A civil war in Islam?

[JD]

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?

[goesh]

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.

[marct]

Hi Goesh,

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

[JD]

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

[JD]

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?

[goesh]

"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.

[JD]

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.

[marct]

Hi JD,

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

[JD]

Marc,
I appreciate the response and I am going to keep asking you questions because I am looking to have any of my ideas challnged.

My follow up question is this: Isn't it very often the case that for internal conflict there is often few overt distinguisig characteristics between freinds and enemies and the dnager comes not when this is recognised but when this is ignored and people are treated as a homogenous group. I use the war in Vietnam as an example. I am concerned that the 'war on terror' is morphing in peoplels minds into the 'war on Islam', in both the west and east. This has a historical precendent in the cold war where 'communism' became byword not for all persons giving equally in a society but instead for totalitarianism and repression. By using the phrase civil war in Islam, it immediately recognises that there are at least two sides and Islam is not a homogenous enemy.

Your thoughts?

[marct]

Hi JD,

My follow up question is this: Isn't it very often the case that for internal conflict there is often few overt distinguisig characteristics between freinds and enemies and the dnager comes not when this is recognised but when this is ignored and people are treated as a homogenous group. I use the war in Vietnam as an example. I am concerned that the 'war on terror' is morphing in peoplels minds into the 'war on Islam', in both the west and east. This has a historical precendent in the cold war where 'communism' became byword not for all persons giving equally in a society but instead for totalitarianism and repression. By using the phrase civil war in Islam, it immediately recognises that there are at least two sides and Islam is not a homogenous enemy.

I suspect that the GWOT is, indeed, morphing into a War on Islam in many people's minds. Calling it a civil war may change some perceptions, and I think that it might be advantageous, but one of the problems I see with calling it that is identifying the players (back to my last post) and the basic propositions. Let me go off on what might seem a tangent.

WARNING: The following post contains many broad generalizations

Most Westerners tend to be "orthopraxic" (orthodoxy is determined by what you do, not what you believe, i.e. going to church is "good") if they are religious at all. With some notable exceptions, mainly in North America, we don't have much of an integrated "practice" with a tradition of study and experience (the major exceptions are the various evangelical and charismatic movements, plus the Eastern Orthodox churches in Christianity). Even worse, there is very little mysticism integrated into our practices. What this means is, that for most people, "religion" is a matter of choice not "reality". The same is not true for most Muslims: religion is "reality" and not "choice".

How this situation came about is worth a couple of dissertations in and of itself, but I would put the key to it in the shattering of the ecclesiam in the wars of religion which ended with the Peace of Westphalia and the rise of the modern nation state. The core theological position s one that goes something like this: no one can "know" the mind of God, therefore any interpretation of God's will will be inherently flawed and biased. As a result, "Good" may be found in any religious tradition. BTW, this position is actually held within Islam but in a radically different form - it's why it is quite possible to have competing and contradictory schools of sharia which recognize each other as valid. What is missing from most of them, however, is the devolution of responsibility for this position to the individual.

The second thing that is different is that Islam has not gone through the equivalent of the West's Wars of Religion. The Sunni - Shiite split is closer, in institutional terms, to Christianity's split between the Orthodox and Catholic branches of Christianity. What we are seeing now is, to my mind, closer to the opening shots of the reformation (for example, I tend to view AQ as an analog of the fraticelli - their positions, actions and tactics are quite similar). In effect, this is not so much a "civil war" with clearly defined sides as it is a religious fracturing and an attempt to reconstruct the ulama along variant lines. In Christianity, this was fought out using black powder weapons and cold steel in a limited geographic area. In Islam, it is being fought out using modern weapons globally.

So, here are the problems with labeling it a civil war as I see them:

1. For some people, it will help but I suspect that the world view of most non-Muslims in the West is so radically different from most Muslims, that the issues involved will be incomprehensible.
2. Calling it a civil war detracts isolates the "problem" as being solely within Islam. As I mentioned earlier, the mind set (actually, I should be using the term weltanscuung from phenomenology - think of it as a basic perceptual stance towards "reality) is actually shared by a number of non-Islamic groups. Calling it a civil war in Islam may well lead to an "Us good, Them bad" mentality in popular culture.
3. Most of "our" religious practice / belief is radically different from "theirs". This means that our "experiential knowledge" of "reality" is radically different. By way of example, try explaining "red to someone who is colour blind.

At the same time, for the past 40+ years in the West, we have seen the rise of new religious movements and revitalization movements in Christianity, Judaism, etc. Indeed, before 9/11, Islam was the fastest growing religion in North America. Why? Because all of the movements fill a perceived need in giving people "meaning" in a life increasingly dominated by spiritual nihilism, shopping malls and consumerism. This sets up a situation where there are a lot of potential problems.

What I believe we have to do at the symbolic level is to reinforce groups and belief systems that will support the position of "religious doubt" and oppose groups that do not support this position.

Marc

ps. Sorry it's a bit rambling, but I'm trying to do three things at once