[lit-ideas] The Strident Voice of Defeat
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:58:07 -0800
I noticed quite a long time ago in Islamic theology that they believe God
decides who wins a battle or a war. I also noticed that American
politicians were paying little attention to that. During the Bush Sr. &
Clinton Administrations the U.S. gave various Islamic groups reason to claim
victory. Whether it was Al Qaeda or Saddam?s Iraq, they were encouraged and
exerted themselves even more because Allah was on their side. Allah had
given them the victory. We need to be especially careful of that now in
Iraq. As Thomas Barnett said in the interview Brian posted, if we don?t do
it right, we shall very likely have to go back.
I?ve been reading the Brian-recommended The Looming Tower, Al-Qaeda and the
Road to 9/11 by Lawrence Wright. Wright provides an excellent example of
how defeat is viewed. On page 38 Wright writes, ?. . . The speed and
decisiveness of the Israeli victory in the Six Day War humiliated many
Muslims who had believed until then that God favored their cause. They had
lost not only their armies and their territories but also faith in their
leaders, in their countries, and in themselves. The profound appeal of
Islamic fundamentalism in Egypt and elsewhere was born in this shocking
debacle. A newly strident voice was heard in the mosques; the voice said
that they had been defeated by a force far larger than the tiny country of
Israel. God had turned against the Muslims. The only way back to Him was
to return to the pure religion. The voice answered despair with a simple
formulation: Islam is the solution. ?
?. . . The primary target of Egyptian Islamists was Nasser?s secular regime.
In the terminology of jihad, the priority was defeating the ?near enemy? ?
that is, impure Muslim society. The ?distant enemy? ? the West ? could wait
until Islam had reformed itself. To Zawahiri and his colleagues that meant,
at a minimum, imposing Islamic law in Egypt.
?Zawahiri also sought to restore the caliphate, the rule of Islamic clerics,
which had formally ended in 1924 following the dissolution of the Ottoman
Empire but which had not exercised real power since the thirteenth century.
Once the caliphate was established, Zawahiri believed, Egypt would become a
rallying point for the rest of the Islamic world, leading it in a jihad
against the West. ?Then history would make a new turn, God willing,?
Zawahiri later wrote, ?in the opposite direction against the empire of the
United States and the world?s Jewish government.??
The Schmoos slogan, the more Islamists we kill, the more we create is of
course nonsense. There is nothing like that in Islamic tradition. If we
kill the Militant Islamic enemy and in the process defeat him, then Allah
has somehow allowed this. It is inconceivable to them that Allah would
favor infidels, so there must be some other reason. A variety of other
reasons have been produced but the one we are most concerned about is the
reasoning of Islamic Fundamentalism. Islamic Fundamentalists argue that the
less than orthodox Muslims who were defeated deserved to be defeated. The
way to achieve victory is to return to pure religion. What we see now in
Iraq are many who fancy they adhere to Pure Religion fighting against us and
our protégées in the new Iraqi state. Yeah, it?s expensive but we need to
tread carefully now. If when we leave, the Islamic Fundamentalists can
declare victory, that is if we don?t leave the present Iraqi government in a
very strong position, then we shall be buying trouble for ourselves. As
Barnett suggests, we shall probably have to go back again. We won?t save
money by leaving prematurely.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
