Separating Terrorism and Fundamentalist Islam
On the 10th of October I attended Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs symposium titled “The Future of U.S. International Religious Freedom Policy: Recommendations for the Next Administration.” The morning’s session on religious extremism contained some interesting advice for fighting Islamist terrorism from the Center for American Progress’s William Schulz.
Schulz argued that though there is an undeniable religious element to the Islamist movement, to say that Islam is somehow uniquely conductive to terrorism is misguided. In fact, out of the estimated 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, the five countries with the largest Muslim populations are Indonesia (170.3 billion), Pakistan (136 million), Bangladesh (106 million), India (103 million), Turkey (62.4 million); all democracies. In addition, even in Saudi Arabia, with its authoritarian Sharia regime, less than 10 percent of the population had a favorable view of Al-Qaeda and 15 percent had a favorable view of Osama bin Laden.
So, then, how do we fight terrorism within this context? Says Schultz, it’s ineffective to try to coax Islamists to a more moderate religious stance. Rather, we must convince the sympathizers of terrorism–those aforementioned 10 and 15 percent–of the ineffectiveness of terrorism and persuade them to ultimately abandon support (mostly monetary) of terrorists. He enumerated a few DO’s and DON’Ts of this strategy:
DON’T: Conflate uses of terror by some Muslims as terror by all Muslims. Recognize that most Muslims are moderate, peaceful people.
DON’T: Use inflammatory language and tactics against Islam.
DON’T: Play into the terrorists’ hands by spreading democracy at the point of a gun, allying with authoritarian regimes such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and using torture.
DO: Show terrorism as a dead end.
DO: Embrace moderate Muslims.
DO: Denounce corruption in government.
DO: Renew access to Muslim students who want to study in the United States.
DO: Be flexible on separation of church and state in the Middle East.
DO: Honor results of free elections even when we don’t like them.
Though I do think these are good, practical suggestions and comprehensively constitute a constructive plan for combating terrorism, I’m less convinced that terrorist tactics can be so easily separated from a radical interpretation of Islam that, I’m assuming, supporters of terrorists espouse. For example, if the U.S. were to denounce the Saudi regime, we may convince Islamist terrorists and their supporters that jihad is no longer necessary, but I’m doubtful that we’ll convince them of the illegitimacy of employing terrorism in the first place.
If Islamists and their supporters believe and act upon the notion that suicide bombers are entitled to 70 virgins in the afterlife, I’m not sure that rationalizing terrorism as an ineffective means to an end is possible.
I have really convinced myself that we are only kidding ourselves by separating fundamentalist islam and maodarate islam. They both speak to the same theology and have not as yet convinced me that they condemn the acts of the terrorists. I beleive that there is a group that understands the concept of patience and one that does not. The latter being the terrorists. I also beleive that it is groups like the Humanists that will inevitably, once gaining strength and numbers, that will show these radical religious groups that they are the minority and should not seek to entitle themselves to power positions that could only lead to the next dark age.
To minimize confusion of thought let is establish clear definition of terms.
There is no such thing as “fighting terrorism.” Terrorism is not an enemy; it is simply a tactic used in combat usually by a combatant of weaker strength in conventional methods of warfare.
One’s enemy is not any tactic but the instigator of acts of warfare.
As for “terror,” that is an emotion. The appropriate way to deal with emotions is by psychotherapy, not calling out the army.
Clear thinking after 9-11 would have led to police action rather than a military response. Police action in response to a crime will focus on apprehension of responsible individuals and bringing them to trial. That is quite distinct from warfare, which takes place between states.
DON
That’s a great point, and one that I wish Schulz had addressed. (In fact, as a testament to the extent that insult is often taken, many countries–including some in Europe–have enacted so-called defamation laws, which more appropriately should be called blasphemy laws, that criminalize “offensive” language against religion.)
However, I do think there is a difference between critiquing religion and smearing it, and I agree with Schulz that it
Speaking of terrorism:
George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).
George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.
And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.
Many people know what Bush did.
And many people will know what Bush did
[...] Separating Terrorism and Fundamentalist Islam Rant amp Reason Posted by root 4 hours ago (http://blog.thehumanist.com) Comment by francis subscribed to comments via email 2008 10 25 03 13 12 to minimize confusion of thought let b s summa cum laude 1996 messiah college grantham pa lower merion high school environment middot ethics and morals middot general middot health am Discuss | Bury | News | Separating Terrorism and Fundamentalist Islam Rant amp Reason [...]