Dana
2004-10-27 04:53:20 UTC
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1056
Combating the Ideology of Radical Islam
by Daniel Pipes and Graham Fuller
Daniel Pipes
Nowadays, Americans are likely to hear one of three replies to the question,
"Who is the enemy?" The first reply-"terrorists" -- is the Bush
administration's response, which insists that there is no connection between
Islam and terrorism. According to this view, Islam is a religion of peace,
and violence in its name is a perversion of the true religion.
The second reply-"Muslims"-holds that the enemy is Islam itself. This view,
once barely articulated, has gained ground since September 11, with
prominent spokesmen and book-length arguments. It is especially strong among
Evangelical Christians.
A third and better reply is that the enemy is Islamism, a terroristic
version of Islam. Islamism is the totalitarian root of the problem;
terrorism is only a symptom, an instrument of war used by Islamists to
achieve their objectives. Once these facts are understood, it becomes clear
that the struggle is ultimately one of ideas and armies, not of law
enforcement or religion. As in World War II or the Cold War, the ideological
enemy has to be defeated, followed by a rebuilding of the societies in which
the ideology took hold.
If militant Islam is the problem; moderate Islam is the solution. The world
is facing not a clash of civilizations, but rather a struggle between Muslim
moderates and militants. Muslims need to reinterpret such basic issues as
the concept of jihad, the position of women, and the place of non-Muslim
minorities. The United States can promote a modern, moderate,
good-neighborly version of Islam, but it cannot on its own ensure the
ascendancy of such a version. Only Muslims can do this.
There is no such thing as a moderate Islamist, for all Islamists share the
same long-term goals; they differ only over means. For example, the Justice
and Development Party in Turkey is very different from the Taliban in its
means, but not so different in its ends. If the party gained full control
over Turkey, it could be as dangerous as the Taliban were in Afghanistan.
The U.S. government's biggest mistake in the Middle East has been to accept
the rule of tyrants, out of a fear that the alternative would be worse:
Islamists, Ba'athists, or other hostile forces. The time has come for
Washington to encourage democratic development, but in small, gradual steps.
This means building civil societies in which the rule of law operates,
freedom of speech and assembly develop, local elections take place, and so
forth. National elections would be the capstone to these changes. Reversing
this order-that is, moving abruptly from rigid authoritarianism to national
elections without first building civil society-runs the risk that elections
will be hijacked by Islamist forces, as happened in Algeria.
Graham Fuller
Islamism is an ideology with a much broader reach than radical terrorists
have. An Islamist is anyone who believes, and actively attempts to
implement, the notion that the Qur'an and the tradition of the Hadith should
be used to help guide the way societies and governments are run. This
definition includes a large spectrum of Muslims, from Kurdistan Workers
Party (PKK) supporters to Osama bin Laden. The Islamist movement is growing
and diversifying rapidly, embracing more and more people with vastly
different views of what Islam should be.
Islamism is not analogous to fascism or communism. Rather, it is a
religious, political, and cultural framework that addresses the concerns of
Muslims, serving as a more attractive alternative to past Arab ideological
movements that failed to deliver what ordinary Muslims need. Islamism has no
centralized leader or central text. It does not take a fixed stance
regarding the role of government or how to run an economy. It is not a fixed
dogma; there are profound disagreements among Islamists about how to spread
Islam or what an Islamic state should be like. Although the idea of
implementing shari'a (Islamic law) is very popular, there are many different
formulations regarding how that should be done, some very narrow and
dangerous, but others much broader and more tolerant. After all, shari'a
discusses only a very narrow range of human activities and does not deal
with most state functions.
The Islamist phenomenon is a result of global trends toward modernization, a
response to the problems and aspirations of the modern world. Islamism is
part of the universal struggle to make sense of a troubling world, in this
case using religion. It is also part of a drive to restore the identity and
dignity of the Muslim world. The tensions between the West and the Muslim
world are not a result of a clash of religions; they are rather a symptom of
deep-rooted clashes of interest.
The United States must be careful not to create more bin Ladens in its
attempt to root out bin Laden himself. This is the most likely scenario if
Washington continues its current policy of supporting states that crush
Islamists. Such a policy is likely to backfire. The solution is to support
moderate Islamists even if they do not explicitly renounce violence as a
political tool.
Democracy is the best option for the Muslim world, an end to rule by
unpopular leaders would be in the best interests of the United States. These
leaders constantly direct hostility at the United States rather than take
action against such sentiment. As a result, they are easy targets for
Islamists, who contrast the impotence of such leaders with their own
actions, casting themselves as the only people who seem to be able to do
something about Western imperialism. Democratization will be a long process,
which is why Washington should start working on it now rather than some time
down the road. Muslim populations have been penned in for years, and when
the gates open, it will be a rough ride. Islamists will win the first
elections, but will they win the second? If Islamists do not deliver once in
power, they will fail; one need only look at Iran to see evidence of this
fact.
Combating the Ideology of Radical Islam
by Daniel Pipes and Graham Fuller
Daniel Pipes
Nowadays, Americans are likely to hear one of three replies to the question,
"Who is the enemy?" The first reply-"terrorists" -- is the Bush
administration's response, which insists that there is no connection between
Islam and terrorism. According to this view, Islam is a religion of peace,
and violence in its name is a perversion of the true religion.
The second reply-"Muslims"-holds that the enemy is Islam itself. This view,
once barely articulated, has gained ground since September 11, with
prominent spokesmen and book-length arguments. It is especially strong among
Evangelical Christians.
A third and better reply is that the enemy is Islamism, a terroristic
version of Islam. Islamism is the totalitarian root of the problem;
terrorism is only a symptom, an instrument of war used by Islamists to
achieve their objectives. Once these facts are understood, it becomes clear
that the struggle is ultimately one of ideas and armies, not of law
enforcement or religion. As in World War II or the Cold War, the ideological
enemy has to be defeated, followed by a rebuilding of the societies in which
the ideology took hold.
If militant Islam is the problem; moderate Islam is the solution. The world
is facing not a clash of civilizations, but rather a struggle between Muslim
moderates and militants. Muslims need to reinterpret such basic issues as
the concept of jihad, the position of women, and the place of non-Muslim
minorities. The United States can promote a modern, moderate,
good-neighborly version of Islam, but it cannot on its own ensure the
ascendancy of such a version. Only Muslims can do this.
There is no such thing as a moderate Islamist, for all Islamists share the
same long-term goals; they differ only over means. For example, the Justice
and Development Party in Turkey is very different from the Taliban in its
means, but not so different in its ends. If the party gained full control
over Turkey, it could be as dangerous as the Taliban were in Afghanistan.
The U.S. government's biggest mistake in the Middle East has been to accept
the rule of tyrants, out of a fear that the alternative would be worse:
Islamists, Ba'athists, or other hostile forces. The time has come for
Washington to encourage democratic development, but in small, gradual steps.
This means building civil societies in which the rule of law operates,
freedom of speech and assembly develop, local elections take place, and so
forth. National elections would be the capstone to these changes. Reversing
this order-that is, moving abruptly from rigid authoritarianism to national
elections without first building civil society-runs the risk that elections
will be hijacked by Islamist forces, as happened in Algeria.
Graham Fuller
Islamism is an ideology with a much broader reach than radical terrorists
have. An Islamist is anyone who believes, and actively attempts to
implement, the notion that the Qur'an and the tradition of the Hadith should
be used to help guide the way societies and governments are run. This
definition includes a large spectrum of Muslims, from Kurdistan Workers
Party (PKK) supporters to Osama bin Laden. The Islamist movement is growing
and diversifying rapidly, embracing more and more people with vastly
different views of what Islam should be.
Islamism is not analogous to fascism or communism. Rather, it is a
religious, political, and cultural framework that addresses the concerns of
Muslims, serving as a more attractive alternative to past Arab ideological
movements that failed to deliver what ordinary Muslims need. Islamism has no
centralized leader or central text. It does not take a fixed stance
regarding the role of government or how to run an economy. It is not a fixed
dogma; there are profound disagreements among Islamists about how to spread
Islam or what an Islamic state should be like. Although the idea of
implementing shari'a (Islamic law) is very popular, there are many different
formulations regarding how that should be done, some very narrow and
dangerous, but others much broader and more tolerant. After all, shari'a
discusses only a very narrow range of human activities and does not deal
with most state functions.
The Islamist phenomenon is a result of global trends toward modernization, a
response to the problems and aspirations of the modern world. Islamism is
part of the universal struggle to make sense of a troubling world, in this
case using religion. It is also part of a drive to restore the identity and
dignity of the Muslim world. The tensions between the West and the Muslim
world are not a result of a clash of religions; they are rather a symptom of
deep-rooted clashes of interest.
The United States must be careful not to create more bin Ladens in its
attempt to root out bin Laden himself. This is the most likely scenario if
Washington continues its current policy of supporting states that crush
Islamists. Such a policy is likely to backfire. The solution is to support
moderate Islamists even if they do not explicitly renounce violence as a
political tool.
Democracy is the best option for the Muslim world, an end to rule by
unpopular leaders would be in the best interests of the United States. These
leaders constantly direct hostility at the United States rather than take
action against such sentiment. As a result, they are easy targets for
Islamists, who contrast the impotence of such leaders with their own
actions, casting themselves as the only people who seem to be able to do
something about Western imperialism. Democratization will be a long process,
which is why Washington should start working on it now rather than some time
down the road. Muslim populations have been penned in for years, and when
the gates open, it will be a rough ride. Islamists will win the first
elections, but will they win the second? If Islamists do not deliver once in
power, they will fail; one need only look at Iran to see evidence of this
fact.