Religion of Peace

Submitted by Bill Hylton (United States), Aug 14, 2006 at 22:58

You consistently--and seemingly sincerely--refer to Islam as the religion of peace. The history of the "prophet" and the Caliphates seem to inform me otherwise. The warlord who called himself the last prophet used the idea of ravishing 72 (or is it 75?) virgins to motivate his troops when he learned the Meccans had sent an armed force considerably larger than his to protect its caravan that he intended to ransack, having no source of income in his new home, Medina.

It was the "prophet's" military success that the Caliphs built upon to conquer North Africa, much of Spain and eastern Europe. They were only (and barely) stopped at the gates of Vienna in the fifteenth century. The history of Islam is as much a history of militarism as it is of religion. The two are so entwined as to be indistinguishable.

My question therefore, as respectfully as I can state it (because I greatly respect your efforts to frame the debates as accurately as possible), is whethter you are doing what you blame others for doing, namely mischaracterizing the enemy, perhaps hoping as Bush and other terrorism warriors do, to divide and conquer.

I see the invasion of Iraq in military terms as a masterful strategic stroke. Because of the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein was the only leader the U. S. could hope to take down without uniting all Islamdom against us in a true war of civilizations. Our forces would be placed on either side of Iran and our troops and our ally would be on either side of Syria. And we took Saddam down with basically two divisions. What more could you hope for in terms of tactics or strategy--Napoleon and Lee would be envious.

However, the American left, otherwise known as the Democratic party, has now effectively neutralized that strategy. And I think the reason they have been able to do that is because Bush fears that stating his strategy publicly would unite the Muslims more strongly against us. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I wonder if perhaps Bush isn't wrong in this assumption. I say tell the Churchillian truth and see who ducks for cover. But then I also wonder what motivates the John Kerrys of the world. Are they too stupid to see the strategy or are they so greedy for power they don't care?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".