It All Depends On Where You Are Standing

Submitted by JOverton, California (United States), Sep 29, 2006 at 12:14

This conclusion by Warner and Wenner of the inherently decentralized and therefore centrifigal nature of Islamic faithful as a group is potentially really harmful. It arises, draped in the cloak of absolutely fixed characteristic, in the T. E. Lawrence book , an idea gra[phically driven home for modern audiences in the film.

It ignores the Muslim tenent and belief that they as are a nation of faith, in faith. It puts a coat of paint over the characteristic that while Muslims may fight to the death between and amongst themselves for sectarian reasons, they can and do get organized against outsiders and heathens who threaten the faith. It may well ignore the effect that fifty years of post-WWII experiences have had on them. Furthermore, Wah'hab was focused on a Muslim Reformation, not a favoritism of one group over some other group within Islam. It is this anti-Western reformation spirit that is driving a surprisingly large element of the Muslim rank and file today.

For some random reason, The thesis of inherent and centrifigal disorganization being offered up by these two analysts is for me analogous to Buster Keaton standing in front of the falling building. They are defining a situation in which they are placed perfectly, in their case by logical analysis, under where the open window will fall. Fine for them, as they are perfectly placed in their minds and hence believe they will not get crushed. For the rest of us, the falling structure will not be a sight gag at all.

The problem is: they are advising us all to not let our hearts be troubled when anyone with some perspective on the situation can see the likely outcome, particularly if the whole structure holds together as it comes down on us.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".