Here is an excerpt from Fred Kagan's recent My Weekly Standard article:
The takfiris insist that anyone who obeys a human government is a polytheist and therefore violates the first premise of Islam, the shahada (the assertion that "There is no god but God"), even though Muslims have lived in states with temporal rulers for most of their history. The chief reason al Qaeda has limited support in the Muslim world is that the global Muslim community overwhelmingly rejects the premise that anyone obeying a temporal ruler is ipso facto an unbeliever.Today's takfiris carry Qutb's basic principles further. Some pious Muslims believe that human governments should support or enforce sharia law. This is why Saudi Arabia has no law but sharia. But to Osama bin Laden and his senior lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahiri, it is not enough for a state to rule according to sharia. To be legitimate in the eyes of these revolutionaries, a state must also work actively to spread "righteous rule" across the earth. This demand means that only states aligned with the takfiris and supporting the spread of takfirism--such as the Taliban when it was in power--are legitimate, whereas states aligned with unbelievers, like Saudi Arabia, are illegitimate even if they strictly enforce sharia law. Some takfiris, particularly in Iraq as we shall see, argue in addition that all Shia are polytheists, and therefore apostates, because they "worship" Ali and Hussein and their successor imams. This distorted view of Shiism reflects the continual movement of takfiri thought toward extremes.
The entire article is a demonstration of severe mental confusion. Fred Kagan appears to believe that Al Qaeda, because it preaches obedience to the Holy Law of Islam, argues that "anyone who obeys a human (!) government is a polytheist" -- that is, guilty of shirk. But this is not what preaching against rulers who are deemed to be bad Muslims means. Rulers, ideally a single Caliph who is true to Islam, head a "human" government that can and must be obeyed. Indeed, the duty of a good Muslim is to obey any ruler who is himself a good Muslim, however cruel and despotic he might seem to be to our eyes.
Furthermore, when Fred Kagan writes in the same My Weekly Standard piece that "Muslims have lived in states with temporal rulers for most of their history," what should one make of it? The observation is banal, and means less than it appears to mean, or that Fred Kagan apparently thinks it means. We all know that ayatollahs have not ruled over Iran, nor muftis in Egypt and Arabia. So what? The distinction between "temporal" and "spiritual" that is made in Christianity is not made in Islam. It is misleading to call the rulers of Muslim lands "temporal rulers," for it sets up a temporal-spiritual opposition that does not exist in Islam, but that Kagan apparently believes does exist and means something. It doesn't. Since the Muslim ruler of a Muslim land is always more than merely a "temporal ruler," the only requirement he must fulfill is to be a good Muslim. Furthermore, Fred Kagan's use of the word "states" also worries, for it evokes misleading thoughts of the non-Muslim nation-state -- "lands" is better at keeping out such notions.
Kagan needs to spend six months reading. But he doesn't have time. He's too busy advising Senator McCain and writing his articles for My Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal, on why and how America, if it only stays the course, is surely "winning in Iraq." That he never feels the obligation -- never -- to describe exactly what constitutes "winning in Iraq" and how it would help with efforts to stem the worldwide Jihad and its many instruments, shows the frivolousness and ignorance that nowadays is so widespread, not least in official or semi-official Washington, as to serve as a universal protection against the kind of criticism that matters -- the unanswerable kind that appears here at Jihad Watch and in very few other places.
It's disheartening. And frightening. It is as if Jay Leno's Jaywalkers had all acquired Ph.D.s and were now installed in think-tanks all over Washington. Which has, indeed, happened.
Depressing indeed. It will only get worse as candidates for such think tanks increasingly receive their education from MESA NOSTRA. It is rare that we read about individuals such as Timur Kuran who manage to get beyond any Saudi funded influence.
It seems to me that Mr. Kagan isn't as bad as some apologists for Islam. He might not understand the finer points of Islam, but he at least seems to grasp some aspects of the Muslim mentality.
At least he isn't saying that Islam is a peaceful religion thats been hyjacked by misunderstanders of the true Islamic faith.
I'd say he's close. but not quite there.
McCain's campaign will be over soon, and Kagen can catch up on his reading.
"Arab Historians of the Crusades" by Gabrieli would be a good start.
Plus, "What Went Wrong?" by B. Lewis.
And, of course, Mr. Spencer's "Mohammad".
(Hugh's stored articles here at JW/DW will be the spice to add to Kagen's conceptual repast.)
Hugh, upon reading the words "The entire article is a demonstration of severe mental confusion" I was hoping for (and would have expected) more specific refutations and elucidations in your response....
I think what Hugh is saying is that Kagan is making al Qaeda sound more heretical than they really are by falsely claiming that they reject all human rule. I also think I'm correct in stating that al Qaeda, while extreme in their requirements for a ruler to be adequately Muslim, are nonetheless true to Islamic scripture.
I see the danger here: That the reader will be lulled into the false notion that there are enough Muslim "moderates" to make Iraq work.
Hugh said: "the kind of criticism that matters -- the unanswerable kind that appears here at Jihad Watch and in very few other places"
Careful, there. There are a lot of people out there who know a lot of things about the past and the present of Islam, and not all of them have come to the same conclusions. JW/DW has been a hugely benificial educational institution for the West in its war for survival with militant Islam. That does not mean you guys have a monopoly on knowledge, or on relevant policy proposals.
It's quite popular on this site, as on many others, to scorn - justifiably - the arrogance with which some Iraq war planners predicted (or failed to predict) the eventual outcome; and you also justifiably critique the underlying assumptions that went into those predictions. Fair enough. Then you fall into the same trap. Follow the JW/DW line, and we're guaranteed success. Notice how "the kind of criticism that" JW/DW offers is "unanswerable". Well, we haven't had a return of prophecy yet. In view of our experiences in the last few years, I think a little more caution is in order for anyone who claims his positions are not only correct, but "unanswerable".
For the record, I'm a contrarian, who believes that knowledge can be discovered by challenging both sides in a controversy. I recently attended a forum including a very well-known scholar of Islam who is anti-jihad (and subject to death threats as a result), but has a different political program vis-a-vis militant Islam than JW/DW. When I had the chance to ask him questions, I challenged his views based on things I've learned by reading the essays at JW/DW. Just because I challenge you doesn't mean I don't agree with you. I'm just looking for an acknowledgement that the JW/DW staff is not omniscient.
Sorry - I meant beneficial...
"I was hoping for (and would have expected) more specific refutations and elucidations in your response...."
-- from a posting above
Yes, you have a point. The article originally appeared as a quick posting, and I did notcover many things in the Kagan article that I might have covered. There is certainly more to say, and perhaps I will add a little more tomorrow.
News from the Straight Talk Express:
First:
"I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it," he said. "But I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith."
Oops, I meant:
"I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and to defend our political values."
A candidate would find himself in the White House if he could just muster the strength to say:
“The Muslim faith is incompatible with the United States Constitution as it forbids plurality. Because of this I would could not vote for a Muslim.”
Drip, drip. Getting closer.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/29/2007-09-29_mccain_no_muslim_president_us_better_wit.html
Fat Freddy Kagan, just about the very last guy you would want next to you in a fire fight.
The Iraqi people are fighting because their government is dysfunctional, because of Paul Bremers brilliant ideas to fire (de-bathify) anyone with competence in the Iraqi government and to dismiss the entire Iraqi Army from active service. Brilliant!!!
The current surge strategy as designed by Neocon Freddy Kagan in the American Enterprise Institute is designed to buy time for the Iraqi governmento stand on its own; to pass reconciliation legislation amongst the Sunni/Shia/Kurd as well as sharing oil revenues; the same Iraqi government that plans to take the entire month of August off because it is "too hot" and they are "tired" while over used and abused American troops do their heavy lifting.
The threat to America is AQ (The real AQ, not AQ of Mesopotamia, aka AQ in Iraq, aka AQI). America must refocus its efforts on capturing and destroying AQ, not on Bush's delusion of nation building between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq.
- The above was from a field grade U.S. Army combat arms officer currently serving in Iraq.
feralcat,
did that "above" come from a source/link? straight from the horses mouth? or...? (I've seen this before, and it wasn't recently)
Reason: I tracked to a blogger "mb4", who says he's EX-marine (not current, and not army), and something I smell a rat on...big time.
Take the first sentence up to the , after "dysfunctional" and you'll get some surprising results, including one blogger named "mullet" whose post only encompassed the first paragraph above, and it ended differently than the one above as well.
1) Field grade officers, Marine or Army (ranks of Major, Lt. Colonel, & Colonel) don't use such lexicon (except for those who got booted out for ineptness and use the blogosphere to spout their sour grapes absurdities).
I know that from personal experience, as I was Field Grade, too.
2) Marines, especially officers, do not use the term "ex-" (like "ex-marine")unless they got thrown out for less-than-honorable reasons...the term that honorable Marines use is "FORMER", not "ex-".They always correct you saying "*ahem*, that's FORMER-Marine!"
There's something big time wrong with that quote, and the second that the word "neocon" was used my BS detector went off big time.
It bears the same pattern as that which turned out to be that scott beauchamp clown.
Let's be careful who & what gets quoted.
We got rid of 'divine right of kings' and now will get rid of 'divine right of Islam'. Same war, different century, but those retards must understand we will not back down on this important issue. We are not slaves to any theocracy parading itself off as the 'word of god' in any disguise.
Screw them, we fight. Put those ignorant regressive religo-neanderthals out of business.
...only states aligned with the takfiris and supporting the spread of takfirism--such as the Taliban when it was in power--are legitimate, whereas states aligned with unbelievers, like Saudi Arabia, are illegitimate even if they strictly enforce sharia law.
I must defend the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I take umbrage at the statement: "(a)state must also work actively to spread "righteous rule" across the earth". Let anyone who would criticize the Kingdom state who has done more to spread "righteous rule" then they. Vast, unimaginable sums of money have poured from the Saudi peninsula throughout the world. With that money:
There is too much to list here, but needless to say that all other states pale in comparison to the Kingdom's efforts and successes.