| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| The Key to Jihadist Ideology and Strategy |
| 2004-08-25 |
| When trying to explain the Islamists' global campaign of mass murder, both liberals and conservatives, despite their fierce mutual disagreements, make the same underlying mistake. People on the anti-war left believe that Al Qaeda attacked us because we're imperialist, or because we're racist, or because we don't do enough for Third-World hunger (yes, there are people who actually believe the hunger argument; most of them are Episcopalians). By contrast, many people on the pro-war right, especially President Bush, believe that the Islamists hate us for our freedoms, opportunities, and overall success as a society. In other words, the left believes that the Islamists hate us for our sins, and the right believes that they hate us for our virtues. Both sides commit the same narcissistic fallacy of thinking that the Islamist holy war against the West revolves solely around ourselves, around the moral drama of our goodness or our wickedness, rather than having something to do with Islam itself. A very different perspective on the Islamist challenge comes from Mary Habeck, a military historian at Yale University. Speaking at the Heritage Foundation on August 13, Habeck said that the various jihadist groups base their war against non-Moslems on the Islamic sacred writings, particularly the Sira, which, unlike the Koran, tells the Prophet's life in chronological sequence. Using Muhammed as their model, the jihadis live and think and act within paradigms provided by the stages of Muhammed's political and military career. According to Habeck, this internally driven logic of Islam, and not any particular provocation, real or imagined, by some outside power, is the key to understanding why the jihadis do what they do. More at the link. A few days ago, there was a discussion on how much religion should be discussed at Rantburg. I think is about right: religion motivates people, so post articles that help us understand the religion enough to explain Islamist motives, tactics, and strategies. I comment more at my website. |
| Posted by:Ptah |
| #4 Excellent article and thoughts. Thanks. In other words, the left believes that the Islamists hate us for our sins, and the right believes that they hate us for our virtues. Both sides commit the same narcissistic fallacy of thinking that the Islamist holy war against the West revolves solely around ourselves, around the moral drama of our goodness or our wickedness, rather than having something to do with Islam itself. I was recently reading Ralph Peters' Beyond Baghdad. I was struck by his belief that monotheism is basically the cause of all of the world's ills. I certainly can't argue with this on one level. But I also think there is an inherent flaw in accepting, without question, the belief that monotheistic religion's "my way or the highway" mentality is the cause of all the worlds wars. Rather, I believe that what we are seeing is the clash of good ideas v/s not as good. Western thought is based on the values of Christianity; faith, hope, charity, forgiveness - and these values allow one a greater chance of success in achieving a more fulfilling individual life. The greater the number of individuals participating in a set of healthy beliefs the greater the correlation to a healthy, prosperous, happy, society. According to the quote above, I am falling prey to "narcissistic fallacy" by imposing my own beliefs. Yet, I would disagree. Instead I would argue that, the very complaint that I am falling prey to a narcissistic fallacy, by putting forth my own belief that Christian values make for a better society), is itself, a "narcissistic fallacy" - the fallacy of "moral relativism. I believe that some ideas are better than others. And to prove my point, look at Islamic based societies v/s Christian. One is based on blame and shame, another on helping one another and digging deep to forgive rather than to seek revenge. I think we could even apply the same beleifs to left v/s right. Cultures whose values are based on shaming, blaming others for the source of their ills, simply do not fare as well as those based on the tenants of Christianity. One set of ideas has a clear track record of success, one of failure. Screw the PC crap. This is a clash of better ideas challenging the staus quo of lesser ideas....be they cultural, religious or political. May the best ideas win. |
| Posted by: B 2004-08-25 2:13:55 PM |
| #3 Good one Ptah, I'm sure, but not certain, "an eye for an eye" is a rockbed principle within islam. I'm afraid of sniping our interstates myself. Our borders have been so left unprotected. And those cadres are prolly in place. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-08-25 12:41:45 PM |
| #2 Moslems are supposed to model their life after Mohammad. While this type of model is basically nonsense, it does explain the jihadi actions, especially if you take the warlike hadiths seriously. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-08-25 12:31:12 PM |
| #1 Good reading, Ptah. It looks like my theory of "us" vs. "not-us" was close-but-no-cigar. There are, in fact, two flavors of "not-us": the Greater and Lesser Unbelief. And that, in turn, is only one of the Methods that may be employed. Bookmarked. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-08-25 12:20:48 PM |