In a remarkable but thus-far unnoticed address on Dec. 5, Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, the crown prince of Bahrain (an island kingdom in the Persian Gulf and home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet), candidly analyzed the Islamist enemy and suggested important ways to fight it.
He has much to teach Westerners (starting with his hapless UK counterpart, Crown Prince Charles), if only we would listen. Yes, some Western leaders speak about confronting the Islamist ideology, but the majority avoids this issue by resorting to euphemism, obfuscation, and cowardice. Most frustrating are those leaders (like Tony Blair) who deliver powerful speeches without follow-through.
Prince Salman, 45 and widely acknowledged to be the Bahraini royal family’s principal reformer, opens his remarks by addressing the inaccuracy of the phrase, “War on Terror.” The time has come, he says “for us to get rid of” a term that dates back to 9/11. “It is a bit misleading, it is not the entirety and the totality of our conflict” but merely a “tool” and a tactic.
He goes on in flawless English to place the current conflict in historical context: “If I think back in the last century, we faced a very different foe. We faced communism and we faced it together. But when we faced communism we understood it as an ideology. Terrorism is not an ideology.”
He notes that “we are not only fighting terrorists, we are fighting theocrats.” As Salman uses this term, theocrats are men “placed at the top of a religious ideology who [have] the power by religious edict to strip someone … of their hereafter – and use [religious power] for political gains.” They are also tyrants, isolationists, and misogynists who will need to be fought “for a very long time.” He scorns them for being “very much like the seventeenth century” and having “no place in our modern twenty-first” century.
He urges us “to discard the term ‘War on Terror’ and focus instead on the real threat, which is the rise of these evil theocracies”; to this end, he proposes to replace “War on Terror” with his formulation: a “War on Theocrats.” This concept, he hopes, will make it possible to “start to put together the military, social, and political – and maybe even economic – policies in a holistic manner to counter this, as we did with communism.” In perhaps the outstanding line of the speech, he states that “it is the ideology itself that must be combatted. It must be named, it must be shamed, it must be contained, and eventually it must be defeated.”
So far, perfect. But Salman avoids the bitter reality that the “twisted” and “barbaric” ideology he describes is specifically Islamic and the theocrats are all Muslim: “this war that we are engaged in cannot be against Islam, … Christianity, … Judaism, … Buddhism.” So, when naming this ideology, Salman dithers and generalizes. He proffers an inept neologism (“theo-crism”), then harkens back to World War II for “fascist theocracy.” He implicitly rejects “Islamism,” saying he does not want a “debate about certain political parties, whether they’re Islamist or not.”
I submit that Islamism is precisely the term he seeks for the enemy ideology; and we are engaged in a “War on Islamism.” Salman understands the problem well –the transformation of Islam into a totalitarian ideology. But he seeks refuge in the pretense that Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism all share this affliction. Better that he – and other forthright Muslims – accept the ineluctable reality that Islam alone contains a totalitarian temptation.
On the positive side, Salman’s remarks fit into a growing trend among Muslim politicians directly to confront the Islamist danger. Two recent examples:
In an important conceptual breakthrough, the nearby United Arab Emirates government has placed the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and many other non-violent groups on its terrorism list on the grounds that they engage in incitement, funding, and the other precursors of terrorism. The government of Egypt issued an INTERPOL arrest bulletin for Yusuf al-Qaradawi, 88, the hugely influential spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, for “incitement and assistance to commit intentional murder, helping … prisoners to escape, arson, vandalism and theft.”
This new tendency has great importance. As I often say, radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. Now, we may add another influential leader, indeed a crown prince, to the ranks of those Muslims who wish to find a solution.
I hear that some airports don't even allow liberals to fly without intense inspection. :roll:Islamic states are no where near as bad as liberal ones. The tendency he refers to, to act as if a religion is true, is common to most of them, including Christianity. This man seems to be a liberal, and thus a greater enemy of civilization than those he discusses ever will be.
I hear that some airports don't even allow liberals to fly without intense inspection. :roll:
All the while he and his royal family oppress his own people, while he enjoys the riches of his "royalty". I will never praise this man and his family.
Islamic states are no where near as bad as liberal ones. The tendency he refers to, to act as if a religion is true, is common to most of them, including Christianity. This man seems to be a liberal, and thus a greater enemy of civilization than those he discusses ever will be.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064165646 said:The war on theocrats? When the Prince puts his money where his mouth is, then maybe I'll listen, maybe.
Otherwise, SOS in the ME.
Who is praising him?
I find it very ironic that the "Washington Times ( a openly conservative paper)" writes this article. Why? Because Islam is the official religion of Bahrain, and its governed by their version of Sharia.. I find it even more ironic especially with their report of Sharia Law...He's broaching basically a taboo subject in the Islamic world. His background, deeds or what have you do not nullify the fact that Islamofascism is a problem.
Did I say we should? But hey, I think we should denounce this scums attacks on his own people. I think we should denounce his violations against basic human rights on peaceful protestors. I think we should allow peaceful protests in his county, I think we should allow the freedom of information, I think we should allow free and fair elections in his country. Dont you? Dont you side on the people calling for free, fair elections? The end to the authoritarian monarchy?Would it have been better if he had praised the Islamofascism? No.
No. But im not too blind to see this guy is a scum and part of the problem in the middle east.This 'you have to be 100% pure or 100% in agreement with my views' line of though is utter nonsense when somebody speaks the truth about utter evil promulgated in the name of a religion.
You. "We need more realists and fewer apologists."
I find it very ironic that the "Washington Times ( a openly conservative paper)" writes this article. Why? Because Islam is the official religion of Bahrain, and its governed by their version of Sharia.. I find it even more ironic especially with their report of Sharia Law...
Did I say we should? But hey, I think we should denounce this scums attacks on his own people. I think we should denounce his violations against basic human rights on peaceful protestors. I think we should allow peaceful protests in his county, I think we should allow the freedom of information, I think we should allow free and fair elections in his country. Dont you? Dont you side on the people calling for free, fair elections? The end to the authoritarian monarchy?
No. But im not too blind to see this guy is a scum and part of the problem in the middle east.
Worse than a nuclear aspirant Iran? I really, really doubt that.
Wanting more of someones style of leadership is usually "praise"...If acknowledging a fact is praise, your definition is different from mine. It's a fact that we need more of them.
Saying they are writing on a prince who speaks out against Islamisim while they infact have in place Islam as the official religion and is governened by Sharia... Yea, I find that to be a major flaw...If you're waiting for a perfect news outlet? You're going to be very disappointed. So, I guess since they have these flaws, they should ignore the story?
Come again...Well, I'm putting the shoe on your foot. If acknowledging a problem is praise (for example), then opposition to his words based upon flaws (and their are many) are the same as acceptance of the status quo ..which is very few people over there speaking out.
No. Im saying using Barhain as some sort of voice for stability, and anti-Islamism efforts to bring stability to the ME is idiotic.Oh, here we go. I'm blind. So, while we're making assumptions about each other... I can assume you're fine waiting for the perfect Islamic character to speak the truth in the midst of the ME. And you're calling me blind? Puh-lease
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?