|
Here's my take:
To the muslims as I understand it, state and religion are not seperable as in the US or UK.
The state is based on religious edicts and the punishments although barbaric to us westerners are quite acceptable to many muslims as they are acceptable according to their religious texts, in some cases, recommended.
With this in mind, when the US as a state attack a Muslim state such as Iraq or aids another state attack fellow muslims, the boundary between state action and an action against their religion is very feint.
The hardliners use this motivation to fire up the more fundamentally minded muslims into action agains the west and its allies.
When a very large religious body feels that it is being attacked AS A RELIGION and by virtue of it's beliefs, feels that it should retaliate not as a state but as a religious movement the typical westerner is very surprised and thus we see a move back towards the more right-wing christian religious bodies. Not due to a resurgence in belief in a Christ, but to identify with a body that is not muslim and that they feel is being attacked. It is hard for the westerner to understand that a religious body wants to attack a state. They feel that a religiously based attack is focussed on their religion.
Thus I feel that the lack of understanding on both sides makes them feel that war is inevitable. Just as in many christian debates that rage through western society like abortion, homosexuality and creationism there seems to the common man that there is NO solution, how can two separate religions NOT fight when they are so different?
I don't think it's as much a right-wing mindset as much as a total misreading of the others' motivation, customs and beliefs.
|