A civil war in Islam?

[SWJED]

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...

[goesh]

" 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.

[Dr Jack]

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.

[goesh]

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.

[Sarajevo071]

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.

[goesh]

I wish it was that simple, Sarejevo

[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?

[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