I have no doubt that if asked, Osama bin Laden would give a response along the lines of General Sherman's "War is Hell."
Yes, Wah'habism views both "atheistic communism" and "imperialist capitalism" as utter enemies. They are the new/old Third Way.
Let me note that their is an economic aspect to this in the form of Islamic economics, that gets pushed by Islamic fundamentalists, including the Wah'habists. In virtually all of the Islamic Shari'as is the forbidding of interest (riba), found vigorously expressed in the Qur'an. There is now a worldwide Islamic banking movement that does not technically involve the payment of interest, with such banks in over 63 countries, including the US. The founder of the current version of this movement is Mohammed ibn Faisal ibn Abdulaziz al-Sa'ud, the eldest son of the late King Faisal of KSA. In several countries, including Iran and Sudan and I think Afghanistan, paying of interest has been outlawed. I note, however, that along with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, profit is approved.
Ironically in KSA itself interest is allowed but very restricted and regulated. Changing that has long been one of the leading demands of the internal opposition in KSA, especially since some of the most articulate defenders of Islamic banking are in the Sa'udi central bank (Sa'udi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA)), such as M. Umar Chapra, author of _Towards a Just Monetary System: A Discussion of Money, Banking and Monetary Policy in the Light of Islamic Teachings_, 1985, Leicester: Islamic Foundation.
My wife (Marina V. Rosser) and I have labeled the desire to have a "Third Way" economic system based on a traditional religion combined with modern technology, the "new traditional economy" (see by us, _Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy_, 1996, Chidago: Irwin, especially chaps. 5 and 16, and, also by us, "Islamic and Neo-Confucian Perspectives on the New Traditional Economy," _Eastern Economic Journal_, Spring 1998, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 217-227. Barkley Rosser On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 12:33:06 -0400 Charles Brown <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:
> I appreciated the history lesson below
> from Barkley. I was wondering about
> bin Laden's switch from fighting with
> the U.S. in Afghanistan to the present
> fighting against the U.S., but I suppose
> from his perspective, the U.S and
> USSR in Afghanistan were both
> enemies.
>
> On something not directly
> on point of the discussion below,
> but on the embassy bombings, it
> strikes me that most of the people
> killed in the U.S. embassy bombings
> were not Americans. This seems a somewhat
> vicious indifference by bin Laden to
> the lives of those bystander Africans.
> This implies an enormous failing in
> bin Laden's ideology. He has no basis
> of accusing these innocent bystanders
> of attacks or hatred of Islam or occupation
> of Mecca. They are not responsible for
> U.S. embassies in their nations. And
> these U.S. embassies were not in
> an Islamic holyland. The African deaths
> were forseeable by those who planned the
> bombing.
>
> Let me say as background that
> I do not endorse, the terrorism, but
> the U.S. is the most terrorist nation in
> history by the definition of knowingly
> killing civilians. The U.S. dropped
> nuclear bombs on TWO CITIES in Japan.
> This
> is just one example world historic
> terrorism , of course. More
> recently it bombed civilian neighborhoods
> in invading Panama and attacking
> Iraq. So, it is absurd for the U.S. to call
> anybody else terrorist.
>
> However, would bin Laden blow
> up an U.S. embassy in a nation
> where many , non-American Islamic
> bystanders would be killed ? U.S.
> terrorism does not justify bin Laden's
> disregard of
> African bystanders as somekind of
> non-humans or lesser humans.
>
> Charles Brown
> Detroit
>
> >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb at jmu.edu> 08/24 5:57 PM >>>
> Besides pan-Islamic anti-colonialism (with an emphasis
> on the US) and anti-Zionism, the ideology of Osama bin
> Laden is more specifically a radical variant of the
> ideology of the Sa'udi royal family, Wah'habism. In this
> post I shall discuss its history and characteristics,
> especially in relation to the Kingdom of Sa'udi Arabia
> (KSA) and its relations with the US.
> An Islamic law code is a Shari'a, the Way, and all
> Islamic fundamentalists support nations being ruled by a
> Shari'a. In Sunni Islam four Shari'as evolved: Hanafi, the
> oldest and loosest in interpretation, Melki, prominent in
> North Africa, Shafi, prominent in Southeast Asia, and the
> most recent and strictest, Hanbali. The ideology of
> Wah'habism is that the Hanbali Shari'a should be imposed,
> as it is in KSA and Qatar. The Hanbali Shari'a accepts
> only the Qur'an and selected parts of the Hadith (sayings
> of the Prophet Muhammed) as legitimate foundations for law.
> Although the Hanbali code had been around for several
> --clip- etc. etc.
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu