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
Hi Mike Kuhn! Will you be at the upcoming Trinity Forum event in Atlanta? I hope to be there and it would be great to meet you and others who read and comment on these posts.
This following is excerpt of a post from “Get Religion” blog http://www.getreligion.org
Joe Carson, PE
Knoxville, TN
‘There is no Islam . . . without a Khilafah’
Posted by tmatt Get Religion
Consumers of mainstream news hear, from time to time, the term “Arab street” used to describe the mindset of those opposed to so-called Western values and, in particular, the policies of the United States, England and other nations involved in conflicts in the Middle East.
The “Arab street” is usually described in terms of great masses of people who are poor, oppressed and, other than their anger, powerless. But is that the reality in the debates we face today? What are the key issues and who cares about them?
A recent (8/6/07) New York Times story by Jane Perlez <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/world/europe/06hizb.html> a stunning look into the reality of the debates that are unfolding in England, focusing on a London event advocating a crucial concept in Islamic history the return of the “caliphate” in the Muslim world. You know you are dealing with strong stuff when you see a headline in the Times like this one: “London Gathering Defends Vision of Radical Islam.”
Here is the heart of the story, as a “radical Islamic party” strikes back against its critics:
The party, Hizb ut-Tahrir, calls for the return of the caliphate in Muslim countries, the end of Israel and the withdrawal of all Western interests in the Middle East. In the aftermath of the botched terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow, there were renewed calls in Parliament for barring the group, on the ground that though it officially advocates change by peaceful means, its pronouncements can encourage Muslims to turn toward terrorism.
get the rest from NY Times and/or Get Religion!
Having lived in the Middle East for 16 years, I affirm Dr. Whitlock’s suspicion that Islamism poses a threat. I might add that that the secularism, materialism and narcissism which run rampant in Western societies pose a threat, different in nature but equally destructive, to the peoples of our world.
Since I speak Arabic fluently and have labored alongside the Middle Eastern Church for a number of years, I would like to point to another cause of the violence in the Middle East which is seldom recognized. That cause is the absence of a dynamic church, holding forth the values of God’s Kingdom as taught by Jesus Christ.
It is a fact of history that the church has a record of reacting to the Muslim world with violence (e.g. Crusades, Inquisition) while Christian missions have only recently begun to operate in the Muslim world (since the mid 1800’s). Perhaps in our penchant to save our “way of life” in the West, we have neglected to promote and propagate a way of life which may have done much to alleviate or, in some cases, eliminate the scourge of Islamism.
I speak of the “way of life” of the gospel. How would Christ react to this civilizational enmity? Think about the historic, religious, and political enmity that pitted Jews against Samaritans in the day of Jesus. While Samaritans were not committing the excesses of suicide bombings, their culture and civilization were perceived by the Jews of Judea to be a tremendous threat. Jesus entered Samaritan territory, “polluted” himself with the food and drink of the Samaritans, and saw in their community the potential of a “field white unto harvest.” His response to his enemies was to incarnate the good news of His Kingdom.
I suggest that Jesus will teach us more about how to respond to the “threat of Islamism” than our fascination with militaristic strategy and Western dominance.
There is a vast discrepancy between the alleged ‘threat to our civilisation’ from jihadist violence and the reality - hardly accidental when one considers the very real threat to peoples all over the world from US empire. The previous post (and others) allude in various ways to how horrible it is that suicide bombers are able to gain “community approval”, and that “any large-scale group of people could have so little regard for human life”. I am reminded of a letter to the British Guardian (July 3) that went as follows:
“Clearly those who are comfortable with blowing up random strangers to further some aim have been brainwashed. But then where does that leave those Anglo-American fighter-pilots, “softening up” Iraq at the start of the war, by dropping bombs over Baghdad? And let’s not forget that while a Muslim terrorist goes underground to plan his attacks, those fighter pilots will come back home heroes, and collect a wage from the state for their troubles. Who has the more poisoned culture?”
on 2007 08 03
It was good to see the thoughtful article by Luder Whitlock on “Dealing with Extremists in Islam”. This problem facing the world for the next few decades may well equal our concerns about the potential for atomic war when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were in a long-term standoff.
This struggle against Islamic Extremism may be harder to resolve than The Cold War since it literally has hundreds of thousands of roots scattered in both large and small cells throughout the Islamic and Arab worlds and now even in our Western societies. With little opportunity to find work and have hope for a better life, and fed by extremist religious leaders with no regard for human life, the main chance for ambitious, bright young men (and now women and even children) to earn community approval is to become a terrorist fighter or a suicide bomber. What a pathetic commentary on today’s state of civilization that any large-scale group of people could have so little regard for human life and its endless joys.
Dr. Whitlock is certainly correct that a withdrawal of Western troops from Iraq will not bring this conflict to an end. The availability of modern technological advancements in television, internet, e-mails, and satellite telephones continue to feed and encourage broadscale adherence with propaganda that overwhelms any moderate and thoughtful perspectives. In fact, a premature exit from Iraq will only feed the frenzy and underlying belief since 1980 that the U.S. is a paper tiger whose main values are words but whose citizens have become so self-centered, affluence and weak in its beliefs to fight over a sustained, indefinite period for its stated principles against a determined and obviously ruthless enemy.
It is also always a pleasure to read the insightful commentaries by David Aikman. His worldwide experience, keen political eye and his magnificent journalistic flair for concise communication are universally superb contributions to the thinking of all who may be fortunate to be on the distribution list for The Trinity Forum “Provocations and Implications”.
All the best . . . . . . almcdonald
Posting 4 (the end)
Terrorist. This is the most difficult issue. It comes out already if you try to find alternative names: Freedom fighter, Guerilla, Resistance group, Gods army, Allahs army, Warlord, Private army, etc.
If we say, terrorists are such people who threaten and kill populations who are not involved in a conflict, then the attack to the World Trade Centre in New York was terrorist, but any war is then also terrorist, so this is not the good definition.
If we say, terrorists are people who act violently against civil populations without being democratically elected or traditional leaders, and who follow an extremist view which they want to impose, then we come closer. But still borderlines are difficult to define. If Governments are dictatorships or criminals themselves, then terrorists become legitimate, but who can give them the legitimation? If their extremist view is the right truth but Governments do not want to listen? If an army of a country with democratically elected Government invades an other country, are they terrorists, as they are not elected in that country? If a big business in the mining or other sector employs a private army to keep protesters down, are they terrorists, they have no extreme view, only business in mind. If hatred between ethnic groups develops into systematic killings, are the killers terrorists?
Who can help with this definition?
Posting 3
Extremist. A person who interprets certain beliefs to the extreme, often just isolating one aspect and not considering an overall set of rules. They might be extremist in their belief and speech but peaceful in practice. They might be individuals with their personal extreme views, they might be groups supporting each other. In the extreme, they might want to impose their views by force, as individuals they can do limited damage (like those gunmen who from time to time attack a school or campus in the US and kill dozens, like the man who ran into the Swiss Canton of Zug’s parliament and shot most of them). Examples for major extremist groups are the Communists in Vietnam and Cambodia, the European crusaders who went to reconquer Jerusalem in the name of Chistianity, Hitlers Nazis who killed millions of Jews in the name of race, the Afghan Taliban, the Ku Klux Klan in America, the Red Brigades and the Red Army Fraction in Italy and Germany, or also religious groups who commit collective suicide.
Posting 2
Fundamentalist. A person who sticks to the fundaments of her or his belief. Christian fundamentalists might be deeply religious persons, taking just the Bible, Old and New Testament (and not the word of the pope, the church or other interpreters) as their basis, Muslim fundamentalists taking the Qur’an (القرآن) to its word, we might find others. There are also non-religious fundamentalists, Green environmental fundamentalists who want all our actions in harmony with nature. Fundamentalists not only speak but live their lives strictly to their beliefs. Their approach is rather holistic, englobing all aspects of life.
Posting 1
Dear all,
I feel your discussion is taking you far away from the original issue, that of the relationship of the West and Islam. You discuss about Saddam Hussein who was a secular dictator and about Darfur where in the first place there is no issue involving the West.
Why come back to these issues, confirming yourselves that invading Iraq was right and that Darfur is a drama?
I would like to hear some women’s voices in this forum, it seems all men (as I am). Maybe they could give some other aspects, more human and more logic?
In order to try and bring back the discussion to where it started I will set out some definitions in my next postings ....
on 2007 08 01
Note: I felt needed to clarify on my 3million+ estimate on the Darfur crisis. This number includes deaths and refugees but also I think this will be the final estimate when the crisis is over. But if the crisis continues on in the years to come then I would say the number will only increase.
I pray that Darfur, Iraq, and all other problems this world faces can be brought to an end. I do not like the idea that anyone has to die, starved, be forced out their land, and etc.
on 2007 08 01
Part 4
My friend sent this to me:
Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Sec. of State Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton, signed by
Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
Nancy Pelosi agreed: Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
on 2007 08 01
Part 3
My friend sent this to me:
The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq 2003.
“We have found WMD in Iraq, chemical weapons,” Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
And Democrats respond: Well, it’s only 500 so the war is still illegal.
To which I say: “Fair enough, but if anyone continues with the “Bush lied, people died” canard, we now know who is really lying, yes?” – My friend
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm
on 2007 08 01
Part 2
My friend sent this to me:
A top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, has provided the first-ever account of how Saddam Hussein “cleaned up” his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles to prevent the United States from discovering them. “The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon,” former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw told an audience Saturday at a privately sponsored “Intelligence Summit” in Alexandria, Va. (http://www.intelligencesummit.org).
“They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence,” he said.
Shaw has dealt with weapons-related issues and export controls as a U.S. government official for 30 years, and was serving as deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security when the events he described today occurred. He called the evacuation of Saddam’s WMD stockpiles “a well-orchestrated campaign using two neighboring client states with which the Russian leadership had a long time security relationship.”
on 2007 08 01
Part 1
My friend sent this to me:
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program,” Clinton said in October of 2002. “He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” - what Hillary Clinton said.
Perhaps Hillary was taking a line from her husband Bill’s repertoire, who as president bolstered the same case for disarming Hussein. “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear,” said President Clinton in February of 1998. “We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” – what Bill Clinton said.
on 2007 08 01
I like who you are Ben and everyone else on this forum, I do not mind if you disagree with us from time to time for it is a good thing. It is good we all have different views and not just a “cattle society” and I will take Ben’s words to heart.
on 2007 09 07
Dr. Whitlock is correct in his assessment of the threat posed by Islamic extremists, many of whom have been reared in the Wahhabi-sponsored Madrassah schools throughout the (Sunni) Islamic world. These schools provide shelter, three meals a day and medical needs while instilling the most virulent brand of Islam. In Saudi Arabia, these schools are endorsed by the gov’t. In poverty-stricken Muslim countries, they offer the only alternative to the ineffective and/or corrupt school systems. They have endeared themselves in the minds and hearts of the people, much as the Hesbollah (Shi’a) has done in southern Lebanon.
Some of these students will be tomorrow’s ‘moderate’ Muslims. A few will be homocide bombers. Philosophically, they will be indistinguishable.
In a recent post, Mr. Kuhn correctly observed that the church has a challenge to win hearts and minds of Muslims. I suggest that an alternative to Madrassah schools is an essential place to start. May the Lord instill a fervency in our hearts equal to the zeal that motivates those who despise us.
I have begun engaging Muslims in dialog on my blog: http://blog.y-factor.net. Please visit and post comments.