Whether it is the slaughter of school children in Pakistan, or their brutal capture by the Boko Haram in Nigeria, the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, the Kashmir, Bali, Mumbai, London, Paris, Brussels, Islamabad, Rome or New York for that matter, understanding the forces driving these events are, to many, simply bewildering.
However, as we shall discover, the relationship between these events and the people who orchestrate them are reasonably understandable. If, one has a basic knowledge of the Islamic World as it exists today,
to wit ...
About this article:
Islam ... the basics, provides is a guided tour into the development and relentless ascent of radical Islam to become the major voice within the global Muslim community today.
The author, Eric LaMont Gregory, suggests that without a basic understanding of the driving force behind the use of violence to draw attention to Muslim concerns, it is near impossible to understand why violence was chosen by radical Muslims as the principal means of getting the rest of the world, non-Muslims, to focus on their concerns.
Well, they have our attention now, Gregory states, and yet very few on the receiving end of the violence can understand why it is necessary to use such extreme measures to get non-Muslims, to listen to what radical Muslims want us to hear.
The problem is twofold. One aspect is the belief by our own leaders that the root forces driving radical Islamic violence are too complex for the average citizen to comprehend, and therefore we, ordinary and average citizens should leave such matters to them, the experts, to sort out.
As an illustration, consider a recent CBC News editorial by Don Pitts, 10 May 2016, in which the author suggests that the US presidential contender Donald Trump, knows that economic issues are too complex for voters to understand. And, as proof of this he offers several short remarks that Trump made about the economy, on NAFTA and the Federal Reserve, during recent campaign speeches. To drive the point even further the writer includes a one-minute-28-second clip of Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, explaining quantum computing before a group of students.
What the writer shows actually, of course, is not the inability of the voter or the audience of students to understand complex issues, but the limitation of explaining complex issues instantaneously.
The larger problem with this viewpoint is that it demonstrates the writer’s belief in a society where there are those who understand things, experts, and such matters ought to be left to them. Since the complexity of issues like the economy or radical Islamic violence are beyond the ability of the average citizen, or ordinary folks like us, non-experts, to understand.
Those who see things organized in this way are merely expressing a hierarchical view of society, that is, a society that has those who know about complex issues and those who do not. Suggesting that those who do, ought to be left to make decisions about such matters, and others should stay out of the discussion and let the experts get on with what they, and they alone, are capable of doing.
However, there are those, on the other end of the political spectrum, Liberals, who believe with equal intent that ordinary citizens can sit on a jury and make rational and correct decisions by weighing the evidence presented to them. As well as comprehend the importance of other weighty issues like monetary decision making or the outcome of elections.
The political spectrum, basically places Conservatives on one end of it and Liberals on the other. The terms Left and Right also explain the political spectrum reasonably well.
It is recognized that Conservatives place a greater emphasis on achieving military superiority, while at the same time showing less concern for the problems of poverty, illiberality and unfairness in social relations. Since Conservatives place emphasis on a hierarchical arrangement of society, where the more endowed, the ones who should run things for those who cannot understand the complexity of organizing things like an economy or a military response to an attack against a nation’s people and interests, should be in charge.
The core problem in leaving the response to radical Islam to Conservatives is that they and the radical Muslims, the adversary, are both representatives of the same ilk, or Conservative end of the political spectrum.
Both Muslim and non-Muslim Conservatives share a belief in achieving superiority, whether that superiority is reflected in numbers of adherents, in military strength, wealth, property, or other aspects of the notion that might is right. And, whereas one Conservative group in this Muslim vs non-Muslim conflict has bombs, jets and drones, the other exercises its military prowess by indiscriminately attacking civilian populations which the rather obvious military material superiority as it exists in the non-Muslim world of Conservative leaders today, has not been able to counter, with any appreciable degree of sustainable success.
And, as a consequence the two groups of Conservatives, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, continue to fight each other, while Liberals, who see the necessity of dealing with the problems that engender the use of violence against civilian populations are largely unrepresented in the leadership of those governments on the receiving end of radical Islamic violence, with the notable exception of the recent election of a Liberal government in Canada.
The first part of this series, The Islamic World, the basics, is written with the belief that the average citizen can understand the nature of radical Islamic violence, and therefore, can contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion about what can and should be the response of those on the receiving end of the use of indiscriminate violence against them.
Countering the indiscriminate use of violence against the civilian populations of non-Muslim countries by radical Islamic insurgents, is too important a matter, the author suggests, to leave to the military-might-believing-in political Conservative leaders of the United States and Europe and the civilian and military experts upon whose advice they rely.
A judgement, which the author suggests should be obvious from the easily measurable extent of the success Conservative leaders and their mighty armies have had in countering the indiscriminate use of violence against civilian populations, globally.
What is self-evident is that how we, non-Muslims, respond now that the Muslim world has our attention, will largely determine world security for the foreseeable future.
About the author:
Eric LaMont Gregory is an Oxford-educated diplomat, scientist and author, who for more than four decades operated in the highly secretive corridors of the upper chambers of international power and intrigue.
Eric LaMont Gregory is the author of the book, The Ultimate Vanishing Act, which reveals how different the Middle East, Central, South and South East Asia, North Africa, Europe as well as the Americas would be today, had it not been for some rather monumental errors emanating not only from Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels and other European capitals, but also from Moscow, Beijing as well as Tokyo and New Delhi.
Islam ... the basics, is must reading for anyone who wants to understand current world events, and the onset and the assiduous ascent of radical Islamic indiscriminate violence and insurgency on a global scale. And, what can and ought to be done about it.
Eric LaMont Gregory is one of the most influential political and social commentators of the 21st century.
Islam ... the basics, is undeniably informative and a timely contribution to world security.
I invite the reader to enjoy this first installment of the series, Islam ... the basics, at the introductory price of just $2, until the 21 of May 2016.