Bush and Blair: Prophets of God??

Iraq War: Profits Turn to ‘Prophets’ By Yamin Zakaria

The fundamental principle of a secular society is to keep religion out of politics; a cardinal ‘sin’ according to the secular clerics. Surprisingly, like Bush, Blair has now come out of the closet and claimed that God inspired him to go to war, and he will be judged by the Almighty on that issue. Therefore, the unprovoked aggression against Iraq, the consequential murder of thousands of innocent civilians and destruction of the entire country was sanctioned by the divine – and this is supposed to be an example of God’s guidance for the rest of humanity. Also, as Blair professes to be a Christian, the Iraq war is also supposed to be in compliance with the fundamental Christian notion of: turning the other cheek! If that is so, then I am sure even the most fanatical atheists will be saying: Halleluyah, it is a miracle!

Blair and Bush do sound like a pair of medieval crusaders; Pope Bush standing with his Cardinal Bishop Blair. The obvious implication of claiming divine intervention is that we should not hold Mr Blair accountable; he is merely a soldier of God - how convenient, in fact he is a real Bliar! Also note, since neither Blair nor Bush is a follower of Islam they are not qualified to earn the title of religious fanatics or extremists or similar terms; even though they hear voices of God telling them to attack countries with invisible WMDs. This admission of Blair is really amusing. Why did he not say this from the onset when he was sending his troops? Surely, it would have boosted the moral of the troops to hear that they are going on a real crusade, led by Pope Bush and his Cardinal Bishop, Tony Blair. If Blair was convinced that the Iraq war was a divine mission from God, he should have encouraged his children and other eligible family members to participate and not deprive them of the potential reward from God Almighty in participating in killing the infidels and heathens.

Indeed, God Almighty will judge Blair and everyone in the hereafter. But there is also judgement in this present life, on planet earth. If religions only advocated judgement in the hereafter, then earth would be a paradise for criminals. Like a criminal, fundamentalist Blair is asking everyone to overlook his actions for now and wait for the divine verdict in the next life. It is a pity for Blair and Bush that the medieval Catholic doctrine of cleansing ones sins, and reserving a place in heaven with payments made in gold has been abolished. They would have been so much at ease knowing that they could pay off all their sins on earth. Blair is the leader of a democratic state, where the government is accountable to the masses that elected him into office. Convenient then that Blair makes such revelations at the end of his term and not during an election campaign. He was not elected for his alleged communication with God Almighty and had he made such a revelation prior to the election, he would have been dismissed as a religious nutcase. Now, both Blair and Bush have claimed to have a hotline to God, they are the new self-appointed ‘prophets’ of God. Did God Almighty communicate to them about the urgency to find WMDs, as they could face danger within 45 minutes? Did God get so desperate for war, He asked Tony to plagiarise and produce a dodgy dossier to convince everyone else? If God inspired Tony and Bush to war, then Abu-Ghraib rapes, torture, executions, Camp-X-Ray incarceration, Fallujah massacre using phosphorus bombs, and the killing of the 100,000 plus civilians, must have been part of God’s overall plan, a from of neo-inquisition perhaps.

The orphans and the widows in Iraq would see the God of Bush and Tony as the one with two horns! Anyway what happened to that hotline when no WMDs were found in Iraq? Yes, we know the spin - the devil’s disciples must have stolen the WMDs out of Iraq into Iran and Syria, yeah right!!! For decades, the Secular West have been scorning Muslims, for simply referring to Islam in any shape or form, using pejorative terms like fanatics, fundamentalists, extremists, militants etc. Even the most apolitical spiritual Muslim is described in such terms for simply being devout in his or her personal capacity, which ironically conforms to the secular interpretation of religion. Yet, now their leaders confess to hearing voices which they are translating as divine communication. For sure you cannot find religious nuts like this in Hamas or Al-Qaeda, none from such organisation have made such fanatical claims. Just observe how many, or few, secular journalists have the courage, the intelligence and the integrity, to point out the hypocrisy and stupidity of a secular leader claiming to be driven by religion. Surely, they owe an apology to the Muslims for all the slander and scorning while they missed the real religious fanatics sitting at their doorsteps. But that would require those journalists to possess courage, humbleness, honesty instead of cowardice, arrogance and dishonesty. If God wanted to remove Saddam, then what did He have in mind for Iraq, a religious state or a secular state?

Bush and Blair are determined to a state in Iraq that is essentially a secular client state wrapped with the slogans of democracy. Does God really want a secular state, where the Prophets and the divine message can be mocked and trampled on from many directions, using the pretext of free speech? Hypocrites, fanatics, extremists, militants are the natural traits of those who are driven by an insatiable hunger for wealth and power. Not surprisingly, this is the fundamental doctrine of their economic system of the free market. Naturally, the real reasons for going to war were anything but spiritual, be it the rich oil reserves, preserving the petro-dollar, strengthening Israel etc. all point to materialistic reasons not the work of God Almighty. As they are unable to conceal the real reasons, the profit seeking men are trying to turn themselves into Prophets, hoping that they could hide their crimes. Finally, if Bush and Blair can sanction the most important decision based on their personal religious experiences, and use it as a pretext for war, then surely the Muslims who see this as a war on Islam based on their assessment of objective realities, have every right to respond. If Bush and Blair can push the religion of "Democracy" and "Freedom" using war as a methodology then Osama bin Laden can also (if it is his objective) use war as a methodology to push his idea of an Islamic State (The Caliphate). If the West wishes to avoid a clash of civilisations then instead of listening to the whisperings of their idol Gods of Freedom and Democracy, they should engage in an intellectual debate to establish which claim to sacredness is more valid, theirs or the Muslims?
Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org) - London, UK