Less Violent Islamists Are Still Islamists
Is the debate among Islamists over violence a turning point in the War on Terror — or just another distraction?
A fierce debate is brewing among jihadists, it seems. To hear pundits and the CIA boss describe it, the rupture is growing over interpretations by radical theologians about whom to kill and how to do it in the name of God.
It is progress of sorts flushing out mea culpas from repentant Islamists and widening divisions within Terror Inc., but far from advancement toward a triumph in a war of terror.
A more serious shortcoming is an accompanying refrain promoting “moderate Islam” to fill the void. That is tantamount to saying: “Okay, we take bin Laden heavy off the table and give you Sharia light.”
A month ago I was on a panel discussion on “Confronting Radicalism in the Arab World” that included Tawfik Hamid, whose pedigree includes serving in al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya, the bloodiest of Egypt’s terror groups that assassinated Egypt’s Anwar Sadat in 1981 and carried out assaults on hundreds of intellectuals, writers (including Nobel Laureate Naguib Mahfouz), Christians, and government officials in the eighties.
Hamid has developed a good gig as speaker and op-ed writer (mostly at the Wall Street Journal). He passionately expounds on “conditional” interpretations of Koranic verses urging killing of apostates, non-Muslims, infidels, and renegades, explaining that his former colleagues misinterpret them. His subtext is trickier, pleading for a second chance for “moderate Islam” to accomplish what radical Islam clearly is failing at.
Why are we debating on such uneven playing fields? If Muslims want to reeducate radicals in their midst, the argument should not be about laying out more space for moderate Islamists.
Both never differed on their rejection of secular civil society. Indeed, scholarship accumulated since 9/11 demonstrates that Islamist groups — the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and so on, as well as the declared leadership of Muslim communities in Europe and America — are all spawned from the umbrella Muslim Brotherhood school of thought. Like it, moderate Islam’s single-minded pursuit has never been about blending.
The most prominent such group in America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, was first to leap to the defense of 700 Somali Muslim cab drivers who at the Minneapolis airport in 2007 launched a boycott of passengers with seeing-eye dogs (animals are dirty) or those carrying liquor (that’s sinful). CAIR again latched onto the seven imams taken off a commercial flight in 2006 after staging a flamboyant public prayer at an airport boarding area and requesting special seating arrangements on the flight in an obvious provocation of fear.
Across Europe too, the prime objective of “moderate” Muslim groups has been separateness in local and regional councils. Islamists have no time for the view that modernity as it stands today is the sum total of experimentations across centuries, past religious church tyranny all the way to the defeat of totalitarian Nazism and communism.
If anything, the cocktail of religion and government has only acted as an obstacle to modernization and freedom for the largely moderate 1.2 billion Muslims of the globe.
Saudi Arabia, tirelessly promoted as the “responsible model of moderate Islam,” is one disastrous example of how Sharia law has barred social evolution. King Faisal, its greatest reformer, was shot dead by his nephew over the introduction of television and female education. A subsequent four-week-long siege of the Holy Mosque of Mecca in 1979 by Juhayman al-Otaibi and 400 armed supporters, who were forerunners to al-Qaeda, was staged to demand the expulsion of four million non-Muslims expatriates — the men and women doing all the work of the kingdom, as natives hardly do any labor at all. Xenophobia was Osama bin Laden’s driving motive too in taking on the royals for allowing 500,000 Western soldiers to defend the country against Saddam.
As entertaining as the ongoing jihadists’ tribulations may be, the West has got to stay focused on the War on Terror, where a real triumph transcends such shenanigans.
Beyond protecting the home front, the objective is nothing less than what happened in Europe after World War II and the fall of the Soviet empire. Via a war of arms coupled with one of ideas, more than 400 million people transited out of totalitarian mentality to this side of civilized society.
Moderate Muslims here can enhance the process not by demanding free passes on polygamy, oppression of women, radical religiosity, and restrictions of personal freedoms, but by absorbing the values of where they landed.
For inspiration they need only glance at the tragic societies lingering in misery from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia. It is out there that “moderate Islam” scores its biggest failure by abandoning generations to turbaned demagogues who claim they possess the last word on holy wisdom.
Youssef M. Ibrahim, a freelance writer and risk consultant, is a former New York Times Mideast correspondent and Energy Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He can be reached at ymibrahim2004@yahoo.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
11 Comments
1. Demosophist:I thought it fairly clear that the reason there’s dissension within the ranks of the Islamists is the perception that they’re losing militarily, which it seems to me is a good thing to cultivate. Also, although hightoned hermeneutic interpretations of their scripture as less harsh reminds us of a similar effort within Christianity, the crux of the matter in Islam has to do with sovereignty rather than the black letter of jurisprudence. The fact is that issues of sovereignty are not resolved, and there’s considerable dissent about who has the authority to act, if not about the harshness of the rules themselves. Again, it seems to me that if we wish to win in a way that establishes some sort of civic space for liberalism within the Ummah the way to go about it is to deal with the sectarianism in such a way that it paralyzes the authority to act.
While this is a slightly nuanced approach, it seems clear not only that it’s working, but that it’s the only thing that can work.
Jun 3, 2008 - 7:52 am 2. Dawn:If anything, the cocktail of religion and government has only acted as an obstacle to modernization and freedom for the largely moderate 1.2 billion Muslims of the globe.
Couldn’t agree more!! Now if only the “moderate” muslims would realize how chained they are to archaic beliefs and behaviors.
Jun 3, 2008 - 10:07 am 3. Demosophist:Dawn:
That’s an interesting point. I’d resolve it by observing that the “sovereignty question” is a monolithic question mark in Islam, so it was inevitable that it would crop up in some form, and would be exploited by autarchists and totalitarians. But the larger point is that there is now a competitor to this notion of sovereignty, namely liberal democracy and civil society. Christianity specifies a separation between church and state, but does so only in a small number of instances (involving coinage, mostly). Judaeism doesn’t, but leaves the issue of sovereignty in a muddled status. Islam is more like Juaeism than Christianity, in the sense that (with the exception of the Shi’a Quietists) the issue of sovereignty is muddled. I propose, very simply, that we take advantage of this ambiguity and sectarian division in order to promote liberal democracy and civil society in the Middle East. As Americans we should be very cognizant of the blessings of sectarianism. It isn’t as exotic as it seems, and clearly the military dominance that the US enjoys will influence deliberations within the Ummah. We could call this the “new realism” (not to be confused with the “new conservatism”). Tongue decidedly planted in cheeque.
Jun 3, 2008 - 12:55 pm 4. Gregory:Demosophist;
You are not exactly a Christian, I take it. However, if you are, let me gently instruct you in your erroneous thoughts, brother.
The incident involving separation of church and state as recorded in the Gospels seems, superficially at least, to be, as you say, about coinage. Jesus is asked about paying taxes, He points out that the coins used come from Caesar (and have Caesar’s face on them); since they use Roman coins, they should pay Roman taxes.
However, let me draw your attention to the fact that the American Revolution was triggered by the Boston Tea Party, and that the popular catchcry is still ‘no taxes without representation’, suggesting that in some way, taxes and government had something to do with each other. To be more specific, the tax collector represents the government, since without the taxes, government cannot function.
Indeed, the first sign that something more than simple civil disobedience is on the way is usually the group refusal to pay taxes. Not tax evasion or avoidance, but tax denial from an entire segment of society, or the whole society. It is debatable whether or not you can call yourself a government at all if you do not collect some kind of tax/tariff/assessment/fee. The government sees this power to tax as traditionally arrogated to itself and views very dimly any effort to usurp it.
In the incident involving Jesus, His enemies thought it a two-pronged sword. Should He advocate paying taxes, then He would lose His popularity amongst the people, since the taxes were crushing and the Jews did not really accept the Roman authority over them. Should He, however, advocate not paying taxes, then He is an insurrectionist and they can report Him as such – let the Romans deal with Him afterwards.
When Jesus did and said what He did and said, He pretty much established the separation of church and state; not only that the church should not interfere with the workings of the state, but also vice versa. But there is yet a higher principle here; We are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. Hence, if we disagree with certain state-made laws, and we choose civil disobedience in obedience to God’s higher laws, we are to accept the consequences for this.
Islam cannot conceive of this. Because in Islam, the ‘church’ and the ’state’ are one and the same thing. You cannot, in an Islamic society, in an Islamic state, disobey the state without also disobeying Allah. Which is why the damned punishments are so bloody ridiculous, and why even the act of Christian worship requires a licence and a permit.
Jun 3, 2008 - 7:37 pm 5. Better Believe It at Desert Conservative:[...] Web site: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/less-violent-islamists-are-still-islamists/ [...]
Jun 5, 2008 - 10:59 am 6. Sandra:The West is just going to have to face the fact that Islam is the biggest cult in the world. Muslims need to get out of that Satanic religion which tolerate no other culture and even the God-given will of human beings.
Jun 6, 2008 - 11:29 am 7. Jihad in the U.S. -- Oh, yes, it's underway here too... - Page 5 - Trackpads Community:[...] turning point in the War on Terror
Jun 6, 2008 - 6:05 pm 8. olad:islam is not Satanic religion its true religion from the heaven and correction of the religions come before it. but I agree with brother yusuf some muslim people are behaving wrongly and not following the right bath too .and good example are like alqaida , jamatul islam of ahlusunnah in Egapt and etc.
Jun 7, 2008 - 12:36 pm 9. Sandra M:Imams preaching violence should face immediate deportation. Muslims who refuse to accept separation of church and state and other laws and customs of our country should also be returned to their homelands.
We do not need any more enemies within.
Jun 7, 2008 - 12:45 pm 10. Zitate! « abseits vom mainstream - heplev:[...] Weniger gewalttätige Islamisten sind immer noch Islamisten: Ist die Debatte unter Islamisten über Gewalt ein Wendepunkt im Krieg gegen den Terror – oder nur eine weitere Ablenkung? Youssef M. Ibrahim, Pajamas Media, 03.06.08. [...]
Jun 8, 2008 - 12:46 pm 11. j. kactuz:Mr. Ibrahim has it right, mostly.
The fact is that there are no “moderate” Muslims. There are those who kill and hate (so-called radicals) and those that make excuses and lie about Islam (The ones known as “moderates”).
The only difference is tactics. Both want to impose their values and end our freedoms. Both believe the Quran and consider Mohammad a great moral example to follow (so what if he lied, killed, raided, plundered, enslaved, tortured, raped and even beat his own wife — accorcing to Islamic hadith). Figure out, if you can, what that means.
The future will not be nice.
http://www.kactuzkid.com
Old Man Kactuz
Jun 9, 2008 - 8:14 am