Posted on 08/23/2005 6:42:42 AM PDT by SJackson
Ironically, jihad is more likely to set back the cause for which its "martyrs" die.
Do terrorist atrocities in the West, such as 9/11 and those in Bali, Madrid, Beslan, and London, help radical Islam achieve its goal of gaining power?
No, they are counterproductive. That’s because radical Islam has two distinct wings – one violent and illegal, the other lawful and political – and they exist in tension with each other. Not only has the lawful one proven itself more effective, but the violent approach gets in its way.
The violent wing is foremost represented by Osama bin Laden, the world’s #1 fugitive. Recep Tayyip Erdoðan, the popular and powerful prime minister of Turkey, represents the lawful wing. Even as “Al-Qaeda has more state adversaries than nearly any force in history,” as Daniel C. Twining observes, political imams like Yusuf al-Qaradawi instruct huge audiences on Al-Jazeera television and visit with the mayor of London. As Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr skulks around Iraq, looking for a role, Ayatollah Sistani dominates the country’s political life.
Yes, terrorism kills enemies, instills fear, and disrupts the economy. Yes, it boosts morale and recruits non-Muslims to Islam and Muslims to Islamism. It creates an opportunity for Islamists to press for their favorite causes, like the elimination of Israel or coalition forces out of Iraq. It provides, as Mark Steyn notes, intelligence information on the enemy. And yes, it prompts politically correct talk about Islam being a “religion of peace,” with Muslims portrayed as victims.
But, for two main reasons, terrorism does radical Islam more harm than good.
First, it alarms and galvanizes Westerners. For example, the July 7 bombings took place during the G8 summit in Scotland, where world leaders were focused on global warming, aid to Africa, and macro-economic issues. In a London minute, the politicians then redirected their attention to counterterrorism. Thus did the terrorists stiffen, as Mona Charen points out, “whatever small residue of resolve remains in flaccid Western civilization.”
More broadly, Twining notes, “Al-Qaeda’s rise has produced the kind of great power entente not seen since the Concert of Europe took shape in 1815.” (Even the Madrid bombings, an apparent exception, led to a marked strengthening of Spanish and European-wide counterterrorism measures.)
Second, terrorism obstructs the quiet work of political Islamism. In tranquil times, organizations like the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations go effectively about their business, promoting their agenda to make Islam “dominant” and imposing dhimmitude (whereby non-Muslims accept Islamic superiority and Muslim privilege). Westerners generally respond like slowly boiled frogs are supposed to, not noticing a thing.
Thus does MCB delight in a knighthood from the queen, enthusiastic support from Prime Minister Tony Blair, influence within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and £250,000 in taxpayer monies from the Department of Trade and Industry.
Across the Atlantic, CAIR insinuates itself into an array of important North American institutions, including the FBI, NASA, and Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper. It wins endorsements from high-ranking politicians, both Republican (Florida governor Jeb Bush) and Democrat (House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi). It organizes a meeting of Muslims with Canadian prime minister Paul Martin. It gets a Hollywood studio to change a feature film plot and a television network to run a public service announcement. It goads a radio station to fire a talk-show host.
Terrorism impedes these advances, stimulating hostility to Islam and Muslims. It brings Islamic organizations under unwanted scrutiny by the media, the government, and law enforcement. CAIR and MCB then have to fight rearguard battles. The July 7 bombings dramatically (if temporarily) disrupted the progress of “Londonistan,” Britain’s decline into multicultural lassitude and counterterrorist ineptitude.
Some Islamists recognize this problem. One British writer admonished fellow Muslims on a website: “Don’t you know that Islam is growing in Europe??? What the heck are you doing mingling things up???” Likewise, a Muslim watch repairer in London observed, “We don’t need to fight. We are taking over!” Soumayya Ghannoushi of the University of London bitterly points out that al-Qaeda’s major achievements consist of shedding innocent blood and “fanning the flames of hostility to Islam and Muslims.”
Things are not what they seem. Terrorism hurts radical Islam and helps its opponents. The violence and victims’ agony make this hard to see, but without education by murder, the lawful Islamist movement would make greater gains.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
Maybe Daniel Pipes is preaching to the Islamists here, trying to persuade them to stop blowing people up, but I doubt that that will work. Otherwise, this is merely a pipedream, surprising in someone who is usually so knowledgeable and sensible.
Violent radical Islam and political radical Islam are working hand in glove, using the good cop/bad cop technique. Or, if you like, they are behaving as Muslims behaved in the time of Muhammed, one hand on the sword and the other hand extended to those who are willing to be enslaved.
Sure, violence should be waking Europe up, but is it? Rather, it is having the same effect as it did on Islam's earliest foes: it is stunning and bewildering them. Meantime, the political Muslims in Iran or Syria are helping to fund the violence.
Is the west doomed or will we wake up and really start fighting? The frikken enemy isn't just in Iraq. It is here also.
A flawed question.
People who are capable of these atrocities we hope will NEVER seize power and no amount of rationalizing or reasoning with them will ever qualify them for legitimate power.
Violence doesn't hurt "radical" Islam.
Islam is violence.
Well, duh..I coulda told y'all that. :-)
Absolutely!
Pat Robertson should read this.
The radicals seek to wake up the moderates and whip them into a kill frenzy.
And, it's working.
Is it? Where are the terrorists winning?
I didn't say they were winning, they're not, however they are radicalizing more and more of the moderates.
Pipes is right. If not for the interference of violence and the fact that such violence causes more to rise up and speak out against Islam, Muslims would have made far greater inroads toward their ultimate goal of controlling the world. However, that is not to say that they have not made many gains toward their goal despite the violence. They continue to use the tactics of the left to gain power - getting their word out to the MSM, and using the ACLU and our court system. Either way, both sides work toward the same goal.
I didn't say they were winning, they're not, however they are radicalizing more and more of the moderates.
2 points
1 IF they are (radicalizing more and more of the moderates) then they are winning. As this is vital to achieving their goal.
2 Where do you see this happening?
Of Minds and Metrics
US News & World Report ^ | 8/29/05 | Michael Barone
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468205/posts
Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam
by Gilles Kepel, Anthony F. Roberts (Translator)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674008774/104-8419009-6731915?v=glance
From Publishers Weekly
In this history of fundamentalist Islam, Kepel stands conventional wisdom on its head, asserting that the spate of Islamist violence during the last few years is a result not of the movement's success, but of its failure. A professor at Paris's Institute for Political Studies, Kepel clearly traces the rise of the contemporary Islamist movement from its origins in the mid-20th century through its later appearance in countries such as Malaysia, Algeria and Turkey, as well as in Western Europe. Its apogee, he argues cogently, was the 1979 revolution in Iran that brought about the defeat of the Shah and the rise of a fundamentalist Islamic regime. But while ideologies that fused Islam with political power gained adherents throughout the world in the ensuing 20 years, says Kepel, in no other country were Islamists able to seize and hold power for more than a few years, a factor that he attributes to the ideology's inability to attract both the middle class and the poor. "Muslims no longer view Islamism as the source of utopia, and this more pragmatic vision augurs well for the future," he writes. Despite some outpourings of support, he believes, Osama bin Laden and his followers squandered much of the movement's political capital with its attacks on American institutions, most notably the World Trade Center. Kepel's approach is not without weaknesses in many places around the globe, fundamentalist political Islam has transformed society and politics, even if Islamists have not been able to attain political rule. But amid the plethora of books on Islam released since September 11, this work stands out, both for its erudition and its provocative thesis.
They HAVE to resort to violence, it's they only way they can advance their cause. Pretty much anywhere they try other means they're rejected. Like their forefathers communism and fascism.
That’s because radical Islam has two distinct wings – one violent and illegal, the other lawful and political – and they exist in tension with each other.
There's nothing radical about what their intentions are, it's the standard MO for islam. Pipes is an apologist for islam, or an Apostate. Either way, islam plans to dominate us all if we don't keep it in check.
Muslems won't change until Muslems fear US and the west more than the radicals.
Scrutiny by the media? They were called not too long ago “terrorists” now, the MSM calls them, insurgents, militants, martyrs, and “freedom fighters”... well, at least Cindy Sheehan does. The media, the Cindy Sheehans, and the Michael Moores of this world see them as victims.
And why would violence hurt radical Islam when the main objective is to destroy and terrorize people?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.