A Bit of Jihadist History

I was intrigued by this former Muslim’s statement about the history of Islam:

In 1,300 years of Islamic history, we have fought for 1,100 years. So there have been only 200 years of peace in Islam, by-in-large. In 1,110 years we have either fought each other or a common enemy. And there have only been two times where fighting a common enemy has been unifying. … There are only two times where all the different sects of Muslims have been united — the first time was Saladin, the one who fought Richard the Lionheart in the Crusades. The second one was bin Laden. The signing of the Fatwa included six nations. That’s why they called bin Ladin the Saladin. He was able to capture the great secret of Islam — which is, give them a common enemy.

Many people, including (unfortunately) presidential candidate Ron Paul, assume that the jihadist anger at the West is because of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or that it it because of US involvement in Middle Eastern oil.

Those things all are used as excuses — but the conflict far predates that. I’ve written before about Jews being slaughtered by Muslims in Jerusalem decades before Israel was created in 1948. They were guilty of praying at the Wailing Wall, and unveiling their flag. That “madness” by these “hothead” Jews was enough to get them killed. This was in 1930.

I’ve also written about Mahatma Gandhi and two points of intersection with Indian Muslims (“Musselmans”): First, he told his own people to stand up to their violence, and fight them rather than allowing the Muslims to loot their stores and attack their women. Second, he was content (as he wrote to a friend about this time) to use the violent Muslims as a “buffer” — hoping that they would attack the British more than the Hindus and as protection for his people. He attempted to recruit them to that end, and had some success.

The current jihadist rise is fueled by the Muslim Brotherhood, and derives much of its ideological power from a man who came to the US in 1948 to study, was appalled, and decided we must be eliminated. I’ve written about Qutb before, and the fact that his brother was Usama bin Ladin’s college professor and mentor.

But the West has also had a moderating influence on many from the Middle East. In fact, this 1994 report talks about the rise of jihadism among the Pakistani military, as the Western-educated military leaders are replaced more and more with new ones trained in the madrassas. Not mentioned in this report as it was not understood then: Right about this time, the Pakistani intelligence service was busy creating the Taliban.

Jihadism is not in response to US provocation — it has a millennium of history, and its Wahhabi incarnation drives it now even if we (and Israel) were to cease to exist. The US remains, though, as jihadism’s most capable opponent, so whether we actively do something about it or not, we are the main target.

And in fact, the new jihadist Egypt is getting into a bit of trouble even with the socialist Left, as they’ve been too quick to attack the US-backed socialist National Democratic Institute, prompting the State Department to threaten to cut off our billion-dollar aid to Egypt. The jihadist takeover itself was no problem. The new attacks on Israel were no problem. The surge in murders of Christians were no problem. But attacking the socialists who helped the jihadists take over? A step too far.

We had a US Supreme Court justice there recently, advising them on what constitution to use for a model. Justice Ginsberg clearly does not like the US Constitution much, and advised against using it as there were other constitutions more “current.” Instead, she refers to South Africa’s and the European Convention on Human Rights (with its sop to jihadism I’ve written about). She explains that she’s always open to influence from other people’s laws — a fact that she’s made clear in her US Supreme Court rulings.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle