Here's a talk given by Michael Doran, Assistant Professor of Middle East
Studies at Princeton, where he teaches courses on political Islam. From the Princeton Packet, with thanks to Nicolei:
Militant radical Islam will not be defeated solely by bringing democracy to the Middle East, Princeton Professor Michael Doran said during a lecture Monday at Princeton University.Nor is the jihad, being waged by ever-more-sophisticated organizations like Al Qaeda, an insurgency against the United States provoked by unpopular U.S. policies abroad, he said.
Stop the Presses!! The Packet's headline should have read: Princeton Professor says Terrorism not US Fault! Or maybe: Princeton Professor shows signs of having read Jihad Watch!
During his address, Professor Doran described the terror network as a highly sophisticated organization that has developed a formidable strategy through analysis and reinterpretation of its own history - both of Islam's origins and of the radical Jihad movement's failures in recent decades.
They're learning from their mistakes? Hope we are learning from ours, but I'm not so sure of that. In 1979 the State Department was blindsided by Khomeini because they just couldn't believe that theology could really influence politics or that religious fervor could be so powerful. In 2005 the editor of a magazine with an illustrious history of standing up to Communist tyranny dismissed the study of Islam as a motivating factor in modern-day terrorism as an attempt to "discredit Mohammed and Islam" and ruled it out of court. What, if anything, have we learned?
Professor Doran said Al Qaeda doesn't consider itself a revolutionary movement; that is, he said, its members understand that it will not be their generation - or even the one that follows - that will reap the political and religious fruits they wish to take root in the Middle East.
Indeed. As I have explained many times here and in my books, they believe they are fighting a struggle that has gone on for 1,400 years now. They will not be dissuaded by negotiations or accommodations.
Further, he said, the network has learned to capitalize on its fragmented nature, and it fully recognizes the great importance of public perception of its actions - in the Middle East, not in the West. He said Al Qaeda tailors its propaganda to the complex regional interests and grievances within each Arab state. It is not so much a global insurgency against the United States provoked by its policies that have been deemed reprehensible, but is at its core a struggle for a new order in the Middle East, he said.
Why just the Middle East? What about Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Kashmir, Nigeria?
"It's about relations between Muslims first and foremost, and we are secondary," Professor Doran said. "This is not simply an ideological fight." He added: "I can't see this thing burning itself out any time soon. I hope I'm wrong."
About relations between Muslims first and foremost? Really? Certainly Qutb and Maududi and other jihad theorists taught that the Sharia must first be restored in Islamic states, but then they also taught that it must be extended to non-Muslim states.
The Princeton Professor said Al Qaeda plays on the "fears and resentments" in the region and said it will probably continue to do so for the next several years.
Well, considering that it has already gone on for 1,400 years, I'd be willing to believe we're in for a few more.
He said American-style democracy won't solve the economic and social problems in these areas - problems he said Al Qaeda is adept at manipulating and capitalizing upon. He said its members are in effect skilled politicians, disseminating a universal message while speaking to the specific concerns of individual constituencies....
Now where did that "universal message" come from? Gee, could that be the "universal message of Islam?" I thought this was going to stay "between Muslims."
"It's about relations between Muslims first and foremost, and we are secondary,"
Dealt with above, but deserving a second whack. It is always annoying when someone gets much of it right, and then utters a phrase that shows he refuses to see it through to the end, pulls back, repeats some idea that is on tap.
To Wit: There is A Struggle For the Soul of Islam.
Nonsense. What there is is something else -- a refusal by the Infidels, even highly intelligent Infidels, to study to the bitter end the theory and practice of Islam, focussing on the central doctrine of Jihad, how Jihad-conquest has operated in the past, when and for what reasons it from time to time seemed (but only seemed) to fall into desuetude (only when the wherewithal was lacking, not for want of trying whenever that wherewithal reappeared), and what happened to non-Muslim peoples and artifacts wherever Islam conquered and non-Muslims were subjugated to Muslim rule.
If there is a "conflict within Islam," it is only that some people -- and very few, really -- are willing to suggest that something needs to be done about the "image" of Islam in the West (i.e., we really must get better make-up artists as we are appearing in Prime Time), and even fewer who sense that there is "something that needs to be changed" (Bright Young Muslim Things, apparatchiki of Muslim governments, especially in places like Turkey or Morocco, who run "projedts" or "centers" or "institutes with the word "Dialogue" in their titles, long-in-the-teeth converts to Islam now making their living as Unafraid-Speaking-Truth-to-Power quasi-ignoramuses, quasi-charlatans.
Not a single one of these Bright Young Things, not a single one of those calling for "change in Islam" or those who claim, through astounding casuistry, that nothing needs to be changed for Islam has only been "misinterpreted" for -- oh, at least 1300 years -- not a single one has spelled out precisely what passages in the Qur'an (give us chapter and verse, give us sura and ayat) need to be either jettisoned -- excised out -- or subject to cancellation out of some kind of reverse abrogation where it can be argued that it is the so-called Medinan verses that should go, and the softer so-called Meccan verses that should take precedence (on the plausible theory that Islam in the world has not yet conquered, just the way when Muhammad was originally dealing with the Meccans he was not yet the secure leader that he came in Yathrib, i.e., Medina).
Don't tell us "there are problems" with the Hadith. Tell us which Hadith you propose to demote from their status of "authentic" in Bukhari or Muslim -- we want to know.
Don't tell us that there are problems with setting up as a Role Model for All Time for All Mankind Muhammad, as described in the Sira, but rather, tell us precisely what, among the reported (believed) facts of his life, including little Aisha, the murder of Asma bint Marwan and many others, the execution of the prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the attack on the farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, and a few dozen other details -- tell us which ones you think should be eliminated?
Tell us, then, who will believe that a group of modern muhaddithin -- the "white" camp of perky Mr. Akyol or the "black" camp of the portentous Mr. Schwartz -- should be preferred to Bukhari or Muslim? Tell us what modern Ibn Ishaq will arise, within Islam, to convince us all that Muhammad did not do those things, or if he did, he is no longer considered to be a Model of Deportment. Tell us, finally -- to repeat once again -- just how the Qur'an, the literal Word of God, can have passages struck from the record, or interpreted away in a presto-magico feat of Muslim mental prestidigitation?
Then we'll talk.
Ask any practicing Muslim whether or not the Koran can be purged of certain passages and be prepared for a negative or even violent reaction. There is no possibility that the Koran will change or that Muslims will cease to view Mohammed as the perfect model.
While studying in the West, certain Islamists have come across business and organizational models that are now being used against us, with perverse Islamic twist of course. Thus, by naively allowing Islamists to study in the West, instead of changing hearts and minds, we have given them the tools to undermine and destroy us.
This blog is a little new to me but I've recently been ... bemused, I guess, by Stephen Suleyman Schwarta, et al and their Center for Islamic Pluralism. I encountered Mr. Schwartz ballyhooking this in a TCS rant titled "The Battle for the Mosque is Joined: Founding a Center for Islamic Pluralism", and I was smitten by the word of God as I was in the process of encouraging him:
http://blony.com/index.php/2005/04/01/confusion_about_word_of_god_to_be_cleare
Prof. Doran is waking up. Sure he has more to learn but it is interesting that a young Prof. is saying some important things. I'm afraid to ask but does he have tenure?
I've been reading about the Red Decade (1930s). Why? It took 30 years - from the revolution of 1917 to Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech in 1947 before the full horror of the communist threat sunk-in. It's informative to read about the 1930s as people slowly started to realize things were going wrong. First the denial, then the spin, then the minimization, then partial acceptance, etc.
I think about the people who fully understood the evil of communism back then – including many who escaped communist rule. It must have been painful for them to speak the truth only to be brushed aside as prejudiced against the “noble experiment” by “well meaning humanitarians.” It’s even painful now to think of all the misery and death that could have been avoided.
I believe we are in another period of denial. And it is painful to see how well-meaning people just won’t look at the face of evil. It’s painful and it will take time. However, I believe the truth will prevail. The cost may be higher than it need be, but the truth will prevail. Keep up the good fight.
JasonP-
One guy in the 1930's who wasn't willing to trust the p.r. of the soviets, and who went to Russia with his brother to check things out, and then returned with the bad news that the place was hell in the making, was Philip Wylie- who also excoriated the pacifist foolishness of the West -as the Nazis armed- in his classic book "Generation of Vipers". Worth a read. Along with "Darkness at Noon"/"The God that Failed" by Koestler. And Julein Benda's masterwork "The Treason of the Intellectuals" about the mindset of the "we hate ourselves too much to notice those who are coming to destroy us" crowd.
A type who are now entrenched in most major universities, and are more worried about the plight of people 300 hundred years ago (African slaves and Native American Indians) than the survival of their own country today. The past is a record of sadness and terror and misery in which all look bad, especially in 20/20 hindsight. But fixating on it renders the present morally invisible.
By this blindness to the NOW, which is apparently good for getting tenure, they endanger our future. Busy fighting ghosts, when we have real live maniacs trying to get a nuke up the Hudson or Thames or Seine.
Like the dead-end of the Sophist movement in ancient Rome, which could brilliantly argue one position on Monday and its polar opposite on Tuesday, our most "understanding" professors now teach our enemies how best to undermine us with p.c. b.s., how to play on latent guilt feelings, and ladle out the moral relativism of all beliefs -meaning that the Bill of Rights is no better than Sharia Law. To them it is all an 'exercise'.
But we are the one's breaking into a sweat.
Of fear for the consequences of their deadly delusion.
I'm with ya, BigSleep. There were definately heros back in the 20s and 30s who fought against the intellectual tide.
And there are now!
I just thought we need some perspective on the difficulty of cultural change. It will happen. We must keep talking the truth. And supporting those on the front lines: buy the books, donate, and get the word out.
My hat is off to Professor Moran. We need a few more like him.
I'm afraid, though, I side with the Muslims on the impossibility of changing the Qur'an and Hadith.
I'm not in the business of hunting down anyone who may have Canaanite or Amalekite blood, but I'm sure not going to do a scissors job on Moses. These frightening bans on whole nations found in the Torah teach (1) that the chosen people needs to be protected and preserved in order to bring the Messiah into the world; (2) that sometimes, a nation may be so depraved that its salvation is impossible, and it requires uprooting (may it never happen to us!) and; (3) if the people of God (Old Testament Israel, the Christian Church, take your pick) turn against their God and study the ways of evil nations, they, too will face a severe chastisement (what do you think the Babylonian captivity was all about?). We're seeing this happening even now as the Mainline denominations that sponsor "gender neutral" Bibles (?) and feel free to support such abominations as homosexual marriage and the murder of the simply inconvenient (while crying rivers of tears over proven killers on death row) are aging fast and dying off. Maybe one reason the post-Christian West must now face the unholy alliance of the immoderate left and the furor Islamicus may be because of divine displeasure at how we have treated millennia of the Gospel's influence. Yes, I do believe in God's providential control of history, even when I cannot pretend to understand it.
Even if Muslims should convert en masse until the Great Mosque at Mecca becomes a Presbyterian church and the Dome of the Rock holds, every Sunday, a morning service in Hebrew and an afternoon one in Arabic (with the young folks amicably going back and forth to brush up on each others' language), I would still object to changing the Muslim texts. Why? The record needs to be kept as well as possible; even if we simly want to learn to avoid repeating the mistakes of a bygone error.
Hugh: I have no love for Islamic militancy, but Islam has plenty of divisions. Look at the Arabs vs. the Fur in Sudan and ethnic and sectarian divisions in places like Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.
Nobody will be able to hold together a billion plus Muslims of varied sects, ethnicities, and political loyalties. Even in the late 7th and early 8th centuries, when Muslims were only a relatively small upper crust in the lands they ruled, they nonetheless split into Sunni, Shi'ah, and Ibadi. There are Muslims who'll die before denying that jihad is a divine institution, but run to the FBI or police when they get wind of terror cells in their midst.
Hugh: I have no love for Islamic militancy, but Islam has plenty of divisions. Look at the Arabs vs. the Fur in Sudan and ethnic and sectarian divisions in places like Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.
Nobody will be able to hold together a billion plus Muslims of varied sects, ethnicities, and political loyalties. Even in the late 7th and early 8th centuries, when Muslims were only a relatively small upper crust in the lands they ruled, they nonetheless split into Sunni, Shi'ah, and Ibadi. There are Muslims who'll die before denying that jihad is a divine institution, but run to the FBI or police when they get wind of terror cells in their midst.
"I'm not in the business of hunting down anyone who may have Canaanite or Amalekite blood, but I'm sure not going to do a scissors job on M
Moses."
Kepha,
I am not a Torah/Old Testament expert at all, but Canaanites and Amalekites are more a metaphor of "peoples of evil mind set" than something to do with blood.
To put a couple examples: Nazis and jihadists are Amalekites. You see: they easily join their forces whenever they have a chance.
Today I am convinced that "turning the other cheek" is suicidal.
"There are Muslims who'll die before denying that jihad is a divine institution, but run to the FBI or police when they get wind of terror cells in their midst." -- from a posting above
How do you know that there is this some rock-bottom loyalty to the Infidel West that will, in the end, move people to "run to the FBI or police when the get wind of terror cells in their midst"? Where is the evidence for that?
There are well-pbulicized examples of a very few people turning in, for a very large sum of money, a few hated rulers in Iraq. There have been no takers to turn in Bin Laden or Al-Zawahiri, and no glowing display of patriotism by Muslims in this country, or indeed in any other Infidel country. Quite the reverse.
In any case, should our security be made to depend on the possibility that "some" Muslims will go running to the FBI? Is it on that basis that we should behave? Is that what we should count on? Islam has made far greater inroads in the West, and is far more menacing in every way, than Communism --as an adjunct to the Soviet state's policies -- ever was.
Any Muslim "who'll die before denying that jihad is a divine institution" -- I'm not clear why that is what is to be denied; what is usually denied, or obscured, is not the "divine institution" but rather the meaning of the word, which is given all sorts of tortuous or historically trivial interpretations sometimes out of nothing more than embarrassment or filial piety, sometimes out of something more sinister. But who cares what the motive is? The result is the same -- to make Infidels more confused, less clear, and more feeble in their response to what is a mortal threat to their own ways of life and to their own physical security.
That is enough to regard any Muslim who denies what Jihad is all about as himself a danger, whatever prompts such denial -- only those who admit to what is so clear in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and talk openly about the need to change those texts or to jettison some of them, or to re-interpret them (the open recognition of the problem is a step forward, even if no plausible solution to dealing with those texts has yet been offered, save by Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and others who think that those born into Islam should, upon understanding it, leave it altogether, defect, run away, stop defending -- through tortured logic and hysteria -- the indefensible). Sounds right to me.
Joel Catalan: I know the OT enough to know that the Canaanites and AMalekites were intended to be taken as literal nations. The bans against them, however, are moot, since they seem to be extinct at this time.