Another Western-based explanation of Islamic behavior

Inspired by the reflexive anti-American fallacies of Ron Paul and his intellectual mentor Robert Pape, the blogger Stogie has coined a term that I will need to add to my catalogue of non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism: the Blowback Theory of Islamic Extremism.

I see that some of Stogie’s commenters are still in Standard Denial Mode. Thus one argues that the Barbary pirates had nothing to do with Islam—they were merely pirates who happened to be Moslem, along with lots of non-Moslems in their ranks. Evidently the statement by Tripoli’s ambassador in Britain to Adams and Jefferson in 1786, in which he justified the piracy on purely Islamic grounds of divinely mandated aggressive jihad against all non-Moslems, made no impression on this commenter.

Karen Armstrong has of course similarly argued that the vast Moslem conquests of the seventh century had nothing to do with Islam; the armies that swept across Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, and northern Africa and subjected them to Islamic rule were merely conquerors who happened to be Moslem. And then consider the fact that probably the majority of America’s “intellectual” class follow Armstrong’s ideas.

Such is the continuing power (I’m almost tempted to call it a supernatural power, though of the dark kind) of the modern West’s suicidal denial of the truth about Islam.

- end of initial entry -

James P. writes:

Stogie writes:

The blowback theory of Muslim violence asserts that Muslim violence is not related to Islam, or its teachings, tenets or beliefs. Rather, this theory holds that Muslim violence against the West is merely a reaction to past American aggression.

One might note that there is a parallel Blowback Theory of Black Violence. This holds that violence committed by individual blacks is not related to their blackness in a genetic, cultural, or racial sense. (Thus, it is inappropriate to mention their race in news stories about their violent acts.) Instead, this theory holds, black violence is merely a reaction to and reflection of past racism and injustice, such as slavery, discrimination, Jim Crow, apartheid, etc.

Kristor writes:

The Crusades, on the other hand, really were blowback against the Muslim conquests of most of Christendom. Yet they are always described by modern Westerners as instances of imperial aggression, motivated by Christian “hate” or greed. Under the blowback theory of Muslim jihad, Christian boots on the ground in Iraq or Saudi Arabia are to the Muslims an intolerable sacrilege. But we Christians could argue, on the same sort of basis and with even more justification, that Muslim boots on the ground in every Muslim country in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia and Europe are an intolerable sacrilege. After all, every single one of those countries was once a part of Christendom. Of all those countries, only modern Saudi Arabia was not mostly Christian.

Jeff W. writes:

Both the Blowback Theory of Islamic Extremism and the Blowback Theory of Black Violence are pretexts for making more money available for leftist government.

The logical conclusion of the Blowback Theory of Islamic Extremism is that money should be stripped from the U.S. military. Leftists have been trying to strip money from the military and apply it to their own uses for many years. The logic of the Blowback Theory of Black Violence is that more money should be spent by leftist government in order to prevent black violence. Leftists assert that if they funnel enough money into black communities, the root causes of black violence will disappear.

The purpose of both of these theories is to sell the public on the idea of giving more tax money to leftists.

Max P. writes:

I think the Barbary Pirates example from history you referenced today should be used to educate neoconservatives as much or more than it is used against the Ron Paul types. While it is true Moslem aggression is nothing new against the USA, and the rest of the world for that matter, it is also true that the way the United States reacted to such aggression in the past is the polar opposite of what we’d do today.

The naval forces sent by Jefferson attacked the Barbary States, instructed them not to repeat their offenses, and then came home! The Barbary States did not become a colony, we did not stay to nation-build, and we most certainly did not invite them to come to settle our nation. We had no care in the world how they ran their lives. Our only instructions to them was never again to interfere with U.S. merchantmen who would continue to ply the Mediterranean.

It is the neoconservatives, and the Republican mainstream, that need to learn this lesson more so than Paul and the Libertarians.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 20, 2012 02:01 PM | Send