In Synthesis I noted that among other problems in our current confrontation with those who wish to do us harm is a conspicuous lacunae in our acknowledgement and naming of the enemy. According to the Bush administration we were fighting "Terror", a tactic and a first order derivative of an enemy entity; according to the Obama administration, we are now fighting "man caused disasters" or some other second derivative of the enemy.
In my humble opinion, our enemy is radical, expansionist, fundamentalist Islam in all its iterations. One version of this is that of Thomas Friedman, who believes we are involved bystanders to the real struggle within Islam:
Every faith has its violent extreme. The West is not immune. It’s all about how the center deals with it. Does it tolerate it, isolate it or shame it? The jihadists are a security problem for our system. But they are a political and moral problem for the Arab-Muslim system. If they won’t address this problem for us, I truly hope they will do it for themselves. Eventually, we’ll find a way to keep most jihadists off our planes and out of our volleyball games — but they will have to live with them.
I almost agree with Friedman, though believe he underestimates the problematic nature of Islam itself. There are many people who disagree that there can be a "moderate" Islam, suggesting that I do not go far enough in characterizing the enemy. Commenter Gary K has frequently offered cogent and well parsed explanations for this point of view, as in this comment to my post:
First, as my prior comments here have spelled out, I do not believe that these Muslim attacks, this Jihad against us “unbelievers” and the West are somehow the result of some internal conflict between “moderates” and “fundamentalists” within Islam; they are policy.
From what I have observed and studied, there is no real “reformist” party within Islam of the kind we might envision—no great public, voiced yearning for reform and a corresponding popular movement, no religious communities or centers, no major politicians or leaders, no Imams calling for reform or moderation, for modernization or revision of the Qur’an, or advocating looking at Muhammad and his Sunna or basic Islamic doctrine differently--in a “modern” way--and with an eye to de-emphasizing, or removal of its central, violent, xenophobic focus on world domination, on applying totalitarian Shari’a law to all people, and on converting, conquering or killing all unbelievers.
Conservative, rigid, inward-looking Islam has been very carefully constructed so that any such challenges to its orthodoxy are quickly detected and eliminated by bringing the power of the entire Umma’s social structure and culture, of the Muslim state, and of individual inner and outer directed Muslims to bear in order to isolate, shun, threaten, attack or—if all else fails--kill potential reformers and apostates.
Gary K's view is contested by Jimmy J's wish that it were not so:
If Gary K. is correct, we can look forward to either the need to slaughter huge numbers of Muslims (would 750 million dead Muslims convince the other half that we mean business?) or eventual surrender. My hope is that he is wrong.
I suspect Gary K will be surprised to learn that I have reluctantly arrived at the conclusion that he is correct. However, I do not believe it is in our best interests to behave as if he is correct. Allow me to elucidate.
Yesterday Richard Landes at the Augean Stables discussed this issue from a slightly different angle:
Taqiyya, Territorial Expansion, and the Western European Future
On my class list-serv (class of ‘71), we’ve had a discussion of the relationship of Muslim demographics to aggressive behavior. I posted these remarks based on two remarkable pieces, one by Raymond Ibrahim on Taqiyya and Islam, and one a video made by a exceptionally courageous Parisian of the take-over of some public streets in Paris every Friday for 2 and a half hours.
As everyone who’s spent some time with the Quran knows, it’s full of contradictions, especially on the subject of the use of violence. “No coercion in matters of religion” (sura 2) vs “Fight against the infidel till they either convert or submit” (suras 8, 9). The Muslim commentators came up with the principle of abrogation, in which the later passages (the suras are not listed chronologically, but the later Medina suras are the more coercive) abrogated the earlier ones.
In a very important article Raymond Ibrahim lays out the implications of this for Islam:
However interpreted, the standard view [among Muslim scholars] on Qur’anic abrogation concerning war and peace verses is that when Muslims are weak and in a minority position, they should preach and behave according to the ethos of the Meccan verses (peace and tolerance); when strong, however, they should go on the offensive on the basis of what is commanded in the Medinan verses (war and conquest). The vicissitudes of Islamic history are a testimony to this dichotomy, best captured by the popular Muslim notion, based on a hadith, that, if possible, jihad should be performed by the hand (force), if not, then by the tongue (through preaching); and, if that is not possible, then with the heart or one’s intentions.[23]
The Ibrahim article is well worth your time. Along with the quote excerpted by Richard Landes, I would draw your attention to what Ibrahim sees as the implications of the Muslim religious duty to lie about one's beliefs and intentions when one is in an inferior position, while remaining in a constant state of war with the non-believers:
How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War
Implications
Taqiyya presents a range of ethical dilemmas. Anyone who truly believes that God justifies and, through his prophet's example, even encourages deception will not experience any ethical qualms over lying. Consider the case of 'Ali Mohammad, bin Laden's first "trainer" and long-time Al-Qaeda operative. An Egyptian, he was initially a member of Islamic Jihad and had served in the Egyptian army's military intelligence unit. After 1984, he worked for a time with the CIA in Germany. Though considered untrustworthy, he managed to get to California where he enlisted in the U.S. Army. It seems likely that he continued to work in some capacity for the CIA. He later trained jihadists in the United States and Afghanistan and was behind several terror attacks in Africa. People who knew him regarded him with "fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism."[46] Indeed, this sentence sums it all up: For a zealous belief in Islam's tenets, which legitimize deception in order to make God's word supreme, will certainly go a long way in creating "incredible self-confidence" when lying.[47]
Yet most Westerners continue to think that Muslim mores, laws, and ethical constraints are near identical to those of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Naively or arrogantly, today's multiculturalist leaders project their own worldview onto Islamists, thinking a handshake and smiles across a cup of coffee, as well as numerous concessions, are enough to dismantle the power of God's word and centuries of unchanging tradition. The fact remains: Right and wrong in Islam have little to do with universal standards but only with what Islam itself teaches—much of which is antithetical to Western norms.
...
This, then, is the dilemma: Islamic law unambiguously splits the world into two perpetually warring halves—the Islamic world versus the non-Islamic—and holds it to be God's will for the former to subsume the latter. Yet if war with the infidel is a perpetual affair, if war is deceit, and if deeds are justified by intentions—any number of Muslims will naturally conclude that they have a divinely sanctioned right to deceive, so long as they believe their deception serves to aid Islam "until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God."[49] Such deception will further be seen as a means to an altruistic end. Muslim overtures for peace, dialogue, or even temporary truces must be seen in this light, evoking the practical observations of philosopher James Lorimer, uttered over a century ago: "So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an insoluble problem."[50]
In closing, whereas it may be more appropriate to talk of "war and peace" as natural corollaries in a Western context, when discussing Islam, it is more accurate to talk of "war and deceit." For, from an Islamic point of view, times of peace—that is, whenever Islam is significantly weaker than its infidel rivals—are times of feigned peace and pretense, in a word, taqiyya.
Do yourself a favor, read the rest of Richard's post (and watch the remarkable video) and read Raymond Ibrahim's long article explaining in some depth the concept of Taqiyya. You will be in a much better position to appreciate the tenacity of this war and the myriad ways in which our blindness impairs our ability to prosecute the war. At the same time, Ibrahim's article suggests a better path than to relate to the World of Islam on their terms, as in a perpetual war with us; they may well remain permanent enemies for the foreseeable future but that does not mean we need to be in a permanent state of war.
Ibrahim's closing comment is germane. "For, from an Islamic point of view, times of peace—that is, whenever Islam is significantly weaker than its infidel rivals—are times of feigned peace and pretense, in a word, taqiyya." In reality Islam is significantly weaker than the West. Further, Islam is particularly ill suited to functioning well in a modern world dependent on technological innovation and the value of intellectual creativity. The Islamic world has been stuck in stasis, with whatever wealth they possess gained from the extractive efforts of others (which interestingly, reinforces for them the concept of Islam as superior to those dhimmis who pay it the jizza) and existing in a parasitic relationship to the modern world. The only reason Islam has been behaving aggressively is because of the craven response to its predations by Western elites. It will not require the death of millions of Muslims for the Islamic World to retreat into passivity and taqiyya. Would such a retreat be a real, lasting peace? Probably not, yet an Islam falling further and further behind the modern world would never be in a position to actually challenge those cultures that are better able to use and create modern technology.
[Yesterday Israel announced the introduction of a new, more stream lined, high tech methodology for evaluating the risks of airline passengers. Soon enough, our robotic "mosquitoes, wasps, centipedes, bats, snakes, etc" will render our enemy's hiding places less and less secure and their attempts to kill us more and more risky for the planners. Once cowed, the heroes of Jihad will resume a passive position, as has been t heir wont through the ages.]
Even if a permanent taqiyya is the best we can realistically hope for, it is not an impossible aspiration and, especially once we become serious about weaning ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil, could become a very stable, long term outcome all could live with. If we were to adopt the "kill them all and let Allah sort them out" response to Islam, we would guarantee a disastrous regression in the West along with War in which tens and hundreds of thousands would die, rather than the low level attrition we are forced to deal with today.
[For an outline of how our own reactions change small attacks into frenzied responses, consider John Robb's brief comments:
JOURNAL: Take a Deep Breath, It's Not a National Crisis
... relatively small events (in that neither threatened us, nor the organizations in question in any existential way) were amplified (in hours) to a level where the entire US government was put into a tailspin. Organizational purges and strategy rethinks were launched. Systemic failures were hinted at. Etc.
In short, the entire US government became a hostage to the global information network twice in the same week.
What can be done? The first thing that should be done when something like this occurs is to take a deep breath. Put the incident in perspective and communicate the same. It's not a real crisis. De-escalation should be the first response in anything but an acute existential emergency.]
Moderate Muslims may be an oxymoron and actual Moderates may well be considered apostates by the majority of the Ummah. Apathetic Muslims, or passive Muslims, may well be the vast majority of Muslims. The existence of Moderate versus passive Muslims, however, is only minimally relevant to the question.
My conclusion to the question of who we are fighting? We are fighting those Muslims who believe they are in a position to openly, actively, and aggressively advance their efforts in their perpetual war against us. At the moment that is a tiny fraction of the Islamic world and we should do everything we can to make sure that fraction remains small.
Recent Comments