| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses some prevailing misperceptions of Shi'ite Islam, and their sources:
The "typical representatives" of "Shi'a Islam" known to the editors of My Weekly Standard, and to the U.S. Government, have included such highly typical Shi'a (just the kind you find in SCIRI and DAWA and Moqtada al-Sadr's ranks, or the ranks of Hezbollah, or of the basiji) as these: Fouad Ajami, a Lebanese Shi'a who has been in the United States for 3-4 decades; Kanan Makiya, scion of a well-to-do Iraqi family, who has been out of Iraq for 2-3 decades; Ahmad Chalabi, scion of a very well-to-do Iraqi family who has been in the West for nearly fifty years; and Rend al-Rahim Francke, an American citizen since 1987, out of the Middle East for the past 30 years at least, a graduate of the Sorbonne and the University of Cambridge.Ah yes, quite a collection of "representative" and "typical" Shi'a. That is why Reuel Gerecht and company can complacently place their hopes and dreams on the Shi'a without bothering too much about the Islamic Republic of Iran, taqiyya, or the fact that in Iraq it is (for some paradoxically) the Sunni Ba'athists who are in fact are less eager to return to the full-court press of Islam than the party leaders of DAWA and SCIRI -- although they are now forced to accept aid from non-Iraqi Sunni Muslims who want even more Islam than do the Shi'a, and hate the Shi'a for being "Rafidite dogs" (i.e. Infidels of the worst kind).
Shi'a Islam is as dangerous to Infidels as Sunni Islam. The belief that it is not is simply one more mechanism for holding out hope that it's not Islam, it's just this brand of Islam, which can be "extremist" or "radical" Islam (carefully undefined) or "Wahhabi" Islam or "Wahhabi Salafist" Islam, or "islamofascism" --just season to taste. But Infidels show up on that list of Unclean Things that Shi'a clerics keep. Khomeini and his successors, and assorted ayatollahs and hojatols, are not fans of Infidels. How could they be? Sunni and Shi'a alike read the same Qur'an, with the same bloodcurdling passages. They read (largely) the same Hadith and take as their model the same Muhammad, his life spelled out in the same Sira. Their paths diverged in 661 A.D., after Muhammad had been dead for nearly 30 years. The fury, the rage, the persecution, the warfare -- all that is based on Ali and Hussein, and a whole subsequent mythology, or theology, that has nothing to do with a lessening of hatred for Infidels.Too many in the West have learned about Shi'a Islam, or think they have learned, by being charmed by charmers. Those charmers still will not describe Islam as the source of the Muslim world's permanent intellectual disarray, its tendency to despotism, its inshallah-fatalism (a substitute for work and entrepreneurial activity), its mistreatment of women and minorities. They simply cannot bring themselves to utter a public word about Islam except, at times, to claim to be freethinkers (as Kanan Makiya has) and then, in the next moment, to become angrily defensive if it is sensed that Islam itself is being attacked.
Extraordinary. The psychology of the "moderate" Muslim, the unobservant and worldly and practically "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim who nonetheless cannot bear to consider that Islam itself is the problem, is what creates such an abyss between those who have seen their way clear -- the real apostates, such as Ibn Warraq -- and those who just can't, just won't. The value of those who just can’t, to us, the Infidels, is therefore, from here on out, far more limited than we have allowed ourselves, heretofore, to believe. We have been content merely with the fact that Fouad Ajami and Kanan Makiya and Azar Nafisi are good guys (or girls), who saw right through and exposed Edward Said. But they just can't go along the same path with us any longer. Their refusal to analyze Islam limits them.
That's it. It was nice while it lasted. But now the Infidel world has to find its guides to Islam not from the most presentable, plausible, friendly, articulate, unobservant, Western-educated, and entirely unrepresentative Muslims, whether Sunni or Shi'a, but from the defectors from Islam -- just as was done with defectors from Communism, and not the nicest, kindest, most plausible party members, during the Cold War.
A change. A big and necessary change. We were led astray in Iraq. We were prevented from seeing that Islam, the spread of Islam, and the islamization of Europe with or without terrorism, is the problem.
That mistake must not continue to be made. It will be cruel to some to regard them warily, and to take their views as Muslims with assorted grains of sea salt. But there is at stake here something much more important than the hurt feelings of those very nice quasi-Muslims. Much more important.
Posted by Robert at November 29, 2005 5:56 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
OT but thought I would bring this article to the attention of JW.
The Battle for France
The riots aren’t about social justice but who will rule.
by Paul Belien
and Le Pen's Revenge
Ironically, the interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who now poses as a hardliner ready to put down the “revolt” with tanks if necessary, was the prime mover behind affirmative action for North Africans in the past, as well as the champion of government support for building mosques.
Although France has banned religious symbols in schools and has expensive measures to keep poor Muslims fed, housed, and educated, the resentment against a European culture has never stopped growing. Le Pen warned about this long ago, but to no avail.
Posted by: Nariz![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 29, 2005 6:32 PM
Hugh I never heard of Reuel Gerecht until I read The Devil's Game, by Robert Dreyfuss
The book is a gold mine of history and facts, one may disagree with some of what he says, myself I don't swallow bait, hook, line and sinker, but use my perception to sift and sort.. as Joe Friday said "The facts ma'am, just the facts" and I'll do the rest and his book is chock full of very interesting facts.. things I never knew but should have.
Posted by: Nariz at November 29, 2005 6:49 PM
Hugh writes:
But now the Infidel world has to find its guides to Islam not from the most presentable, plausible, friendly, articulate, unobservant, Western-educated, and entirely unrepresentative Muslims, whether Sunni or Shi'a, but from the defectors from Islam -- just as was done with defectors from Communism, and not the nicest, kindest, most plausible party members, during the Cold War.
Defectors from Communism still had other primary identities--they could be "Russian" or "Polish" or even "Jewish." "Communist" has never been a term used for self-identification, while "Muslim" clearly has and continues to be. What to do for someone born into a Muslim family who rejects Islam (or would reject it if he actually learned what it entails) but knows no other relevant identity? (Certainly "nationality" is a relatively unimportant concept for most from Muslim backgrounds.)
Giving up an identity is hard, perhaps an unrealistic expectation to have of a billion people. How about a new term: "Muslim-born"?
Posted by: kamala at November 29, 2005 7:10 PM
This all goes to show that any religious community can be varied inside its own borders. Back in the 1980's and '90's, when the only thing elite Americans knew about Ithna'ashariyya Shi'ism (the most common kind in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, India, and Azrebaijan) was Khomeini and the southern Lebanon militias, Islamic "fundamentalism" was supposedly a Shi'ite disease to which Sunnis were supposedly immune. That was one BIG reason why Sodom Insane wasn't finished off in 1991. As for the post-1979 American assessment of Shi'ism, nobody bothered to note that such Afghans as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar were Sunni, as were the Islamicists in Turkey, the dissidents in the Muslim communities of China, and our dear friends the Sa'udis, who fretted that the corpses of our Gulf War I dead would pollute their sacred sand.
Another point about Shi'ites: They're thick on the ground in Detroit and Brooklyn, and wherever there's a Little Tehran. But back in the 1990's, nobody seemed to notice that in the halls of power.
Posted by: Kepha at November 29, 2005 7:23 PM
"Muslim-born" is fine, for all sorts of wonderful people -- some a lot more wonderful than many non-Muslims -- are through an accident of birth, Muslim. And no one would fault those people if, out of real ignorance of Islam, and out of an ignorance of the history of Islamic conquest, those people simply did not know. But what about the "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim who suddenly becomes most defensive whenever one begins to speak truthfully, and therefore harshly, of Islam? What about the declared "atheist" Muslim, such as Kanan Makiya, who will not even read a book by Bat Ye'or, unwilling even to see if it might contain something he did not know? What about those who, while they deplore the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic Republic of Iran, regard the Pahlevis (that two-man dynasty) as the "real Iran" and Khomeini as a sport, and will not look too deeply into the history of Shi'a Iran, including the forced conversions of Jews and Armenians overnight in Tabriz under Shah Abbas, or the forbidding, even into the 1970s, of Jews in rural areas of Iran for daring to go out in the rain, and thus endangering (should a tainted drop from their bodies bounce onto a passing Muslim) Muslims with "uncleanness." Najis, pakizegi, the whole crazed idea -- this didn't come in with Khomeini and the los-de-abajo rabble now running things.
Filial piety, disgust at the Western world (good god, what intelligent Westerner doesn't share that disgust at so much?), a sudden rush of feeling of loyalty to a favorite pious grandmother or aunt, and the smell of the food you associate with her, and possibly with certan feasts -- oh, all sorts of things can prevent intelligent people born into Islam, who really can't give it the time of day, nonetheless to defend it against attack, to want to continue to call themselves Muslims.
And that's where the problem lies. We, poor Infidels, have no way to detect who's trustworthy, who isn't. We can't really tell who is really never going to mutate into, Manchurian Candidate style, the "real" kind of Islam. That pilot we just hired for a major commercial airline who calls himself a Muslim but was a reservist sent to Iraq, drinks beer, is a great fellow -- but still calls himself a Muslim. Well, what do we do? Do we trust him as pilot, co-pilot, steward? Do we trust him if he wants to go to graduate school and study nuclear physics? Do we put him on government committees, give him a Top Secret Clearance, if he has never ever said a word as far as you know against the government, but he still says "I am a Muslim" and what's more, he adds, "and I want my children to be Muslim."
Any security problems? Any worries? Any? What, if you were an Infidel making decisions involving life and possibly mass death -- what would you do?
Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2005 8:33 PM
Hugh says,
We can't really tell who is really never going to mutate into, Manchurian Candidate style, the "real" kind of Islam.
Good analogy, but I prefer "Order 66":
“Carry out order 66.” The reaction of the followers of evil, the Sith, was startling. One minute, these men are loyal to the democratic Republic and friends of the Jedi. They have fought side by side and shared meals. They were neighbors.When the Sith master issues his “order 66” these loyal and lifelong friends turn on the Jedi without hesitation. The Jedi Knights are slaughtered. They are shot in the back. They are hunted down like animals and exterminated. The blind followers of the dark side have no friends, no families, no lives. They have only the Sith and their slavish devotion to its beliefs.
That is just me though.
at November 29, 2005 9:07 PM
Eschwapp, I know whence you speak.
Posted by: Gary at November 29, 2005 9:20 PM
Hugh writes:
"Any security problems? Any worries? Any? What, if you were an Infidel making decisions involving life and possibly mass death -- what would you do? "
Make it difficult/impossible for any mohammadan to enter the US.
Promote continued mockery of all aspects of the
mohammadan creed, particularly the life of the
lying pervert who founded the cult. Use pictorial
representations designed to offend, but focus
on humor. People need to laugh at this sicko.
Retaliate strongly against further mohammadan attacks. Tancredo's suggestions were good, but not strong enough.
Posted by: American at November 29, 2005 9:38 PM
Reuel Gerecht is one of the lesser villains in the WOT... Lesser, but very dangerous nevertheless...
Posted by: jsla at November 29, 2005 10:36 PM
I don't think he [Gerecht] is a villain. What prompts him is the same think that prompts so many others who are clinging to whatever they can, whatever flotsam or laban (the jetsam sank some time ago) they can grab hold of as the Narrenschiff goes down, to the idea that it just can't be all of Islam, because -- well, because if it is, Houston, the problem is much bigger than we think and we have been very foolish indeed to put so much hope into this Iraq venture. So some go for the "radical" Muslims and some for the "handful of extremists" and some go for the idea of "Wahhabis" (you know -- as Bernard Lewis likes to say, equivalent to the "Ku Klux Klan" while, presumably, non-Wahhabi Muslims are just like Jefferson, and John Adams, and Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt) or this wierd concotion, "Wahhabist Salafits" -- whatever they are -- a phrase that comes too readily from the lips of some Civil Affairs officers in Iraq, and even from some soldiers, taught to believe that it isn't Muslims but just those "hajjis" and those "hajjis" are "Wahhabist Salafists" and the good Muslims are their target, so we must help the good Muslims create that thriving good Musliim democracy that they so want to create, and then to be the closest and true-bluest and most steadfast of friends with the United States of America. Why not? What would keep them, if only those "Wahhabist Salafists" could be put down? I don't foresee any problem after that's done. George Bush doesn't. Condoleeza Rice doesn't. Lots of others don't. And some of them write for My Weekly Standard and some write for National Review. All sorts of figli di papa, in more than one sense of that phrase, Bright Young Conservatives thinking what they think they are supposed to think, echoing what they think they are supposed to echo -- more or less in mental lock-step with each other.
Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2005 10:52 PM
From US News & World Report:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051205/5terror.htm
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051205/5terror.b.htm
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051205/5terror.b1.htm
Dawood Ibrahim is a crimelord and key middleman for international Islamist terrorism, with an empire spanning across Southern Asia and beyond. From Morocco to Malaysia, the dreaded D Company has always operated unfettered, but is now feeling the heat as the US extends its dragnet.
Posted by: sanman at November 29, 2005 11:11 PM
DAWA, SCIRI, Al-Sadr (who should have been killed at least three times), bad news for majority rule in Iraq. The main Shia parties are extensions of Iran and the Badr Brigades it appears. So much for the Iraqi 'more secular' Shia.
at November 29, 2005 11:12 PM
Hugh l do not agree with your lock-step concept concerning "Bright Young Conservative thinking". Conservatives come from all walks of life, that is one of the reasons, they sometimes seems at odds with each other.. Did you know that Pelosi has all her little charges sign a contract to only say what she wants them to say? talk about control... their talking points in one day all sound the same at the end of the day (Democats). what the Chinese, muslims thinks of the west's appearance of chaos in govenments, that is not one party line, sometimes can benefit and detract our detractors. Because we are able to discuss openly and disagree, we are stronger. just wished we could all agree more on what evil is..which l do believe the "right" has more of an idea, or choses to discrminate what is evil and what is good. Where the left want to make everyone equal, which goes for religions..all equal..they (left) need to be more judgemental.
at November 29, 2005 11:20 PM
"Hugh l do not agree with your lock-step concept concerning "Bright Young Conservative thinking"
--- from a posting above
You misunderstand. The phrase was not "Bright Young Conservative thinking" (your misleading abridgment) but rather "Bright Young Conservatives thinking what they think they should think..." -- in your version of what I wrote, the word "Conservative" becomes an adjective modifying "thinking"; I used the word as a noun, and my point was not that I disliked their thinking" but that I disliked their absence of thought, their "thinking" what they thought they should be thinking, as in their clinging to the wreckage of our ship of state, our Narrenschiff, when it is clear that Bush is a stupid and obstinate man, still insisting on this "victory" (a meaningless and dangerous word in this case) in "Iraq."
"Bright Young Conservatives is a phrase used, delibgerately, to emphasize Careerism. Washington is full of all kinds. These are people on the make. They push for getting on programs, for appearing here and there, to sign up with a lecture bureau. They know how to make connections and how to make money. They have never been great readers, or quiet students of anything. How could they? They are too damn busy making those connections, and having opinions on absolutely everything that a "liberal" or a "conservative" should. They are the problem, or part of it. So are the journalists -- look at someone as trashy as Novak, or as Friedman on the other side. How can anyone stand it? Yet not only are they stood, they thrive.
As for Congress, there are those who stand out, and those who don't. At the moment, Tom Tancredo stands out. Henry Jackson stood out. Fred Thompson, that excellent Senator from Tennessee, finally could not stand the place and left for -for Hollywood semi-unknown stardom. I wish he'd come back and run. And you know what they say -- "when you wish upon a star...."
Posted by: Hugh at November 30, 2005 8:30 AM
There are many versions of Shia Islam but I assume that what is meant is the twelver Shia dominant in Iran.
Ismailis who follow the Aga Khan reject jihad altogether but are considered non-Muslims by most Sunnis.
One key difference even with Twelver Shiism from the salafist Jihadism we fight today is that traditional Shias believed that only the Infallable Imam could declare Jihad and he's been in occultation for 1300 years. Unfortunately Khomenei managed to take over twelver Shiism with his neo-Salafist views.
Despite this, it is probably in our interest to support Shia Iran against the Sunnis in the same way that Nixon chose to support Red China against the Soviet Union. It's better for us that Muslims spend thier time fighting each other than waging war on us.
Posted by: Provoslavni at November 30, 2005 3:41 PM
provoslavni: Nixon's warming to communist China did not get the Soviets and chinese fighitng each other (save for their proxies in the long agony of Cambodia), and undercut American allies in Taiwan. It represented the triumph of the anti-anti-Communist ethos, making things look for a while as if our choice was, ultimately, which kind of Communism we wished to live under. Fortunately for the world, Communism was a decrepit ideology dying of cancer at the time of its global triumph.
My own take on Islam is that we should distance ourselves from the Islamic world's internal contradictions. If we played our cards right this way, the result of Islamicist ferment would be the death of Islam as a religion and way of life.
Posted by: Kepha at December 1, 2005 7:18 AM
Kepha, you are correct that China and the Soviets never actually fought each other (THANK GOD!!!!!)but the tacit alliance between the US and China helped weaken the Soviet Empire especially in Africa and Afghanistan. Islam is a totalitarian ideology more than a religion and we should treat it as such.
Right now Iran is a totalitarian state with only token representation for Christians and Zoroastrians. Yet it supports Christian Armenia against fellow Shiite Azerbaijan. This is real-politic and we should use every opening to divide and weaken.
Posted by: Provoslavni at December 4, 2005 7:33 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)