Dealing with Extremists in Islam
Luder G. Whitlock, Jr.
The relationship between the West and Islam will be one of the most important issues during the first part of the twenty-first century. It has enormous implications not only for the Middle East, but for Europe with its growing Muslim population. The growth of a militant, violently ruthless Islam endangers not only the West, but the world.
A critical aspect of this issue is the outsized influence of Islamic extremists who have embraced terrorism as a primary method for destabilizing, then imposing themselves on and controlling selected populations by intimidation and violence. One root of this terrorism, according to various experts, is the Wahhabism nurtured in Saudi Arabia, which has expended vast financial resources and become a huge influence in the Muslim world. The fact that this extremist element may not be representative of historic and mainstream Islam seems beside the point because of its ability and determination to intimidate and seize power.
Unless it is reversed this trend will jeopardize the future of Western civilization, for these extremists see the West as the enemy to be defeated. The longer they continue, the more their influence grows, the more difficult they will be to contain or reverse. So what should be done? Conventional military responses have limited usefulness, for without some way to identify the enemy for sustained retaliation, military effectiveness is limited. Western citizens will not be—or, in the case of the U.S., remain—supportive of long drawn-out guerrilla warfare.
Can an analogy be drawn between dealing with terrorists and organized crime or drug traffickers? Or is it possible, by gaining the support of a majority of the indigenous population, to establish and maintain order locally and regionally? That is evidently the current strategy of the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unless there is a sustained, disciplined effort to identify and defeat this jihadist element, will the Middle East and Europe eventually bow to these would-be rulers? Will it mean the decline of Europe and the United States, as Soviet losses in Afghanistan contributed to the decline of the Soviet Union? Muslims driven by jihadist ideology think so and that motivates them.
Any effort to deal forcefully with extremists must endeavor to develop a strategy that courts and strengthens moderates who may be intimidated by them, and it must also reach out to other countries that see the danger of extremist Islam. If these extremists cannot be defeated, moderate Muslims will be subjugated and the extremists will ensure grave global consequences. Such consequences in their early stages are already apparent in Africa and elsewhere.
A withdrawal of Western troops from Iraq will not assure that conflict will end. That will require a thorough discrediting of this extremist ideology and its violent adherents among the majority of Muslims who can recognize it as the true enemy and emphatically reject it. They need encouragement, support, and hope of self-determination for the future. If Western societies do not care enough to provide it now, we will likely pay a bigger price later.
Finally, we need a widespread condemnation of militant Islamist extremism that, in its ruthless drive to destroy any obstructions to its presumed triumph, disregards the value of human life. People of faith, including Christian leaders, have voiced such condemnation. Unfortunately, the way in which they have done so has frequently pushed moderate Muslims to sympathize and align with the extremists. Such tactics must be avoided in the future. The pursuit of peace and an end to violence, a goal worthy of united support from all religious traditions, must be pursued with discernment in a manner compatible with a paramount concern for the safety and welfare of every human being.
Dr. Luder G. Whitlock, Jr. is Executive Director of The Trinity Forum.
66 Responses (comments are closed) • Provocations, Faiths and Worldviews, Good and Evil, War and Peace, Thu 26 Jul 2007
on 2007 08 01
US- 1 world- 0
http://www.savedarfur.org/pages/faq/#0
Why is the Coalition calling upon President Bush to help make sure UN peacekeepers are sent immediately to Darfur? Shouldn’t that be the UN’s responsibility?
The recent television ads sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition asking President Bush to take the lead in pushing for the deployment of a UN force in Darfur are not meant in any way to “bash” the President, but rather to urge him to follow through on the good work he and his Administration have already begun. We are both cognizant and appreciative of the fact that the President has done more for the people of Darfur than any other world leader. In fact, it is because of his leadership thus far that we direct our pleas to President Bush now. The hard truth is that the United Nations does not have a standing army it can choose to deploy, it must instead rely on its member states to do the hard work necessary to actually deploy a peacekeeping force once that force has been authorized. As the strongest of member states, we believe that the United States, under the President’s leadership, must lead the international effort to raise and deploy that UN peacekeeping force. While we are not calling for U.S. troops in Darfur, we are calling for the strong U.S. leadership necessary to ensure that a capable UN force is raised and sent to Darfur as soon as possible.
It is also worth noting that while these ads running in the U.S. call for stronger leadership from President Bush, similar ads being run internationally call upon various international leaders to provide strong leadership as well. Advocacy directed at President Bush is not the sum total of our advocacy efforts, but is in fact only the U.S. directed portion of a larger international advocacy campaign directed at the top echelon of world leaders.
on 2007 08 01
“2.I’m sorry, the Iraq refugee crisis - 4 million displaced - IS worse than Darfur (2 million displaced). As if the catastrophe that is Iraq needs to be realised by quibbling over rankings…”
3 million plus in Darfur. The war has fallen over into Chad and now Ethiopia. It will probably go into Uganda and Central African Republic. Regionally Darfur is terrible and Iraq is not Genocide but war. Refugees may be bad in Iraq as well but this is all beyond the point. Both are bad.
“3. There is more evidence (leaked reports, briefings, public statements) that Israel and/or the US intend to attack Iran, than evidence suggesting that Iran would attack (nuclear or otherwise) Israel, the US or anyone else - without due provocation.”
Russia is helping Iran and so is China. I think that is a good start but I am glad there is evidence for invasion. We will win while Brazil and most of the EU countries stay in hiding from the terrorist. Let the big boys take care of it but then get mad when it is over.
on 2007 08 01
“If Alan “Torture can be justifiable” Dershowitz is a “big liberal”, whose fraudulent, laughably-inaccurate diatribe agains the Palestinians is “fair and balanced”, I think cicero and me may not see eye to eye...but for the sake of those reading…”
We do not see eye to eye. Alan said torture was only acceptable in a “ticking bomb” scenario and other then that he disagreed with it completely and he also said that nations MUST get warrants if they’re to torture. You call Alan’s feeling about Israel and Palestine diatribe because you Ben hate Israel, Jews, Americans, and freedom? You cannot accept that the Palestinians may be wrong and that is not a question.
“1. The House of Saud hasn’t declared war on the US, but most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Hezbollah has never shown any interest in attacking the US except when its troops were in Lebanon. It is a resistance group whose sole aim has been to defend Lebanese sovreignty from Israeli aggression.”
The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and I think the government has a lot to explain but at the moment we have other things to worry about. Hezbollah have been however linked to terrorist attacks on Israel.
If Alan “Torture can be justifiable” Dershowitz is a “big liberal”, whose fraudulent, laughably-inaccurate diatribe agains the Palestinians is “fair and balanced”, I think cicero and me may not see eye to eye...but for the sake of those reading…
1. The House of Saud hasn’t declared war on the US, but most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Hezbollah has never shown any interest in attacking the US except when its troops were in Lebanon. It is a resistance group whose sole aim has been to defend Lebanese sovreignty from Israeli aggression.
2.I’m sorry, the Iraq refugee crisis - 4 million displaced - IS worse than Darfur (2 million displaced). As if the catastrophe that is Iraq needs to be realised by quibbling over rankings…
3. There is more evidence (leaked reports, briefings, public statements) that Israel and/or the US intend to attack Iran, than evidence suggesting that Iran would attack (nuclear or otherwise) Israel, the US or anyone else - without due provocation.
on 2007 08 01
To Ben part 4
You said: The world’s worst refugee crisis is Iraq; and Iraq’s neighbours are all on edge (particularly Turkey, itching for a chance to fight Kurdish guerillas). Another strong candidate for ‘regional war’ is if the US and/or Israel attacks Iran (possible with nuclear devices).”
The world worst refugee crisis right now is Darfur. The candidate for regional and world war is when Iran tries to nuke Europe, America, Israel, or some other nation.
on 2007 08 01
To Ben part 3
You said: Incidentally, as for the question of when a regional Middle East war may erupt...Such an awful prospect was made frighteninly more plausible when the US and UK invaded Iraq in 2003. The world’s worst refugee crisis is Iraq; and Iraq’s neighbours are all on edge (particularly Turkey, itching for a chance to fight Kurdish guerillas). Another strong candidate for ‘regional war’ is if the US and/or Israel attacks Iran (possible with nuclear devices).”
Many nations supported and help send in troops into Iraq. Saddam had already broken seventeen UN resolutions and on March 12, 2003 Tony Blair tried to make an 18th resolution but was rejected by France. Russia had also rejected several times during the one year deliberation as to when the U.S. and its allies were going to invade Iraq. We gave Saddam plenty of time but he refused again and again. We inspectors did enter they were quickly thrown out in 48hrs. I can go on and on why the Iraq war is justified.
An excerpt from my book I am writing on the UN:
“On January 30, 2003 the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Denmark, and the Czech Republic release a statement, The Letter of the Eight, demonstrating support for the United States plans to invade Iraq. Also Australia, Japan, India, Israel, and other countries around the world show support believing also their own intelligence showing that Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) were in Iraq. On March 1, 2003 the United Arab Emirates ask Saddam to step down in order to avoid war but he did not.”
on 2007 08 01
To Ben part 2
Alan Dershowitz had this to say in September 28, 2006.
Now that Germany has canceled performances of the Mozart Opera (Idomeneo) in fear of offending Muslims, will Germany finally cancel the annual passion play of Oberammergau because it is so offensive to Jews? Or the various Berlin caberets that trash Christianity? No way! Why not? Because Germans are not afraid of Jewish or Christian who will react to being deeply offended by blowing up the theater. But they are afraid that some offended Muslims will do just that.
Germans are right to be afraid, because there is a track record of Islamic violence in response to cartoons, a lecture by the Pope or other “provocations.” But they are wrong to give in to their fear by censoring the offensive material.
There cannot be one rule for offensiveness to Muslims and another for offensiveness to other religions, ethnicities or cultures. We should either be sensitive to all claims of offensiveness or to none. The criteria cannot be how much fear has been instilled by threat of violence or by a history of violence.
Giving in to violence only encourages more violence by demonstrating that it works. The “heckler’s veto” – the idea that a speaker can be silenced if hecklers drown him out or threaten him – has now been replaced by the “terrorist’s veto”.
The decision to cancel the Mozart Opera raises interesting questions with regard to free speech. Instead of censoring the opera, would it not be better to punish threats of violence or incitement to violence directed against the opera? This too would violate freedom of speech. But what is more justified: redirecting the offensive material in response to threats or punishing the threats or incitements. This is an issue worth debating in the age of terrorism.
on 2007 08 01
To Ben part 1
You said “think my point may have been misunderstood. My point is that ‘moderate’, in the context of the ‘war on terror’, has nothing to do with a government’s respect for freedom of speech and democracy, and everything to do with how compliant the regime is with US regional power interests. Thus the undemocratic and fiercely repressive House of Saud is a ‘moderate ally’ of the US, and Hezbollah, which participates in a democratic process - but also actively resists US/Israeli policies - is an ‘extremist terror’ group.”
I partially agree with you but point out that at times one must choose between the two lesser evils, if you will, but that is not to say one is really better then the other. But Hezbollah was and still is a threat to Israel and the people of Lebanon. They have been linked to attacks in Israel and so they must be dealt with. As for the House of Saud they have not attacked the U.S., Israel, or any nation in years that does not pose a threat to the world.
Read: The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. Alan Dershowitz is a huge liberal who I dislike on a lot of things but found him to be very fair and balanced in this book. If it makes you feel any better he believes in a Palestinian state.
I think my point may have been misunderstood. My point is that ‘moderate’, in the context of the ‘war on terror’, has nothing to do with a government’s respect for freedom of speech and democracy, and everything to do with how compliant the regime is with US regional power interests. Thus the undemocratic and fiercely repressive House of Saud is a ‘moderate ally’ of the US, and Hezbollah, which participates in a democratic process - but also actively resists US/Israeli policies - is an ‘extremist terror’ group.
Incidentally, as for the question of when a regional Middle East war may erupt...Such an awful prospect was made frighteninly more plausible when the US and UK invaded Iraq in 2003. The world’s worst refugee crisis is Iraq; and Iraq’s neighbours are all on edge (particularly Turkey, itching for a chance to fight Kurdish guerillas). Another strong candidate for ‘regional war’ is if the US and/or Israel attacks Iran (possible with nuclear devices).
on 2007 07 31
Part 2
The other nations in the Arms deal included Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. Each of these nations was put into question as well but we did come to one conclusion and it was not over the arms trade. But it was over the fact that we need support in the Middle East and if this can help us in the long run then the U.S. and Israel must take that gamble. Stopping Iran from doing anything dangerous and the War on Terror are important in making a better world. However, we believe most of these nations are untrustworthy.
So this goes back to the question of moderate Muslim and what is moderate. I do not think by simply looking at the government of these countries can a person decide if its people are moderates but the government does have influence. The government alone can be extremist and its people full of moderates and vise versa. What is clear for the most part is the relationships these nations have with Islamic terrorist groups and who funds them being the government or not. But to our best chance of understanding these nations is to study their history. Looking at history will not only give us a good idea of who they are but were this world is headed. History often repeats itself and this is something we should remember.
What I am trying to get at is the appearance of a blur between moderate and extreme is nothing more then an illusion. Moderates are people who are not the terrorist killing innocent people or soldiers in the name of Allah. Defense is one thing, murder is another. The extremist however seem to be a majority but possibly they are the minority who get all the news? Most of the governments in these Muslim nations are extremists but that does not make all of the people within the country extremist as I said earlier. Defining extremist from moderates is easy but pointing out who is the moderate is the hard part.
I think war is inevitable but the question is when will the war occur?
on 2007 07 31
Part 1
“The US government yesterday announced huge arm sales/funding to Arab governments that they (and Israel) call “moderate”. Specifically, the autocratic Saudi monarchy, and the dictatorships in Egypt and other Gulf States. So what is ‘moderation’?” – Ben
I think Ben has a very good and strong point that needs to be discussed. The other day a group of some of my closest friends and I sat down and had our usual political discussions. During the discussion we began to deliberate on whether or not it was a good idea to trade arms with these so called moderate Muslim nations.
Saudi Arabia is a business partner and ally of the U.S. but possibly it is more business then anything. But, Saudi Arabia has been linked to funding specific terrorist groups. I thought personally that we must take whoever we can even if it must be a lesser of two evils.
As for Egypt, which is a separate deal from the Gulf countries deal, we all dislike Egypt and we all think they will invade Israel again. Egypt is not trust worthy but maybe the U.S. government knows something we do not but that is unlikely.
Referring to the recent exchanges, what is a moderate Christian, a half-hearted one? What is a moderate Muslim? What is an extremist? Someone who is consequent in his thinking and has a clear determination? Is moderate better than extremist? Is half-hearted better than consequent? Is Christian better tham Muslim?
And what is our “Western religion”: business, free enterprise, globalisation, free competition, the rich getting richer the poor poorer? Is this better than following the rule of God as set out in the Bible or its follow-up, the Qur’an?
And, is it forbidden for countries outside the “Western world” to buy arms?
Ben I understand what you are saying - context is everything, and you are right about the use of terms. (Maybe we need to create a whole new vocabulary to better define what we truly wish to communicate!)I truly sympathize with your views and am also frustrated by the references used by the press and public in general which only set the state to pit one side against the other rather than trying to understand the underlying causes/problems. You bring up some real valid issues to ponder. Thanks for that.
on 2007 08 01
The US has been trying to help Darfur and other nations for years but other countries in the UN block the U.S. over and over again. Countries with no backbone that hide from evil hoping it will all just go away. I love my country and will die defending it. I do give a “Thank You” to the allies that stay by our side when it really is needed. The UN is a joke but hopefully things will get better.