Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: A civil war in Islam?

  1. #1
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Fighting for the Soul of Islam

    8 April US News and World Report - Fighting for the Soul of Islam by Jay Tolson.

    Americans have heard it repeatedly since September 11: The acts of terrorism inflicted on our shore were the murderous consequences of an ongoing struggle within Islam. At its most dramatic extremes, that conflict pits radical jihadists against moderate Muslims. But a quieter front in the struggle is probably of greater import. It involves the millions of Muslims who are being wooed by the proselytizers of a puritanical, and often highly politicized, strain of the faith. This volatile blend of Saudi Wahhabi Islam and political Islam-dubbed Islamism by one of its early-20th-century founders-is the assembly line of future jihadists, some experts hold, and its agents are busy indoctrinating young Muslims from Lahore to Los Angeles.

    The outcome of this clash will bear directly on the course of the war on terrorism by answering the most fundamental question: Is mainstream Islam compatible with democracy and basic rights and freedoms established by international law?

    While the stakes of this struggle are enormously high, American and European efforts to make sense of it have so far proved to be inadequate. A new Rand report, only the most recent such critique, charges that the U.S. government-almost six years after 9/11-still lacks a "consistent view on who the moderates are, where the opportunities for building networks among them lie, and how best to build the networks."...
    Rand Report - Building Moderate Muslim Networks by Angel Rabasa, Cheryl Benard, Lowell H. Schwartz and Peter Sickle.

    Radical and dogmatic interpretations of Islam have gained ground in recent years in many Muslim societies via extensive Islamist networks spanning the Muslim world and the Muslim diaspora communities of North America and Europe. Although a majority throughout the Muslim world, moderates have not developed similar networks to amplify their message and to provide protection from violence and intimidation. With considerable experience fostering networks of people committed to free and democratic ideas during the Cold War, the United States has a critical role to play in leveling the playing field for Muslim moderates. The authors derive lessons from the U.S. and allied Cold War network-building experience, determine their applicability to the current situation in the Muslim world, assess the effectiveness of U.S. government programs of engagement with the Muslim world, and develop a “road map” to foster the construction of moderate Muslim networks...

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Participatory Questions

    " The outcome of this clash will bear directly on the course of the war on terrorism by answering the most fundamental question: Is mainstream Islam compatible with democracy and basic rights and freedoms established by international law? "

    I wonder what the numbers would show with regards to say voting for Muslims living in the US? Do the percentages generally parallel the non-Muslim population? What about female Muslim voter numbers? Are as many female Muslims registered proportioniately to non-Muslim women and do they vote in equal proportion? Is there an equal percentage per capita of Muslims running for State and Local offices? My hunch is No to the above questions.

    Then there is the matter of cultural participation and there are many unanswered questions in this area as well. First off, can simple market participation visa-via employment, taxes and the purchase of necessities sustain a democracy? I would argue not in lieu of what the culture of sports and entertainment contributes financially to sustain the whole ball of wax. The NFL, NBA, NHL, Baseball, NASCAR, NCAA Sports, The Masters tournament, Tennis and Track events at the national level are massive in their economic contributions. Throw into the mix all the State and local similiar activites and it grows. Then toss in all the bars, dining out, movies, fashion and it grows more. Add in Santa Claus, the Thanksgiving turkey and the Easter Bunny. What's the participatory rate here for Muslims?

    What about suplus capital? How much of it do Muslims invest, how much of it goes elsewhere, often to poor relatives in the home country and IMO, "home" is the operative word here. Perhaps before addressing if Democracy can be established in places like Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. we need to know if Democracy is even compatible and accessed here at home.

  3. #3
    Council Member Dr Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    86

    Default The Case For Democracy

    An interesting book along this same subject was written by Natan Sharansky entitled "The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror."

    In an interview with FrontPageMagazine.com (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles....asp?ID=16319), Sharansky states:

    I have no doubt that given a real choice, the vast majority of Muslims and Arabs, like everyone else will choose a free society over a fear society. Believe me, the drug of freedom is universally potent. Once the life of doublethink and self-censorship is shed, once the brainwashing stops, once freedom is tasted, no people will ever choose to live in fear again.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Inshallah

    I wish I could be more optimistic. It is easier to juxtapose social inequality and privlige through sheer economic power on a people accustomed to the mandates of divine will and no taste and history of real freedom and governmental participation. That's the real pull of AQ that feeds off this dichotomy and why employment has to be a critical component of any COIN strategy in any 3rd world flare-up.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default

    One can only hope that democratic West will stop supporting all those dictators, kings and princes that are ruling today with they support and against will of local people… And maybe reverse they policy of applying democratic values only when is ok with they own (Western) interests and start accepting results (whatever they may be!) since that is core of democratic values… Will of the people, right?

    Ah, yes, I forgot… Insha' Allah.

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Shell Oil Akbar

    I wish it was that simple, Sarejevo

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goesh View Post
    I wish it was that simple, Sarejevo
    But, why not!? Imagine you give people chance to express they feelings and opinions, that they dress how they want (in Turkey), they read and vote for whom they want (in Egypt), to vote for whom they want-with consequences that they will suffer but also they can change them (in Palestine, SA, Morocco)…

    Do you really believe that majority of Muslim populous will choose Taliban/AQ style regimes!? Do you have problem with Malaysia style Islamic governance or policy toward West? They are way to progressive and open minded, technology advanced and economical stabile to be rogue or not to work with West.

    US (wrong) policy of support WRONG governments, leaders and, yes, countries in the Middle East (including racist and apartheid Israel) creating way to much instability and enemies of West then what you will have with reverse politics. You take away major grievances in today Islamic word (they are not to many) and you will more then half battle with Islamic extremisms and you win over AQ.

    My firm beliefs is that majority of Muslim are NOT pro Taliban style regimes and AQ (sharia based law don’t need to be that harsh or bad) but they are anti- US imperialism, war against Islam and support of evil and regimes cause of oil and weapons market dominance (from South America, thru Africa and ME all the way to Asia).

    I just finished reading “The Redirection” by Seymour M. Hersh (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...5fa_fact_hersh ) and ”The Bush Administration’s New Strategy of Setting the Middle East Aflame” by Peter Symonds (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/02/363798.html ) and if you didn’t read them yet, I recommended… If all said is true, we are in way of much worst times and troubles then majority of us was thinking.

    If you get around to read that, please tell me what you think.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    I think Islam and Democracy are not compatible for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the Divine cannot be sorted and kept secondary to the mundane management of human affairs in Islam and we are inhabiting a planet fully diversified in its ontological perceptions and interpretations. Islam cannot accord full equal status to non-Muslims, particularily the polytheists, agnostics and atheists. Islam can peacfully cohabit the planet with said folks, until Islam perceives said folks and their religious views are influencing resource allocation. The same can be said of Christianity but internally we do keep the Religious pretty much out of politics. I would reference in particular the Judge in Alabama , I think that was the state, who was kicked off the bench for putting the 10 Commandments in a court house as but one recent example of this.

    Secondly, Islam has yet to accord equal status to half its population, the females. That does not bode well for reconciliation and compatibility on a global scale where Western democracies are major players. We quit burning witches 400 years ago. Honor killings and clitorectomy are serious, unresolved issues that intelligent men in the Islamic world have not been able to resolve. Beyond that, there issues of voting, equal civic participation, driving cars, resource management that are not resolved.

    Thirdly, for every imperialist move the US makes, the Islamic world makes its own moves to sustain its status quo. The flare-ups we are seeing in N. Africa are a result of the pending withdrawl from Iraq, not the invasion. You may as well be talking to a dead squirrel as to convince me to the contrary. I've got a crisp C note that says an ideological/IO assault is about to commence on Jordan, followed by some direct action. It's what I would do if I were in their camp.

    Do I think most Muslims want Sharia Law in their lives? No, of course I don't but with rigid paternalism, no income tax, rampant tribalism, inequality of the sexes and 1400 yr. old Divine Will at the helm and no historical backdrop, it's a long hump with a full pack to creating your own Ben Franklins, George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons. I want peace and I fear the hideous things we will have to do to win if it comes down to an ultimate clash of civilizations.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Well, how much I agree with you in some stuff you said here that much (maybe even more) I couldn’t. There are plenty examples in history of Muslims living peacefully with non-Muslims, they rights was protected and accepted; women are not humiliated and put down how much West trying to portrait them, nor is true that they have no rights, in some cases even more then man; voting and democracy are not so alien to Islam and with some modification in system it could be easy implemented in they life style…

    For all other things you mention here, goesh (honor killings, clitorectomy, voting, equal civic participation, driving cars, rigid paternalism, no income tax, rampant tribalism, inequality of the sexes) I can only repeat myself from before… These are different examples from different countries (not ALL is present in ALL Islamic countries proving my point that all of that is NOT common to Islam) and those examples are related to TRIBAL, primitive and old customs and NOT based on Islam or Quran.

    I understand your bias (maybe even hate) but you are basing all that on WRONG perception of what Islam is, repeating all those wrong, non-Islamic things like excuse and shield in your crusade… You are free to prove me wrong if you can find examples/rulings/laws in Islam on all those backward, stupid, evil and bad things you mention. You will not. You will find examples of tribal, local customs creping in what they think is Islam. You know, Muslims themselves fighting those issues & problems.

    You have totally different behaviors in different Muslims countries that prove that is not Islamic way. I could go in details, give you examples and try to find answers for you, but you all ready said: “You may as well be talking to a dead squirrel as to convince me to the contrary”, so there is no purpose. And since you think that this are ”serious, unresolved issues that intelligent men in the Islamic world have not been able to resolve” I am not sure what I am even trying to do here?!

    So, let me stop here and go in my “corner” and silently disagree since I think I know you are wrong and you will never be able to find solutions, answers and peace with “other side” that way.


    I wish you well,
    goesh

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default The Constitution and Al Qu'ran

    Our dialouge typifies the cultural incongruence that is manifesinting in spilled blood all over the planet. To quote from the Sufi Poet Rumi:

    "Lord, said David, since you do not need us,
    why did you create these two worlds?"

    We both are probably not quite what and who we appear to be here and I think we can both agree that it is a good day to die, so there can then be peace too, somehow, but if I and my kind are bound only by honor and blood to the Laws of our nation and the men of AQ by honor and blood are bound only to Allah, who is to mediate and who can convince us of their worthiness to be heard and heeded? The merchants? The women? The children? The Poets? The Priests and Imams? The wretched politicians? ...?

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default

    I get what you saying… I think the best example of that “difference” would be most recent developments in Iraq and fight between AQ and IAI where first not wish to negotiate peace and former is open to peace dialog... And then let other Muslims to take care of AQ.

    Also, (interesting info) one of the plotters of the first WTC attack, when ask with what kind of US government he will be ok to talk/made peace, he said basically that if U.S.A. have religious rulers they will find way for peace and talks!? True? Who knows?

    (I am paraphrasing here from memory, but if you are interested to know exact quote and title of book I can give you tonight when I get home.)


    P.S.
    Rumi is cool but to much of lover and not enough of warrior.
    Last edited by Sarajevo071; 04-12-2007 at 07:32 PM.

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Fitnah and Sleeping Giants

    This old hillbilly only knows that the giant that went back to sleep on 9/2/45 has been kicked awake again.


    "The one You kill,
    Lord,
    Does not smell of blood,
    And the one You burn
    Does not reek of smoke.

    He You burn laughs as he burns
    And the one You kill,
    As You kill him,
    Cries out in ecstasy."
    (Sheikh Ansari)


    That's a two-way street, hoss. The principle ideological failure of the jihadist is in fully comprhending our history, that death at the personal level often becomes secondary, even irrelevant, to completing the mission, where duty and honor supplant Divine Will.

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    37

    Default A civil war in Islam?

    There now appears to be growing acceptance that to characterise the world's ongoing conflict as a 'war on terror' is counter-productive. There also appears to be acceptance of the assertion that it is more useful to use the concept of a global counter-insurgency. Is it not reasonable to take this a step further and apply the concept of a civil war within Islam?

    The reasoning is as follows: The presumed gaol of many radical organisations is the imposition of fundamentalist Islam as a cornerstone of a sovereign state covering a broad Islamic nation. Geographically, this is unlikely to include western nations so the ultimate goal appears to be domination of one element current Islamic civilisations by another element of the same civilisation or a civil war. Characterising the conflict as such would change the manner of prosecution and, perhaps more importantly, the dialog surrounding the conflict. Instead of the west being seen to demonise Islam, it becomes the supporter of moderate Islam in its conflict with radical Islam. Within Islam, it requires the dialog not be about East and West but about the ideas and goals of moderate and radical Islam.

    Comments from the council?

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default To Capitulate Or To Catapult......

    Personally, I have never had a problem with the notion of waging war on terrorism. It hasn't been too long ago that we killed a terrorist named Timothy McVeigh and locked up his accomplice for life. Another guy by the name of David Koresh, whom I personally regarded as a terrorist, was burned up along with all of his followers. I regard spousal abuse as terrorism and street gangs that roam the streets and cause citizens to be fearful and stay in their homes at night are in my opinion terrorists. We deal with it in the name of the State, not the in the name of God. We wage war on people who burn crosses on Black people's lawns by incarcerating them. When Officials directly insert religious values into the discharge of their duties, they get removed from office rather quickly. War per se is not about just killing. We in the West already support any and all manner of religions that defer their power to the power of the State and are willing to keep themselves separate from the State in matters of commerce, war, governance and Law and remain subservient. Any religion that will act accordingly is moderate and not a threat to the collective will of the people (the State) and may function freely in its distinct and unique interpretation of the Divine.

    Most in the West do not demonize any religion. We pretty much tend to ignore them, unless we are direct participants of a given religion. I resent the pacifism of the Amish and Quakers as much as I resent the idea that Quranic law should be applied in Muslim divorce cases in America. The Judaic and Islamic ban on eating pork is absurd in my opinion because canine teeth evolved for the purpose of eating anything we can kill. One could say that when I eat bacon, I am demonizing Jews and Muslims. That is hardly the case.

    I think for the West to be seen as not demonizing Islam would require us to capitulate to a certain extent to Divine Will, as understood by Islam. That in turn would require us to catapult basic tenets of the Constitution out of our lives.

  15. #15
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Goesh,

    Quote Originally Posted by goesh View Post
    I think for the West to be seen as not demonizing Islam would require us to capitulate to a certain extent to Divine Will, as understood by Islam. That in turn would require us to catapult basic tenets of the Constitution out of our lives.
    I think you are certainly correct in your belief about he necessity of adoption of some Islamic tenets in order for the West to not be seen as "demonizing Islam". Still and all, this is not an issue of separation of Church and State, since the modern Western state is based, regardless of its form, on an underlying set of Christian principles. As for it requiring "us to catapult basic tenets of the Constitution out of our lives" let me just point out that the US is not the same as "the West". Indeed, I believe our two countries split honours on that issue.

    Back to JW's question:
    There now appears to be growing acceptance that to characterise the world's ongoing conflict as a 'war on terror' is counter-productive. There also appears to be acceptance of the assertion that it is more useful to use the concept of a global counter-insurgency. Is it not reasonable to take this a step further and apply the concept of a civil war within Islam?
    While I can understand the concept, I think it is fundamentally flawed. I think that Goesh hit the nail on the head at a philosophical level (despite my Canadian nationalist rejoinder ).

    Goesh also, in my opinion, got it exactly right about what we are fighting - terrorist ideologies. As he noted, these are not restricted to Islam and, from some of the indications we have seen about AQ, drug cartels, et alii playing footsie, the networks cross religious and political boundaries. And, while I disagree with Goesh about religions "defer[ing] their power to the State" and being subservient to it, I do agree with the implied limits on religious and State power - "render unto Caesar....".

    Shifting the rhetoric to one of an Islamic civil war will, in my opinion, hamstring us in our options while, at the same time, raising hysteria against all Muslims.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  16. #16
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Marc,

    One last question while I think of it. Why does the concept of a civil war in Islam raise hysteria against all Muslims? I would have thought it would allow the general population to better differentiate the potential enemy from potential freinds and develop empahty for those opposed to radical Islam?

    JD

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Marc,
    Thanks for your reply.

    You state theat characterising current conflicts limits options. I was hoping you could expand on this.

    My personal beleif is that to characterise something as a war brings with it the connotation of how it is to be fought - there is 'us' and there is 'them' and kinetic effects are used until 'they' don't want to fight anymore. Alternatively, we call everthing a war which is confusing for the lay person who makes up a democratic society and devalues the word for the time we need it to mobilise the entire population.

    The 'war on drugs' is a case in point that backs both your and goesh's point about adressing broader societal ills. The 'war on drugs' is a coordinated campaign utilising education, community support, infrastructure, intelligence, direct action, border security, international cooperation and a transparent and accountable justice system. If it is a war, it is war going on within a society amoung those that enjoy the benefits of the drag trade against those that bear the cost - if it is a war, it is a civil war. But how quickly would the war on drugs be over if our children had the support and self beleif to simply rejuect drugs? How quickly would the war on terror be over if potential Jihadist footsoldiers simply rejected radical idealogies?

    Why not characterise global conflict as a struggle within Islam? The vast majority of violnce in the middle east would appear to back this assertion? Such a definition would allow potential protagonists to define themselves not in terms of East and West but instead as moderate or radical and having done so, they are likely to act accordingly. It presents the target audience with a palatable and culturrally accepatable choice that is also in the interests of the west. It also allows the west to diferentiate between Muslims as a group and identify potential freinds and potetial enemies. Having done so, the strategy then changes to supporting Muslim allies to the hilt in a culturally sensitive manner that builds trust and works toward an enduring peace. In a civil war, you tend to pci a side and help it win.

    Your thoughts?

  18. #18
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default A Jew For Me, A Jew For You: The Real Price of Mutuality

    "Supporting Muslims to the hilt in a culturally sensitive manner" would require reciprocity on the part of our new partners, the moderate Islamic entities, namely in expecting the new partners to treat our allies as we ourselves would be treated in the new partnership. That would involve acknowledging Israel's right to exist for starters, to boldly go where few Islamic entities have gone before. Are you sure you want to turn that kind of a new page in human history? Rather, I should ask, are you capable of this? Prepare your camp then to shake hands with little Israel so that we may all proceed to trample the graves of the Salafists togather as one.

  19. #19
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    37

    Default

    What I said was supporting Muslim allies to the hilt as we should support any allies to the hilt. Should Islamic cultures be sesitive to the west - certainly but the west must also be sensitive to Islamic cultures and in doing so foster understaning and engender cultural exchange to soften the appeal of fundamentalisim in any form from any religion. There are many aspects of any culture that are praisworthy just as there are usually many aspects that are repugnant.

    We are better to win over support with acts of kindness than acts of violence. This is not to rule out kinetics where it is going t have a strategically advantageous effect but to quote Roman's from the Bible.

    12:20. But if the enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.

    12:21. Be not overcome by evil: but overcome evil by good.

  20. #20
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi JD,

    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    One last question while I think of it. Why does the concept of a civil war in Islam raise hysteria against all Muslims? I would have thought it would allow the general population to better differentiate the potential enemy from potential freinds and develop empahty for those opposed to radical Islam?
    Sorry about the delay - I started to answer this morning, but had to run out for a choir practice.

    I think the reason why using the concept of a "civil war" is so dangerous is that, as with any civil war, it is hard to tell who the players are. It is even more difficult when we are speaking about a civil war inside a religion rather than amongst an ethnic group. Differentiation amongst populations is hard unless there are some prhotypical or linguistic characteristics that can be used to differentiate, and they just aren't in existence here.

    This war inside Islam, and, yes, it is a civil war, is not really along hard and fast lines which have had time to differentiate as, for example, the Sunni Shia split. So, while we can name and identify the broad schools of thought, Wahabi, Safali, etc., there aren't recognizable orthopraxic differences that would allow us to say "a Safali would do X and will not do Y", where Y is part of any fundamentalist (in the non-pejorative sense) Muslim's belief.

    My fear with labeling it a civil war is that 99.9% of the non-Muslim population will not be able to identify an allies from an opponent and will, as a result, say "a pox on all their houses".

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •