Is Islam to blame for corrupt Muslims?

So this is about oil and the U.S. Dollar and not about Islam. If America really were concerned about good governance, Saddam would not be the only Muslim leader that the United States ousts and hangs. Many others would suffer the same fate.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Aaron Chieng, there is something wrong with your eyes and that’s the reason why you always park below my comment and look at it upside down. Yes I blame these moslem leaders for their work in creating these terrorist. The reason why terrorist wanted setup new country, Islamic state (IS) is because they hated their corrupted leader back home in their motherland so much that they resorts to violence. Can’t you see it? Or are you those corrupted petty and cruel leader that I am talking about? — Ck Lau

*******************************************

Ck Lau’s reply to Aaron Chieng is just one of many such comments. Other similar comments are: all Muslim leaders are corrupt, all Muslim countries are failed states, the worst human rights abuses are in Muslim countries, etc.

Basically they equate the sorry state of affairs in Muslim countries to Islam — therefore the reference to ‘Muslim countries’.

This could actually be true. Muslim countries do suck. But there is a reason for this. And this reason has nothing to do with Islam.

The Christian countries of Latin America are no better than the Muslim countries of the Middle East. And the Latin American Christians are even more staunch Christians than the Christians of the West. And many of these countries suck as well, as do many Christian countries in Africa, just like the African Muslim countries.

Remember President Marcos? Remember President Suharto? Both were equally corrupt and were implicated in political assassinations. One was Christian and the other Muslim.

However, we blame Islam for what Suharto did but we do not blame Christianity for what Marcos did. Why is that?

How did the corrupt Muslim Suharto and the corrupt Christian Marcos manage to stay in power so long? The majority of the people wanted them out but the people could not get rid of them. Why?

The reason the corrupt Muslim Suharto and the corrupt Christian Marcos managed to stay in power so long was because the military propped them up. And the corrupt Indonesian military plus the corrupt Filipino military, both implicated in political assassinations, were allied to the United States. Hence the United States made sure that the corrupt Muslim Suharto and the corrupt Christian Marcos stayed in power.

If Suharto or Marcos had turned anti-America, plus the military of their countries no longer cooperated or allied with the United States, they would have been ousted long before that.

The same thing happened with the corrupt Shah of Iran and the corrupt Saddam of Iraq. They were both United States allies. So America kept them in power in spite of how evil they may have been.

When the people rose up and the United States could no longer keep the Shah in power they helped him escape to safety, just like what happened to Marcos. And then when Iran under the new regime turned anti-America they collaborated with the evil Saddam to go to war with Iran at a loss of one million lives. And when Saddam was no longer America’s friend they invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam.

So tell me, what has Islam got to do with this?

The United States will prop up any evil and corrupt dictator as long as that person is pro-America, not only in the Middle East but in Latin America, Africa and Asia as well.

Pakistan is corrupt. Afghanistan is corrupt. Thailand is corrupt (according to the news today their last Prime Minister is going to face corruption charges). There are more corrupt than clean countries in this world. But they are all pro-America or pro-west. Hence the United States makes sure that their leaders remain in power.

And don’t let me even start on the story of Cuba.

Is the United States really concerned about democracy, human rights, civil liberties and so on? Is the United States really concerned about corrupt-free countries? If so then why does the United States not bomb Saudi Arabia and force it to have free and fair elections? At least Saddam had elections.

You see, oil is very important to America and the west. So they need corrupt leaders to rule in Muslim countries. Then these corrupt leaders would sell their oil to America and the west and will not sell oil to countries that America does not want them to sell oil to.

Most important of all, these corrupt countries will continue trading their oil in U.S. Dollars and not, say, in Malaysian Ringgit. If they trade oil in Malaysian Ringgit then most likely instead of RM3.5 to the Dollar it would now be USD3.5 to RM1.0. The U.S. Dollar would become almost worthless.

So this is about oil and the U.S. Dollar and not about Islam. If America really were concerned about good governance, Saddam would not be the only Muslim leader that the United States ousts and hangs. Many others would suffer the same fate.

It just so happens that Muslim countries are rich in oil. If there were no oil in the Middle East then America would not care two hoots who the hell was running those countries. Then the people would be able to rise up and topple those corrupt leaders.

But now they can’t. They can only topple their leaders if America allows it. And do you really think America wants clean leaders in countries that have a lot of oil? And that is also why America does not want free and fair elections in Saudi Arabia.

It is time you racist Chinese and Indians understood this.