On Radical Islam, Jihadism and Londonistan
This is a “lazy” post – essentially a compilation of excerpts from articles related to radical Islam, “Islamism” and “Jihadism”. They make for worrying reading. Comments and thoughts welcome (emphasis mine, throughout).
First, excerpts from Radical Islam: An Introductory Primer by Barry Rubin (emphas.
…A young American named Ramy Zamzam, arrested in Pakistan for trying to fight alongside the Taliban, responded in an interview with the Associated Press: “We are not terrorists. We are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism.”
What he says is well worth bearing in mind in order to understand the great conflict of our era. First and foremost, Jihadism or radical Islamism is far more than mere terrorism. It is a revolutionary movement in every sense of the word. It seeks to overthrow existing regimes and replace them with governments that will transform society into a nightmarishly repressive system.
And so one might put it this way: Revolutionary Islamism is the main strategic problem in the world today. Terrorism is the main tactical problem.
What is Islamism?
Radical Islamism is the doctrine that each Muslim majority country-politics, economy, society-should be ruled by a totalitarian dictatorship guided by the given movement’s definition of proper Islam. What Marxism was to Communism, and fascism to Nazism, Jihadism is to Islamism.
In some cases, Islamists have a wider ambition to transform the entire world, starting with Europe. While this may seem ridiculous to most Westerners, it does not seem so to the Islamists who hold that view.
Only a minority of Muslims is Islamist but that sector has grown sharply over the last twenty years and seems to be on the increase still. Muslims are also among the greatest opponents of political Islamism, and often its victims.
…The fact that radical Islamism relates to a religion, Islam, is very important (see below) but should not blind observers to the fact that this is basically a political movement and not — at least in the modern Western sense — a theological one.
Of course, Islamism is rooted in Islam but a strong opposition to Islamism…is in no way an expression of bigotry against a religion. Similarly, the idea that opposition to Islamism is in some way “racist” is absurd since no “race” is involved. Just as opponents of Communism (capitalist, imperialist) and fascism (Jews, Bolsheviks) could be discredited by calling them names, the same is done with those who oppose Islamism.
…To argue that Islamism is the inevitable or “correct” interpretation of Islam is as silly as it is to argue that it is some external, heretical ideology which has “hijacked” Islam.
…To summarize in one sentence: we should be absolutely honest in showing how the most sacred texts of Islam appear to validate revolutionary Islamists but we should understand that a struggle is going on among Muslims in which different interpretations are contending. While Islamism is not the only possible interpretation of Islam, its approach is certainly shaped and justified by basic Islamic texts. Unless Muslims and especially qualified clerics reinterpret these tenets, Islamism will continue to have a strong advantage in competing with conservative traditional Islam while liberal reformism will remain a tiny, powerless viewpoint.
…As for terrorism, that is a strategy and tactic which appeals to these movements for very specific reasons. These include the following points. While the Islamists claim they are only conducting a “defensive jihad” — since there is no caliph, offensive jihad isn’t supposed to happen — they are actually conducting offensive revolution.
The article was first published in January 2010. Read it in full here.
Next, excerpts from a startling article, titled Londonistan by Christian Caryl.
…the case of the Underwear Bomber has dramatized the extent to which Britain remains a launching pad for jihad. (Nigerian Nobel Prize laureate Wole Soyinka prefers the term “cesspit” to describe London’s function as an Islamist breeding ground.)
Just in case the Brits hadn’t figured that out, the usual anonymous U.S. State Department official was happy to do it for them. Last month, an (US State Department) official told the Daily Telegraph that their country “has the greatest concentration of active al Qaeda supporters [in the West],
The same article cited a fresh and ominous finding from the director of MI5. He estimated his service was aware of some 2,000 “radicalized Muslims” who might be involved in terrorist plots. That figure, of course, doesn’t include the population of plotters who have escaped MI5 scrutiny, like Abdulmutallab.
…So why is this particular front in the war on terrorism proving such a challenge? Haras Rafiq, a British Muslim who founded a think tank to combat Islamic extremism, worries that a big share of the blame goes to his own government. For decades, he says, Britain tolerated plotting by domestic Islamic radicals as long as they targeted other countries, often ones in the Middle East.
…In the 1990s, policymakers desperate to address the concerns of the nation’s Muslims decided to foster the creation of Islamic umbrella groups. They also unwittingly fostered radical ones.
…Last fall, the Taxpayers’ Alliance, a watchdog group, published a report assailing the “insufficient monitoring” of government funds disbursed to community organizations through a program to combat Islamist extremism. The report found that Britain had granted more than $60,000 to the Cordoba Foundation — which, for instance, reportedly once hosted Anwar al-Awlaki, whose radical preaching inspired Abdulmutallab and Maj. Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter.
Then, there’s the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), an umbrella organization of more than 500 British Islamic groups that received $1.35 million in government funds. Among the MCB’s more notorious members is Daud Abdullah, its deputy secretary general, who last spring signed the “Istanbul Declaration.” The document essentially declares war on any country that supports Israel (known in the declaration as the “Zionist Entity”) and thus seems to legitimize jihadist attacks on British troops. Since then, the MCB has issued a string of press releases expressing support for the British armed forces and stressing the patriotism of British Muslims. It has not, however, disavowed Abdullah.
…You might well argue that both of these issues are so fundamental to our notions of democracy, freedom and decency that nobody should be afforded credit for supporting them. But this is to ignore (as the government does consistently, pretending not to notice) the enormous, profound ideological differences between Islam and the west.
There is more. Below, excerpts from Tavleen Singh‘s article on why we must not tolerate radical Islam:
As a huge fan of Barack Obama and a dedicated enemy of radical Islam it worried me to hear the American President talk of ‘moderate’ Taliban. I found myself wondering how they would be graded. Would those who burned girls’ schools but did not participate in the global jihad be considered moderate? What about those who believe in stoning women to death and marrying nine-year-old girls but not in suicide bombing—would they be considered moderate? By this measure the men who blew the Bamian Buddhas to smithereens would be considered mere pranksters trying to amuse Allah with a spectacular display of idol smashing.
After the American President made his comment about moderate Taliban he got a response from the Taliban themselves. There is no such thing as moderate Taliban, a Taliban spokesman retorted angrily, unless the President meant the lazy old Muslims who sit idly at home instead of joining the jihad against Jews, Hindus and Americans.
…Radical Islam is an ugly, dangerous ideology. There is nothing in it that would help solve the world’s problems or lighten its shadows. Its fundamental principle is that everything we need to know about life, laws and faith is revealed in the Koran and that we must abide by the interpretation given us by semi-literate, fanatical mullahs. If not we will be punished horribly by bearded mujahideen. Radical Islamists believe they have the right to impose their diktat well beyond faith to politics, culture and every aspect of life. This is where the problem begins.
For us in India it is an especially serious problem. Not only do we have more Muslims than almost any other country but we are also the ultimate idol-worshipping country, bursting at the seams with heathens who indulge happily in such pagan festivals as Holi.
…The religions of India are in their essence atheistic and the opposite in almost every way to the theistic religions that came to us from the neighbourhood in which Islam was revealed to the Prophet. For centuries we have lived peacefully with Islam because of our fundamental belief that everyone has a right to their own faith. But, with the visible radicalisation of Muslims across India under the malevolent influence of radical Islamists, tensions between the communities have grown in recent years.
…Even by the standards of radical Islam the Taliban are unspeakable monsters as can be seen from a casual examination of what they did when they ruled Afghanistan and what they are now doing to Swat and Bajaur. In Swat more than 200 girls’ schools have been burned in recent months, schoolgirls have been attacked for daring to go to school, journalists have been beheaded for telling the truth and Sufi Mohammad has given interviews saying that democracy is an infidel idea. To accept any of these things as acceptable because Islam has a different set of values to ours would amount to tolerating intolerance.
There is a silver lining though..From Sadanand Dhume’s “India’s Groupthink on Islam” here is the final excerpt:
If you’re looking for a defining image from the fifth Jaipur Literature Festival, which ended Monday…none was as arresting as the unannounced (for security reasons) appearance of the controversial Dutch-Somali writer and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Speaking to a packed hall, with her burly bodyguard unobtrusively off-stage, Ms. Hirsi Ali spoke about Islam—and its problems with individualism, women’s rights and sexuality—with a frankness unfamiliar to most Indians. She described the faith she was born into as “a dangerous, totalitarian ideology masquerading as a religion.” She argued against the moral relativism that has prevented Western intellectuals from scrutinizing Islam as they do Christianity and Judaism. She asked why it seemed impossible to have a sober discussion about the Koran and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad without riling Muslim sentiment...
…But her very presence in Jaipur speaks of the ways in which India, home to 150 million Muslims, is slowly starting to grapple with the faith.
...The Indian debate about Islam has remained frozen in a time warp. The mainstream intellectuals who dominate the country’s editorial pages and television channels tend to trace the Muslim world’s problems almost exclusively to the alleged misdeeds of Israel and the United States. The Hindu right doesn’t make this mistake, but its tendency to group all Muslims together, its inability to distinguish between Islam as a religion and Islamism as an ideology, and its championing of causes important to the most orthodox Hindu believers shades into bigotry and religious chauvinism.
In Jaipur, Ms. Hirsi Ali challenged the assumptions of both groups. She was flatly unapologetic about her views on Islamic theology, but at the same time she urged the audience to think of Muslims as “individuals who are capable of changing their mind.”
…Jaipur marked a small step toward the slow but inexorable knitting of India into the mainstream of global discourse on a sensitive subject. A clutch of books by Indian authors that take a critical look at Islam and Islamism are also contributing to this trend. It’s easier to start using a cell phone than to change a mindset, but over time Indian audiences are likely to begin demanding the same sophistication from their intellectuals that they do from their phone service providers.
Comments and thoughts welcome, as always. Pl remember: No personal abuse, no sweeping generalisations.
Image Courtesy: BBC
It is old wine in new glass… Nothing except play of words like (1) Jehadi = Terrorist (2) Jehadi Terrorist… Does it make any difference to the aim of a jehadi? There are some extremely wrong statements like one by Tavleen put in bold by Shantanu.
When hindus will come out of sarva dharm sambhavami?
The problem in not merely the existence of Islamism. The problem is there seem to be no moderate Muslim group vocal enough to fight back. This silence of the moderates–what does it mean? There are only a couple of possiblities. Either the moderates are too afraid to speak out or they support Islamism as a basic political ideology. It may be entirely possible that Islam’s fundamental tenets are incompatible with a secular, pluralistic , democratic society and the angst we see displayed in the violence is that recognition that one cannot hold those beliefs and enter into modern society in any meaningful way. I wonder if any of the protestors in the picture recognize the irony–that it is the free speech clause that allows them to roam the streets of Europe and America holding up signs supporting Islam in a Christian nation.
“its inability to distinguish between Islam as a religion and Islamism as an ideology, and its championing of causes important to the most orthodox Hindu believers shades into bigotry and religious chauvinism.” – I am very interested to know the difference between Islam as a religion and Islamism. I actually read an online copy of Qur’an over a complete weekend and I reached the conclusion that a weekend full of David Dhawan movies would have been more productive.
Islamism is a political concept that promises implementation of Islamic tenets in local and global scale. Leftist intellectuals around the globe are busy in telling people that those Islamic tenets are Taliban intervention, real Islam does not accept those practices. A cursory study of Qur’an would tell you that Talibans are actually suggesting what are in Qur’an. Some of them come from Hadith, but I have not read that one fully. Islamism require a lot of support in terms of money, political backing, media support and a constant supply of martyrs from lesser Muslims. Where are they coming from? Muslims know that Islamism stems from Qur’an and it promises to carry the expansionist doctrine to it’s promise in Europe and East Asia. How does that promise differ from the promises made by Arabian-speaking God in Qur’an? If there is no difference how are Islam amd Islamism different?
Dear All: Thanks for your comments…will add my thoughts sometome over the weekend…
In the meantime, here is the link to a somewhat dated but still relevant (I think) article from WSJ: How to End ‘Islamophobia’ by TAWFIK HAMID.
As some of you may know, Dr. Hamid, is a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group and presently practices medicine in the USA.
*** COMMENT EDITED ***
Now about India:
India is a long lost cause. Islamic invaders have cruelly robbed this country of her soul, her values and her religion. This country does not have a desire and courage to face Islamic barbarians. In 1947, she lost her two arms from the side – Pakistan and Bangladesh from muslims .Now her head is also half severed and waiting to be uprooted from her neck in a matter of time. Meanwhile regular blows and bloody gashes are being given to her remaining body on a daily basis.
Its just a matter of time when this country will fall into islamic hands – some by direct action of soldiers of allah and some by Hindu dhimmis who are hell bent to bring Jihad through the back door.(like SC allowing 4% reservation in Andhra to muslims)
My message to the Indian intellectuals – Keep on analysing and discussing “islam as a religion and Islamism as an ideology” until it comes down to you and slashes your throat.
Although it is from last year, I think you may find this book review useful. The author comes from a Muslim perspective and reviews her works. The link is here … it is good to hear other opinions and ideas.
http://loga-abdullah.blogspot.com/2008/11/defending-our-diin-ayaan-hirsi-ali.html
Hope you find it interesting.
Sanatana Dharma is the only free market spiritual way of life known to man ….. all the other religions/cults are pretty much dictatorships …. as we have seen, such free markets do have difficult times, but they essentially survive go on to thrive because of their intrinsic fluid, transparent and open-mindedness, unlike the outward gloss of dictatorships covering up all the rot within, which is very much the case of these other religions ….
Jon: Thanks for the link…Had a quick look..Yes, interesting (and educative) to hear other opinions and ideas..
@ Vivekam: I liked your formulation:“Sanatana Dharma is the only free market spiritual way of life known to man”! Thanks
Thanks to Varnam for pointing this out: Is a religious bus ban on my dog right?:
On two occasions last week my dog was barred from London buses, not because she’s particularly fierce or big, but on religious grounds. A friend and I had taken her to the park, and as I went across to the grocer, my friend took Daisy, a Manchester terrier, to the bus stop.
As they tried to board the bus, the driver stopped her and told her that there was a Muslim lady on the bus who “might be upset by the dog”. As she attempted to remonstrate, the doors closed and the bus drew away.
…When a second bus arrived, she again made to embark, but was stopped again – this time because the driver said he was Muslim. I know that Muslims consider dogs to be unclean, but last time I looked this wasn’t a Muslim country and London Transport was a non-denominational organisation
Shantanu, introduction of a little “purity” in Londonistan can’t really hurt, can it?
/facetious
Creeping Sharia is what it is. And it’s amazing how so many simply remain silent.
The rise in violence and disturbance in different countries/ parts of world is closely related to population of muslims. This has been very well researched and documented by Dr. Peter Hammond: SLAVERY, TERRORISM & ISLAM – The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.
Excerpts
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to “the reasonable” Muslim demands for their “religious rights,” they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)). As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car-burnings). Any non- Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide: Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam” — the Islamic House of Peace – there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons. “Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. — Leon Uris, “The Haj”
This article is thought provoking, interesting to read and might be beneficial if followed.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/scholar-says-west-should-treat-radical-islam-the-way-byzantine-generals-did-the-huns/story-e6frg6zo-1225913617673
Re-opening the debate here with this: certain honorable god-fearing people in Afghanistan and Lebanon.
Listen to it entirely.
Thanks for the link Sid..I watched the first 3 minutes and was shocked…will watch it carefully later this eve,
Man arrives in UK on false passport. Claims asylum next year.
Is convicted in his native country of involvement in terrorist attacks.
Is described by judges in UK as a truly dangerous individual’. The UK government spends an estimated £500,000 every year to provide round-the-clock surveillance on him.
He lives in a £800,000 four-bedroom Edwardian semi-detached house in a tree-lined street in West London. This house is provided for by the government. He or his family pay no rent.
On the contrary, he and his family claim more thab £50,000 in benefits every year.
He is believed to pose a “serious” risk to Britain’s national security – and successive governments, since 2001, have tried to deport him.
The European Court ruled this week that he cannot be deported.
He will be free on bail within the next few days.
His name? Abu Qatada.
Welcome to Londonistan..
More details here http://j.mp/ADqJg4 and here: http://j.mp/xvgng6
Dear Shantanu,
What an eyeopener; And this is the law and philosophy our lawmakers want to follow and not that was prescribed by Chanakya. Then we will have quotes saying that “We can let a thousand criminals escape but one innocent man should not suffer”. If this is the law let me make myself clear. If the drains are to be swept clean let me get rid of the good bacteria also. When I take a stomach wash I also get the good and useful bacteria in my stomach out along with the bad. I am willing to face the consequences.
LET US START LOOKING AT MAKING THE CHANGES FROM WITHIN OURSELVES. LET US BE HONEST WITH OURSELVES.
If the west is willing to suffer I am not ready let them be the losers.I am not willing to lose my identity as a Sanatana Dharmist: COME WHAT MAY.!
Regards,
vck
Share your thoughts below.
Subscribe to the Weekly Newsletter
Support
Archives
Join the Community
Recent Comments
Categories
Do Not Copy
Recent Posts
Most Commented
.
Search
Most Viewed (since Dec '09)
.