Understanding Islamism

**Shek** · 03-26-2007, 21:23 PM

Quote:

Cairo/Brussels, 2 March 2005: The West's failure to understand the very diverse nature of Islamic activism risks sidelining non-violent and modernist tendencies, and strengthening militant jihadis.

Understanding Islamism,* the latest report from the International Crisis Group, describes that diversity -- the differences between minority Shiite and majority Sunni streams, and particularly within Sunni Islamism -- and explains its implications for U.S. and European policy choices.

"Since 9/11, Western observers and policy-makers have tended to lump all forms of Islamism together, branding most as 'radical' and treating them as hostile to Western interests. That approach is fundamentally misconceived", says Robert Malley, Crisis Group's Middle East and North Africa Program Director. "Islamism has a number of very different forms, only a few of them violent and only a small minority justifying a confrontational response".

Sunni Islamism -- on which most Western emphasis is placed today, and about which most fears are held -- is no longer at all monolithic. It now has three main distinctive types, each attempting to reconcile tradition and modernity in its own way:

Political: These movements seek political power by constitutional means, invoke democratic norms and accept the framework of the nation-state.

Missionary: The Islamic missions of conversion do not seek political power. Their overriding purpose is the preservation of Muslim identity and moral order.

Jihadi: The Islamic armed struggle has three sub-types: internal (against Muslim regimes); irredentist (fighting to redeem land ruled by non-Muslims); and global (against the West).

Shiite Islamism is different again: remaining unified to a remarkable degree because it so often sees itself as defending the interests of a minority Shiite community in relation to other populations, and not usually taking a violent form except under sectarian attack.

Which of the three main trends of Sunni Islamism will prevail is of great importance to the Muslim world and -- although none of them can be considered tamely "pro-Western" by any means -- to the U.S. and Europe. By adopting a sledge-hammer approach that does not differentiate jihadi Islamism from its political and missionary brands, or between fundamentalist and modernist streams of activism, Western policy-makers risk provoking one of two undesirable outcomes: either inducing the different strands to band together in reaction, or causing the non-violent, modernist trends to be eclipsed by the jihadis.

"Continuing to look for 'moderates' isn't likely to get anywhere as long as 'moderate' means 'co-optable'", says Hugh Roberts, North Africa Project Director. "Groups that fail to articulate the frustrations and expectations of the mass of Muslims have little chance of political success in Muslim countries, let alone promoting significant reform there".

Read the report through this link, International Crisis Group - 037 Understanding Islamism, or the attached file.

ExNavyAmerican · 03-27-2007, 02:35 AM

Interesting, and insightful article. I would agree with its subdivisions of Islam, but I really don't get the writer's point. Clearly he calls for understanding when dealing with Moslems, and the realization that they're not all extremists, but what is the point of pointing those things out? It would suggest that he's worried, and if so, about what? Any western action taken against Islam has been mild, and imho, justified.

My own note:

Islam is an interesting religion. The Qu'ran clearly preaches killing non-Muslims if they do not convert willingly, but they (Moslems) seem to always gather enough Western sympathy that discourages decisive action against that particular attitude. They turn into a discrimanatory, and racial issue. I know there are moderates, but the Jihadists are actually the people "in the will of god" when it becomes clear that a nation, ethnic group, or person will not convert: it says that it is alright to kill them for the greater good. If these people oppose universal Islam, the greater good, than the people loose their innocence, and can be killed. I'm not for "wiping out Islam": I'm against them wiping out us, and if that means we make war against them as a religion then so be it. But if they're willing to live with us then I can live with them. The only line I will draw at that point is the United States becoming an Islamic "Republic": I will fight before I let that happen. And that doesn't mean I'm anti-Moslem: it means I'm anti-bloody religious dictarorship! And when Moslems display the attitude I've just described, you can feel sure that I'll be "Islamophobic". When certain factions of Islam, which is a sympathized religion, were ploting your, and/or your country's demise: wouldn't you be "Islamopobic"?

SnowLeopard · 03-27-2007, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

.........And that doesn't mean I'm anti-Moslem: it means I'm anti-bloody religious dictarorship! And when Moslems display the attitude I've just described, you can feel sure that I'll be "Islamophobic". When certain factions of Islam, which is a sympathized religion, were ploting your, and/or your country's demise: wouldn't you be "Islamopobic"?

No ........ but mostly because phobic suggests a mental state of mind without reason, the gut feeling as it might be. One must always be of reasonable thought, calculating, scientific and not just believing.

Be that as it may, I would no more like an Islamic rule than I would want an Episcolplian rule that says Gays are abdominations or a Christian rule that says no birth control, no abortion and in result, populate this planet to and past its breaking point.

You see? Almost all religions if not all of them have their disadvantages when they are ruling the people. None of them are really preferrable.
-------------------------------------------------------
("My biggest fear is that there is no such thing as PMS and that this is who I really am."--Carol Weston, (wtte), "Empty Nest")

ExNavyAmerican · 03-27-2007, 05:26 AM

Quote:

No ........ but mostly because phobic suggests a mental state of mind without reason, the gut feeling as it might be. One must always be of reasonable thought, calculating, scientific and not just believing.

That's the point. If you criticize Islam, or merely speak against what it preaches you're automatically labled a "Islamophobic". Which is why I put the term "Islamophoic" in apostrophes. I'm merely concerned about what they have in mind for the west. Well, we already know: the plan is in motion in Europe.

Quote:

Be that as it may, I would no more like an Islamic rule than I would want an Episcolplian rule that says Gays are abdominations or a Christian rule that says no birth control, no abortion and in result, populate this planet to and past its breaking point.

I'm conservative, so I dislike most of those things anyway, but neither would I want a Chrisitan Republic, but then again, Christianity does indeed preach toleration-yes it has a relatively bloody history, but those were Catholics, and they're entirely different.

**Shek** · 03-27-2007, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Interesting, and insightful article. I would agree with its subdivisions of Islam, but I really don't get the writer's point. Clearly he calls for understanding when dealing with Moslems, and the realization that they're not all extremists, but what is the point of pointing those things out? It would suggest that he's worried, and if so, about what? Any western action taken against Islam has been mild, and imho, justified.

ENA,
Policy and information operations must take into account the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and our message and actions must be able to use these degrees of separation to splinter off the salafist jihadis whose fatwas can be deceptively persuasive to those Muslims who are indignified against the West because of some of the inflammatory programming on Gulf state satellite channels, but can't identify the fallcious strain of jurisprudence used to reason those same fatwas. If we can show greater sophistication in our policy and messages, then we can pull those who are more vulnerable for recruitment away from AQ and their ilk instead of pushing them towards AQ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerica

Islam is an interesting religion. The Qu'ran clearly preaches killing non-Muslims if they do not convert willingly

The Quran also clearly preaches to not kill non-Muslims, i.e., there is no compulsion in religion. The reconciliation of these verses depends upon the jurisprudence on abrogation. This is why it is necessary to discriminate between the various schools of jurisprudence.

RadioM · 03-27-2007, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shek

ENA,
The Quran also clearly preaches to not kill non-Muslims, i.e., there is no compulsion in religion. The reconciliation of these verses depends upon the jurisprudence on abrogation. This is why it is necessary to discriminate between the various schools of jurisprudence.

Interpretation!
The fundamental flaw of all religions.

ExNavyAmerican · 03-27-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

ENA,
Policy and information operations must take into account the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and our message and actions must be able to use these degrees of separation to splinter off the salafist jihadis whose fatwas can be deceptively persuasive to those Muslims who are indignified against the West because of some of the inflammatory programming on Gulf state satellite channels, but can't identify the fallcious strain of jurisprudence used to reason those same fatwas. If we can show greater sophistication in our policy and messages, then we can pull those who are more vulnerable for recruitment away from AQ and their ilk instead of pushing them towards AQ.

I understand, but it does not change the fact that Moslems who kill "non-conformists" are in the right according to the Qu'ran.

Quote:

The Quran also clearly preaches to not kill non-Muslims, i.e., there is no compulsion in religion.

Where does it preach that? I have some passages that state Moslems can kill non-Muslims, and indeed the Deys, and Sultans of the Barbary states said that they practiced piracy, and slavery because it was justifed to use it against "non-believers", but I'm wondering if you can pinpoint some passages that say the opposite for me.

SnowLeopard · 03-27-2007, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

........Where does it preach that? I have some passages that state Moslems can kill non-Muslims, and indeed the Deys, and Sultans of the Barbary states said that they practiced piracy, and slavery because it was justifed to use it against "non-believers", but I'm wondering if you can pinpoint some passages that say the opposite for me.

The Koran has sections in it about 'protecting' other peoples of the book, believers in the God of Abraham, essentially the Jews and the Christians. They are wrong, in the Koran, but since they believe in the God of Abraham, they are to be protected. Now why they are not always, we-ll............

But also remember that the Koran talks about the Gins. When it was explained to me about that section, the Gins were "in existance" in the time of Mohamed (sp?) and it was needed someway to "address" them.
----------------------------------------
(Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Drake comes back to the barracks and finds that recruit Adrian has just emptied his bag into his foot locker while his comtemporaries have neatly arranged their stuff, vastly incorrect. To Adrian, "Well, you're wrong, but you are more right than they are.", (w,stte), "Tribes")

Bluesman · 03-27-2007, 09:33 AM

What shek means by the concept of 'abrogation' is that anything that comes LATEST in the Koran is the Law. It ABROGATES everything that came before it that refers to the same subject. Which means we're in trouble, because after the Jews rejected Mohammed's approach to them, he went nutz and promised to wipe 'em out. And that's where matters stood when he died. allah's last and most perfect prophet left the last, the ULTIMATE revelation to a wicked world to use for allah's glory, and nothing more would be coming. There you go, world; you've got the guidebook for a righteous life. Do exactly what it says; anything else is apostasy.

SO...to the most literal of Islamic jurisprudence (what shek has been referring to), the revealed word of allah is unbreakable, perfect, literal, VERY clearly written, and chronologically presented, so if you're inclined to go by the strict interpretation of the Koran - like you know, a fanatic Muslim terrorist is - then you're sworn to fight allah's enemies, and that means the Jews and anybody else that doesn't worship as you do. No compulsion in religion, absolutely. But you still have three choices: convert OR pay the jiziya OR die. So, choose, you infidel dogs. If the Koran is The Truth, and all Muslims insist absolutely to the death that it IS, then your rejection of that truth is a form of fighting. Stop fighting Islam, and accept the truth, and we can all get along in allah's new-made world of the global caliphate.

See, THIS is what we're facing: there is no room for interpretation nor reform, because the Koran is not written in parables nor code nor is it loosely translated. It says what it says, and Muslim scholars - the products of the madrassas and the ayatollah's teachings and the customs and ALL of the body of work that makes up islamic law and scholarship - are INSULTED when we insist they don't know their own doctrine. OF COURSE THEY DO, and they follow it, well, religiously.

If we're waiting for the Islamic Reformation, we're waiting for an event that will not come. EVER. There's no room for it; there's no possibility of it.

crooks · 03-27-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

I'm conservative, so I dislike most of those things anyway, but neither would I want a Chrisitan Republic, but then again, Christianity does indeed preach toleration-yes it has a relatively bloody history, but those were Catholics, and they're entirely different.

Excuse me, Catholics are not the only "christian" group responsible for atrocities.

ExNavyAmerican · 03-27-2007, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Excuse me, Catholics are not the only "christian" group responsible for atrocities.

Maybe not, but the inqusition (Roman CAtholics), the Pogroms (orthadoxy), the Inca and Aztecs (Roman Catholics), not to mention all through the middle ages Catholics persecuting the "heretics". Anglicans, and Lutherans returned the favour after the reformation, but the demonination I'm believe in (Baptists) is completely innocent.

We were victims from the dark ages until persecution of other demominations ended.

crooks · 03-27-2007, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyAmerican

Maybe not, but the inqusition (Roman CAtholics), the Pogroms (orthadoxy), the Inca and Aztecs (Roman Catholics), not to mention all through the middle ages Catholics persecuting the "heretics". Anglicans, and Lutherans returned the favour after the reformation, but the demonination I'm believe in (Baptists) is completely innocent.

We were victims from the dark ages until persecution of other demominations ended.

Baptists?

Ie KKK

?

You don't get off the hook easy

.

ExNavyAmerican · 03-27-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Baptists?

Ie KKK

?

You don't get off the hook easy

.

Baptists are, as a group, very consevative, but not racist. I've been in so many churches, and seen so many pastors , and met so many Baptists: trust me; I know. Of course I've met some racists, but they're everywhere. And the ones I met that were Baptists not once advocated racial persecution, or segregation. I've been a christian 40 years, and know the church well: sorry your comment doesn't float.

glyn · 03-27-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crooks

Excuse me, Catholics are not the only "christian" group responsible for atrocities.

True, but they were responsible for the vast majority of them.

ExNavyAmerican · 03-27-2007, 12:47 PM

But let's get back to the topic shall we?

I've been responsible for so much topic-wandering lately I don't want to be responsible anymore. I'll continue this discussion, but the wandering is on you're head.

03-27-2007, 02:35 AM	#2 (permalink)
ExNavyAmerican *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-02-07 Location: Ningbo, China Posts: 827 Country:	Interesting, and insightful article. I would agree with its subdivisions of Islam, but I really don't get the writer's point. Clearly he calls for understanding when dealing with Moslems, and the realization that they're not all extremists, but what is the point of pointing those things out? It would suggest that he's worried, and if so, about what? Any western action taken against Islam has been mild, and imho, justified. My own note: Islam is an interesting religion. The Qu'ran clearly preaches killing non-Muslims if they do not convert willingly, but they (Moslems) seem to always gather enough Western sympathy that discourages decisive action against that particular attitude. They turn into a discrimanatory, and racial issue. I know there are moderates, but the Jihadists are actually the people "in the will of god" when it becomes clear that a nation, ethnic group, or person will not convert: it says that it is alright to kill them for the greater good. If these people oppose universal Islam, the greater good, than the people loose their innocence, and can be killed. I'm not for "wiping out Islam": I'm against them wiping out us, and if that means we make war against them as a religion then so be it. But if they're willing to live with us then I can live with them. The only line I will draw at that point is the United States becoming an Islamic "Republic": I will fight before I let that happen. And that doesn't mean I'm anti-Moslem: it means I'm anti-bloody religious dictarorship! And when Moslems display the attitude I've just described, you can feel sure that I'll be "Islamophobic". When certain factions of Islam, which is a sympathized religion, were ploting your, and/or your country's demise: wouldn't you be "Islamopobic"? __________________ "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson

03-27-2007, 09:33 AM	#9 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,387 Country:	What shek means by the concept of 'abrogation' is that anything that comes LATEST in the Koran is the Law. It ABROGATES everything that came before it that refers to the same subject. Which means we're in trouble, because after the Jews rejected Mohammed's approach to them, he went nutz and promised to wipe 'em out. And that's where matters stood when he died. allah's last and most perfect prophet left the last, the ULTIMATE revelation to a wicked world to use for allah's glory, and nothing more would be coming. There you go, world; you've got the guidebook for a righteous life. Do exactly what it says; anything else is apostasy. SO...to the most literal of Islamic jurisprudence (what shek has been referring to), the revealed word of allah is unbreakable, perfect, literal, VERY clearly written, and chronologically presented, so if you're inclined to go by the strict interpretation of the Koran - like you know, a fanatic Muslim terrorist is - then you're sworn to fight allah's enemies, and that means the Jews and anybody else that doesn't worship as you do. No compulsion in religion, absolutely. But you still have three choices: convert OR pay the jiziya OR die. So, choose, you infidel dogs. If the Koran is The Truth, and all Muslims insist absolutely to the death that it IS, then your rejection of that truth is a form of fighting. Stop fighting Islam, and accept the truth, and we can all get along in allah's new-made world of the global caliphate. See, THIS is what we're facing: there is no room for interpretation nor reform, because the Koran is not written in parables nor code nor is it loosely translated. It says what it says, and Muslim scholars - the products of the madrassas and the ayatollah's teachings and the customs and ALL of the body of work that makes up islamic law and scholarship - are INSULTED when we insist they don't know their own doctrine. OF COURSE THEY DO, and they follow it, well, religiously. If we're waiting for the Islamic Reformation, we're waiting for an event that will not come. EVER. There's no room for it; there's no possibility of it. __________________ "The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory." - George Orwell Last edited by Bluesman : 03-27-2007 at 09:36 AM.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/staff-college/37982-understanding-islamism.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
World Affairs Board - Military, Defense and Political Forum	This thread	Refback	03-27-2007 11:45 AM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Articles and links for the Military Professional	Officer of Engineers	The Staff College	115	11-20-2006 11:28 AM
Understanding the enemy	lemontree	South Asian Defense Topics	24	10-21-2006 01:11 AM
‘Divide and rule’ through Hudood bill?	Ray	Political Discussions	3	08-23-2006 04:12 AM
Understanding the maulvi point of view	Ray	Political Discussions	0	04-17-2005 14:45 PM
Loyalty never was an issue in Islam, our understanding is...	human	Political Discussions	7	10-25-2004 04:24 AM

03-27-2007, 12:47 PM	#15 (permalink)
ExNavyAmerican *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-02-07 Location: Ningbo, China Posts: 827 Country:	But let's get back to the topic shall we? I've been responsible for so much topic-wandering lately I don't want to be responsible anymore. I'll continue this discussion, but the wandering is on you're head.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)