The highly-respected Pew Research group issued a report on Sept 15, 2010 about the history and evolving philosophies of the Muslim Brotherhood. It needs to be read and understood in order to conclude whether The Brotherhood is a threat of any significant kind. Here's the link to that report:
http://pewforum.org/Muslim/Muslim-Networks-and-Movements-in-Western-Europe-Muslim-Brotherhood-and-Jamaat-i-Islami.aspx
To be fair, The Brotherhood isn't as idiologically extreme as it has been historically. Nevertheless, it still appears to have as its primary goal the Islamification of all countries, including the establishment of Sharia Law everywhere. The answer to the question how far are they willing to go to achieve that end has gotten fuzzy in recent years but philosophically they still(!) appear prepared to do whatever it takes. One has to answer for one's self the question, what will they likely do when (not if) they run into opposition they cannot overcome by more peaceful means?
They appear more focused now on supporting the growth of Islam and the needs of Muslims on a very non-secular basis. To what end is the question begging an answer. If their goal is still the Islamification of the entire world, is their intention now no less an aggressive overthrowing of all non-Muslim societies? Whether such an aggressive overtaking of societies is non-violent, it is still a focus on the elimination of all non-Muslim societies. It would be foolish to confuse that with peaceful intentions ... just because they do it by 'peaceful' (non-terrorist, non-militaristic) means.
To say their actions are 'peaceful' now is to ignore their stated goal (Islamification of the world) which is anything but peaceful living with the rest of the world. Living in peace with the rest of the world means to respect and support the rights and mores of other cultures and societies, not overwhelming their governments with your own culture and idiological beliefs whether by peaceful means or not. Are their means and goals no less directed at nation-building than militaristic and diplomatic methods employed by powerful nations such as Russia and the US?
To me, it appears that the Islamification of all societies is being pursued on two separate but parallel paths. One violent, the other peaceful. But they have as their common goal the eventual replacement of all governments with Islamic (Sharia) rule. For self-interest purposes, non-Muslim societies need to understand the seriousness of the threat of both means. If non-Muslim societies don't want Islamic rule they have to decide whether and how to oppose either/both pursuits effectively.
It appears to me that pursuing multi-culturalism and accommodation is to allow an open door to the aggressive (although peaceful-appearing) Islamist elements. Trying to live in peace with people who have as their declared and rather strong idiological goal taking over your society (peacefully or not) is a fool's errand, is it not? What do the strong tend to do with the weak (appearing)? Is appearing weak an invitation to the peacefully or violently aggressive to take advantage of us? What if we do want to keep what we have society-wise? Where do we draw the line that gives us the assurance(!) that action will work? How and when do we draw it? First, we need to truly, rationally understand what we're up against, whether our way of life is worth defending, what we need to do to keep it, and whether we're willing to do what that means is necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment