War against Jihadism

With a hat-tip to Alan Hirsh for finding this in an article by...

George Weigel called Faith, Reason, And The War Against Jihadism: A Call To Action. ..

* Lesson one: The great human questions, including the great questions of public life, are ultimately theological
* Lesson two: To speak of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as the “three Abrahamic faiths,” the “three religions of the Book” or the “three monotheisms” obscures rather than illuminates. These familiar descriptions ought to be retired
* Lesson three: Jihadism is the enemy in the multi-front war that has been declared on us
* Lesson four: Jihadism has a complex intellectual history, the chief points of which must be grasped in order to understand the nature of the threat it poses to the west
* Lesson five: Jihadists read history and politics through the prism of distinctive theological convictions, not through the lens of western assumptions about the progress of dynamic of history
* Lesson six: It is not “Islamophobic” to note the historical connection between conquest and Muslim expansion, or between contemporary jihadism and terrorism. Truth-telling is the essential prerequisite to genuine interreligious dialogue, which can only be based on the claims of reason.
* Lesson seven: The war against jihadism is a contest for the human future that will endure for generations
* Lesson eight: Genuine realism in foreign policy takes wickedness seriously, yet avoids premature closure in it’s thinking about the possibilities of positive change in world politics
* Lesson nine: In the war against Jihadism, the political objective in the middle East and throughout the Islamic world is the evolution of responsible and responsive government, which will take different forms given different historical and cultural circumstances
* Lesson ten: in the war against global Jihadism, deterrence strategies unlikely to be effective, because it is almost impossible to deter those who are committed to their own martyrdom
* Lesson eleven: Cultural self-confidence is indispensable to victory in the long-term struggle against Jihadism
* Lesson twelve: Islamist salami tactics (also known as the salami-slice strategy, a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition) must be resisted, for small concessions in the name of a false idea of tolerance inevitably lead to further concessions, and into further erosions of liberty and security
* Lesson thirteen: We cannot, and will not, deserve victory (much less achieve it) if we continue to finance those who attack us, therefore, a program to defund jihadism by developing alternatives to petroleum based transportation fuels is a crucial component of the current struggle
* Lesson fourteen: Victory in the war against global jihadism requires a new domestic political coalition that is proof against the confusions caused by the Unhinged Left and the Unhinged Right
* Lesson fifteen: There is no escape from US leadership

At least it gets past the impossible 'war on terrorism': which will never be one this side of Kingdom Come; it's a methodology not an enemy! But let's get away from the war metaphor shall we? It's bound to cause trouble.How about 'repurposing' Jihadis? Or, how about this from left-field: doing good to those who despitefully use us (after all these ones are responding in kind to perceived despiteful use, arguably)? So While I agree with the first two (and think them insightful), I'm concerned that the war metaphor is a spoiler. There can be no victory: only reconciliation (this is true for any conflict except genocidal ones), so let's not frame it that way. If we are to win anything it is hearts and minds: any other objective is bringing down the roof on ourselves. That said, I'd go with 6, 8, 10 & 13.

History lessons in early Islam

Having just taught a course in which a look at early Islam was necessary, being led to this book review seemed very intriguing.History lessons | Comment is free: it's a real potential humdinger as the reading of the history undermines the Jihadist/Islamist line on Khalifah: here's a quote from the review to give you the flavour. "Fatah believes, there is only one conclusion to be drawn: the historical Islamic states were not organised around Islam, but ethnicity (Arab over non-Arab), power, and expansion (both through conflict and conversion). In other words, non-theocratic, non-theological, rather secular concerns: hardly what Islamists have us believe. Thus, Fatah concludes, the Islamist idea of an Islamic state is just a mirage. It is neither corroborated in the original sources of Islam - the Qur'an and the prophet's practice - nor in the actual practice of the first generations of Islam."
I'm considering buying the book. That said, the comments on the article quickly reveal the difficulties the thesis might face, and some suggest that it still may not make a great difference if accepted.
Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State

Islamists?Islamofascists? What is the right term?

Timothy Garton Ash is probably right to we concerned about the connotative effects of using the word 'islam' in compound words and phrases referring to certain terrorists. He highlights the IRA and the community it was/is set within for comparison, helpfully. So, "'Al-Qaida' won't do as the functional equivalent of 'the IRA' - not on its own anyway. We need a wider term to describe the kind of violent extremists who perpetrated the London and Madrid bombings. Counter-terrorism experts talk carefully of 'al-Qaida-inspired' violence, but that's too complicated for everyday use, as are alternative suggestions such as 'violent Muslim extremists' or 'modern Islamic militancy'. We need a simpler shorthand."
Helooks as the current contender 'islamofascist' and 'islamist' (the latter is the one I have tended to go for, admittedly). The former has difficulties on the hook up with statehood currently. The latter, however, does tend to be used by 'serious analysts'. However, while most of the terrorists we are concerned with here are indeed Islamists, not all Islamists are terrorists.

So what would he propose? "The best answer I have found so far is "jihadists", especially in the form "jihadist extremists" or "jihadist terrorists". I know that "jihad" can also be construed as peaceful spiritual struggle, but the Muslim opinion-leaders that I have consulted seem ready to accept this usage. It places a clear demarcation line between ordinary Muslims, and even non-violent political Islamists, on the one hand, and the dealers in death on the other - yet it does not obscure the connection to their religion. In fact, it makes it clearer than either of the alternative terms. Jihad, holy war, is precisely what the suicide bombers tell us - in their pre-murder valedictory messages - that they were proudly engaged upon."

So I'm probably going to adopt this usage, which is one I have used on this blog from time to time. I'm inclined towards the form 'jihadi[st] terrorist' to be clearer that I recognise some usage of the term 'jihad' to be functionally equivalent to the way that many Christians may use terms such as 'spiritual warfare' or 'fighting the world, sin and the devil'.
I may have to alter my labels though
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | In identifying those trying to kill us, we should choose our words carefully:

The Islamist

Just for those interested in Islam, I've just briefly reviewed the book referenced in the blog title ... booklogging: The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left: Books: Ed Husain

Watch that space

In a prison cell south of Cairo a repentant Egyptian terrorist leader is putting the finishing touches to a remarkable recantation that undermines the Muslim theological basis for violent jihad and is set to generate furious controversy among former comrades still fighting with al-Qaida.

There are hints, however, that it may be a matter of tactics rather than principle... we shall see. I'm hopeful but cautiously so.
Violence won't work: how author of 'jihadists' bible' stirred up a storm | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited:

Less Muslims support suicide bombings

This is encouraging "In Lebanon, Bangladesh, Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia, the proportion of Muslims who support suicide bombing has declined by half or more since 2002. ... There is also declining support among Muslims for Osama Bin Laden. In Jordan, just 20% express a lot or some confidence in Bin Laden, down from 56% four years ago." I wonder whether it reflects a kind of life-cycle of ideological conflict: at first people applaud because they feel relieved that something seems to be happening in relation to an issue they feel strongly about; 'baddies' are getting their come-uppance. However, over time, reality sets in and the costs and inconsistencies come to the fore and it no longer seems as justifiable. I suspect that the bit I left out actually corroborates that hypothesis:
"But in areas of conflict, the results are different - 70% of Palestinians said that suicide bombings against civilians were sometimes justifiable." Why? because the critical distance provided by the relative disengagement is less easy to come by, understandably.

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Few Muslims 'back suicide bombs':

Hearts and minds of young Muslims ...

It sounds like, perhaps, that many Muslims in the UK are getting past the denial stage of reaction to the jihadi 'crisis' and beginning to face the questions that some of us have been trying to puzzle over, viz. if Islam is peaceful in essence, where are these folk getting their (Islamic-sounding) justifications from? And, how can their justifications be delegitimised in Muslim terms? And, what steps are being taken to do so? While I can understand the sometimes tetchy responses to this basket of questions, it just won't do to refuse entirely to engage with them. As a Christian I am more than happy to explain the answers to similar questions that could be posed from time to time about people using the label 'Christian' to underpin murderous activities. So the article from which this following quote is taken is a welcome sign of moving further on. The worry has been that there may not be adequate answers to the questions in Islam.

In the past few days, key Muslim community activists have admitted to me that what worries them is how certain theological issues have not been properly clarified, and can be used to justify extremism. The most important is the age-old distinction between dar al-Islam (the land of Islam) and dar al-harb (the land of the other, of unbelief - or of war, according to the literal translation from the Arabic). This demonisation of all that is not Muslim is the "paradigmatic, instinctive response that people fall back on in a moment of crisis", I was told. Extremists such as Hizb ut-Tahrir use this dualism, as do jihadis, to justify their contempt for the rights - and lives - of the kufr, the unbeliever.

The article hits all the right buttons and even givens the following encouraging news.

Britain is now the arena for one of the most public, impassioned and wide-ranging debates about Islam anywhere in the world.

It's a shame some of those who comment on the articles fail to engage the issue as cannily as the Metropolitan police:

following a strategy of working with Islamist- and Salafi-dominated mosques such as the one in Brixton, well aware that their best chance of drawing extremists away from violence is through those who know how to argue the case on Islamic grounds and redirect the religious fervour of hot-headed young men.

Some comments are atheists who can't really imagine what it is like to hold a different point of view and how hard it would be to push through their preferred strategy of religious deprogramming. Guys, it ain't going to happen: the Met have the better argument.
Hearts and minds of young Muslims will be won or lost in the mosques

Salman Rushdie is not the problem. Muslims are -Times Online

And don't jump on me: that's a quote from Muslim Irshad Manji commenting on the latest displays of OTT offendedness. He also says something very significant, I think. "I am offended that so many other Muslims are not offended enough to demonstrate widely against God’s self-appointed ambassadors. We complain to the world that Islam is being exploited by fundamentalists, yet when reckoning with the opportunity to resist their clamour en masse, we fall curiously silent. In a battle between flaming fundamentalists and mute moderates, who do you think is going to win?"
He then goes on to show how the odd time when people have demonstrated in favour of more moderation, there have been good things come of it.
Salman Rushdie is not the problem. Muslims are -Times Online:

Turkey -more complex than portrayed

My impression of the way Turkey is portrayed in the EU is of a Muslim juggernaut awaiting entry to the EU to flood 'us' with Islamist values and finish what the Ottoman empire failed to do at Vienna in 1683. So it's worth noting this and the article for future reflection as the debate unfolds. "The number of Turks who want an Islamic state fell from an already low 20% in 1999 to 9% last year. The percentage of women who cover their hair when they go into the street has also dropped, from 74% in 1999 to 64% last year. It is a reality that is easily visible, even in conservative suburbs of Istanbul like Uskudari, where mothers in headscarves can be seen strolling along with teenage daughters with black or tinted hair, uncovered and free."
The real struggle is inside Turkey, not on its borders | Guardian daily comment | Guardian Unlimited:

A sense of proportion

I've blogged a lot over the last couple of years about the way that the reaction to terrorism by the UK and the USA plays into the hands of the terrorists by restricting our freedom and moving us towards a police state (where a hard-line salafi set-up will start to look moderate). Admittedly we aren't there yet, but the measures for NIR could fundamentally change things, as well as the current proposals for, effectively, internment. And along with worrying things like being fined for wearing a loud tee-shirt ("the police have already handed out £80 fixed-penalty notices for "crimes" as ludicrous as wearing T shirts bearing the words "Bollocks to Blair"." See here.). So it was interesting to read this in Wired News:

New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, ... said: "There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life.... You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist."

But then, in a society where large numbers of people apparently believe that they have some kind of real hope of winning the lottery, I guess risk-based decision making is not likely to play out too well. The real role of politicians should be to be proportionate, and despite Gordon Brown's words, I suspect that we still aren't seeing that.
Bruce Schneier goes on to say (this is the USA, remember);

I don't think these nut jobs, with their movie-plot threats, even deserve the moniker "terrorist." But in this country, while you have to be competent to pull off a terrorist attack, you don't have to be competent to cause terror. All you need to do is start plotting an attack and -- regardless of whether or not you have a viable plan, weapons or even the faintest clue -- the media will aid you in terrorizing the entire population.

Portrait of the Modern Terrorist as an Idiot It's useful to read this article too where we are reminded of the real worry:

New Labour has not turned Britain into a police state; but it has made it easier for a future government to do so,

. Watch the film V for Vendetta for a comic-book view of it.

Technorati Tags: Islamist, terrorism, UK, policy, civil_liberties

Terrorism -a fuller story

Definitely food for thought, how come we hear a lot about Islamist terrorism and so little about the higher threat levels implied by these figures?

figures from Europol, the European police agency, reveal that Islamist terror attacks in Europe constituted 0.2% or all 'terrorism' throughout the continent in 2006.* Unsurprisingly, there has been little in the media about this interesting figure in the month since it was published. In their first report of this nature - European Terrorism Situation and trend Report 2007 - reports that across the EU there were 498 terrorist attacks in 2006. These include: 424 'ethno-nationalist and separatist' (mostly in France and Spain)
55 'left-wing and anarchist' (mainly Greece , Italy, Spain and Germany)
1 failed Islamist terrorist attack (in Germany, plus two more attempts allegedly foiled in Denmark and the UK)
1 right-wing terrorist attack (in Poland)
The figures appear to over report left and anarchist 'terror' by categorising some political demonstrations which result in damage to property as 'terrorism'.

Do note the imbalance, based on semantics of left and right wing groups, but even so ...
Spinwatch - The statistical invisibility of Islamist 'terrorism' in Europe

Technorati Tags: terrorism, Islam, figures

Food for thought: Muslims and integration

Just a little food for thought. It raises a host of questions.

Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Centre, told a press conference that the estimated 2.4 million Muslims living in the US were "decidedly American in outlook", believing that hard work could lead to advancement.
But the survey, called Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream, did disclose pockets within the community who are disaffected and sympathetic to violence and extremism.
The poll found that 8% of American Muslims regard suicide bombings against civilian targets as justified. Twice as many Muslims in Britain, Spain and France see such tactics as justified. But the poll showed that among American Muslims under 30, sympathy for suicide bombings jumped to 30%. In Britain it jumped to 35%, Spain 29% and France 42%.

Is this down to the kind of immigration and indeed migrants? I can't help thinking that the fact that Britain, France, Germany, Holland etc have been dealing with migrants from former colonies or allies is significant whereas, I suspect, US immigrants are more diverse and were more attracted to the ethos of the USA rather than it being a relatively easy place to migrate to, but I'm just hypothesising in some ignorance here.
US Muslims more assimilated than British | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited