The issue of the vehemence of militant Islamic thought.

I am presently reading a book on India's foreign policy, edited by Mr Sumit Ganguly. The first chapter of the book, on India's relations with Pakistan, is superb, and leaves nothing to the imagination. What made me think, was the second chapter, on India's relations with Bangladesh. I am reading the chapter, and I came across this part, where the writer consciously, or not, made a connection of the rise of the capitalist economic thought in world markets, and the emergence of the vehemence of militant Islamic thought. This immediately caught my attention. How can this be possible, if it is possible? Is Islamic practice against the existence of free trade of goods and services? The Islamic thought encourages minimum interference, perhaps, in the business dealings of the subject, by the state. I emphasize that I have used the word 'perhaps'.

What can the economic thought of the Islamic market be identified as, in the modern world? Can it be, that the Islamic point of view, sees the pursuit of economic interests by the west, as being disassociated with a sense of personal ethics, or something similar?

For example, the west kept cordial relations with both Israel, and the Arab and other Muslim nations, when the west did not necessarily agree with the Arab and Muslim viewpoint on Israel. The western economies were very dependent on machines working on oil. Why did not the west make it's differences with the Arab and Muslim viewpoint on Israel more open to scrutiny, on it's own part?

Also, the Muslim world had the opportunity to interact with the Soviet Union, in the previous situation where The United States and the Soviet Union were bipolar superpowers of the world. The Soviet Union were not friendly with the Arab's, as well as with Israel. Being friendly with the Soviet Union, was not seen as being unacceptable, before the invasion of Afghanistan. After the invasion of Afghanistan, the situation changed. Both the Soviet Union, and the west, became unacceptable to certain Muslim identities. If one looks from the viewpoint of the ex-Mujahedeen, who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, The United States did, what exactly the Soviet Union did. The United States attacked Iraq, which was a front line state in the previous war against Shia Iran, and also was an enemy of Israel. The logic being, for those embittered by Soviet and United States foreign policy, that it was OK for an Arab nation to invade another Arab nation, but not OK for a non-Arab nation to attack an Arab nation. Perhaps, the United States and the west, was interfering in the business of other states, and in radically different manners, in two separate situations in time. Perhaps President George H. W. Bush was very alarmed by Iraq's invasion of her neighbouring state, and perhaps, the unilateral action of the United States and her allies, was the cause of the rise of the al Qaeda.

The idea of this blog post is, that the West is seen to be entirely influenced by material considerations, in it's dealings with other identities, by some Islamic identities.

On second thoughts, the Gulf War, was the beginning of the transition of the world, from a bipolar world, to a unipolar world, where Russia, China, and the United States, all pursued a market economy, and the rest of the world, was also beginning to follow this trend. Perhaps, today, the world is progressing together on the same path of market reform, and the markets of even the Arab nations, are not in conflict with the west.