Amazing, the parallels in trials between Muslims and Christians. The Muslims treat the Afghan Christian convert on trial as mentally unfit for conviction, now the lawyers for Moussaoui plan on treating him the same way. This is revealing. Neither side understands the viewpoint of the other very well. To get a better picture of terrorists' view of the ongoing war, see here, where Moussaoui suggests a prisoner exchange: him for Americans held by Muslims in the Middle East.
I think this book grasps the conflict the best of any I've read...
It's a battle for the right to apply a worldview, to legislate a morality. Muslims assume they can apply their worldview of Shari'a law to the west; some take God's judgment of the infidel west into their own hands. The West assumes it can legislate its morality of social contract and rule of law to Muslims. (They assumed this correctly of the Japanese 60 years ago: the West won the transformation of Japan, and their public way of life lost the day.) The West's assumptions and assertions toward Islam, we should note, doesn't include applying Christianity to the Muslim world, but applying secular liberalism there. There is little reciprocity between Islam and Christianity in this war, although Muslims over there usually assume there is.
This is not a war on terror, but a war of worldviews. What are your assumptions about it?
No comments:
Post a Comment