RAND, "Reform," and Revolution
“Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan, and Allah 
too plans; but the best of planners is Allah .”
(Surat al-Anfal Verse 30)
Introduction
The RAND corporation, author of the infamous “Civil Democratic Islam” paper that essentially laid forth a “divide and conquer” strategy to subdue the Muslim world from resisting American hegemony, recently released a follow up report entitled “Building Moderate Muslim Networks” to effectuate the policy objectives that were previously discussed in their other papers. The report comes in the wake of a recent summit by “secular†Muslims in St. Petersburg, Florida where they issued a proclamation declaring support for secularism, “human rightsâ€, along with condemnation of orthodoxy, the Shari’ah with particular focus on the hadd punishments against apostasy, zina, Islamic governance, not to mention practices that have no place in Islam such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage. Unsurprisingly, the doctrine such “secular†Muslims espouse and the method they utilize to propagate their ideas coincides exactly with the doctrine and methods espoused in the “Building Moderate Muslim Networks†paper. Some may describe the secular Muslim summit and the publication of the RAND report as a fortuitous coincidence, while others may describe them as merely the convergence of plans that were long in the making.
Summary
The underlying argument of this paper is that the United States is currently embroiled in what is described as a civil war within Islam whose outcome is on par with the titanic struggle that occurred during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Just like the US utilized both covert and overt tactics to contest the expansion of communism, it must utilize both covert and overt tactics to subdue “radical†Islam. The paper specifically focuses on the concept of developing “moderate†networks to contest the authority of America’s opponents both at home and abroad.
The paper defines “moderate†Muslims’ as (1) those who support democracy, (2) internationally recognized human rights, including gender equality and freedom of worship, (3) respect for diversity, (4) acceptance of nonsectarian sources of law, and (5) opposition to terrorism and all illegitimate forms of violence. It also claims that “moderate†Muslims are in the majority in the Muslim world whereas radical Muslims form an extreme minority that have only come to power because of (1) their use of force and intimidation to silence their opponents, (2) Saudi funding promoting Wahhabism, and (3) organization through networks.
These moderate networks can be built by (1) bolstering existing networks, (2) identifying potential networks and promoting their inception and growth, and (3) contributing to the underlying conditions of pluralism and tolerance that are favorable to the growth of these networks. The authors go so far as to identify the types of networks that must be promoted: (1) democracy promotion networks, (2) civil society networks, and (3) public diplomacy networks.
- Democracy Promotion means the promotion of liberal democratic values of equity, tolerance, pluralism, the rule of law, and respect for civil and human rights. The US government already has democracy mandates in both the Department of State and the US Agency for Development (USAID) which contract with NGOs such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Asia Foundation, and the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID). Incidentally, one of the the Board of Directors of the CSID was a professor of mine at UMBC where he taught a class called “Islam and Politics.†(Cantori bio).
- Civil-society development. By “civil society,†the authors refer to a set of institutions and values that serves both as a buffer and a critical link between the state and individuals, families, and clans that are manifested when voluntary civic and social organizations (such as NGOs) can stand in opposition to forces brought by the state. They describe possible targets for the promotion of civil society as (a) Liberal and secular Muslim academics and intellectuals, (b) young and moderate religious scholars, (c) community activists, (c) women’s groups engaged in gender equality campaigns, and (d) moderate journalists and writers. A specific focus should be directed towards Muslims living in Diaspora in the West, along with those from “moderate†nations such as Turkey and Indonesia, whose works should be translated.
- Public Diplomacy. Although the paper itself doesn’t bother to define public diplomacy, in international relations, it is merely clever verbiage for propaganda. “PUBLIC DIPLOMACY refers to government-sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries; its chief instruments are publications, motion pictures, cultural exchanges, radio and television.”
Criticisms
The paper is wracked with ambiguous definitions, weak inferences, and downright ignorance of the subtleties of the region as a whole. Although I am not quite certain how the paper has been received by strategists within the government, if this paper is the primary source of covert policy in subduing “radical†Islam, then the US is in for a world of trouble because such a program is bound to fail. In addition to the general problems of the normative and descriptive value of the paper, I have five specific criticisms of the article.
- War on Islam, Not Terrorism. This paper shows that there are some strategists in the world who seek not to subdue extremists within Islam, but subdue Islam itself as a discourse of social justice and resistance to hegemony. According to Imam Laqqani, the author of the classical Ashari text “Jawharat at-Tawheedâ€, a Muslim is “one who both believes and submits to that which is necessarily known of the religion.†The main problem with the article is that it automatically affiliates those Muslims who espouse the Shari’ah as being extremists who want to utilize violence in order to achieve their goals. The document shows that the conflict is not being defined in terms of methodology, but in terms of ideology. Those who support the Shari’ah, regardless if they support violence to establish it, are grouped in with terrorists. In other words, even if Muslims democratically instituted the Shari’ah, it would still be construed as a threat to Western civilization. The article fails to make a distinction between those who seek to establish the khalifah through non-violent means and those who use violence to kill innocent civilians. It also conflates jihad with terrorism, either intentionally for propaganda purposes, or unintentionally, reflecting reckless ignorance of the legal distinctions and implications between the two actions. Given that the authors are highly educated people who no doubt are being well paid for their analysis of radicalism in the Muslim world, I cannot give them the benefit of the doubt and presume that they made such a glaring error innocently. The mindset of the authors is one that is becoming dominant in most policy makers, especially of the neoconservative persuasion. If such a policy proposal becomes integrated in strategic planning, then the war on terrorism must be proclaimed a farce and renamed a war on Islam since the Shari’ah is inherently a component of Islam and any call to eliminate the Shari’ah is, by de facto, an attack on Islam itself. Allah (subhana wa ta’alaa) warned against leaving the deen in order to conform to the desires of the Ahl ul Kitab: “Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: “The Guidance of Allah ,-that is the (only) Guidance.” Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah .†(Surat al-Baqarah Verse 120) The Shari’ah is a legal system, not a political system. A legal system which, by definition, cannot be totalitarian or fascist since the very purpose of a legal system is to limit the powers of the state. In other words, the Shari’ah is the very antithesis of totalitarianism or fascism. The ‘Ulema are not servants of the state, but act as a separate class of professionals whose primary duty is to emphatically emphasize what the law is. Both the state and lay people have no authority in declaring crimes and punishments regarding Islamic law. Just because Islamic law is not democratic does not make it totalitarian. Furthermore, merely advocating the complete implementation of the Shari’ah is not, in and of itself, a radical belief or act. It is shared by Muslims all through out the world. The assertion that this the US is merely supporting one side in a “civil war” within Islam is downright ludicrous. This is a conflict that has been precipitated from day one from foreign soil. The origins of the “moderate” Muslims has been and always will be merely a tool for Western hegemony, whether they realize it or not. This paper affirms that modernist Muslims are merely a fifth column within the Muslim Ummah. The relationship between such people and foreign powers with imperialist designs has been described in detail in “The ‘Death’ of Progressive Islam” post. The conflict within Muslim countries would not exist but for the covert and overt interference of Western nations. This is not a civil war, but a world war.
- Definition of “Moderate†Muslims. Anyone who rejects those aspects of the Shari’ah upon which there is consensus is simply not a Muslim, let alone a “moderate†one. Thus, it is unsurprising when the paper lists potential “moderate†Muslims whose works should be promoted in the Muslim world, it includes: Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Salman Rushdie, Tasleema Nasreen, Irshad Manji, amongst others. Most of the people who have been described as “moderate†Muslims are not even Muslim at all. The secularized Muslims, i.e. apostates, come from some of the most educated and wealthy segments of Muslim societies, yet, for all their affiliation with the most powerful nation on the Earth, they are absolutely weak. Thus far, they have failed to penetrate the authority of the ‘Ulema let alone establish a strong hold anywhere in the world. Every overdramatic theatrical endeavor they have embarked on has been met with utter ridicule and scorn. The assistance of the kuffar is infinitely miniscule compared to the assistance of Allah (subhana wa ta’ala).Interestingly enough, the authors refer to the Danish imams as not being “moderate†Muslims simply because they traveled through the Middle East to urge support for their complaint against the Danish government concerning outrageous cartoons that depicted the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) in a terrible manner that was both ahistorical, stereotypical, and downright hateful. The author fails to recognize that Muslims from all over the world, whether moderate or radical by their own definition, protested the Danish cartoons, including “secular†Turkey and Indonesia. Muslims as far off as Thailand and China protested the cartoons. This illustrates even further how incoherent the authors are since they do not have a working definition of “moderate†Muslim.
- Stuck in the Cold War Rut. The documentary “Why We Fight†opens with video footage of President Dwight D. Eisenhower warning of the dangers of the “military-industrial complex.†With a hint of clairvoyance, he cautioned against overstating the importance of RAND-like institutions. “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.†After World War II, the Cold War was perhaps the most expensive venture in American foreign policy, if not the longest in duration. New branches of the government, industries, and think tanks were conceived simply to study the ideological foe. Colleges and universities sprouted political science departments where some professors ended up dedicating their whole lives to this task. Then, in a moment, the evil empire crumbled. People whose sole occupational purpose was to study this foe were suddenly fish out of water. Think tanks, intelligence experts, military officers, suddenly found that they needed to justify their funding and purpose. Reformists within the military who sought to transform the Cold War-era structure of the armed forces into one that could fight in the era of asymmetrical warfare were castigated by the “Old Guard.†This can be clearly illustrated when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attempted to scrap the $11 billion Crusader artillery program and was met with opposition by both officials within the military and politicians. Thus, it is not improbable that the Cold War era thinkers would rely upon pre-existing paradigms for scrutinizing “radical†Islam. There are, of course, several major problems with analogizing between Communism and Islamism. To be fair, the authors recognize that not all of the tactics that were utilized in the Cold War can be used against “radical†Islam since they are, by their very nature, two drastically different entities. However, the threat of “radical†Islam to the US is nowhere near comparable to the Soviet threat. At best, Islamists might be able to detonate one or two nuclear warheads in an American city, and although that is reprehensible, it is simply a gross exaggeration to claim that such a threat is on par with the annihilation that could have been inflicted by the Soviets who possessed hundreds of armed warheads with intercontintental ballistical missiles. Until recently, Islamists didn’t even posses armies, let alone stable control over one Muslim country. Of course, the war on Iraq has changed all that. The war on Afghanistan pretty much destroyed, if not disrupted, Al-Qaeda’s infrastructure and command network. Had their been no war on Iraq, that might have been the end of Al-Qaeda, but the war on Iraq, with the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, the atrocities at Abu Graib, the rape of Iraqi women and children, and the rampant sectarianism gave provided the causus belli to this organization whose numbers grew exponentially in that region. The rise of Islamist militants in Iraq is a direct reaction that has emanated from the myopic vision of strategic analysts who have been stuck in this Cold War rut. After all, the very origin of many of these groups has been due to the presence of authoritarian tyrants in the Middle East that were supported by the U.S. government in order to combat the threat of communism. The support of mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, the support of these dictators, the invasion of Iraq, the attacks on Afghanistan, are all examples of epic levels of short-sightedness on behalf of these policy experts who continue to fail to understand Islam for what it is. One of the reasons they have repeatedly failed to do so is because they constantly try to examine Islam with their Cold War goggles. Islam is not the same threat to America or the West as the Soviet Union was. What Islamists seek is not the destruction of freedom or human rights, but the preservation of their own way of life. If anyone is threatened with annihilation, it is the Islamists, not America. However, the paper grossly aggrandizes the threat of Islamism as a threat to the very core of Western civilization. This language is not accurate and is left over verbiage from the Cold War era. However, regardless if such mistakes are accidental or intentional, they have drastic consequences in global affairs. Any more miscalculations on behalf of Western strategists, and their will be a global, unified revolt of Islam.
- Anachronistic Obfuscation of Islamic Revival and Terrorism. Perhaps the greatest illustration of the shortsightedness of the article its failure to recognize that the movements of today are not merely reactions to Western hegemony, but part of a greater Islamic revival that has been thriving for the past several centuries. The distinction between the revivalists of today is a change in their tactics and targets, not in the revival itself. Thus, the claim that radicals have been influenced by Saudi funding for Wahhabism is ludicrous. The effects of Wahhabism/Salafism on movements like Jamat e Islami, Ikhwan al Muslimeen, Hizb e Tehrir, Tableeghi Jamaat, the Taliban are all miniscule. Nor does it account for revolutionary Iran, whose origins are in the intellectual triumph of the Usooli tradition over the Akhbaris just like the origins of the Sunni revival can be directly traced to the revival of hadeeth studies. Terrorism is not caused by Wahhabism, nor are all Islamic resistance movements utilizing terrorism to achieve their goals. The call for Islamic sovereignty, governance, and law does not make a person a terrorist. It is only when they use violence against civilians can such a person be declared a terrorist. If people use non-violent or violent means that are directed at legitimate military targets, they cannot be construed as terrorists or radicals. Such movements can be traced back to the pre-colonial and colonial era of resistance. To claim that such movements began only recent is downright false and may lead to dramatic outcomes if not corrected.
- Democratizing the Muslim World. Perhaps what I find most dangerous about their program is that their plan to (1) detach the authority of the ‘Ulema from the state and from within the state and to (2) expand the concept of ijma into a consensus concerning public opinion. Although no strategy is explicitly propounded to achieve these goals, my guess is that they’ll be using the legal principle of ijtehad. There is no reason to believe that democratization would have prevented the rise of militant groups and movements. The direct cause of these movements has been particular political problems, not for ideological reasons. Islam was an a posteriori justification for violent act, not an a priori action. Whether they utilize democracies or Islamic governance, these resistance movements will continue since the cause of their resistance is a particular conflict, not a want for a particular system of values.
Challenging the Hegemonic Discourse on Islamism
What the RAND paper has made clear, along with other papers on Islam, is that Western countries do not seek to eliminate those Muslims who utilize violence against innocent civilians, but those Muslims who seek to challenge Western hegemony as well, regardless if they use entirely peaceful and legal means to fulfill these objectives. If this is true, than the “War on Terrorism†must be changed to the “War on Islam Itself.†Some Muslims may contest such a claim. Some Muslims, wasting away in luxury and conceit, ignorant of Islamic traditions and history, naïve of global politics, go so far as to deny that the West is an existential threat to Islam. What these ignoramuses fail to realize is that war is already upon the Muslim Ummah. The threat of bombs falling on our cities, our women being raped, our men being shipped off to prisons for no crimes and being tortured in inhumane ways, is not merely a potential future outcome, it is already here. The future is now.
I ask that all Muslims honestly and sincerely endeavor to answer the following questions:
- Do Muslims have an obligation to establish a single universal Islamic government? Universal not in the sense that it must encompass every inch of the earth, but that it seeks to preserve the interests of all Muslims, irrespective of their race, sect, or location. The answer to this question is yes.
- Do Muslims have a right to establish a single universal Islamic government? In other words, if Muslims had a peaceful way of establishing a universal Islamic government that implemented the Shari’ah, but did not interfere in the affairs of other nation-states, would Western governments allow such a state to subsist? The answer to this is yes, according to the very principles of the doctrine of nationalism.
- Why is there opposition to the Shari’ah? Is the Shari’ah a threat to John Doe living in Kansas? Why do Westerners care about the Hadd punishments when they are not subject to it? Is their a real genuine concern for the crimes and punishments under the Shari’ah? The answer is that the opposition to the Shari’ah is merely pretext in the war of propaganda which seeks to incite the masses against Islam.
- Why is there opposition to jihad, even if it rejects terrorism (i.e. the targeting of civilians)? This is self-evident; jihad is a threat to Western hegemony. Regardless if it follows the rules of war or not, any Muslim who espouses jihad, even in defense for their self-preservation and national integrity is a terrorist in the eyes of the West. The West does not care about social justice and peace, it is concerned with preserving its control of Muslim lands and it can only do so through Muslim hearts and minds.
- Why is it no surprise that this study calls for networking among apostates (people who are either atheists or openly reject elements of the deen which are necessarily a part of the faith)? If Western countries truly were not at war with Islam and merely sought to combat extremists, why is that they promote apostates to “reform†Islam? They do so because they are not at war with a handful of extremists, but because they want to change the very nature of Islam into a subservient defanged religion.
Intellectual Revolution: The Only Solution
Upon reading about such plans and plots, the average Muslim asks him or her self “What can be done? What can I do to participate in this war of ideas?†The answer is simple: intellectual revolution. What is intellectual revolution?
What many Muslims fail to understand is that neo-colonialism has not only economic, political, and military aspects, but also intellectual and philosophical aspects as well. The RAND paper and others like it highlight the efforts of Western intellectuals to subdue Islam as a form of a resistance to Western hegemony. Such efforts can not be responded to by force alone nor can they be disregarded or ignored. Obviously, intellectual hegemony can only be contested by intellectual resistance, intellectual revolution. The definition of a revolution is that it (1) calls for the complete deconstruction of one paradigm and replacing it with another or (2) a return to the existing state of things (in the manner that a cosmic body returns to the point of its origin). Thus, an Islamic intellectual revolution is one that seeks to thoroughly deconstruct the intellectual paradigms that are instrumental in preserving Western hegemony in a manner by returning to the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) in spirit, mind, and body.
As such, intellectual revolution refers to efforts by a group of thinkers, in accordance with the traditional Islamic sciences, to utilize their minds in order operate within the conceptual framework of Ahl us Sunnah waal Jam’ah to serve as a catalyst in convering the thought of the Muslim Ummah. To be more precise, Intellectual Revolution has four components: (1) the reconstruction of the sacred sciences to provide the proper epistemological outline for developing ethics, political theory, and law in accordance with the Shari’ah, (2) the deconstruction of Western ethical, legal, and political philosophy that is used to critique the Shari’ah, (3) the construction of Islamic alternatives to contemporary economic, legal, and political paradigms, and (4) the refutation of deviant groups, with a special focus on those who oppose the Shari’ah itself. The reconstruction of Islamic knowledge entails the revival of the Islamic sciences in accordance with the boundaries of the Quran and Sunnah as understood by the Mujtahid Imams and those who followed them with a special focus on Aqeedah, Fiqh, and Tasawwuf. The second component of intellectual revolution entails deconstructing Western power systems. Instead of Muslims falling into an ideological trap of whether or not Islam is compatible with such Western thought-systems as science, democracy, feminism, etc, we ought to question the authority of such systems. Deconstructing Western power systems requires those Muslims living in the West to rigorously reject the authority of the Western political discourse and to firmly attack the roots of their political concepts, especially this absurd notion of freedom. The third component of Intellectual Revolution is the thorough refutation of deviant groups, especially those groups that possess deviant aqeedah or lack an understanding of usool al fiqh, or question the authority of the Ulema without having studied their proofs. Special attention should be given to those who ascribe to the ‘modernist’ paradigm where they claim that there is no proof in the Quran and Sunnah for a variety of rulings. The method of responding to such groups must be based firmly on the Islamic sciences as well as rational arguments, which is why the reconstruction of Islamic knowledge is a necessary prerequisite for all of the other components of intellectual revolution. The last component of intellectual revolution is to develop a contemporary formulation of Islamic power systems (ie to provide sufficient proofs for the establishment of a Universal Islamic Government). As is it clear by the works of the Ulema such as Imam Tahawi, Imam Mawardi, ibn Khaldun, Shaykh Uthman dan Fodio et al, that the establishment of a Khalifa is a fardh kaffayah, there must always be a group of people within our Ummah working towards this goal. The method of working towards khalifa is not by hosting debates on college campuses or passing out flyers or by throwing protests against the actions of corrupt governments as some political groups engage in. The method of restoring the khalifa is by restoring the confidence of the people within such a system. Due to the effects of excessive Western propaganda that slander the image of the khalifa based on false information or incorrect assessments, the average Muslim is so afraid of the establishment of a khalifa that he would prefer living under non-Muslim rule than Muslim rule. With all these four components of intellectual revolution, the basis of the intellectual suppression of the Ummah becomes null and void and it is only then when talk of real change becomes feasible. When the masses realize that political systems are not solid, cemented, metallic structures but are constructed and comprised of human beings like themselves, it is only then that they will be able to realize that just as they can be constructed, they can be ‘deconstructed’ and ‘reconstructed’ as an Islamic one.â€
For more information about intellectual revolution, click here.
May Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) raise up a leader from amongst us who will unite our Ummah and fight this fitnah. Ameen.
Sphere: Related Content
Published March 30, 2007 . Filed under: Clash of Civilizations
Posts
We cannot have intellectual revolution with an Ummah of laymen. And before we can put the Deen into the minds of our sisters and brothers, they must feel it in their hearts. Priorities man, priorities.
Also, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq (may Allah
shield us from their idiotic venom) are neither Muslim nor claim to be.
March 30, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
I don’t know if you read the post, but one of the objectives of the intellectual revolution is to revive the sacred sciences, i.e. to transform lay people into experts. However, it isn’t enough to have more ‘Ulema, but ‘Ulema who are capable of dealing with particular legal and theological problems that the classical formulations do not address quite yet.
Thats my point; these people aren’t Muslim, yet they’re being portrayed as “moderate Muslims.”
March 30, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
JazakAllah khair! I have blogged this.
March 30, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
The funniest thing happened today. I was asking for directions at the mosque in Tampa. I asked a couple women. They had no clue. Then they saw this random guy walking buy and motioned to him. They explained that I needed directions. He gave me the directions. Then he said that he was with CAIR. I looked at him, squintting my noise as usual because my sinuses don’t work, and replied that I knew who he was. Then I marched off chuckling inside. I actually felt guilty because I had spent so much time thinking how dumb he was, and my first face-to-face encounter with him was relatively normal.
Bichara Ahmed Bedier. I might even make friends with him. As a part of my global domination Florida plot.
March 30, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
nba,
what does that have to do with anything in the post?
March 30, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
“I don’t know if you read the post, but one of the objectives of the intellectual revolution is to revive the sacred sciences, i.e. to transform lay people into experts.”
You missed my point. I’m talking priorities here. Before we transform our laypeople into ulema and put islam in their minds (which is a very noble and necessary goal) we need to first instill in them the geniune passion, desire, and love of the deen. We cannot have full heads and empty hearts. If you really want revolution, forget about the current generation; you’re not going to get anywhere in all honesty. We must put all our focus on the upcoming generation, for that is where the greatest danger (and the greatest opportunity) for our deen lies. It’s fine to talk and spout intellectual discourse for this is a cornerstone of our ummah. But we don’t want an ummah of donkeys with books upon there backs.
March 30, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
Good analysis, the type I’d like to write if I had more time. :) My (much shorter) thoughts on the report are here.
March 30, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
Ruminationz
If people adopted your level of pessimism, then everyone would be paralyzed by apathy. Our focus is not necessarily about riling up the masses, but about focusing on injustices ourselves. You don’t need everyone in society to deal with these issues, but a select few.
There is no “how to” guide for implementing change. If you don’t want to be part of the movement, thats fine, but you shouldn’t castigate others for attempting to bring about change.
March 30, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
jdsg,
jazakallah khairun for your thoughts. i think everyone has recognized the major flaws of this paper. i can’t believe they really expect people like ibn warraq, ayaan hirsi ali, wafa sultan are ‘moderate Muslims’ who should be served as models for Muslim societies.
March 30, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Well written post, Jinnzaman.
With all the hand-wringing about RAND going on around the islamosphere though, I have to ask: what would we have the US gov’t and/or the think tanks that advise it do? We have to assume that the US will act in its best interest to the best of its ability. Do we really want the US to not study Islam, to not understand Islam, to not engage with Islam? So we can’t blame RAND for being randy, so to speak. You’ve talked a lot about what muslims should do to address muslim issues, and that’s fantastic. But don’t we have an obligation, or at the very least, is it not in our best interest as American muslims to give RAND and its ilk the best possible information and advice that we can give? Is it not possible, in theory, for the US to do right by the muslim world while still preserving or forwarding its own interests?
March 31, 2007 @ 12:28 am
Bin Gregory,
Allahu alim. One of the points I alluded to was the concept of the military-industrial complex. The think tanks are a by-product of the Cold War era. They need an existential foe to justify their very existence. Thats why I felt like the Islamist threat has been grossly exaggerated. In other words, no matter how much accurate information we give to these people, they are simply not interested in trying to understand Islam. The very structure of their program is designed to treat Islam as a subject of subjugation, not co-existence.
I mean, the type of “moderates” they are putting forward are very glaringly not Muslim at all. Its not out of ignorance that they are putting these people forward. It is an intentional design. They’re intelligent people, they know what Islam is. This isn’t all just a big misunderstanding.
I think its entirely justifiable to say, if this is what American strategic analysts truly believe in and advocate, than this isn’t a war on terrorism or extremism, but a war on Islam itself.
March 31, 2007 @ 1:51 am
I’m a Westerner who is pretty opposed to Islam on moral grounds. I was impressed by your rational and well-thought out response to the RAND initiative, so I thought I’d offer a response (it looks like you haven’t gotten any Western responses yet).
First of all, let me tell you where I agree:
• I agree that most Muslims want Shariah law. I agree that Western conception of “moderate” and “radical” Islam is seriously flaws—so-called “moderates” are viewed as apostates by most of the ummah, and most of the ummah hold radical views.
• I agree that it’s important to recognize that much of the ummah is not trying to use violence to spread Islam or shariah law, but rather peaceful means like democracy. Hamas’ election is a clear example of this. I also think a large number of Muslims have moved to Europe with the intent of spreading shariah to Europe by taking advantage of the democratic system there.
• I agree that Iraq has been a tremendous foreign policy blunder for America as it has galvanized al-Qaeda and given them the perfect recruitment tool.
• I agree that Americans and the RAND initiative need to wake up because their policies are galvanizing Muslims against them.
Here is where I disagree. I disagree that Muslims should be able to use democracy to impose shariah law. This is simply using democracy to destroy democracy. In order for a democratic system of government to work, the fabric of the constitution must be guaranteed to remain intact. You can ammend it, but you cannot so radically alter it that it fails to even remotely resemble a democracy. Shariah law is incompatable with democracy as it is a system government ruled by clerics who govern based on adherence to a single religious text.
I also disagree that Western governments should turn a blind eye to Muslim governments that wish to institute shariah law. I absolutely DO NOT think war is justified. However, why shouldn’t we be opposed to shariah governments? Why should we give millions of dollars of aid to Hamas if they in no way promote our conception of morality? Muslims would not give aid to countries who flagrantly violated their moral codes. Westerners believe shariah treatment of women, homosexuals, and unbelievers is absolutely barbaric–in the same way Muslims feel making fun of the Prophet is barbaric–and you have to at least understand why we simply aren’t going to stand idly by and “support” people’s decision to institute such governments. I certainly support economic sanctions against governments that violate the universal declaration of human rights. Why shouldn’t I?
And thirdly, I disagree that Muslims either are willing to, or have anything to gain, from rational discourse. Rational discourse entails admitting the proposition that your side is wrong. I have not yet met a Muslim who is willing to accept the possibility that the Quran is not the word of God. Most Muslims simply lack the ability to examine their own religion in a rational light, and have absurd double-standards for examining other ideologies. Your article suggests that Muslims should logically attack the support for Western conceptions of human rights—okay, bring it on, but are you at all willing to accept criticism of YOUR support for YOUR conception of human rights, the Quran? On sunniforum, any criticism whatsoever of the Prophet Muhammad
results in a ban. It seems like Muslims are not even willing to have conversations with people who have legitimate criticisms of your deeply held religious beliefs. That makes rational discourse pretty difficult.
And to suggest that your religion would benefit from rational discourse—I need only point you to the state of Christianity today. As soon as Christians allowed themselves to critically examine the Bible (and stopped killing heretics and apostates), people stopped believing the Bible was the word of God. Muslims have so much pride in their holy text, and yet fail to realize that the primary reason people believe in the Quran is not because they think it’s logical or reasonable, but rather out of plain naked fear. From an early age, even before you have the capacity for reason, you’re taught that Muslims go to heaven and unbelievers are mocked and tortured forever in hell. The Quran asserts this reward/punishment scenario on nearly every page. There is no logic to it, it’s simply an assertion, but if you hear it over and over from the time you’re a baby, you’re going to get brainwashed. And even if you have your doubts, you’re not going to risk getting ostracized from your family and community, and if you’re unlucky enough to live in a shariah-minded country, you’re not going to risk getting KILLED for giving up your belief. The ulema have their arguments for Islam’s truth (and they are largely identical, from an atheist’s standpoint, to Christian arguments), however I don’t see anyone converting to Islam because they watch some ulema’s speech against atheism on Youtube. Rather, this stuff just serves as handy ammunition for Muslims to parrot when they debate atheists, so that they don’t actually have to consider the atheist’s position. At least that’s been my experience debating Muslims.
On the whole, Islam seems wracked with a looming sense of paranoia. I don’t blame Muslims. Western thinking IS a threat to Islam. It utterly destroyed the hegemony of Christianity. It spread all over the world, even to Muslims countries. Force alone does not explain Western hegemony, as countries throughout the world freely choose Western systems of government and millions of Muslims freely emigrate to Western societies. Islam is in a battle of ideas, a battle for its own existence, and it is up against an incredibly formidable foe in Western civilization, which already has a track record for destroying religions. You should be scared. But if you believe that Islam is true and that you can rationally defend it, Muslims shouldn’t need to resort to threats; Muslims shouldn’t need to kill apostates and unbelievers, and threaten to kill anyone who insults Muhammad. You should be able to calmly and rationally explain why Muhammad is undeserving of criticism, or why Islam is actually better for humanity than Western society. The fact that so few Muslims cannot, or choose not, to rationally defend their religion against Western thought is, in my opinion, indicative of the rationality of Islam itself.
March 31, 2007 @ 2:22 am
In other words, no matter how much accurate information we give to these people, they are simply not interested in trying to understand Islam.
Generally, I agree. However, what I would suggest is that a counter-response to the RAND report is needed, one that is not necessarily addressed to RAND, but that addresses the same basic issue that RAND is focusing on. The US government (and other interested parties) want policy papers written that suggest means as to how to deal with the Muslim world. Fine. Maybe we need to write a Muslim response. How would we (especially us Muslim Americans) suggest our government deal with this situation. The Bush administration will be out of office relatively soon, insha’Allah
. Democratic (and Republican) candidates may find what we have to say of interest as well, insha’Allah 
.
March 31, 2007 @ 3:07 am
Ahn-Aku
Thank you for your thought provoking comments. Since we’ve come to a consensus on what we agree, I’m going to go directly to the area where we disagree upon.
Firstly, I don’t think that the Shari’ah is incompatible with democracy in and of itself, if one has a proper understanding of what democracy is. Democracy is defined as a model of governance where the ultimate legitimacy of the political system arises from the consent of the governed. This is facilitated through elections, a system of checks and balances, and a separation of powers. The problem is that an Islamic conception of governance that utilizes democracy would not be a liberal democracy, but rather, an illiberal democracy. However, I do not think there is anything intrinsically wrong with an illiberal democracy, even by Western standards, for countries that do not agree upon the basic presuppositions that liberal democracy is based upon, such as the liberal conception of rights. Rights are not intrinsically necessary to a democracy but are a separate category. Recall that neither the Articles of Confederation nor the original Constitution contained what we refer to as the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Constitution itself is not a democratic document. The founding fathers were not authorized by their state legislatures to abscond the Articles of Confederation and they were certainly not authorized to come up with a completely new document that is, essentially, self-executing. Only 5% of the population ratified the Constitution. I doubt that would be considered a majority anywhere in the world. If the Taliban were approved by 5% of Afghanistan, do you think that would make them a legitimate government?
The rights scheme that we know today was not, contrary to popular opinion, developed over night nor agreed upon by all states. For the overwhelming majority of this country’s history, rights were denied on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, and national origin. My point is not to castigate the United States, but merely to show that what we often think of as “universal human rights†are not universal in a descriptive sense, nor are they necessarily universal in a normative sense, and instead arise out of the peculiar legal issues that arose in Europe which were then superimposed on non-European countries or adopted by illegitimate professional elites who were not representative of their traditional societies. As such, there can be no justification to impose one societies’ conception of rights upon another. If you feel opposed to Islam on moral grounds, then I can make an equally valid claim that I am opposed to the West on moral grounds as well. I can argue that the West uses preemption as a pretext for invading other countries and making them subservient. I can argue that the West is oversexed, that it reduces human beings to commodities, that it is harming children, women, old people, denying healthcare, mistreating the poor, etc. I can make a laundry list of things that I dislike about the West on moral grounds, but since my conception of ethics is based on particular presuppositions, I do not think it would be fair to impose such a system upon people who do not accept such presuppositions. Likewise, I would presume that you would also agree that it wouldn’t be fair for Westerners to impose their conception of morality upon those who disagree with the fundamental premises that such a moral system is founded upon.
Secondly, participating in democracies to implement the Shari’ah or establish the Khalifah does not intrinsically mean that the democratic system will become obsolete once the Shari’ah or the Khalifah is established. It is not merely a ruse to grant the state total power. In Islam, there is clearly a separation of “Mosque and State.†The State is merely the executor of rulings that are deduced by Muslim Judges. It does not decide religious doctrine or engage in the extraction of rulings from the sources of legislation. That is the emphatic providence of the jurists. However, jurists lack the power of the purse or the sword or in deciding legal issues beyond the scope of the Shari’ah. As such, it is possible to establish democratic practices on issues that do not concern legal issues, such as taxation, criminal sanctions not already established in the Shari’ah, education, healthcare, economic incentives, and other concerns that any democracy has. Thus, while an Islamic democracy might not be identical with the Western conception, it is still technically a valid democracy nonetheless, although it may be illiberal. Again, as stated above, merely because Islamic governance is not a liberal democracy does not necessarily entail that it is communist or totalitarian or fascist. It is time for people to stop analogizing Islam with Western models and to see Islam as its own subject, with its own coherent epistemology.
Thirdly, I would ask you; if Muslims should not use Democratic paradigms to establish the Shari’ah, then how would you advocate Muslims implement the Shari’ah? What alternative do they have if they seek to follow the injunctions of their faith?
With regards to Western support for Islamic governments, I agree, if they don’t’ want to support them, they don’t have to. If they want to give for humanitarian causes, that’s fine. Muslims are not asking for money, they are asking for independence, both political, military, intellectual, and economic. Let us run our countries as we see fit. We both agree that the use of military force to impose a subjective understanding of morality is itself immoral, whether by Westerners to Muslim countries or by Muslim countries to Western countries. Live and let live.
With regards to reason, this is a very long tangential discussion. Sufficed to say, neither Islam nor Muslims are against reason per se, but certain types of reasoning and in certain areas of ethics. This is self-evident from the history of Islamic theology. At no point in time have Muslim theologians rejected Greek philosophy in its entirety, but they systematically studied it and extracted what was coherent with Islamic epistemology and rejected that which conflicted. Islamic law has many similarities to anglo-saxon law and some scholars have argued that there is a direct link between the common law and the Shari’ah. So clearly, Islam contains a rational element in its discourse. To claim that Islam is ‘irrational’ because it doesn’t agree with the rational conclusions that Western civilization has come up with is conceited. Furthermore, my article did not call upon Muslims to attack the Western conception of human rights simply for metaphysical reasons, but because these rights schemes are being used as a standard for judging Muslims and forcing change upon them. I am not calling for a refutation of Utilitarianism or Kantian Ethics or Natural Rights models or Social Contract theory in and of themselves, but only in so far as such philosophical paradigms are used to judge Islamic theology and jurisprudence, in which case I think Muslims should definitely engage in critiques.
(subhana wa ta’ala); no one else.
I also don’t see what is stopping Muslims from engaging in the type of critique that you called for regarding Christianity. There is no Roman popery scowling in the Vatican in Islam; there is no Khalifah or Islamic states to punish apostates or freethinkers. The Muslim world, fifty years into the post-colonial era, has produced, at best, a handful of the types of thinkers you are referring to. Perhaps it is not because Islam resorts to violence to quash dissenting opinions, but because Islam operates within a rationally cogent epistemological framework. You, as a non-Muslim, may disagree with this framework, but even you would have to recognize that Muslims believe it to be coherent. Furthermore, given that many non-Muslims are converting to Islam in very large numbers, perhaps Islam is more “rational†than you are willing to recognize.
Lastly, I think you underestimate the vitality of Islam. Islam has survived the Crusades, the Mongol invasions, genocide in Spain, and colonization. The fact that several thousand lightly armed insurgents in Iraq are able to keep the most powerful nation in human history in check illustrates exactly how much control Western countries have over Muslim ones: slim to none. In spite of all the greatness and grandeur and appeal of Western civilization, Islam is still spreading, thriving, all over the world. Even those Muslim immigrants you refer to are not enamored by the Western civilization you speak of. Western civilization is threatened more by Islam than the other way around, my friend. Not in a physical sense, but in an existential sense, since it is Islamic traditions that are becoming dominant and Western traditions that are receding. I have never feared nor felt threatened by Western civilization and I am not sure where you got that impression from my post. I am a student living in America and I speak openly about implementing the Shari’ah, establishing the Khalifah, and other issues you’ll find on this blog. As a Muslim, we only fear and submit to Allah
Thank you for this interesting discussion. :)
March 31, 2007 @ 7:41 am
jdsg,
You speak words of wisdom, my dear friend. I think its a great idea and we should definitely try and develop a Muslim think tank which can submit papers to political institutions.
March 31, 2007 @ 7:41 am
Firstly, I don’t think that the Shari’ah is incompatible with democracy in and of itself…
Of course it’s compatible. In fact, here in Singapore (hence the “sg” on my nick), Shari’ah forms part of the legal code for the country. There are Shari’ah courts here that have jurisdiction over various Muslim matters, such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and so forth. Primarily family matters. Business codes are increasingly being influenced by Shari’ah due to the growth of the Islamic financing sector here. (I don’t believe Shari’ah influences the criminal code here as much as it does the civil code - although I could be wrong - however, the criminal code here is quite strict, perhaps as strict in some ways as Shari’ah is, and maybe even stricter.) And, of course, S’pore is a democracy.
March 31, 2007 @ 8:41 am
i pulled this over in full to eteraz. there are a few very minor formatting problems remaining that i have not corrected.
LoA.
March 31, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Jinnzamann,
Thanks again for your thoughtful response. I have to say that this is one of the most interesting discussions I’ve had about religion and politics and I’m truly glad you’re willing to talk so openly about it.
You have an excellent point that Shariah law is not completely incompatible with democracy. I disagree to a certain extent, because by its nature Shariah law does not tolerate many types of dissent. I think you would agree that a “democracy” that only limited dissent to areas such as taxation is simply not a robust democracy by any standard (American and Western democracy certainly has had problems with allowing certain kinds of dissent as well, but rarely have dissenters actually been punished with death!)
And I think this is ultimately my problem with Shariah law, even where it is instituted by democratic means. This goes beyond the liberal/conservative dichotomoy. In Western democracies, conservatives can be elected to power but there are safeguards to ensure that minorities are allowed the capability to dissent, to argue their case, and ultimately to vote their mind against. I’m sure you’re familiar with the seesaw-like evolution of American politics, where the liberals hold power for a while until people become sick of them and switch to conservatives for a generation, and vice versa.
But in a Shariah country, this could never happen, even under the guise of so-called “democracy” because Shariah simply does not allow any meaningful form of dissent. Once it’s implemented in a country, there is no going back by any democratic means. It also presents the non-Muslim minorities in such countries with a difficult choice: immigrate, or be treated as a second-class citizen (or sometimes killed).
Let’s imagine a scenario where shariah-minded Muslims one day do form a majority in a country like France. They vote to institute Shariah law. Where does this leave the minority of non-Muslims in France? In a Shariah country, they would be treated as dhimmis, or worse if they’re atheists or pagans. They would be forbidden from arguing against shariah law and trying to rally support to democratically overturn it. Realistically, they would have no recourse other than
• moving to another country
• converting to Islam
• be subjected to humiliation as a dhimmi
• stage a violent revolution.
In Germany, Hitler and the Nazis were democratically elected. They then proceeded to demolish a huge number of citizens’ rights and subjugate non-Nazi citizens (Jews, gypsies, etc.), often killing them. How exactly would this be different from a Muslim majority democratically instituting Shariah law? I realize that Islam and Nazism are vastly different systems, but surely you have to admit that they are similar in both their treatment of non-Muslims/Nazis and in their intolerance for many types of political criticism. (I realize that bringing up Nazis in a debate often results in heated emotions—please realize that this is not my intent)
As to the history of so-called “universal human rights,” you are of course correct to point out that many of these rights are recent innovations. However, you have to realize that they are innovations brought about by centuries of free exchange of ideas. You claim that Westerners are trying to “impose” these ideas on non-Western countries by violence. Is that true? To a certain extent, yes, that’s why we went to war. But we’ve never held a gun up to an Iraqi and told them not to vote for Shariah law.
Compare this to the situation in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran has a huge secular minority who are actively trying to liberally reform Islam (Saudi Arabia less so). You talk about violently imposing morals—look at how these countries impose their shariah morals on their citizens! The ones who are holding guns up to people telling them to vote a certain way in Iraq are not the Americans, they are the shariah-minded Muslims.
So in many ways, I don’t even think it’s fair for you to criticize the way the West is trying to spread their moral view. As a shariah-minded Muslim, you presumably have no problems with imposing a certain moral view on a populace with fear and threat of death. You also probably are not against the Muslim conquests of north Africa and India, where Muslims did spread shariah law by the sword. Even if the West was spreading Western liberal morals by the sword, you can’t really criticize it without revealing your double standards.
Now, you asked how Muslims should try to spread Shariah if not through democracy. It’s an interesting question, and I don’t really know what answer to give you. You say:
“I do not think it would be fair to impose such a system upon people who do not accept such presuppositions.”
But by democratically instituting Shariah law that is exactly what you would be doing to the non-Muslim minority living in such a state. I think I’ve also made a case that imposing shariah law, even democratically, will probably result in either mass immigration or violent revolution on the dhimmis’ part in today’s world.
So let me put the question to you. Let’s say I wanted to institute Old Testament law in a country with a significant Muslim minority. (The Old Testament, like the Quran, commands the stoning of unbelievers and anyone who blasphemes God and anyone who resists the law of scriptures). Believe it or not, a lot of Americans really do want to start a government based on Biblical law so it’s not like this could never happen. How would you feel if Americans instituted Biblical law in American by democratically voting it in? If you live in America, you would probably be killed as a Muslim. If you tried to resist you would be killed.
So what would you say to someone who wanted to democratically institute Biblical law in America? Something tells me you would be strongly against it—again, double standards.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to this: I don’t believe Shariah law should be instituted because I do not recognize Islam or the Quran as any sort of legal authority whatsoever. I think humans have the responsibility to determine what is right and moral and how best to govern themselves. And I think Muslims have greatly benefited from this way of thinking–as many Muslims have pointed out, they have greater freedom of worship in America and Canada than they do in Turkey or Pakistan!
You, on the other hand, believe that the Quran is the word of God and thus everyone should be forced to obey its word. “Forced” is a strong word, and I don’t mean to imply that you think that people should be forced to convert. But in an ideal world the Muslims should rule and they should rule according to the true word of the Quran.
We can argue about the most fair way to implement shariah all day, but ultimately I feel like the root of the disagreement between us is not political, but religious. You believe your religion is right, and I do not.
I certainly recognize the vitality of Islam. It is going to be a much more difficult nut to crack than Christianity, because—if I may be blunt—the Quran is better at brainwashing than the Bible is. Death penalties for apostates doesn’t hurt Islam’s resilience either. But I think your claim that “The West has more to fear from Islam than the other way around” is absurd. If this was true than you would be in an internment camp right now, like the Japanese during World War 2.
Let me tell you exactly what I am afraid of, regarding Islam. I am afraid that some terrorist is going to acquire a nuclear weapon and detonate it in New York, in the name of Islam. I’m afraid not just for the people who would die, but rather for our inevitable response to such an action—because I am pretty sure our response would be to “nuke Mecca.” After 9/11, a huge number of people wanted us to nuke Mecca, and that was over the deaths of 3,000 people. I do not want to live in a world where the West and Islam are at war in earnest. And I feel that the side to start such a war would be Islam.
Some people have pointed out that the West is really at war with Islam, not “terror.” However, I simply don’t think this is true, because we have examples from history to look at what happens when an imperial power goes to war with a religion. In ancient Rome, the Jews were occupied by the Romans. The Jews violently resisted Roman rule, committed many acts of terrorism, and eventually the situation devolved into an all-out war.
The Romans, with their superior military, crushed the Jewish resistance. Not only that. They destroyed the Temple. The Temple, at the time, was the center of the Jewish cult, much like the Kaaba is the center of the Muslim cult. It was where all sacrifices were performed, and it was an especially holy place. The Temple’s destruction was an open wound in Judaism, and after the initial rage at such sacrelige, the religion of Judaism changed in fundamental ways. Today, Jews no longer follow the word of the Bible. They no longer sacrifice animals to Yahweh. Aside from a few crazy settlers in Israel, few Jews even pay attention to religious laws. The religion bears almost no resemblance today to the religion before the Temple’s destruction.
I don’t think you’ll deny that the West has the technological capability to not only destroy Mecca but also to route pretty much every Muslim army in the world. Nor do I think you’ll deny that, if an Islamic terrorist nuked New York, America and the West would become so enraged at Islam so as to finally declare all-out war on your religion, much like Rome did with the Jews.
But I don’t want to become like Rome. I am terribly afraid that this is where the conflict between Islam and the West is pushing America. I want to live in a world where differences between us are settled by reason, not force—by pleasant discussions like this one, not by war.
I believe that reason is the best arbiter of differences between human beings, followed closely by empathy. Perhaps you would disagree, saying that the Quran is the best arbiter—but surely you would agree that the Quran, if it is the true word of God, should be reasonable and able to be reasonably defended.
And so this is where I propose Muslims and the West begin to sort out their differences. Not necessarily in politics, and certainly not in the arena of war—but rather, let’s have an honest discussion about religion, about “why we believe what we believe.” Americans are generally sensitive about talking about religion, and Muslims even more so. But if we want to live in a peaceful world, I think this is where the dialogue needs to happen. We all need to know why we believe what we do, and we need to have open debates about those beliefs. This should be a precursor to instituting shariah law, or any kind of law—a peaceful, rational debate on the efficacy of said law. And there are already plenty of forums where such debates can occur, thanks to the internet.
What do you think? (Sorry if this response is a little too-long-winded for a blog comment!)
March 31, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
By the way, I want to make absolutely clear (just in case it wasn’t):
I am absolutely against the Iraq war, and I do not think the West should “spread democracy” by going to war. Neoconservatism is absurd, hypocritical, and dangerous for everyone living on earth.
March 31, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
As’salam Alaikum
JAK for post and summery
There is nothing new in the report or strategy
However, it has come out to become an open plan (plots) since the ummah has been put to sleep for decades
There are many US sponsored institutes and organizations especially in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon (Like Ibn Khalldoun Research Center and American Universities) to promote and implement these policies at least since the Camp David peace treaty
April 2, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Ahn-Aku,
You mention in your first comment that you were offering a response b/c it seemed like JM hadn’t gotten any from Westerners yet. Did you actually read the comments? At least three of the people who commented before you are Westerners, born and raised, two of them (that I know of)Americans. Being Western is not incompatible with being Muslim, even a devout, “Orthodox” one. Perhaps you meant to say a “non-Muslim” response, but it bothers me that your comments propose to speak in behalf of “Westerners” when I am one, when JM is one, Bin Gregory, and so forth, and I think we would heartily disagree with some or many of your points.
I am also troubled that you seem to reach into the big back of erroneous misconceptions about Islam in order to make your points. You confuse rationalism or honest dialogue with being allowed to (pardon this imagery) take a dump in the living room of a house where you’re a guest. Good for Sunni Forum if they ban people who insult the Prophet (peace be upon him). That is not honest dialogue, inquiry, or a search for common ground. It is, in our religion, blasphemous and insulting. I don’t think that people, between nations (states, ethnicities / races, or religions in this case) need to insult one another to talk and to find common points of unity. Further, I am just curious to know who you think you are to speak for why the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the Word of God or anything else? You claim it is because of naked fear. Who told you this? How on earth would you begin to have any insight into who we are and why and what we believe? We are a diverse people, numbering roughly 1/5 of humanity, and in a few sentences on a blog, you manage to reduce us to a bunch of trembling, slobbering robots.
It frustrates me, and highlights bin Gregory’s point that not only do we have to work on Muslim-to-Muslim issues (as JM wrote about) but on Muslim-to-non-Muslim issues without groups like RAND or even the mainstream media acting as our interpretors and intermediaries. That said, I think non-Muslims have to make some more efforts, and that many conclusions that I see drawn in n-M blogs, in the papers, on TV, or in conversation are really the result of intellectual laziness combined with an ignorance of where to begin a rigorous and authentic inquiry into what Islam really is and who Muslims really are.
I should really stop here, out of respect for JM and the fact that he didn’t exactly offer to host everyone else’s blog posts here. If I want to go on any further, I’ll do it on my own space, though I may not b/c a lot of interesting stuff has already been said, and I’m not sure what I could add.
April 8, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Salaam ‘alaikum. Jinnzaman: run (do not walk) to the bookstore to get Kevin Phillips’ “American Theocracy.” (ISBN: 978-0-14-303828-3) Just the first third of the book, on oil, will provide a very useful framework for understanding the likes of the RAND reports.
April 10, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
excellent points qalbudeen and ummzaid.
i wish there was a way to integrate blogs with forums so people could have more in depth discussions.
inshaAllah, some time in the future.
April 12, 2007 @ 12:19 am
Is “American Theocracy” about the Dominionist/Christian Reconstructionist movement?
I don’t see how the Dominionists pose anything like the same degree of threat as the Islamist movement. Political Islam has vast (perhaps even majority) support in most Muslim lands, while Dominionism is a purely American movement, and more akin to a criminal conspiracy than a mass movement.
Then again, a Dominionist state would be worse that a neo-Caliphate in three respects:
1) Death sentence for pre-marital fornication, in accordance with Mosaic Law (Islamic Shari’ah only prescribes flogging).
2) Ruthless Social-Darwinian economics (ironic, given that the Dominionists often disbelieve in biological Darwinism).
3) Murderous intolerance of non-believers (translation: no dhimma).
April 14, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
George: No, not really. “American Theocracy” argues that the US is following down the path of previous empires (Rome, Britain, the Netherlands, etc.) in being tied to an aging (and rapidly obsolescent) energy source (oil), a militant religion (fundamentalist / evangelical Christianity), military overreach, and ballooning debt. There is a significant discussion about American religion in the book (the middle four chapters, focusing especially on the Southern Baptist Convention), but the discussion (that I’ve read so far) does not talk directly about Dominionism. When I recommended this book to Jinnzaman, I was referring to the first three chapters of the book, which deal with the US/UK thirst for oil. The last third of the book, which deals with debt and the financial markets, may also be of some interest with respect to the RAND report, but I haven’t read that far into the book yet.
April 15, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
I agree with JDsg… American Theocracy is a very well-put together history of the making of the current regime and all the related influences.
April 26, 2007 @ 1:18 pm