Islam's internal tug of war between radical and moderate views is likely to have a happier ending than many Westerners suppose, says AMIR TAHERI
In reading this article I was reminded of two points of view for the collapse of the Soviet Union. The first, and most beloved by conservatives, is that Reagan's courage and clarity of vision in facing the Soviet Bear was the primary cause. The second, which seems to be espoused more by his detractors than anyone else, is that with a clear view of Western life via TV and radio the masses of the Soviet bloc became impatient for the oft promised but never delivered worker's Paradise on Earth. Joe Shmoeskivitch wanted to be wearing Levi's and eating pizza NOW and not at the end of a successful five or ten or twenty year plan.
IMHO it was some of both. Your average John Q Public wants to be able to air his views long and loud with no fear of reprisals but he won't go out of his way to become a free speech mover and shaker. He'll pontificate at the local bar or coffee shop and be happy with that. The political class can (and does) count on his tolerance for BS when they start appeasing special interest groups that cut into his freedom and liberties. Manning the ramparts is okay if necessary but he's got a mortgage to pay and little Johnny needs shoes so he won't do it till he's really pissed. At the same time he's always got an appetite for the "good life". I think both of these impulses are universal in nature, you'll find them all over the world. These impulses are condemned under communism and strict Islam also, both of which seem to have a fondness for hairshirts, sackcloth and ashes, and other signs of the mindlessly devout.
So if the modern media showing the benefits of capitalism helped bring down the Soviet Bear then how vulnerable are the "true believers" of the pedophile prophet to material wealth and free speech when they're exposed to it via the internet, satellite TV, etc? The promise of 72 virgins in a hoped for afterlife might not have the same attraction as lunch at the local Hooters where you can try hitting on the waitress. Plus having the freedom to tell your local imam to go piss up a rope without the threat of losing your manhood/life when he tells you to stop watching television has a readily understood appeal.
It might not explain the rise of Islam in many parts of the modern world and in some parts this article almost seems to advocate a return to a 9/10/01 mentality. That is definetly a bad idea! But it gets me to thinking that as Islam grows it becomes more open to a laidback, liberal interpetation that the sand-flea infested mullahs of Saudi Arabia and thereabouts aren't counting on. Geographic distance DOES still count for something in this world, as an example look at the turmoil the Anglican Church is going through over the topic of gay ordination and how that breaks down along geographic lines.
So regarding Islam, when the newer ideas start to infiltrate it how likely is the whole theological structure to change? It's happened before with Christianity and other religions, how susceptible is Islam? I know it took centuries for changes within Christianity but things progress much faster now. If Islam is susceptible to the Western virus of material comfort how quickly will it manifest itself back in the "homelands" of this "religion"?
Not to make light of it's overall threat, but when Islam is presented as a vast, powerfully evil monolith I have to wonder if we're not making a boogy man out of something more easily defeated than we're led to believe. IMHO our biggest problem are our spineless/clueless leaders who keep parroting the "religion of peace" mantra whenever they feel the need. The same ones who never met an Islamic butt they wouldn't give some tongue action to while whoring for the oil we should get from our own resources (ANWR). We The People need to shuck these useless idiots faster than a snake does it's old skin and deal realistically with the Islamists. But thats a topic for another rant I'd guess.
Just the opinion of a retired turd chaser.