What Does History Bring to the Study of Jihadism?

Fawaz A. Gerges is the author of the recently published "Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy" (Harcourt Press, 2006), is the Christian Johnson Chair in Middle East and International Affairs at Sarah Lawrence College.

What does a historian bring to the study and understanding of Islamism and jihadism? History provides complexity, rich narrative, comparative perspective, and a healthy degree of skepticism. Let me illustrate what I mean. Most of the books written on September 11 by commentators dealt with Al Qaeda without contextualizing its rise and evolution (or devolution) within the internal turmoil that has roiled the jihadist movement since the mid-1990as. This shortcoming is not just academic; it goes to the very heart of where Al Qaeda came from, its historical development, its social and power base, and why it brought war to the American heartland. A central thesis advanced by my book, “Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy,” is that September 11 was a monstrous mutation within the jihadist movement. That one cannot understand why September 11 had occurred without appreciating the tensions, contradictions, and fissures that split jihadists along local and international lines. That the story of September 11 cannot be fully narrated without examining the rise and evolution of the jihadist movement. In this sense, history is critical to understanding the jihadist journey. “Journey of the Jihadist” does just that; it closely follows the journey of three generations of jihadists, including Al Qaeda’s, and narrates their story in their own words. I intervened as little as possible. The first generation were the pioneers and founding fathers of the movement in Egypt in the 1970s - inspired by the 1966 hanging or “martyrdom” of Sayyid Qutb, a radical Islamist dissident. The second generation are the Afghan Arabs who fought Soviet troops in Afghanistan in the 1980s and were militarized by their experience in Afghanistan. In addition to Sayyid Qutb, Sheikh Abdullah Azzam played a pivotal role in influencing the journey of this second generation. The third generation is what I call the Iraq generation born after the American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. My approach to understanding jihadists was not just to eavesdrop on their conversations and chatter but also to talk to them, interview them in depth, and listen to what they have to say. I let them speak for themselves and articulate their hopes, fears, grievances, and prejudices. The story of jihadists is told in their voices. Unedited. To understand jihadism as well as its tragic repercussions—including September 11, the Madrid and London bombings, the war in Afghanistan, and the insurgency in Iraq—we need to hear from those engaged in waging it. The “Arab street” so often evoked by even the best Western journalists is in great part a myth designed for Western consumption. Beneath it lies the simplistic notion that all Muslims and all Arabs speak with one voice—a voice baying for bloodshed in the name of religion. Living in the United States but having been raised in the heart of the Arab world, Lebanon, I am keenly aware of the distortion. Growing up, I heard a wide spectrum of Muslim voices. We need—more than ever—to hear what is being said in alleyways, cafés, apartment courtyards, barbershops, classrooms, and underground bunkers throughout the Middle East. Beginning in 1998-1999 long before “Jihadist” and “jihadism” had entered the vocabulary of ordinary Americans, I was determined to find out more about what was happening outside of most Western perspectives. I went back and conducted scores of interviews with both mainstream and militant Islamists alike in several Muslim countries . While these people normally shy away from contact with the Western media, my cultural background, educational training, and ability to speak Arabic allowed me to enter into their universe. I was able to probe their views on such subjects as the role of government, the use of force at home and abroad, and economic and foreign policies. So I asked questions and then I listened, learning to discern the diversity that lay beneath the sometimes monotonous and numbing rhetoric. Why Jihad Went Global ? Only by charting the jihadist journey from its inception, we fully grasp the logic behind the global jihad movement. From the late 1960s until the mid-1990s, Islamists and jihadists were pre­occupied with the fight against al­-­Adou al­-­Qareeb, Muslim rulers. The primary goal of modern jihadism is and always has been the destruction of the atheist political and social order at home and its replacement with authentic Islamic states. Al-Adou al-Baeed or the “far enemy” had not registered on jihadists’ radar screen. But by mid-1990s Osama bin Laden and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, launched a campaign to hijack the jihadist movement and change its direction—away from attacking al­-­Adou al­-­Qareeb, the “near enemy” (Muslim “apostates” and “renegades”) and toward attacking al­-­Adou al­-­Baeed, or the “far enemy” (Israel and the Western powers, particularly the United States). As a result, an intense internal struggle ensued between local jihadists and their international counterparts led by bin Laden and Zawahiri. Waged for the soul of the Islamist movement, this internal struggle has shaken the very foundation of Muslim ­societies and politics (the jihadist movement represents a small fraction of the Islamist movement). Its reverberations have been felt far ­beyond the region’s borders—in New York, Washington, Madrid, London, and Paris. Although the overwhelming majority of jihadists stayed on the sidelines and did not join the fight against the far enemy, international jihadists succeeded in taking jihad global. By taking on the United States, which in the eyes of so many Muslims is most responsible for maintaining the grim status quo in the Arab world, Al Qaeda jihadists wanted to signal that the civil war for the soul of Islam would move to a different level, an international stage. From their perspective this could further two goals: rid Muslim countries of corrupting American and Western cultural and political influences, as well as military presence, partic­ularly from Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Prophet Mohammed; and destabilize Muslim governments and their ruling elite by inciting the rising ­generation. Findings In conversations with activists, their answers reflected a broad political spectrum, from the extreme left to the extreme right. I noted five general trends in my interviews, both deeply ironic yet instructive. First, what most surprised me was that their views tended to resemble those of their secular opponents. I have come to believe that American observers assign far too much significance to notions of “Islam” and “Islamic” when describing what motivates ­Islamists and jihadists. I do not mean to downplay the role of “Islamic” factors in Muslim societies, particularly in how they help shape moral values, self­-­identification, and fears about Westernization and Americanization. But again, both mainstream Islamists and jihadists use religion as a means to a political end, not as an end in ­itself. Thus the key to understanding the jihadist and his journey lies mainly in politics, not in religion. Blaming terrorism on passages from the Qur’an would be like blaming the Crusades on passages from the New Testament. As is true for the Bible, Islamic doctrine can be interpreted in any number of ways, either to promote peace and tolerance or war and intolerance. The second trend is that t he vast majority of militant Islamists whom I call local jihadists did not join Al Qaeda. In fact, September 11 showed how deep the fissures within the jihadist movement are. The internal struggle has escalated into an open civil war. Local jihadists vehemently criticized their international counterparts – Al Qaeda’s jihadists – and accused them of endangering the very existence of the Islamist movement and the ummah (the worldwide Muslim community). It is a pity that the Western media still perpetuate the myth that the attacks were widely embraced by all Islamists and even the ummah, and that the nineteen suicide bombers reflected the amorality of Muslim political culture as a whole. The third trend is that Al Qaeda represents a tiny fringe within the jihadist movement. It does not possess a viable social base. Its long term survival is at a stake. Yes, Al Qaeda is very dangerous; it can carry out deadly operations in several countries. But it is more of a paramilitary organization than a social movement. Fourth, while their goal is to dismantle the secular authoritarian order that succeeded British and French colonialism after World War II, Islamists and jihadists ultimately want to establish governments that would be similarly repressive. Countries that have Islamic governments, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Sudan, and, formerly, Afghanistan under the Taliban, provide cases in point. Although fully clothed in Islamic dress, they have much in common with their secular authoritarian counterparts elsewhere. There is nothing uniquely “Islamic” about their internal governing style except the rhetoric and the symbolism. They have not offered up an original model of Islamic governance. Their example casts a very dark shadow over the concept of an Islamic state. In foreign policy, the three Islamic republics invested their meager resources in exporting revolution to neighboring states and beyond. This ambition has proved to be costly and even suicidal for the Taliban, which hosted Al Qaeda and allowed it to wage jihad worldwide. Since September 11 the two remaining Islamic regimes in Iran and Sudan have retrenched domestically and are mainly preoccupied with political survival, though the new ultraconservative Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has worked aggressively to roll the clock back to the early days of the Islamic revolution in the late ­1970s. The fifth trend is that Islamists and jihadists are playing an active if indirect role in expanding political debate in the Muslim world. They have forced existing secular dic­tatorships—such as in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia—to respond to their challenge to open up the closed political system and reform government institutions. Opponents of Western­-­style democracy, jihadists are unwitting harbingers of democratic transformation. Some have even come to endorse a political process, creating further reformation within the movement. Al­-­Jama’a al­-­Islamiya (Egyptian Islamic Group)—the largest jihadist organization in the Arab world—and the Islamic ­Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria now emphatically support democratization. The journey that led them there was far from democratic, however; it was extremely bloody. In the mid-1990s, aware that they would never be able to dislodge autocratic rulers by force, they began to alter their strategy for gaining power. They even formed ­alliances with their former sworn political opponents, including secularists and Marxists, in calling upon governments to respect human rights and the rule of ­law. Islamists and jihadists are not born­-­again democrats and will never be. They are deeply patriarchal, seeing themselves as the guardians of faith, tradition, and authenticity. Their rhetoric remains soggy with anti­-­Western diatribe. Nonetheless, many Islamists and a large segment of jihadists are gradually becoming initiated into the culture of political realism and the art of the possible. They are learning to make compromises with secular groups and to rethink some of their absolutist positions. Events have forced them to come to grips with the complexity and diversity of Muslim societies. More and more they recognize the primacy of politics over religion and the difficulty, even futility, of establishing Islamic states, particularly by autocratic fiat. Conservative “neo­-­fundamentalism” (which aims primarily at Islamizing society from the bottom up through what is called da’wa, “the call”) has generally replaced revolutionary jihadism, whose goal is to Islamize society by simply seizing state ­power. But not all Islamists and jihadists have embraced these new political realities, and therein lies the internal struggle. There is a split between the ultramilitant wing, including Al Qaeda, and a nonviolent faction that commands greater numbers and political weight. This civil war has been overshadowed by the war in Iraq, which was a godsend to Al Qaeda because it diverted attention from its zero­-­sum game and lent it an air of credibility. American officials now acknowledge that the war in Iraq has proved a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and given it time to regroup. However, the Iraq war has merely slowed an inevitable shift in the balance of power toward those who have abandoned Islamizing society from the top down. Most activists I spoke with recognize that the individual believer should be the focus in their efforts to create a moral society. Evolution, not revolution, is the dominant ­trend. Jihadists still have a long way to go before they gain the trust of their fellow Muslims, let alone the international community, but some have taken an important first step. The terrorism perpetrated by certain cells and factions will continue over the next decade, but their movement no longer has a large base of support or a safe haven in which to plot new operations. Jihadists of all stripes know they are at a crossroads. At home and abroad they are blamed for unleashing the wrath of the United States against the ummah. Only a miracle will resuscitate jihadism. The question, of course, is whether the continued occupation of Iraq will be that ­miracle.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqus

More Comments:

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 Mr Willis

If by "historical penalty" you mean how would history refer to, or say about, them then I guess it would be something like:" they harmed the cause they thought they were serving."

In the meantime, to the best of my knowledge, mainstream Islamist movements, particularly the powerful Moslem Brotherhood, refuse to deal with them in any way.

However let us keep in mind that not everything about 9/11 is in the public knowledge domain; more speculation would be foolhardy .

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 Mr Heuisler

You insist on wallowing in meaningless generalities and shoddy sloganeering in your approach to Islam and Jihad as in sentences like:

"Islam has given these people rejection, oppression, ignorance, poverty and hatred, and yet they cheer American-killers for being Believers. "

which is really inane, ignorant and spiteful.

If that makes you feel better go ahead and hate as much as will quench your thirst...Islam will not be the poorer for that.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 Mr. Friedman

Your moral posturing and humane sounding declarations thinly disguise what your old culture made of you ; an innately racist mouthpiece of a racist cause!

How come with all the hot air coming from you there is absolutely no word about the bombing of inhabited Residential building, the destruction of the air shelter in Qana, the bombing of Bahr al Bakkar school, the few episodes I mentioned out the endless criminal Zionist then Israeli criminal record?

I am certain that you will come up with some contrived justifications!



They will all spring from the same racist, human classifying, creed that imposes different punishments for the same crime, depending on who committed what to whom!



Discussing morality and ethics with the bearers of that creed is more than futile, it is counter productive; for that would presuppose that they share the same value with the rest of humanity which they DO NOT ...They have their own self serving relative and RACIST value which springs from their , a priori, classification of humankind into Jew and Goyim!



omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 A sober and useful "tour d'horizon" that inevitably suffers from the shortcomings of the genre: over brevity and over generalization.



Having failed to distinguish, at the outset, between "Islamist" and "Jihadist", which seems to be warranted according to his analysis (it is NOT according to mine), thus wittingly or unwittingly adopting the Western PR generated but mainly pejorative meaning of the term “Jihad" and its derivatives, the author falls into several deep pits of, possible, misinterpretation or suspicions of conscious pandering to the western, Judeo/(West)Christian "gallery" .



I am commenting here on his hypothesis that "jihadism" was high jacked by al Qaeda as shown in the following paragraph:



"But by mid-1990s Osama bin Laden and his second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, launched a campaign to hijack the jihadist movement and change its direction—away from attacking al­-­Adou al­-­Qareeb, the “near enemy” (Muslim “apostates” and “renegades”) and toward attacking al­-­Adou al­-­Baeed, or the “far enemy” (Israel and the Western powers, particularly the United States)."



The trouble with this hypothesis is two fold:

1- It assumes that only al Qaeda is "Jihadist"; a claim very hotly disputed and vehemently denied by other "Islamist" groups who consider their efforts to be the "real Jihad" in the original, uncorrupted by western PR, meaning of the word.

2-It undeservedly attributes to al Qaeda the honour, or onus, of launching and advocating the fight against ”al adou al baeed”= the far enemy i.e. ,mainly, the USA and Israel (though not far geographically but being manned by aliens of non regional extraction and an extension of Western imperialism) .



As a matter of history and record an earlier Islamist Jihadist movement, the Moslem Brotherhood ( official motto: JIHAD is our WAY), which predates al Qaeda by more than half a century, have advocated and practiced "jihad" armed resistance against “the far enemy” as far back as 1948 when it participated with volunteers from Egypt and Jordan in the Arab armed resistance against the Zionist conquest of Palestine.

Its Palestinian branch, better known as Hamas, still does.



Mr Gerges did embark on a worthy endeavor; introducing an Islamist movement to the US public.

Not having read the whole book I can only hope it is not marred by factual inaccuracy, careless choice of words i.e. unthinking adoption of politically motivated, PR generated appellations and “gallery pleasing” slants!





omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 Mr Friedman

I know you are good at "copy and paste" but few other things.

My initial point to you was:"you, of all people, are not qualified to discuss morals" because of your persistence in avoiding questions about Israeli, public and official, criminal practices; the racist cause you defend tirelessly !

And I indicated why!

So I would say, this NOT being a police investigation, you should address the questions directed at you if you except response to your questions/points.



Verbosity is not a substitute for clear stands and opinions and is an indication of bankruptcy !



As long as you fail to address the points I raise at you I will ignore the points you raise.



Thanks for the "tu quoque" at which you seem to be a master.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 Mr Friedman

It IS NOT for you to decide what is and what is not be raised or discussed.

Islam being in an all out confrontation with Zionism and Israel both these pernicious and racist entities are extremely relevant to the discussion.'

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Mr Heuisler

"And be assured, I will do my part."

That is truly calamitous and horrendously terrifying!

Would you care to reconsider?

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 Mr Heuisler

I really do not see any reason for your most recent outburst, above, except perhaps that it has been bottled up in you for days looking for an opportunity, opportune or not, to come out.

What exactly is it that you object to in my post?

Can you be more specific or is it a game of random and wanton name calling?

Mind you by making sloganeering as your secondary interest and reading what is written you could learn something...you do not have to like it...knowledge will not hurt you!

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 Mr Heuisler

I welcome the polite invitation to address the issue and hope you will calmly consider what I have to say.

I have divided your key sentence into two sections(A&B)for clarity.



A-"....the issues of Islamofascists killing children in the name of a Jihad, "



***I assume here that you are referring to bombings in occupied Palestine.

A war is going on there between two hugely unequal forces .Atrocities are committed by both sides as is indiscriminate killing by both sides. Israel bombed from the air with US supplied airplanes ( in fairness I must add that the US protested at the use of the airplanes-HAHAHA)two residential buildings, one in Gaza and one in Nablus,that led to more than eighty(80) civilian deaths including women , children and oldsters.

Israel bombed an air raid shelter in Qana, Lebanon, that led to 165 civilian deaths.

Israel bombed a secondary school in Egypt at Bahr al BAKKAR, that led to more than 200 student and teachers deaths .

The killing of civilians is deplorable by any standard and strictly forbidden by Islam, all killing is except in case of war or execution of criminals ,(la taktulu al nafs al lati haram ALLAH katluha, says the Koran=do not kill any soul that God makes it a cardinal sin to kill).

However, that sad bad expression, if any "justification" is searched for I would rank Israel's killing of civilians as much less "justifiable" and much more criminal for the the following reasons:

a-The huge imbalance of power to Israel's advantage

b-Israel is the occupation force that is suppressing the Palestinian people.



For your information Mr Heuisler the ratio of killing in occupied Palestine is 3.5 Palestinian deaths to 1 Israeli death.

Palestinian resistance never targeted children as such as your question implies; that there were children among Israeli casualties is, however, undeniable!







B-"in the name of a mythical Caliphate and who kill to codify Wahhabist Sharia with the torture, beheadings, female circumcision and honor killings it implies."



***The people you describe here are a tiny fringe lunatic minority rejected by all mainstream Islamist factions and movements as such .

To present them as a majority or as a sizable minority is not only untrue but is part and parcel of a conscious Zionist plan to dis inform the general Western, mainly US, public and demonize Islam thus forestalling any rapprochement between the Arab/Moslem world and the West.



Their actions, opinions and preaching of Islam is as representative of Islam as the "Inquisition courts", "burning on the stake" or "quartering" would be of Christianity!



Both equally untenable, hate filled and ignorant stands.



Zionist , and Jewish, influence in Western mass media being what it is(you do know that Rupert Murdoch, among many others in the media, is Jewish ,I am sure) the term I object to "Islamofascism" have gained wide currency through their efforts as REPRESENTING ALL ISLAMIST JIHADIST movements; which is patently untrue !



You might recall that in an earlier post I said I have no objection to somebody saying, for example,"the fascist Islamist or Jihadist al Qaeda movement" which would restrict the qualification "fascist" to a certain specific movement.



There were, there still is, Christian Nazis ; it would be dishonest and disrespectful of readers if the term I always use is Christonazim or Nazochristianity!No such thing exists neither does "Islamofascim"!

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 A-Origin;

"Jihad", derivatives include "jihadist","Al Jihad=Jihadism" etc, is derived from the verb "jahada= exert (one self)to the maximum .

Theologically and culturally it is used to denote any special, out of the day to day ordinary, effort that goes to achieve a certain task or mission.

JIHAD is manifested in personal improvement (travel to far places to seek knowledge is Jihad), family or personal conditions amelioration ( to seek employment in hardship conditions or locations to improve a family's financial resources is Jihad), and in society serving efforts(participation in social work and community service is Jihad )etc etc.

Another aspect of the meaning of Jihad to non Moslems, the one most liable to misunderstanding by people of good will and conscious distortion by people of ill will, relates to the effort to SPREAD the Faith, Islam, and to its DEFENSE.

At the outbreak of the Moslem mission it was Jihad to spread it, peaceably if possible, militarily if need be.

History records that prior to the Moslem campaigns to spread Islam in Byzantine and Persian dominated areas, being most adjacent and accessible to the Arabian Peninsula whence the mission sprung, emissaries were sent by the Prophet inviting their respective overlords to embrace Islam and allow their subjects to adopt it.



When both overlords turned down the invitation and beheaded the emissaries

Their domains were invaded by "Jihadist" armies of volunteers.

Instructions to the advancing armies were very strict and explicit:

-Absolutely no coercion was to be used with believers in monotheistic religions; Judaism and Christianity.

If they chose to retain their faiths a tax, en lieu of military service, will be levied from them (Al Jizya).

-Pagan worshippers would be compelled to adopt Islam or face the sword.



The mission of the invading Moslem armies to spread Islam was JIHAD (fi sabil il LAH= in the cause of God.)

Once Islam was established in these invaded and conquered lands, with many others of course, it was AND IS always Jihad to defend (Dar Al Islam= the home of Islam ) i.e. lands in which Islam took roots and general public acceptance as the religion of that land.

Other lands were classified as (Dar al harb= home of war) i.e. lands that has not (yet?) allowed the mission to enter and invite its population to Islam .

The above is the basic, generally accepted, history and religious significance of Jihad in Arab and Moslem culture.

B-Subsequent History:

After a time lapse of several centuries in ever increasing lands (up to China in the East and Spain/ Portugal in the West) of spreading the mission and the subsequent confrontation with a multitude of diverse cultures, several changes occurred.

Some of these changes, if not most, were mainly due to the geopolitical requirements of a large empire in which spreading the Faith, the original motive force, became secondary if at all in evidence in the later stages.

C-The relevance of Jihad to day:

Jihad is very much alive in Arab and Moslem life and culture in the personal, family and societal sense.

It is very much in evidence in the DEFENSE of Dar al Islam such as in Palestine, against Zionist occupation, and Iraq and Afghanistan against American occupation.

Both above facets of Jihad has universal acceptance and are firmly adhered to in the Arab/Moslem World.

The other important facet of Jihad, SPREADING the Faith, is much more controversial in contemporary life.

A very tiny minority, of absolutely no practical significance, adheres to the old model of conquest.

An important minority of some influence still believes in spreading the Faith through peaceful means. They confront the tiny minority with the unassailable argument:

“Since present Governments of non Moslem countries DO NOT DISALLOWS, or fight, the mission to spread the faith peacefully, there is, therefore, no need for conquest!"

A second forceful argument they use is the Hadith of the Prophet: ”Antum Alam bi shooun dinyakum= You know better the conditions of your world (time and place) !”

The majority, however, believes that since things, as far as faiths are concerned, have settled the way they did, SPREADING the Faith has become a private, personal consideration and not an affair of an Islamic mission.

D-Epilogue

The above is the perception of an actively engaged Moslem, a non Islamist but not an anti Islamist, observer of the concept and significance of JIHAD in the 21st century. A perception possibly shared by many in the Arab/Moslem World .



omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 Mr Friedman

I hope you will tell that to the Zionist gangs, and their heirs presently ruling Israel,who introduced ,and keep alive, terrorism and barbarism in Palestine; not least DEIR YASSIN when pregnant women were disemboweled, children killed in front of their parents etc etc!

It is a mockery , travesty and a tragedy that a Zionist preaches about morals.

Tell that to the biggest terrorist of all the Israeli Army whose air crafts destroyed inhabited RESIDENTIAL buildings in Gaza and Nablus .

That you a Zionist should preach morality is a contradiction and an insult to common sense and morality.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 Mr Kovachev

If that is eveything you have read in my post then it is pointless to discuss things with you!

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 Mr Willis

Islam, as such, had nothing to do with 9/11.

9/11 was never condoned by any Islamic authority of medium or substantial standing or representative character such as al Azhar, the many "muftis", deans of schools of "sharia" etc.

As a matter of fact and record all major spokesmen of standing for Islam, there are several, Sunni Islam has no Pope nor equivalent, condemned the act as a criminal act against innocent people!

That some, whether Moslem or otherwise, chose to portray 9/11 as an act of Jihad reflects their sickness of mind and spirit .

To hold Islam directly or indirectly responsible , as does Fox news and similar Zionist mouthpieces, for the acts of a few is neither reasonable nor indicative of good will.(That would be cheap, and I should add stupid, PR addressed to, and accepted by, the pitifully gullible.)



Re Israeli crimes: You would have noticed, I hope, that :"I assume here that you are referring to bombings in occupied Palestine."



With this assumption in mind what I had to say about Israeli policies and practices was relevant!



You can call that PR if it makes you feel better but these Israeli crimes are a matter of historical record.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007 Mr Friedman

The bombing of residential buildings in Nablus and Gaza , among many others, are very recent acts.

The episode of the UNSC appointed commission to investigate the Israeli crimes at Jenin miraculously passed without a US veto, that was DENIED entry by Israel, is still fresh in the minds of those who care!



Barbarism is an intrinsic,inborn component of the mental , psychological and spiritual buildup and mind formation of the culture that divides humanity into two distinct subdivisions: Jews and Goyim.



Israel is the "honest" ,faithful incarnation of that culture!



Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/24/2006 N.



Good evening. It's a given that my little righty jackboot friend would refuse to address any of my queries especially, one as embarrassing as this piece of dubious diplomacy in our fight against global terrorism. However, it is very surprising that you would take up this debate with the old college try attitude.



Although, your willingness/open mindedness is quite commendable my answer to the questions; "Must we always be perfectly consistent? Is there not something to divide and conquer?" is a resounding 'yes' on both counts.



We need not review the past (75) year history of despots supported by our government either directly or through American business interests nor shadow intermediaries that has given the world/run the gamut from Hitler to Saddam to Karimov to understand that errors in judgment have left us to fight/die in wars (Iraq) or stiffed holding the bag (Cuba). Look no further than the historical links in Iran of Mossaddeq/Shah Pahlevi/the Ayatollah's as a benchmark.



But, Moammer Gadhafi is such at stretch that not even the neocons at Weekly Standard, Powerline or Little Green Footballs are shouting from the roof tops or banging pots/pans to this smoking peace pipe. The State Department is even sheepish with paraphrased points such as; renounced terrorism, expanding human rights or it is a move of little economic consequence as Europe is readily entrenched/major player.



Honestly, it is all about O-I-L. Libya got it/ we don't and need it badly.



Gadhafi clandestinely supports Hamas, Hezbollah and continues to pay bounty money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He has toned down his wiping out Israel rhetoric in favor of his White Book writings to go along with his nonsensical Green Book diatribe against capitalism and the West.



http://www.algathafi.org/medialeast/medialeast-en.htm



A brief synopsis declares:



* Return of Palestinian refugees to their land



* A multi-national state, based on the Lebanese model



* Free elections, under UN supervision



* Joint Jewish-Palestinian parliament



* Total dismantling of weapons in Middle East



Admirable don't you think? Do you trust this snake to have shed his Islamic Socialism/Pan Arabism ideological skin? Do you favor a joint state of Isratine? Did you know that this aged dictator, the longest serving in the Arab world, is under intense pressure at home from Jihadists and seeks US support to thwart usurpation?



From his strong support for the PLO, Black September, Carlos, IRA to the La Belle Disco/Pan Am bombing and murder of Yvonne Fletcher our great President Reagan carried out the only righteous diplomacy for this thug with the April 15, 1986 retaliatory strikes against Tripoli and Benghazi. Then Mr. Reagan went on to prove that sanctions really do work.



Mr. Reagan should have followed up and finished the job by overthrowing this menace. Now we'll coddle this tinhorn until we're snake bitten again or have to face off against his successor regime. In the meantime will we come to this murderers aid if/when he is overthrown by one of the numerous internal Libyan enemies? This has disaster written all over it for a few measly drops of oil.





Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/24/2006 N.



(4) GI's and (19) Iraqi's dead today. How's was your day? The Churchill quote, while somewhat apt, was made to Parliament in justification against fears of Britain's aligning with the Soviet communists in the fight against Hitler. While both Britain and the US cast aside differences with the Reds in the life/death struggle against Nazism both nations made the grave mistake of fawning/ coddling/ embracing/ lauding/ bowing down and caving in to the Russians instead of remaining steadfast/ vigilant/ cautious and on guard against the Bear. If the US and Britain had done so the Cold War may have been over sooner rather than later.



This quote doesn't match up so well from, a historic perspective, with the current US/Libya thaw oher that if the US moves to full normalization with Gadhafi's Libya we must do so with the utmost wariness and from a position of dominance/strength. The minute this despots steps out of bounds... WHAM!!!



Mitchell Cohen's Dissent article that hypothetically places one in the HOP position of US President, circa 1981 world geopolitics, is excellent and I have taken the liberty to post it here for discussion purposes. I have yet to formulate an answer and am still milling it around. Give me until tomorrow to address this problem.



http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=344



Just a few discussion points/questions...



First, why is the left always associated with dissent. If one questions the Bush Administration policies they are branded as treasonous/ traitors/ un-American. Yet, when President Clinton was in office the rightists such as Murdoch, Scaife, Kristol, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Robertson et al were never identified as such. Their rhetoric against a sitting President Clinton was far more inflammatory/ unrelenting/ attacking/ personal/ derogatory and they all were seditious/ treasonous/ traitors/ un-American... still are in my book. However, their acts of disloyalty was fully acceptable even applauded and rewarded. Why the double standard?



Second, the political nature of Jihadist's align with to the right side of the political spectrum. The term Islamofascist contains the word 'fascist' which is the farthest point right on the political spectrum scale.



The more I think about this as not only being funny/ ironic the more comparatives/similarities that can be drawn between the US right wing and practitioners of Arab Jihad. The dictatorial/ totalitarian nature, the suppression of rights/ freedom/ liberty, economic philosophies, treatment of women, religious zealotry, militarism, racist tendencies of both is strikingly dualist. These two groups are kindred spirits... totally. What is your take on this blatantly obvious phenomenon?



Have a good evening.



Patrick M. Ebbitt - 9/24/2006 Omar,



Time heals all wounds and who knows in a few years America may shine the golden light of good graces on any number of Islamofascist regimes that are willing to play the game or have the desperately needed oil we crave.



If Libya and that murderous criminal Moammar Gadhafi are now our dear friends anyone can get into the club provided they have the right connections, money or credentials.



Also, as you are well aware the 1988 bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, is ancient history and easily forgotten.



You know, let bygones be bygones. Even the Libyan devil needs a play friend.





Bill,



Now tell all the HNN readers...



How much of a friend Mr. Gadhafi is to the USA?



Knowing you'll spin some old wives tale to cover this little inconvenient bump in the road toward bringing Democracy to the Arab world maybe, you can argue that lame excuse of good old Moammer ridding himself of those wicked WMD's Libya never had.



See, I really do like you. Enough that I am even willing to help you get started on your defense of your new Islamofascist drinking buddy.



Peter Kovachev - 5/22/2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769_pf.html



This one outlines the charming details of the "education" millions of Muslim kids (the "very tiny minority of absolutely no practical significance") the world over get on Jews, Christians, Animists and other "unbelievers."

Peter Kovachev - 5/22/2006 One of many examples of your jihadist/islamist non-problem, Mr. Baker. As in the whole Saudi educational system which is exported to all Islamic countries, including the West. The "very tiny minority of absolutely no practical significance:"



http://www.gulfinstitute.org/artman/publish/article_48.shtml



Now you can put Mr. Ali Al-Ahmed of the Gulf Institute on your list of "traitors" and in line for fatwa as well, I suppose.

Peter Kovachev - 5/21/2006 Two points, Mr.Baker: 1) I wasn't actually attempting to initiate a discussion with you in this case, I was making a general comment to Mr. Friedman and anyone else who might wander by and 2)what you wrote is essentially bad propaganda consisting of a shoddy patchwork of selected half-truths and outright lies .



Your "very tiny minority," of jihadists which you, and only you, deem to be "of absolutely no practical significance," is managing to wreak quite the little havoc out there: Millions of women turned into imprisoned chattel, millions of ordinary Muslims terrorised into submission to lunatics, murders of Jewish, Christian, Hindu and dissenting Muslim civilians, a racist genocide in Darfur, nuke-seeking mullahs in Iran, fatwas against intellectuals and politicians, et.c., etc. But then again all that horror, according to your logic, must be "defensive."

Peter Kovachev - 5/21/2006 In other words, what Mr. Baker is trying to say is that in spite of the undeniable history of jihad wars as massacres and destructions of peoples and cultures in Asia, Middle East, North Africa, Southern Europe and the Balkans; in spite of all the documented historical descriptions of jihad as a coersive military movement by centuries of Islamic scholars; and inspite of the hundreds of terror groups waging campaigns of murder and genocide against Jews, Christians and Animists in the name of jihad and with quotes from the Koran, we are allowed to interpret jihad only as an admirable personal betterment strategy.



Kind of like concluding that because some Christian groups call their fund-raising and church-attendance efforts "crusades," the Medieval Crusades were nothing but rather large church potlucks.

N. Friedman - 5/18/2006 Omar,



Either Islam is categorically against massacring civilians or it is not. Which is it?





N. Friedman - 5/18/2006 Omar,



Either Islam categorically permits Muslims to massacre civilians or it does not. Which is it, Omar?





N. Friedman - 5/18/2006 Omar,



Then, in your view, Muslims have the right, according to Islamic law, to commit massacres against Israli civilians. Is that your opinion or not? Yes or no?



And, if it is your opinion, that means - no matter how you put it - that Islamic law permits Muslims to massacre civilians.





N. Friedman - 5/18/2006 Omar,



This discussion is about Islam and Muslims, not about Israel and not about Judaism and not about Jews.



The behavior of Israelis or Jews or the view of Judaism does not affect whether or not Islam permits the massacring of civilians.



What you assert is an invalid argument. So, either address the issue or admit the point and move on.



N. Friedman - 5/18/2006 Omar,



Whether the Israelis are rats, angels or something in between has no bearing, as a matter of simple logic and common sense, on whether Islam condones the murder of civilians. That issue is a question of Muslim ethnics, not Israeli behavior.



What you assert is known as a tu quoque. Tu quoque, as explained in the dictionary, means "A retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior." [Source: American Heritage Dictionary]



Tu quoque is consided a logic fallacy. In other words, your argument is an invalid argument. As explained in an online source:



This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:



1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.

3. Therefore X is false.



http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html



Note that your argument is a textbook case of an tu quoque argument. So, you have not said anything.



Perhaps, since you refuse to address the topic, that you admit that Islam permits the massacring of civilians. And that is because - and this is simple logic, Omar, that simply cannot be escaped by changing the topic - when Muslim clerics say that it is ok under Islamic law to massacre Israeli civilians, such clerics are saying that Islam permits the killing of civilians.



And the reason, Omar, that there is so much violence in Islamic countries and from Muslims all over the world is that Islamic clerics are unwilling to say categorically that massacring civilians is wrong. And that is due, in part, to their condoning of such violence against Israelis and Indians and Russians, among others.



If such position by Islamic clerics is not itself a corruption of Islamic law and ethnics, then Islam does condone the massacring of civilians.





Bill Heuisler - 5/18/2006 Omar,

Your inability to discuss the issue of Jihad terrorists and our response

to their attacks is amusing.



Don't understand my references? Or do you deny reality? Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians depend on US gifts of billions to survive. But squalor abides. Rejection, etc?Jordanian and Egyptian Governments refused to take Palestinian refugees after wars with Israel. The bulk of the populations in Near Eastern Moslem countries are poor and uneducated and the Arafats and the Assads foment hatred of the West in order to explain the abject failures of their societies. Truth hurts?



Accusing me of hatred is myopic. Islamofascists attacked the US who meant them no harm. But hatred is the major export of the Cassandras of the Caliphate. It will redound in their absolute destruction.

And be assured, I will do my part.

Bill Heuisler

N. Friedman - 5/18/2006 Omar,



Well, sometimes Muslim clerics condemn attacks on civilians. Other times they do not. Hence, blowing up civilians in Israel is not condemned by too many Muslim clerics. In fact, some - in fact, quite a number of - rather famous Muslim clerics claim such barbarism is perfectly ok.



So, when such clerics say that such behavior is ok, they are saying that Islam condones massacring civilians. There is no getting around that, Omar. This is a question of logic and consistency.



And, who can blaim people like bin Laden from misundertanding these clerics. Situational ethics is a Western, not an Islamic notion. So, hearing that it is open season even on Israeli children, it is no wonder that Jihadis decide that it is ok to massacre other children as well - e.g. in Beslan or on 9/11 or in Bali and in countless other places. And, it is no wonder that Westerners conclude that Islam permits the massacre of civilians - because, in fact, such acts receive the blessing of clerics when it suits a political objective.



Perhaps, it is you who do not understand the clerics. Really, what they are saying is not that massacring civilians is wrong but that, in some cases, it is politically incorrect to admit such to be the case.



And, do not give me excuses that it is ok to massacre Israelis because that is the only way for Palestinian Arabs to make their point. If that is so, then Palestinian Arabs have no moral right to fight. Such has been the tradition for anyone believing in just war over since that theory has been debated.



And, do not tell me that Israelis do bad things so that Arabs must commit massacres against civilians. Israeli wrongs - if the Israelis are wrong in the cases you assert - are no excuse for Palestinian Arabs to behave, as a matter of primary tactic, immorally.



And, do not tell me that all Israelis serve in the military so that makes massacring civilians ok. Note, that the civilians in Israel who have been massacred include a school of children, elderly people celebrating a religious holiday, a family celebrating a wedding, non-Israelis who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, Arab families in the wrong place at the wrong time, women shot dead while driving, etc., etc..



But, this point is not about Israel. It is about flexible ethics by Muslim clerics. And, clerics holding the view that some massacres are ok but others are not are, frankly, not worthy of the term cleric. If they are worthy of respect according to Muslims, then we are dealing with a lot of barbarians, not a fringe, as you suggest.



A religion is what its followers want it to be and, evidently, these clerics see barbarism as religiously justified, at least in some instances. And, I do not hear Muslims saying they are wrong. And I do not see the distinction between it being ok to massacre some civilians but not others.







N. Friedman - 5/17/2006 Patrick,



While I do not believe that perfect consistency is consistent with survival - at least not in all circumstances -, your point about Qadhafi is very well taken. And, thank you for the information about him.



Regarding perfect consistency, I remind you of Churchill's comment "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Which is to say, it is sometimes necessary to deal with barbarians.



For a good discussion regarding perfect consistency and foreign policy, read "A Thought Experiment for the Left," by Mitchell Cohen, Dissent Magazine, Summer, 2004 at http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=344 . I trust you realize that Cohen is no right winger and Dissent Magazine is not a journal of the right.





Ricardo Luis Rodriguez - 5/17/2006 Palestinian resistance never targeted children as such as your question implies; ....-HAHAHA

Bill Heuisler - 5/17/2006 Omar,

Intent is important. When an Israeli missile hits Hamas HQ in a crowded city and a Hamas bomber walks into a pizza parlor crowded with teens there is a distinct difference I should not have to explain.



Crowds of Palestinians cheered the bomber (carried his picture) the day after the Sbarro pizza parlor bomb killed and wounded hundreds of kids.

Intent is pretty manifest there.



And your arguments on HNN presuppose that Americans should be concerned with Palestinians. Why should we? Remember how crowds of Palestinians cheered the killing of US civilians after 9/11? Apparently Jihadists make no distinction among enemies and methods as long as killers are Muslim and the victims are not.



Am I wrong? How?



The US has given Palestinians many billions of dollars. Islam has given these people rejection, oppression, ignorance, poverty and hatred, and yet they cheer American-killers for being Believers. This sounds very much like mass psychosis similar to the USSR of Stalin, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Burma, Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. No? Why not?



Give me a reason why Islamofascist is not appropriate for these bloody agents of a New Caliphate.

Bill Heuisler

Rob Willis - 5/17/2006 Mr. Baker, if what you say about Islam condeming 9/11 as a criminal act, perpetrated by rogue Islamics and in the name of Islam, what would be the historical penalty visited upon them by mainstream Islam? Being a history forum, and considering the topic of this thread, I would be interested to know: What such a punishment should be, and who is able to call for it?

N. Friedman - 5/17/2006 Omar,



The issue is the world today, not the world fifty-eight years ago. And, frankly, fifty-eight years ago, there were no shortage of massacres committed by Arabs.



But, even if, fifty-eight years ago, Israelis had been wholly at fault - which is a nonsense claim -, that is no excuse for using the masacre as the war tactic of choice.



As I said, the tactics employed by Palestinian Arabs are the tactics of barbarians.



Rob Willis - 5/17/2006 If killing of innocents is against Islamic law, as you stated with a straight face, would you kindly explain the civilians murdered in the name of Islam on 9/11?



Again, you are unable to be even modestly objective. Whether Israel has commited the war crimes you mention is not relevant to this conversation. They have their reasons, you have yours. But you are incapable of applying your own rules to yourself, which tells me that you don't really believe your own PR.



R. Willis

N. Friedman - 5/17/2006 Omar,



You write: "A war is going on there between two hugely unequal forces"



With due respect, the right to commit attrocities does not come from having the weaker force. In just war theory, if you know that fighting if futile without committing attrocities, then the fight is considered an unjust war.



A war to be just must be fought to achieve the minimal aim necessary to allow for a decent life and must be fought primarily by legitimate aims. Attacking civilians as the tactic of choice, given the general circumstances, is illegitimate.



The Palestinian Arab cause is illegitimate to the extent that it aims to destroy the rights of Israelis by eliminating Israel and also due to the fact that illegimate means are the norm, not the exception.



And the means are illegimate because the main tactic is to massacre civilians. Tactics aimed primarily at civilians are the tactics of barbarians, which is what the Palestinian Arabs have adopted as their tactic of choice.



So, this unequal talk of yours is nonsense. Where there is no chance to achieve a victory in a war by legitimate war means, the war simply is illegimate and unjust.



In response to an unjust war, the other party may crush those who use such illegitimate means.



James H Dalrymple - 5/17/2006 Muslim countries have never been strong on individual freedom and have committed numerous atrocities so it is right that they should be sorted out. Who is the hero? The USA? Lies, deceit, torture, detention without trial, depleted uranium, white phosphorus, thousands dead, whole cities levelled. Oh dear this is getting difficult.

N. Friedman - 5/16/2006 Patrick,



Must we always be perfectly consistent? Is there not something to divide and conquer?

Bill Heuisler - 5/16/2006 Omar,

Please stop avoiding the issue of Moslem terrorists. A week or so ago you accused me of using a "PR" term when I wrote about Islamofascists. This latest post, you accused the author of using a "PR" term, jihad.



Insult my intelligence if it makes you feel superior, but address the issues of Islamofascists killing children in the name of a Jihad, in the name of a mythical Caliphate and who kill to codify Wahhabist Sharia with the torture, beheadings, female circumcision and honor killings it implies. Address the issue from the unique viewpoint of a coreligionist.



Accusing me of using PR words avoids taking a stand. But it's difficult to defend a suprareligious, overtly nationalistic code of oppression, torture, death and fanaticism, isn't it?

Bill Heuisler

Bill Heuisler - 5/15/2006 Omar,

Don't like Jihad? Too bad, but it describes the current situation in Moslem countries where innocents are killed in the name of Islam. The word comes directly from the Koran.

What word would you use?



Don't like Islamofascist?

PR? No, Islamofascist is s good way for me to describe ultranationalist cowards who kill the innocent when they cannot fight like warriors. In my estimation, the Caliphate is very similar to some "Greater Germany" or "New Roman Empire" envisioned by Hitler and Mussolini and utilized by them to rationalize the slaughter of innocents and the militarization of their people.



You object to my describing those who throw the wheelchair-bound overboard; who slit women's throats and behead bound prisoners; who set off nail bombs in pizza restaurants and nightclubs to kill young girls and boys; who set off nail bombs among little children getting candy.

Islamofascists describes those men and women who kill children for a greater Caliphate where religious oppression of women and atrocities like female circumcision and "honor killings" of rape victims are part of the law of the land enforced by street thugs. Do you recall the Taliban in Afganistan, the Jangaweed in Sudan, Aideed in Somalia, Hussein in Iraq and now that maniac in Iran?



Don't like my word? What's yours?



Islamofascism sounds like a perfect description to me, and jihad is their operative word, not ours.

Bill Heuisler

N. Friedman - 5/15/2006 Correction.



The following sentence should be corrected becuase it has a bad typo: "It has a history, tied to da'wa but largely to spread by the faith fighting by means in order to create conditions (i.e. the existence of Islamic rule under Shari'a) where people would tend to convert."



The sentences should read: It has a history, tied to da'wa but largely in order to spread the faith by means of fighting in order to create conditions (i.e. the existence of Islamic rule under Shari'a) where people would tend to convert.

N. Friedman - 5/15/2006 Professor Gerges,



It sounds as if you have written an interesting book. I shall add it to my list.



I do note some problems in what you write. The Islamist end game is, as you say, authoritarian and no different for the average person, than any other authoritarian regime. I am not sure that is correct.



For example, the regime in Sudan has been remarkably cruel, forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam, selling large numbers of people (i.e. at least 100,000 non-Muslim people) into slavery and massacring untold numbers of non-Muslim people - millions have died -.



For example, the Taliban, before it was overthrown, was intent on forcing non-Muslims to wear special identifying clothing (i.e. clothing so that everyone would know the person's religion), blowing up symbols of other people's religion and employing remarkably barbaric practices (e.g. beheadings) to enforce its religious, not its political power, prerogatives. And the government of Iran stones people to death and radically discriminates most especially against Muslim derived faiths it considers to have veered from the true faith (e.g. the Ba'ahai).



And not only are the governments nasty and cruel, but they do, contrary to what you suggest, seen to focus their cruelty around religion. Again, in Sudan, people were forced in large numbers to convert and children were taken from their parents and forced to convert. The division of people under Taliban rule was by religion. In Iran, the discrimination of the government is by religion and the use of stoning is for religious reasons. So, I think you go much to far when you attempt to secularize the Jihadists and Islamists.



Then there is the question of the division of politics and religion. It does not sound at all clear that the two are really distinguished. Rather, it sounds as if you assign Western notions of what is political and what is religious to people who do not make that division.



Now, I think your book worth reading due to your commendable effort to speak with Jihadis. But, I think there is something to someone being a Jihadi, rather than a rebel or militant or combatant. Jihad is a religious term, as you surely know. It has a history, tied to da'wa but largely to spread by the faith fighting by means in order to create conditions (i.e. the existence of Islamic rule under Shari'a) where people would tend to convert. That is a bit of Qutbian read on Jihad but it is certainly consistent with the history of Jihad conquests.



Lastly, I do not think you are correct that Westerners believe that all Muslims are one with the Jihadis. I think that the opposite has been said repeatedly, even by President Bush (i.e. they hijacked the religion). On the other hand, there surely are large numbers of Muslims who side with the aims of the Jihadis, who celebrated the attacks, etc., etc.



And, quite clearly, the Jihadis have not been well challenged in the Muslim regions. This is because, in fact, the Jihad tradition is a real one so such people are not outside of legitimate strains of the Muslim tradition.



I shall, nonetheless, read your book because it sounds like a good one.

