Radical Islam; 'The veil is not the same as the suicide belt'

by Jay McDonough

There were a couple comments to yesterday's post on President Obama's (and, for that matter, General Petraeus' and Secretary Robert Gates') suggestion that a potential solution to the conflict in Afghanistan might involve negotiations with the more moderate elements of the Taliban. 

One commenter, after recounting attrocities committed by radical Islamic elements, including stoning, beheadings and terrorism said "There is no room on the planet for such cultures."

The statement is pretty clearly rhetorical because, sadly, there is room for the folks that would commit those acts.  The fact is, they exist and there are Muslims who are sympathetic to their goals.  But unless a distinction is made between the radical Muslims who resort to or condone the attrocities, it's also painting with a mighty broad brush.  Islam is now the second most popular religion in the world (recently passing Catholicism as the singe largest denomination) and to assert the entire culture has no place in the world because a subset of that culture is violent is as short sighted as asserting Christianity is dangerous because some deranged guy went into a St. Louis church today and killed a pastor.  Or that Catholicism is inherantly evil because Irish Republican Army members murdered six in Northern Ireland last night. 

In an essay in Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria calls for a more nuanced American policy towards Muslim nations and makes an even finer distinction between the violent and the radical components in Islam.  Zarkaria argues the Bush Administrations policies lumping together Muslim fundamentalists from Northern Africa to Eastern Europe to the Middle East to Indonesia created a strong feeling among Muslims that the U.S. was engaged in a "battle of civilizations" with Islam.  Furthermore, U.S. support for secular despots that have opposed domestic reform only solidified that perception.

Also very interesting are Zarkaria's examples of fundamentalist Muslim elements successfully gaining control, be it Nigeria or Southern Iraq, and either working with American forces or tempering their fundamentalism over time in order to stay in power.

The point is it's complicated.  Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and the faith of nearly a quarter of the world.  And arguing Islamic culture as a whole has no place in the world is counterproductive to U.S. interests and a continuation of thesame overly simplified thinking that's provided terrorists the fodder to enlist Muslims into their murderous ranks.

The veil is not the same as the suicide belt. We can better pursue our values if we recognize the local and cultural context, and appreciate that people want to find their own balance between freedom and order, liberty and license. In the end, time is on our side. Bin Ladenism has already lost ground in almost every Muslim country. Radical Islam will follow the same path. Wherever it is tried—in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in parts of Nigeria and Pakistan—people weary of its charms very quickly. The truth is that all Islamists, violent or not, lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women. We do. That's the most powerful weapon of all.

Comments

[John Ballard]

Indeed.
The radical extremes of Islam will only be curbed or marginalized by other Muslims and not from any source outside the faith.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fool's paradise.

Besides, the mathematical reality is that the headlines are going to a very small minority of Muslims world-wide.

[Peter G.]

Sadly, the first rule of radical Islam is: kill the moderates. This has been so for a very long time. I doubt that moderate Islam stands much of a chance against the extremists. Once they achieve political control in any jurisdiction they are never willing to relinquish power except at the point of a gun.