Submitted by David Livingstone on Thu, 05/05/2011 - 12:06
|Without bringing into question the excessive evidence that indicates bin Laden was in the employ of the CIA, the crucial point is that he was used in an attempt to radicalize a sufficient segment of the Islamic world, with the aim of fomenting a "Clash of Civilization", and not a War on Terror, but more properly, a War on Islam.|
Whatever you say about bin Laden's involvement in this affair, the fact is, the strategy has failed. And the reason why is this: Much of the Muslim world shares the grievances of bin Laden, with regards to the Neocolonial practices that maintain despotic puppet rulers in the Middle East in order to pillage there, and America's unconditional support for Israeli barbarity, often acting by proxy for Israel's interests.
The problem with their strategy is that, while Islam derives from the same Judaeo-Christian tradition found in the West, Islam nevertheless has its own unique characteristics, most exemplified by the extraordinarily rich legal tradition, which provides very strict rules for pronouncing rulings, in Islam called Fatwas.
On the whole, this tradition is what is called "Shariah". But the true tradition is not the same as the one vilified in the Western media. That one is Wahhabism, and that's the point.
If Muslims had merely returned to their traditional legal sources, they would have seen that bin Laden's tactics blatantly violated Islam's most sacred principles, and instead found a much more enlightened approach to dealing with the current problems beleaguering the Muslims world.
But again, that's the point. The West, primarily Britain and the US, have made concerted efforts over the last few centuries to distance Muslims from their true legal tradition, precisely for this purpose. This started in the 18th century, with the creation of the fanatical Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia, whose very basis was the rejection of the traditional approach to the Shariah.
This was followed at the turn of the 20th century with the proliferation of Scottish Rite Freemasonry in Egypt, by way of an agent named Jamal ud Din al Afghani, who created the Salafi "reform" movement. From Salafism came the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been in the employ of the CIA ever since.
Since, the two movements, Wahhabism and Salafism, have become indistinguishable, with Saudi Arabia largely arranging for the financing of the CIA's covert strategies involving the Muslim Brotherhood. The most recent being the war in Afghanistan.
So while many Muslims initially may have sympathized with bin Laden's struggle, growing worldwide criticism of this tactics also forced Muslims to reassess him. "Jihad" was already a volatile subject in Islam, but an honest appraisal was now necessary.
And the answers were enlightening, and also exposed the clear danger facing the Islamic world. Which is the conspiracy to distance the Muslims from their true heritage. Because, according to Islamic law, not only can women, children and the elderly not be harmed, but neither can religious structures like Churches and Synaguoges, nor even the natural environment, as even trees are to be preserved.
The propagandists for terror have attempted to provide various weak justifications, but the clear fact is that Islam prescribes self-defence, but only against an armed aggressor. If an enemy turns from battle, he cannot be pursued.
So there is no legal justification whatsoever for the killing of innocent civilians. Rather, it is contrary to the principles of Islam, and more importantly, it's very message. In fact, traditionally, even the use of bombs, or their equivalent, was discouraged, as their destruction was deemed too indiscriminate.
In effect, the legitimacy of bin Laden's tactics in Islam is a legal issue, pure and simple. And a clear one at that. And as a result, polls have shown that support for al Quaeda, suicide bombings and other acts of terror among Muslims has fallen drastically since 9/11.
Ultimately, the rise of bin Laden has forced the Muslims to realize that their grievances are nevertheless legitimate, but that there are more constructive and humane ways of pursuing their correction, rather than resorting to barbaric acts of cruelty, which in the end, only serve the interests of their enemies.