at the way things appear.
Servants of God cheat on their wives, then go on with new wives, apparently still enjoying God’s blessings! Not so! You do not see or hear of God’s judgment on them. You know nothing of the sleepless nights, the despair and sorrow that floods in on them. To live under God’s displeasure is a burden few can bear. To have the heavens shut and end up ministering in the flesh leaves its mark on men. Little by little, their influence wanes, their following dwindles. People may smile at them but there is an insurmountable loss of respect. Those who live and preach as adulterers minister death and not life. What they say IS tainted by their evil deeds. They are heard only by the ear, and not the heart.
The only message with power is that which is preached from a pure heart, by men with clean hands. All else is sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. God will not speak to a man or woman living in sin; He closes the heavens to those who break and flaunt HIS commandments. So what they preach has to come out of their own hearts and minds and can only be man-centered. They have no searing, scorching word from God that drives men to their knees. They strike no fear to divided hearts and compromisers. Their thunder has been silenced by the evil charms of an adulterous woman.
We don’t have to go about with eyes full of lust-we don’t have to be looking at all-but Satan will always try to use a supposed lack in our lives ~o sna.re us in an evil relationship. Those kinds of relationships may be justified and continued for years on the grounds that we are all the better for it. Both may provoke each other to pray more and go deeper in God. But it is still sin!
The mate always knows. There is a strange wall that is erected and nothing but honesty can ever penetrate it. There is an aloofness, a holding back, something you can’t put your finger on, but you know something is really wrong.
A man of God can stand in the pulpit and preach with all his might, then give his heart and time to an adulterous relationship. Then, if he is a true man of God, he weeps over what he has done. He feels his heart going out in the wrong direction; he feels Satan breath¬ing down his neck, trying to wreck his ministry; and he cries out to God to be free of the attraction. How deeply it becomes embedded in the soul! What an ocean of tears is shed in sorrow of heart, because there seems to be no way out.
He hears in the deepest of his soul the taunting-cry, “You are a phony! You preach against this very thing! You are hooked just like any common drug addict! You preach freedom from sin, and you are enslaved! Liar!”
There is the constant fear of exposure and, worst of all, the hounding fear of bringing reproach on God’s name. There is the fear of ending up like Samson, stripped and shelved by God-c-or even worse, judgment by death.
The man of God caught in this kind of snare will walk his room at night, begging God for cleansing. His heart will yearn for the day he can once again look God and the world in the eye and proclaim, “1 am clean! 1 am pure! 1 am free!”
Oh, the broken promises, the lies. What appears to be a victory only ends in defeat. Just when you think it is dead, it comes back again in greater force. Then it is realized that only a true death at the Cross can deliver from its hold.
Many a great man of God has come this way to the Cross-broken down, helpless, having broken every promise, weary of grieving God and ministering under a lie. God has used that crisis to roll in death on every¬thing in that man’s life and raise him to resurrection life and glorious freedom.
There can be no deliverance from an adulterous attraction outside of total death at the Cross. Cry a river of tears, try to kill it on your own, suppress it any way you can-it will still be there. And, it will eventu¬ally destroy both of you. You will go back to it; you will always have that lingering memory erupting unexpectedly
Take my warning-O man of God! You are not above this kind of sin.
- SET THE TRUMPET TO THY MOUTH: David Wilkerson
Proverbs 16:11
11 A just weight and balance are the LORD’s: all the weights of the bag are his work.
Note, 1. The administration of public justice by the magistrate is an ordinance of God; in it the scales are held, and ought to be held by a steady and impartial hand; and we ought to submit to it, for the Lord’s sake, and to see his authority in that of the magistrate, Rom. 13:1; 1 Pet. 2:13.
2. The observance of justice in commerce between man and man is likewise a divine appointment. He taught men discretion to make scales and weights for the adjusting of right exactly between buyer and seller, that neither may be wronged; and all other useful inventions for the preserving of right are from him. He has also appointed by his law that they be just. It is therefore a great affront to him, and to his government, to falsify, and so to do wrong under colour and pretence of doing right, which is wickedness in the place of judgment.
- Matthew Henry Commentary
Proverbs 16:12
12 It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness.
Here is, 1. The character of a good king, which Solomon intended not for his own praise, but for instruction to his successors, his neighbours, and the viceroys under him. A good king not only does justice, but it is an abomination to him to do otherwise. He hates the thought of doing wrong and perverting justice; he not only abhors the wickedness done by others, but abhors the wickedness done by others, but abhors to do any himself, though, having power, he might easily and safely do it.
2. The comfort of a good king: His throne is established by righteousness. He that makes conscience of using his power aright shall find that to be the best security of his government, both as it will oblige people, make them easy, and keep them in the interest of it, and as it will obtain the blessing of God, which will be a firm basis to the throne and a strong guard about it.
- Matthew Henry Commentary
Ephesians 1:5
Who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.
1 John 5:14
If we ask anything according to His will, He heareth us.
The human will, exercising itself in prayer, has its abundant freedom in that it is in abundant accord with God’s will; and so it is in perfect voluntariness under that will, it is as free to ask as is His will to answer.
The strictly logical conclusion is this, that by a divine plan there is place for the prayer of man, exactly as for any other form of human exertion.
In the natural world, the divine plan of things, in connection with our freedom, is the basis of all human activity.
We can depend on the sun to rise and set, on the procession of the seasons, on the ordination of seed-time and harvest, and therefore we labor.
We see that the laws are fixed, and therefore we labor, and therefore we pray as well. – D.W. Faunce.
No lesson in the prayer life is more important for us to learn than that the chief thing is to be and abide in harmony with the will of God.
- Daily Meditations for Prayer.
After more than 30 years of watching people write dumb things about the Middle East, I believe that in the last month I’ve seen more nonsense than at any previous time. The problem arises from ignorance, lack of understanding of the region by those presented as experts; plus arrogance, treating the region and the lives of people as a game (Hey, let’s try this and see what happens!), fostered by the failure of such control mechanisms as a balanced debate and editing that rejects simplistic bias or stupidity; as well as a simple lack of logic.
To put it another way, I am reading material that simultaneously has no connection with the real world, is full of internal contradictions, and often seems deliberately tailored to misrepresent events in order to prove a false thesis. Fortunately, this stuff has not done actual damage in the real world–much of it has not been implemented in policy–yet but may in future.
As examples:
–The former director of for Gulf and South Asia affairs at President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council writes that al-Qaida will go away if a Palestinian state is created. (This article is so astonishingly bad in reshaping the facts and leaving out anything that proves the contrary point I kept thinking it was a forgery meant to discredit him. Alas, in these days people actually do write in this intellectually dishonest style all too often.)
–The most famous American columnist writing on the Middle East says the United States is responsible for radicalization in Saudi Arabia and Europe is to blame for Iran’s Islamist revolution;
–The New York Times publishes an op-ed by a U.S. Air Force analyst arguing that Iran getting nuclear weapons will be good for the U.S. position in the Middle East.
–France’s foreign minister in an interview explains that Israel’s allegedly killing a Hamas terrorist in Dubai proves there must be a Palestinian state as fast as possible, regardless of whether Israel agrees, a bilateral peace treaty is made, or even that state’s boundaries are defined. Charmingly, he adds that he might be wrong, which suggests that if such a policy resulted in total disaster and a massive number of deaths he’d just give a Gallic shrug of the shoulders and say, “Tant pis.” (Too bad.)
–Numerous people who should know better, ranging from the president’s advisor on terrorism to the former senior director for transnational threats at the National Security Council, say Hizballah is now moderate even though it has not changed in any real way.
–A prestigious foreign policy blog carries an article from a professor at a Washington, DC, university calling for an end to any restrictions on imports by the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip despite its openly declared intention of commiting genocide, repression of its own people, and clear goal of returning to war as soon as possible because this will supposedly strengthen the hand of the Palestinian Authority government which Hamas is trying to overthrow.
What are the main themes being constantly purveyed? Blame America, blame Israel, blame the West, say that radicals are moderates, insist that making concessions and holding dialogues with ideologically-directed extremists will work, blocking serious discussion of the Islamist threat, refusing to recognize the unalterably aggressive intentions of the Iran-Syria bloc, arguing that radical states and movements will act in a “rational” manner by following Western conceptions of what is in their true interest rather than their own world view.
What themes are there no room for in the prestigious foreign affairs journals and newspapers, with rare exceptions?
–The strategic disaster for Western influence that would ensue if Iran got nuclear weapons even if it never fires them.
–Revolutionary Islamism doesn’t exist mainly to get revenge on the West but to seize state power and transform their own societies.
–The fact that the Palestinian Authority neither desires nor is capable of making a comprehensive peace with Israel no matter what the West does.
–The specific things that Israel wants in a peace agreement and why it needs them.
–That Syria, for very solid interests of its own, will never break its alliance with Iran.
–The situation of Arab governments which want the United States to be tough against Iran, Syria, and the Islamists, and are rapidly losing faith that it will protect them.
–The steering of Turkey toward as much of an Islamist state as possible plus as close an alignment with Iran and Syria as posible by the regime there which pretends to be moderate but clearly is engaged in transforming the country..
–Most bad ideas, crises, radical movements, and conflicts in the Middle East are locally generated and not just reflections of wrong Western policies or misdeeds.
–The West can do only a very limited amount to solve the problems of the Middle East. Coming up with some clever gimmick, flattery, apology, concession, appeasement, or higher level of understanding isn’t going to do it.
Should I link to each of the above-mentioned articles and refute them point by point? I’m not sure. On one hand, that would be intellectually and emotionally satisfying, but would it be worthwhile?
I don’t like spending time and space talking about how someone else is so silly, how we are deluged with far more people speaking stupidity from power than speaking truth to it. I can’t help but feel that it is better to use the chance to explain what’s really going on and perhaps develop some accurate or useful ideas. But it is necessary to talk about some of the insanity just to give a sense of its all-encompassing scope.
Only events will teach these people anything, like the completely ignorant New York Times writer who had no experience in the Middle East whatsoever, became an apologist for the Iranian regime, and then was forced by the stolen election and subsequent repression to rethink his position.
Rudyard Kipling wrote (is it still acceptable to quote Kipling?):
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you….
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating….,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!
Kipling’s son of course was killed in World War One, which shows that no matter how well we perform we aren’t immune for suffering from the mistakes of others.
I rewrote it to suit modern circumstances:
IF you can accurate be when everyone with power
writes nonsense and blames conflicts just on you….
You rarely will be quoted or be published,
For speaking truth’s a foolish thing to do.
What’s most important are the views in fashion,
Repeating them makes certain your career.
Just hope that history justifies your passion,
The sole reward you’ll get, that’s what I fear.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books.To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Looking for subscriber number 9132! Don’t miss lots of original and realtime analysis
By Barry Rubin
You won’t see where I’m going with this at first but trust me and you’ll hear a good story with a very timely point. And if you have time read the two short appendices at the end which add to the fun.
Bertram Wolfe, an expert on Communism and the USSR who died in 1977, wrote an obscure little book in 1965 entitled, Strange Communists I Have Known, with fascinating personal profiles and anecdotes about his experiences.
In “The Strange Case of Litvinov’s Diary,” Wolfe recounts a marvelous little scholarly mystery. Shortly after the death of former Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov in 1951, a manuscript purporting to be his secret diary surfaced. A prestigious British publisher asked Professor E.H. Carr, the famous historian, to examine it for authenticity. Carr strongly endorsed it as genuine, even offering to write the preface about its historical importance.
A well-known American publisher gave Wolfe the same task. Wolfe found dozens of flaws showing the manuscript was an obvious forgery. Moreover, by comparing it to things written earlier by the former Soviet diplomat who supplied the manuscript, Wolfe even proved that this man was the forger. If you read the details you can see that Wolfe’s case is air-tight.
But what interests me (and you) most is Wolfe’s first reason for finding the manuscript phony:
“The opening pages…began with the first of a series of visits from a rabbi…who comes to Litvinov as one Jew to another to complain [that Soviet authorities] had looted two synagogues and arrested the rabbi of Kiev….Litvinov promises to intervene, though he knows that Stalin `doesn’t like me to interfere in questions concerning the Jewish religion.’”
Indeed, the “diary” claimed, when Litvinov had previously tried to help imprisoned Jew, Stalin threatened to try him before a high Communist party committee. But, Litvinov supposedly wrote, “I couldn’t help smiling at the threat” because the committee’s head Soltz “is the son of the rabbi of Vilna.”
[Incidentally, that was untrue. Although Wolfe doesn't mention it, the father of Aaron Aleksandrovich Soltz was not a rabbi but a wealthy merchant. Soltz and Litvinov, too, actually has the same background as other anti-Jewish leftists of Jewish background, see Postscript 1.]
Wolfe was flabbergasted. He explains: “Thus, the opening passage presented Litvinov” as a loyal Jew, “ready to defend any and every Jew against his government and his party.” The same characteristics absurdly and falsely, are attributed to the committee’s head, Soltz, a “fanatical” Communist.
But, Wolfe writes, “Litvinov and Soltz had rejected their Jewish heritage in their youth. Their Jewish origin tended to make them more rather than less hostile toward religious and anti-Communist Jews.” Yet Litvinov, Soltz, and other Soviet Communist leaders of Jewish background are portrayed throughout the diary as pro-Jewish and even pro-Zionist.
Jewish Communist officials in the USSR sent thousands of Jews to execution or slave labor camps; closed synagogues; forbade the teaching of Hebrew and Yiddish; and did everything possible to wipe out Jews as a community and Judaism as a religion.
Indeed, over the last hundred years, aside from fascists, no one has persecuted Jews and their aspirations as a group–be it to practice their religion, maintain their own communal organizations, or have their own homeland—more than left-wingers of Jewish origin.
Wolfe concludes, referring to the manuscript: “I realized I was dealing with something I have frequently met [a supposed revelation of]: the `international Jewish conspiracy,’ the myth of Jewish solidarity overriding all political and other differences.”
Wolfe warned the British publisher, which ignored him and published it, and the American publisher, which rejected the manuscript.
Carr was a fine scholar and no antisemite. Yet he had missed entirely Wolfe’s opening point, something Wolfe was more sensitive about being Jewish himself, though also a former Communist who had a great deal in common with Litvinov and Soltz. In contrast, the British scholar and publisher didn’t comprehend the book’s antisemitic message, didn’t see how the claims made about Jews proved it to be a forgery, or didn’t care.
The contemporary point here is this: Despite decades of documentation and explanation about antisemitism, a large proportion of the Western intelligentsia doesn’t understand it. For them, Jews—at least those who aren’t almost totally assimilated intellectuals either indifferent or hostile to their backgrounds—are incomprehensible. They don’t subscribe to traditional antisemitic—that is, medieval Christian and Nazi–stereotypes but are blind to their permutations.
In other words, they don’t know antisemitism when they see it–or even practice it–unless it is in the crudest historical forms which they understand better since they were right-wing. What they don’t comprehend are the themes. If two American academics speak of pervasive behind-the-scenes Jewish influence using ridiculous sources, they can proclaim their innocence of antisemitism. If a former president uses traditional antisemitic themes but just changes the target from “Jews” to “Israelis,” or others use the word “Zionist” instead of “Jew” but employ all the old stereotypes they are baffled when someone tries to explain this point.
This Carr-style response thus manifests itself in two ways. The more obvious is the mere substitution of the word “Israeli” or “Zionist” for Jewish, that is not just being critical of Israel but doing so in ways that mirror the old categories of antisemitism: seeking world domination; having massive power behind the scenes to twist countries’ governments against their own national interests; dominating the media; being evil in nature or having evil intentions; murdering little children for organs (instead of the traditional blood); hating non-Jews and holding their lives to be cheap; and so on and so on.
Second, beyond all the specifics, Jews (or Israelis or Zionists) are seen as some strange form of life to whom the usual rules don’t apply. You simply don’t need the same level of evidence; the same standard of right and wrong; the same level of balance when dealing with this group.
These are the kinds of transferences we see in such contemporary events as the spreading organ-stealing story, the Walt-Mearsheimer conspiracy theories, or the collected works of Jimmy Carter, or the Goldstone report, to name but a few. They don’t deal with Israel or Zionists or Jews as they really are but as they exist in the imagination of those making such portrayals.
We are, of course, aware—indeed, hyper-aware nowadays—of how such things have been applied to other groups, something which is close to being outlawed today. But Jews, in large part, are the one minority group in the world to which reverence for “the other” doesn’t apply among the Politically Correct, multicultural crowd.
But aren’t a lot of these people Jewish? And what about Goldstone and other Jews who defame Israel and the great majority of the world’s Jews who support it? Simple, go back and read what Wolfe wrote.
A few hours after I wrote this article the British journalist Gordon Thomas wrote in response to the alleged assassination of a leading Hamas terrorist in Dubai by Israel that of course Jews everywhere could be depended on to participate in such killing:
“…the role of the [helpers] is a striking example of the cohesiveness of the world Jewish community. In practical terms, a sayan who runs a car rental agency will provide a kidon with a vehicle on a no-questions basis. An estate agent sayan will provide a building for surveillance. A bank manager sayan will provide funds at any time of day or night, and a sayan doctor provides medical assistance.”
In other words, all Jews are potential collaborators in killing people whenever Israel asks them. Wow. And I bet not a single person in the UK intellectual circles would catch that or understand why that is so objectionable. (By the way, how many Jewish car rental and real estate agents are there in Dubai?)
Thomas is still considered a credible expert on the subject although he previously wrote that the Mossad killed Princess Diana and publishing mogul Robert Maxwell. Such is expertise in today’s world. An omnipotent Jewish secret organization operating behind the scenes and killing everyone it doesn’t like. Now there’s a venerable antisemitic theme!
In fact, the same theme is in the Hamas Charter:
“With money they have taken control of the world media – news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting services, etc. With money they sparked revolutions in various countries around the world in order to serve their interests and to reap profits. They were behind the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution….With money they have formed secret organizations, all over the world….”
Postscript 1: Two of Wolfe’s personality portraits are of Angelica Balabanoff, the first secretary of the Communist International, and Rosa Luxemburg, the virulent enemy of nationalism who led a Communist revolt in Germany and was murdered when it failed. Here is what he writes of Balabanoff:
“Her mother was determined to make [her] a ‘fine lady.’” She learned many languages and had governesses but absolutely no Jewish religious or cultural training. About Luxemburg, Wolf noted: “had broken out of the circle of ghetto culture and religion….This background had made the young girl take easily to [Communist] internationalism.”
I have seen precisely the same pattern in the background of Karl Radek, another Soviet Communist leader, and many others of more recent times. Having dispensed with everything Jewish in their own lives, they see it as a reactionary barrier. Either Jews are to disappear completely or, at most, they have a mission of selflessly pushing for revolution without any legitimate interest of their own as a community.
As Wolfe understood, both the ideology and selfish self-promoting (not “self-hating,” a major myth) interests of such people means that: “Their Jewish origin tended to make them more rather than less hostile toward religious and anti-Communist [whose contemporary equivalent means Israeli or pro-Israel] Jews.”
Postscript 2: Those who understand Jewish history might find it amusing for me to mention another give-away found by Wolfe. When referring to Soviet leaders of Jewish background, the manuscript called them by their patronyms (the name of their father). For example, Lev Davidovich Trotsky [originally Bronstein], that is his father was named David Bronstein, is called Davidovich. Litvinov would never make such a ridiculous mistake. –Barry Davidovich Rubin
The Obama Administration keeps insisting China will support serious sanctions against Iran. Right now, however, Chinese state companies re currently developing the following oil projects in Iran: Kouhdasht; Yadavaran; North Pars gas field; North Azadegan oil field; Masjed Soleyman oil field; Garmsar block exploration and development. Most of these are still in development but are vital for the future of Chinese development. Total investment: well over $6 billion. And there’s a lot more Chinese involvement in Iran’s economy, including construction of a huge oil refinery.
Chinese policy isn’t political. They aren’t seeking to extend Communism or build an empire in the Middle East. They just want to make money and have reliable oil supplies. For more on this subject see here.
Buried deep in an obscure article about a Pakistani poet-politician is a clear presentation of one of the most powerful ideas shaping this contemporary world.
The article was written by Pakistani columnist Shah Nawaz Farooq in the Urdu-language Roznama Jasarat newspaper and translated by MEMRI. Its theme is about how the poet Muhammad Iqbal, who died in 1938, urges all Muslims to engage in Jihad even if they pursue this warfare against the infidel by non-military means.
Yet like a diamond in a coal mine appears in passing the following side:
“A characteristic of the infidel’s psychology is superficiality. It means that a man gives importance to the apparent causes, and considers that to be everything. Worshipping logic is also a pillar of the infidel’s psychology. The infidel weighs everything on a scale of profit and loss, and in light of ‘two and two make four.’ His standard is not good and evil–but profit and loss. This is why he wants to see himself as powerful at an apparent level.”
One could write a library full of books on this little paragraph but here’s the short version. If one believes the deity guides the world completely and has set all the rules for human behavior, then all man-made morality, reason or logic are not guides to life or reality but mere illusions. Humanity is weak because Allah is strong; humanity has no real freedom because its choice is to obey the rules of Islam or be in rebellion against God’s will. Divine standards of right and wrong transcend any human categories. Believing that events come out of material factors and can be understood through human logic is to be “superficial,” to miss the true basis of events.
There is much, here, that reflects Western history of course. In much of the ancient world and then again between the fall of Classical civilization and the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, the rise of the scientific method, and other developments—roughly between the fifth and fifteenth century, this kind of thinking dominated. But such a world view eroded long before it came to an end completely. Logic, enthroned in Greek and Jewish civilization, was already an integral part of Western life.
Of course, the development of the modern world, science, and other things was made possible by the enthronement of logic. The last three centuries of history, despite many setbacks, have intensified its hegemony. Without it, the West would still be full of extremist ideology, hatred, superstition, violence, and low living standards. In other words not unlike most contemporary Muslim majority lands.
(Yes, there are still people in the West thinking in similar terms, religious “fundamentalists” and believers in bizarre conspiracy theories. But the differences between this minority in the West and majority in most Muslim-majority states are important. In the Western case they don’t run the society and government; they don’t successfully repress alternative view points; they don’t run the media or the schools; they don’t threaten and use violence against their adversaries except in a tiny handful of cases; and even they themselves have absorbed a great deal of logic, science, secular philosophy, and democratic standpoints whatever they say to the contrary.)
(Indeed, one could argue that the powerful bearer of irrationalism today in the West is the post-Marxist political left with its contemporary ideology. Incidentally, some snobs of that type might say that many or most Muslims in the Middle East were clinging to guns, religion, and ethnic hatreds, but to discuss such matters would requires a different article from this one.)
For a short time in the Medieval era, there were a few Muslim philosophers who sought to unite faith and logic, but they had no impact on their own societies. In contrast to the West, the equivalents of the Spanish Inquisition triumphed in the Muslim majority world. If one could speak of Islam being “hijacked” at all it was set on its current course by its own rulers and dominant religious figures about eight hundred years ago. The contemporary political Islamists, along with other powerful conservative forces, want to keep it that way and even thrust it back into an even more thorough conformity with that tradition.
Consequently, the ramifications of Farooq’s points—and they are very widely accepted in Muslim majority societies—are enormous. These ideas are a gigantic dam blocking the way to democracy, freedom, higher living standards, and equality for women.
The infidel, says Farooq, “wants to see himself as powerful at an apparent level.” Hence, “I think therefore I am”; “Man is the measure of all things”; and much of the philosophical basis of Western thought is just an exercise in egomania. For an equivalent of Baruch Spinoza to quip,”The alleged will of God is the refuge of ignorance” today in the Arabic-speaking world would be a hanging offense, especially because that concept would be so subversive to the current order there.
In the West, to subscribe to the Enlightenment and to humanist values doesn’t require one to be an atheist or even an agnostic. One must merely believe that a supreme being either doesn’t interfere too much or leaves a large latitude to human beings to make up their own rules. It is also to accept a separation of religion and society, with the former relegated to the private sphere.
While such concepts are accepted by many Muslims in their daily lives, it is practically forbidden nowadays–though not necessarily a few decades ago–to state such assertions openly and to enshrine them in national law or governmental practice in Muslim majority countries. Engineering, medicine, and science may function on the basis of Western-developed ideas and techniques, but the local contribution to these fields remains small. When it comes to politically related, non-technological matters the situation is far worse.
To believe in “apparent causes” is dangerous because it can throw into question the nature of the existing societies, the regime in power, Arab nationalist philosophy, and Islam. It can, for example, mean comprehending how the dominant currents in Muslim-majority societies produce stagnation; that the stronger side (the West, Israel) will win military confrontations; and that major social and political change away from hide-bound traditional society is desperately needed.
Instead, ideas are spread that shore up the status quo or want to push it toward even more complete adherence to what is deemed as religious purity. What are thought to be “real” underlying causes can derive from conspiracy, adapted Marxism, or a belief in divine intervention. By such means, it is easy to maintain that the Muslims will win since the deity is on their side or the West is weak and decadent.
With such certainty of success who cares how big opposing armies might be or what weapons they carry? And so one can justify fighting on for decades and initiating disastrously losing wars (Hamas throwing out the existing ceasefire to attack Israel in December 2008, for example) because eventual triumph is ensured.
During the Iranian revolution of 1979, its leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini sneered that the West didn’t understand that the revolt was not just intended to lower the price of watermelons, that is was waged for material reasons.
Yet in the West this very mistake is made by those who consider themselves enlightened and tolerant. They rail against how the West allegedly fails to understand Islam and the Middle East properly. Ironically, their arguments conflict with something that most Arab intellectuals and perhaps half the population of Iran or more already knows about what’s wrong with their societies.
A perfect example of this problem is the mistranslation of the word Islam, which means not peace but submission to God’s will, which is precisely what Farooq is explaining. That’s what is in command, not logic, not material conditions, or any other such “superficial” explanations.
In line with this philosophy, which weighs everything in terms of good and evil, it is “right” to be intolerant, since why should someone tolerate what is clearly evil? That is why the United States, the West, Israel, and any local dissenters from these views are often labeled as “enemies of God.” They deserve to be wiped out, killed, treated as demons, as “satans.”
Toleration is impossible in a society based on absolute certainty. Democracy is a mistake unless one feels certain–as do some of the most influential supposedly “moderate” Islamists that elections are okay because they would win a majority and then be able to impose their will permanently on the society.
Equally, if faith wipes out the need to agree that “two and two make four” then evidence is not required for any assertion. Lying to journalists or to others is morally right because those you are condemning are innately wrong so what do details matter? Israel is evil; America is evil; the West is evil; modern society is evil. So you can accuse them of anything without being wrong. Why make peace with Israel or concessions to the United States when any such deal would be—literally—a pact with the devil and mere patience or struggle will lead to your enemy’s complete downfall anyway.
Guess what? With rational arguments you won’t persuade people who reject that whole way of thinking. Of course, not everyone in Muslim-majority countries think that way. What’s most important, however, is that those who don’t do so are either influenced by the mainstream, shut up, or form a persecuted minority with little support. The graduate of a university faculty in law, medicine or engineering is far more likely to join an Islamist party than a liberal democratic one. And while the rulers generally—though not always—know better also, they use the forces of irrationality and faith for their own purposes.
The rising forces in the Middle East largely follow the Farooq mode of thinking. They may seize power completely or just continue to shape society. They can press governments into giving lip service to their world view or just convince them to manipulate this approach for their own advantage.
For the West to formulate a policy for the region that is entirely ignorant of this tremendous power for what one might called proud irrationalism will ensure failure, bloodshed, and even potential catastrophe.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Gordon Brown: Do Not Legalize Assisted Suicide – February 23, 2010
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown says that changing the law to permit assisted suicide would run the risk of putting the frail and ill under pressure to end their lives. The Director of Public Prosecutions will set out final guidelines on assisted suicide Wednesday. He is expected to make it clear that those who help others end their lives are unlikely to face court action if they acted out of compassion. The guidelines, which follow a series of high-profile court cases, are seen by many as effectively decriminalizing assisted suicide by the back door. The Daily Telegraph
Virginian Episcopals Narrowly Reject Same Sex Unions – February 21, 2010
The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia hedged on recognizing same-sex unions Saturday, instead voting to form a committee to set standards for church-sanctioned blessings of such unions once they are approved by the entire 2-million-member Episcopal Church. About 346 delegates to the dioceses annual council meeting at Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria narrowly voted – by a show of hands – to form the committee. The Washington Times
Egypt to Block Gaza Tunnels – February 21, 2010
Egypt is pressing ahead with construction of an underground barrier between it and the Palestinian-controlled Gaza Strip, an effort to close over 1,000 smuggling tunnels—the enclave’s only significant trading channel to the outside world. The move by Cairo threatens to harden a blockade of Gaza, put in place by Egypt and Israel after Hamas won Palestinian-wide elections in 2006. The siege was tightened in 2007 when the militants took control of Gaza in a bloody rout of its rival Palestinian faction, Fatah. The Wall Street Journal
Israelis Show No Remorse Over Dubai Guerrilla Assassination – February 21, 2010
While Europe is up in arms over the slaying of top Hamas guerrilla Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh – and everyone blames the Mossad – the near-unanimous verdict in Israel: mission accomplished. “He wasn’t a civilian. He was a fighter, and he was still active,” said one Israeli. NY Daily News
Rep Speaks Against Taxpayer Funding Of Planned Parenthood – February 19, 2010
In a speech on Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, DC, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) earned a standing ovation when he said the United States has a moral obligation to the unborn, and that the time has come to stop funding Planned Parenthood with money from pro-life American taxpayers. “The largest abortion provider in America should not be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title 10,” Pence said. “The time has come to defund any and all funding to Planned Parenthood of America.” CNS News
Abbas’ Fatah As Corrupt As Ever – February 19, 2010
In the words of Fahmi Shabaneh, Western journalists “don’t want to hear negative things about Fatah and Abbas.” Among other impressive scoops, Shabaneh related that Abbas’ associates purloined $3.2 million in cash that the US gave Abbas ahead of the 2006 elections. He told Abu Toameh how PA officials who were virtually penniless in 1994 now have tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars in their private accounts. He related how he watched in horror as Abbas promoted the very officials he reported on. Jewish World Review
America Has Just Reconfigured Anti-Missile Shield – February 18, 2010
America announced in September last year that it would abandon its plans for anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic in favor of a new system initially based on ships. Some saw that as a sell-out. Russia was being appeased as part of President Barack Obama’s “reset” of relations with the Kremlin. Five months later, that reading of events looks mistaken. The new system, the Obama administration officials said at the time, will be more flexible and will have a land component from 2015. The Economist
Solar Road Idea Still Going – February 10, 2010
On Feb. 5, Scott Brusaw demonstrated a 12-foot by 12-foot solar road panel in a friend’s garage in Sagle, Idaho. A cameraman filmed the event, and officials with the US Department of Transportation will likely visit the demonstration by the end of February. After the demonstration, the USDOT will decide whether to give Brusaw an additional $750,000. That money would be used to build highway-size solar road panels that could be driven on and thoroughly tested. Boise Weekly
viagra and hearing loss Ed Treatment Natural Female use of viagra female version of viagra 761.
erectile dysfunction vacuums Cialis Dysfunction Erectile Levitra how to get viagra
herbal remedy for erectile dysfunction; Erectile Dysfunction Psychological Zocor erectile dysfunction zoloft erectile dysfunction 147.
robin williams viagra Viagra Spray "explore advances in male impotence treatments"
viagra perscription online Natural Remedy Erectile Dysfunction male hormone dhea impotence levels
will ferrell erectile dysfunction Viagra Perscription Online ed treatment with ginko
erectile dysfunction pills evaluated; On Viagra "non prescription viagra"
cialis viagra How To Buy Viagramale impotence age
Cigarette smoking and erectile dysfunction cigarette smoking causing male impotence 395. Impotence Viagra The latest treatment for ed topical ed treatment 237.
most effective ed treatment! Viagra 50 Mg actos erectile dysfunction
l dopa for male impotence! Buy Cheap Viagra erectile dysfunction and pravastatin;
male impotence pumps vacu Holistic Ed Treatment cost of viagra
female forcing male sexual impotence; Male Impotence Brochure actos erectile dysfunction
accounting treatment for sr ed Water Ed Treatment Male impotence due to surgery male impotence enema 629.
lamictal erectile dysfunction! Accounting Treatment Sr Ed Ias "buy viagra online"
problems with viagra, Viagra Cheap erectile dysfunction link suggest
"non prescription viagra" Viagra Uk viagra times;
viagra soft tabs? Ed Treatments erectile dysfunction ed treatment
u 3312 viagra cialis Male Impotence Advice yohimbie bark and male impotence
facts male impotence psychological effects
lexapro erectile dysfunction,
erectile dysfunction paypal, Zetia And Erectile Dysfunction straighttalk net erectile dysfunction review
male impotence and solutions? Make Your Own Viagra newest transdermal treatment for ed
tricor erectile dysfunction Hebal Ed Treatmenterectile dysfunction exercise
Viagra and alternatives viagra and blood pressure 767. How To Make Viagra how to take viagra
cialis medication erectile dysfunction Erectile Dysfunction Pills accupril and erectile dysfunction
Subscribe to RSS
