Talking about "Islamic fundamentalism" is a dangerous business for one outside the religion. Many Islamic things that to us look alike on the surface (and have the same effect on our lives as non-Muslims) come from different sources.
Is Bin Laden a Wahhabist? How would you know whether he is or is not? Is he a disciple of Sayyid Qutb? Often they write alike. But that is not the same thing. Again, how would you know that?
Something that ought to have been obvious all along struck me while reading "Basic Principles of the Islamic Worldview" by Sayyid Qutb.
Even the furiously defensive preface by Hamid Algar (who is of the Israel=Nazi Germany school) notes the "curious and paradoxical" quality of Qutb's writing, that while he announces his intention to expound on Islam, he spends most of his time condemning and refuting everyone else's beliefs and systems -- Christians, Buddhists, Jews, philosophers, Marxists, secularists. "In some cases," Algar writes, "they receive greater analytical attention than the characteristics of Islam that form the subject matter of each chapter."
Of course, Algar goes on to excuse this by blaming it on the West -- specifically on the "censorious Westerner peering over the shoulder of the writer." But invoking that fictional specter, which many Islamic writers beside Qutb seem to fear, begs a question. After all, apologists for Western liberalism don't seem to feel a censorious Qutb peering over their shoulders.
Likely the fixation with rejecting and refuting Western/Christian ideas reflects a silent acknowledgment of their powerful lure to the people in the Islamic world (and elsewhere) as well as an awareness of the poor performance turned in by Islamic societies in most of the measured achievements of modernity.
[Whether we ought to measure human achievement by the standards of Islam or modernity, of course, is the essential question between Qutb and us.]
That the Wahhabis, Qutb, Bin Laden, and to a certain degree Hamas, Hezbollah, and others tend to look the same to us is perhaps less a matter of "this begat that" or "this evolved from that" as it is an outcome of the nature of fundamentalism in religion, which is an attempt to turn back the clock as far as possible toward the zero-point of revelation. It seeks to purify the faith of the compromises and borrowings, the rust and "debris" (in Qutb's word) that accrue to it once it passes from divine hands into himan ones.
In Christian history, you have Christ preaching a way to live, and then 300 years later you have Constantine marching into battle under the banner of Christ. The gap between the two experiences is disturbing to many Christians, and attempts to turn Christianity back to its dynamic wellsprings generally bypass Constantine.
In Islam, Muhammad is both Christ and Constantine. Struggle -- jihad -- is integral to the roots of the faith. Islamic fundamentalism embraces the struggle for purity within the community and the aggressive engagement with outside powers, because both are prescribed in the revealed text.
As Algar puts it in his introduction, the "Islamic concept" is "dependent on engagement in struggle and effort to create the society mandated by revelation." Qutb's "urgent concern" was to "reconstitute, after a more than millennial lapse, the environment of struggle in which the revelation had first been received and to achieve thereby a new, exemplary era, mirroring the first."
And that struggle will naturally follow the path laid down in the original revelation: a call to establish a world founded on the justice of the faith, with other creeds tolerated, restricted, taxed, and protected under the virtuous rule of Islamic leaders.
Here Qutb shares his vision, rebuking those who deny the accusation Islam is the religion of the sword by the equally (to him) false assertion that it is a religion of peace:Some Crusaders and Zionists, for example, doggedly accuse Islam of being the religion of the sword, claiming that it was spread by the edge of the sword. Consequently, some of us defend Islam and refute this accusation by invoking the idea of "defence." Thereby they lessen the value of jihad in Islam, narrow the scope, and apologise for each of its instances, claiming that they were undertaken only for the purpose of "defence," in its present shallow meaning. These people forget that Islam, being the last divine path for humanity, has an essential right to establish its own system on earth so that all humanity can enjoy its blessing, while every individual enjoys the liberty to follow his chosen creed, for "there is no compulsion in religion." Establishing the "Islamic system" to have beneficial sway over all humanity, those who embrace Islam and those who do not, does indeed require Jihad as does the liberty of men to follow their own beliefs. This goal can only be accomplished with the establishment of a virtuous authority, a virtuous law and a virtuous system that calls to account whoever attempts to attack freedom of worship and belief.[emphasis added]
Exactly. Jihad is not about our souls, it is about the law. Qutb clearly sets the path and the "milestones" for the eventual purification of the world thru Jihad.
It is so hard for us in the West to think like Qutb, but I think I'm beginning to get it.
1. Unlike any other world religion, Islam sees secular government as blasphemy. The principle of monotheism is the cornerstone of this thought, as it is clear that living under any law but God's (defined as shari'a) is an insult to Allah. (You can't say Allah without the All. As in everything...)
2. As the law is administered by the government, the only arrangement that is not a blasphemy is for there to be no distinction between the clerical and the political. We must live under God's law, not man's.
In this view, it is no contradiction for men of God to be ruthless warriors, for part of the duty of submission to Allah is to contribute to the progress of purifying the world through Jihad into one universal umma. This is the goal, and is the only way that man can become worthy of God, for in Islam, between man and God, there is no concept of grace, as seen through Christ to a Christian.
Without grace then, where is the path to immortality? At this point, the fundamentalist Baptist preachers I grew up listening to would shout "Glory!" at the vision of paradise on earth thorugh the grace of God and his sacrifice of his son on the cross. I'm pretty sure the cannon-fodder with its finger on the button of their suicide belts have all seen this vision of perfection, and that vision is the reason behind the unearthly smiles we are told cross their faces at the instant of self-immolation. But what is it that they see in this purified world?
This is the clearest illustration of the fruit of a God with no room in his heart for grace. The only way to the glory of God is to win the war and impose the law universally, with no hope of contradiction, and when that is done God will then be pleased, at long last, with man. The matter of the puny souls of men is but a distraction - when the law is imposed, their actions will follow in good time - nothing is as behaviourist as Islam. Eventually, the tax for standing there with your soul outside Islam will be too much of a burden, and you will join the umma - committing all your descendants to submission as well. After all, it is the law.
Qutb's "Milestones" or "Signposts" (available many places, including from Young Muslims Canada)
Trinquier's "Modern War" (available at the Command and General Staff College reference section and discussed in Parameters)
Lind's original 1989 4GW article appeared in the Marine Corps Gazette. It is still worth going back and considering the "idea driven" Islamic/Asian version and the "technology driven" Western version of 4GW. It's also worth skipping the trendy tertiary sources and going straight to the primary source.
Malik's "The Quranic Way of War" (discussed in The American Thinker) You can't find it on Amazon, but Abe Books can get it via Baalaji Books in India (!).
"Unrestricted Warfare" or "War Beyond Law" (available for free at Global Security, and for pay at Amazon)
Parameters, the CGSC site, and Gazette are excellent resources - but you have to filter out the "hi-tech blitzkrieg" which so many people thought would win in Iraq. For example, Parameters Winter 2005-06 has an article called "Why the Strong Lose": not exactly old-style thinking.
It is hard to take the time to seriously study modern war, but never forget what Trotsky said: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
These clarifications of the nature of true Islam need to be understood especially by those political entities attempting to forge peace.
The question "what shall we do?" is tough. A temporary fix and stay is the best we might could hope for until Jesus returns with His sword.
Well, when he comes, he's supposed to come with the hidden Imam.
Maybe then they can settle things with the sword and scimitr once and for all.
It'd be like celebrity death match.
Re: #2 from laocoon: Thanks, laocoon! Good post, good links (most but not all of which I've already taken in), and I share your interest in doctrine and what's going on now.
I agree it's hard but important to take time seriously to study modern war. But, a word to the wise: please lose the Trotsky quote. It's often used, but I think it's wrong, and I wouldn't like you to get called on it and look silly when you are saying sensible, well-informed things.
Re: #5 from DB:
Thanks for the caution on attributing to Trotsky. There does seem to be a dispute. It would be too bad if Trotsky didn't say it: it's a great phrase anyway.
It is kind of interesting that our chinese friend appear, as Ralph Peters put it, to be 'able to walk an chew gum at the same time': they understand and prepare for modern massed armor, space-based assault, financial undermining, 4GW, etc: real 'full spectrum dominance' that is just a marketing phrase here. One wonders why their institutions appear able to consider and balance multiple approaches, while our institutions apparently can not.
Any thoughts on why?
"One wonders why their institutions appear able to consider and balance multiple approaches, while our institutions apparently can not.
Any thoughts on why?"
That's an easy one. They have more arrogance than we do.
I say arrogance, because that is what we'd call it if we found it in ourselves, but basically it just means that China believes in China (and the Chinese largely believe in China). They believe that the 'us vs. them' question has a trivial answer.
If you watch Chinese state television, you'll see what is obvious propaganda. Obvious optimism, obviously focusing on the good and obviously hiding all the many things that we as outsiders can see as obviously bad (the pollution, the corruption, the nepotism, the tyranny, the wealth disparity, the lack of freedoms). But what strikes me about thier state run propaganda machine, is that ultimately the shows it produces are little different in style than what America produced in the late 40's and 50's by simple social concensus. America believed in itself then. It hadn't yet gotten oppurtunity to really screw up.
You are asking why China is capable of preparing for 'full spectrum dominance' and we aren't. Maybe you should ask the question of whether America collectively wants to prepare for 'full spectrum dominance'. How would we, when so much of our population would actively abhor and work against that goal. I can remember niave times a decade ago when publications cited American media dominance as a strength in any sort of information warfare. Instead, its turned out to be a major liability, and we are getting drubbed badly in every information war we get involved in. Not because the enemy is so much more professional at it than we are, because often thier efforts are laughably bad, but because no one in our media believes the question of 'us vs. them' is a trivial one.
#6 from laocoon: "It is kind of interesting that our chinese friend appear, as Ralph Peters put it, to be 'able to walk an chew gum at the same time': they understand and prepare for modern massed armor, space-based assault, financial undermining, 4GW, etc: real 'full spectrum dominance' that is just a marketing phrase here. One wonders why their institutions appear able to consider and balance multiple approaches, while our institutions apparently can not.
Any thoughts on why?"
Not a sorry clue, I'm afraid.
There's nothing in China's intellectual foundations that says they would be more comfortable with this than Americans are. (Unlike in diplomacy, where cold-blooded total self interest unencumbered by a shred of idealism or morality is an advantage, and vast patience is an advantage, and both follow from the old traditions of the Middle Kingdom.)
So to the extent that this is real, it's something to do with how China's institutions are bouncing off each other right now. And I've recently lost my books on the modern Chinese military and can't look things up.
With jihad doctrine, of course, everything is different. There one really can talk about cultural and intellectual foundations feeding directly into how indoctrination and people train and fight right now.
> Many Islamic things that to us look alike on the surface (and have the same effect on our lives as non-Muslims) come from different sources.
Are those different sources relevant? Heck - is the source relevant?
If we're running the fool's errand of trying to win a theological argument, the sources matter. But, one hopes that we aren't.
If our argument is "we don't care what you believe, don't screw with us", we don't care how they adjust their theology so it concludes "don't mess with the west". We don't care if different groups require different adjustments.