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
I think it would be useful if those talking about encouraging ‘moderate’ Muslims, or listening to them speak, could clarify what they mean. 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’? Can you be a ‘moderate’ Muslim, and still support your people’s right to resist foreign occupation? (for example)
I would like to thank Dr. Whitlock for his impassioned article, whether I agree with all that is stated or not. it is clearly an issue of great importance to us all. I want to bring attention to a particular passage I emphatically agree with and one I feel is full of wisdom -
“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.” So thank you TF & Dr. Whitlock for addressing this issue on the forum. It would be good if we had some of our Muslim moderate friends you mention sharing in this discussion.
Respectfully,
While it may feel good to tell ourselves certain untruths about the struggle of the modern world against Islam, it won’t fix the problem. All it will do is let us feel better in the intermittent “peace” between attacks. Have the South Koreans acted with impunity towards the “religion of peace?” What then justifies the barbaric treatment of the South Koreans held by the Taliban?
Answer: a rather well-accepted interpretation of the Muslim “holy” book. True, one could argue (with some success) that the “moderate” voices of Islam are of those of men like Karzai. Yet, these voices are few and far between. Another person here remarked that things will likely get worse before they get better. I happen to agree with that assessment.
Michael Tams
How curious. I also wondered where my comment had gone.
“We occasionally permit the expression of views with which we patently disagree.”
Apparently, obviously racist and belligerent remarks fall into the category of being ‘occasionally permissible’. But describing them as such doesn’t.
Although the author of the original piece presumably did not intend this, writing about “West” and “Islam” (dangerously undefined categories) and ‘threats to Western civilisation’, is music to the ears of those who dream of mushroom clouds over Tehran.
More light, less heat, please. Do not post comments attacking other commenters. See our comment policy. We occasionally permit the expression of views with which we patently disagree. Over time the truth will make itself known.
Thank you for that Observation Reinhard, you care about the Truth. Awaiting a response from the ‘FORUM’…
Where has Ben’s comment gone? Censorship?
It reads: - quote -
Is it not absolutely appalling that the following comments can appear on a
Christian theological journal website?
“Make a big hole out of Tehran and Damascus. Problem solved.”
Muslims respect “power and the will to prevail”
“Sometimes barbaric peoples have to be convinced of their impending
annihilation before they will surrrender.”
-unquote-
Excellent piece. Some observations:
Saudi Kingdom is a ruling family, propped up by the state religion, particularly Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia is largely a theocracy.
Participants in Trinity Forum are, by and large, quite accomplished in their vocational fields. For most, most of their interactions with Muslims occur within a professional/vocational setting.
So how can these settings and the institutions - professions, corporations, civic groups, trade groups, etc - that mediate them because more effective at de-legitimizing extremists in Islam?
James, this is exactly what the USA did, somebody attacked two major buildings, and Afghanistan and Iraq were made big holes. Millions of people suffer. You are one of those extremists with exactly the same attitude as the ones you blame.
I repeat what I cited from the Bible in one of my earlier postings: “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” (Luke 6:27-28).
I wish Harry S. Truman was around today. He would demand that the islamists lay down their arms and if they refused? Make a big hole out of Tehran and Damascus. Problem solved.
And no, that would not make Muslims hate us more--they would for the first time in years respect us--because power and the will to prevail is what they respect. They believe us weak-kneed; as they have made perfectly clear. They intend to destroy Western Civilization by their own procamations.
The Japanese are now our good friends but we had to put a definitive end to their nonsense first. Sometimes barbaric peoples have to be convinced of their impending annihilation before they will surrrender. The Islamic world knows we do not have the “stones” Americans possessed in spades in 1945.
on 2007 07 27
I don’t think any power should be involved in another countries business and that is a policy I hold true with all my heart. The problem is that the world seems to need guidance from time to time. I hate the idea of controlling anyone’s lives for it is un-American but when peace is at stake and the world could possibly crumble without someone to stand up I am proud to say America will defend you. I want peace but not at the cost of losing freedom and rights.
The world is a dangerous place and I think it is only going to get worse before it gets better.
on 2007 07 27
I think the world is misguided and loss in translation. Can people not see that mankind is naturally evil? We are not good people and as Christians we should all know this. I 100% believe in dialog and it is always the first tactic for me to use but in cases like in Sudan I wonder if any dialog will do any good? Even more importantly as millions are slaughtered, raped, and torture in Darfur what negotiations would have to be met for them to stop? Would it be amnesty to the leaders who allowed it? We live in zero justice policy world were people are too scared to stand up for truth and what is good. I hope the deaths in Darfur can be stopped but murders do not deserve to be simply let go.
on 2007 07 27
“So, you want Europe to start the third World War - oh no” – Reinhard
No I do not want a WW3 but I want to know why the EU sits and does nothing while millions die? Get involved more in the issues is what I am asking of Europe. Help the U.S. stop North Korea through dialog more and if necessary help us fight if ever needed. We should invade Sudan I do not believe in watching Genocide. In fact the AU should do something not either the EU or America. But if they continue to refuse then we must take action. We should stop corrupt China from funding Sudan through sanctions and we should tell them to have Sudan stop or else. We need cooperation in a world of chaos, greed, and corruption. I do not want a WW3 but I think it is the moral duty of world powers to act in the name of good.
I believe for the most part war is always the last solution. What is Europe doing to help other then running away or putting forth pointless sanctions with no backbone? I do not think we should invade any country we want becuase we think they are bad but when they begin to pose a threat to humanity I think any action is viable.
Nowhere have I said I want all out war or WW3 but I have said that America will fight if necessary.
Sao Paulo, Brazil
on 2007 07 31
Well I wouldn’t use the terms ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ since, as demonstrated in this article, they are used to distract our gaze in the ‘war on terror’ and have us believe that what is really going on is some kind of ‘war for the soul of Islam’.
Furthermore, my request for a definition of what is a ‘moderate’ is highly relevant. Does a Muslim meet the standard of moderation set for him by Western commentators if s/he denounces suicide bombing sufficiently vociferously? And does this ‘moderation’ became more suspect if s/he follows up this condemnation with the caveat that it is the conditions of colonialism and foreign occupation that have contributed to the suicide bombings? Is a Muslim ‘moderate’ or an ‘extremist’ if s/he believes that Islam is the perfect model for society and that he will thus try to peacefully extent its influence?
Finally, when one’s country/region is systematically exploited, occupied, tyrannised and bombed for decades - who would remain ‘moderate’?