| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| A look inside radical Islam |
| 2005-08-02 |
| from the August 02, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p04s01-wogi.html Special briefing: How radical Islamists see the world By Dan Murphy and Howard LaFranchi | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor This article is a good, sociological look at the history and methodology used by radical Islamists. It's meant for the completely uninformed, but I did find some interesting things in the article. Anyway, its a good, unbiased, detailed history in brief that explains the formation of current extremist Islamic thinking and organization. Persistent suicide bombings in Iraq. Attacks on London subways. Explosions at an Egyptian resort. Whether related or not, these recent incidents have heightened global concern about the spread of radical Islamist militancy. And they raise questions about the current reach of Al Qaeda and groups with similar ideology. Today and tomorrow, the Monitor examines the origins of Islamic terrorism and how it is evolving now. What is Al Qaeda today compared to five years ago? In some ways it is less like the Al Qaeda of 2001 than like the Al Qaeda of the mid-1990s, before it was able to build up organizationally with a base of operations in Afghanistan. It is best understood as a radical ideology loosely inspiring a disparate and very decentralized set of localized Islamist extremist organizations. For some terrorism experts, Al Qaeda as an organization simply no longer exists. Its Afghan training and indoctrination sites are gone. Key leaders have been killed or captured, or are on the run. Yet Al Qaeda as an ideology of global confrontation and jihad, "struggle" or "holy war," still exists. And has proliferated "That is why I speak of 'Al Qaedaism' as more of a factor today than Al Qaeda," says Magnus Ranstorp of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Who are Al Qaeda's leaders? Osama bin Laden, still at large, founded the organization in 1988, along with Mohammed Atef (aka Abu Hafs al-Masri), an Egyptian who was killed in a US airstrike in Afghanistan. The group has a shura, or consultative council, the composition of which is unknown. But some of the people "most wanted" for organizing operations under Al Qaeda's name or ideology, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, are not believed to be part of any centralized leadership. Are they still organizing operations? The Al Qaeda leadership may maintain some command-and-control capability from suspected locations in or near Pakistan - despite Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's recent declaration about a smashed Al Qaeda. One possible example: In a tape released June 17 by the Arab television network Al Jazeera, Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri called for revenge against Britain for allying with the US. Some experts believe such tapes are directives to proceed with an operation. In any case, the London bombings soon followed. What do the militants want? For Islamist militants, the long-term objective is an Islamic superstate, or caliphate. Narrower objectives include the end of the state of Israel and toppling secular Middle Eastern regimes like Egypt's. It is an article of faith that the US and all secular Western states stand in their way, and weakening those states is seen as positive for all their objectives. These Al Q asses want a caliphate, we want democratic friends in the area. Strangely enough, our goal of democratization of these secular regimes means we share similar goals with Al Q, but only in that we want these regimes gone. Strange to think that these goals met somewhere in Afghanistan in the 80's. What's the saying "many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, so true. Who is their main enemy? The global jihad has long named two types of targets: the "near enemy" (Israel or secular Arab regimes) and the "far enemy" - America and its allies. Zawahiri was always more interested in the "near enemy" that stood in the way of an Islamic state in his homeland, Egypt. Bin Laden was more interested in the "far enemy," because he felt success could not be achieved closer to home until US financial and military backing for these regimes was eroded. When Zawahiri merged his Egyptian Islamic Jihad with Al Qaeda in 1998, the two trends were brought together. What Is their ideal society? They want a society that applies the Koran literally and adheres to the social practices that prevailed at the time of the prophet Muhammad. It would not be democratic in any modern sense, though there are provisions for shura, or consultation - generally interpreted to mean the leader should take advice from trusted community members. In their interpretation of Islam, women and men have defined roles, and women generally have fewer rights. Their views stem from the Salafi movement within Islam's Sunni sect, the religion's largest I'm not sure if Iraq's Sunnis are Salafis or not, but one can see here how Zarq and the gang can find some safehaven amongst Iraq's Sunnis.. For a Salafi adherent, interpretation of the Koran stops 1,300 years ago, with Muhammad, his companions, and the three generations that followed them. What about Wahhabi thinking - is that behind Al Qaeda? While many in the West use the term Wahhabi, practitioners of this Sunni school reject the notion that they belong to any particular sect. To their thinking, they are simply following the true path of Islam. They are Salafi followers of Mohammed ibn abd al-Wahhab, an 18th century Arabian preacher. Although the vast majority of Salafis are not involved in violence, almost all attacks linked to Al Qaeda have been carried out by people under the Salafi umbrella. The House of Saud helped this school become Saudi Arabia's dominant interpretation of Islam. Many Saudis refuse to view Osama bin Laden as a Wahhabi, rejecting his thirst for overthrowing the Saudi regime. Wahhabis are supremely intolerant of Shiites, seeing practices such as the veneration of historic Imams Hussein and Ali as a breach of monotheism. While a few of RB's most outspoken posters make comments that suggest there are no "good Muslims", the point made here should be taken to heart, Bin Laden, and the whole school of Wahhabi, think of all other schools of Islam as heretic. So, making no differentiation between the radical Bin Laden Wahabbis and Shiites or Sufis is like making no differentiation between Catholics, Protestants, Costics and Mormons. And having been to most of these sect's religious ceremonies as well as some Islamic ceremonies I can tell you they ain't the same. What are the roots of violent jihad? This is good stuff Ibn Taymiyah, a 13th century scholar, is an intellectual forerunner of the modern Salafis. He rejected Sufi and Shiite Muslims, describing the latter as apostates who deserved death.Many wars were fought amongst the sects over the centuries. Appearing in an era when crusaders remained in the Middle East, he advocated a muscular approach to Islam that called on believers to fight infidel invaders.Binny often quotes this dude's writings in his taped threats. The modern Salafi revival is generally traced to late 19th and early 20th century opposition to colonial rule, and was particularly taken up by Egyptian thinkers, who saw in it a way to oppose Western colonialism and modernize without giving up Islamic values. The foundation of Israel was seen by most Muslims, of all strains, as a hostile act that undermined Islam. Here's where things get hairy for the rest of Islam, and this is perhaps why so many people think all Muslims are Bin Ladin sympathizers. Most Muslims hate the thought of an Jewish state controlling the holy city of Jerusalem, and I make no excuses for their bigotry or that of many of the Israelis. The question that rests here for me is this, are we, the West, so dedicated to an Israeli state that we would go to war with all Islam? If so, why? Is it strategic or philosphical reasoning? I have no philosophical preference toward a Israeli state as I support no religious establishment. I support Israel for strategic reasons, but have questioned the logic of supporting a religious state that is going to be part of an endless religious struggle that can end only in the destruction of one or both religious establishments if things continue as they have. However, the question remains is this the reason Muslims seem complacent about Bin Laden or is it really a longer hatred of the West and its principles. No easy answer here, just more questions. For Salafis it was a call to jihad, to regain the land and holy places they felt had been usurped. Frustration mounted with the 1967 Arab defeat by Israel, which many Muslims interpreted as a sign of God's displeasure. The Israeli's roundly whipped their asses, so naturally God was mad at them for not making their women stay at home behind curtains, give me a break!I personally saw their absolute defeat as a sign the Arab countries fighting the War were all a bunch of whiney, excuse making wusses who couldn't hack a real 20th century war. But the Salafi group around bin Laden really took hold after the 1991 Gulf War. Bin Laden was a wealthy Saudi who had helped support Afghans and Arab volunteers in the jihad against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, with financial support from Pakistani intelligence and the CIA. He wanted to lead an Arab and Muslim effort to end Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait. He and his followers were enraged and humiliated that a US-led coalition repelled Hussein and that US troops were then stationed in Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest places. I think we should all take special notice of this fact, Bin Laden is not, and never has been a lover of Saddam, a commie infidel in Binny's mind. Does that preclude Al Qaeda cooperation with a failing and desperate Baathists regime? No, but it is very noteworthy that Binny was more than happy to work with us, the "Great Satan" in overthrowing a country full of his Muslim brothers, Sunnis even. Citing this issue, bin Laden and Zawahiri announced the "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Crusaders and Jews" in 1998. What does the Koran say about violence against civilians? As with most religions, it is a question of where emphasis is placed. The Koran has fairly clear injunctions against murder, including "Whoever slays a human being, unless it be for murder or for spreading corruption on earth, it shall be as though he had slain all mankind" (5:32). Suicide is warned against even more strongly: "Do not kill yourselves ... whoever does so, in transgression and wrongfully, we shall roast in a fire" (4:29). Warfare in certain circumstances is condoned, even urged, just as in the Old Testament, but there are limits. "Fight in the cause of God against those who fight against you, but do not transgress limits. God loves not transgressors" (2:190) and "let there be no hostility, except to those who practice oppression" (2:193). In the most widespread interpretations, such verses bar both attacks on civilians and suicide attacks, while allowing Muslims to fight against those who directly attack them. But how does one define the meaning of "those who practice oppression" or "spreading corruption on earth" or even "those who fight against you?" It is here that the minority of Islamist radicals who attack civilians find their wiggle room. Wiggle room my ass, Binny and his boyz just rewrite history and religious doctrine as they see fit. An Al Qaeda timeline 1988: Osama Bin Laden establishes Al Qaeda ("the base") to channel arms and funds to the anti-Soviet Afghan resistance. 1989-1991: Bin Laden becomes involved in movements opposing the Saudi monarchy, fueled by the kingdom's acceptance of US troops after Iraq invaded Kuwait. 1996: Bin Laden joins the Taliban in Afghanistan as they seize Kabul. He now has a base for his training operations. AUG. 7, 1998: East African attacks: Nearly simultaneous car bombings hit US embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 224 on the anniversary of the Saudi King's 1991 invitation to US troops to defend his country from Iraq. OCT. 12, 2000: Suicide bombers ram the USS Cole off Yemen, killing 17. SEPT. 11, 2001: Al Qaeda hijackers fly jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, while a fourth hijacked jet crashes in a Pennsylvania field. Nearly 3,000 are killed. OCT. 12, 2002: In an attack blamed on Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian group linked to Al Qaeda, 202 are killed bombing on the Indonesian island of Bali. 2003 through present: Iraq becomes a locus for radical Islamists, as insurgents battle the fledgling Iraqi government and the US-led forces that ousted Saddam Hussein. A key mastermind, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, aligns himself with Al Qaeda. MARCH 11, 2004: Bombs hit four commuter trains in Madrid, killing 191 people and injuring more than 1,600. Attacks are blamed on Islamic militants with suspected ties to Al Qaeda. JULY 7, 2005: A group calling itself the Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe claims responsibility for bus and subway bombings in London that killed 56 people. Two weeks later another coordinated London subway bombing is attempted. This is a two part series so I'll post the second part tommorrow, and I promise fewer comments. EP |
| Posted by:ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding |
| #4 2003 through present: Iraq becomes a locus for radical Islamists, as insurgents battle the fledgling Iraqi government and the US-led forces that ousted Saddam Hussein. A key mastermind, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, aligns himself with Al Qaeda. What a crock of shit! Zarq was in northern Iraq at the behest of Saddam since he fled Afganistan and Iran (circa, 2002)-- before the Iraq invasion. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-08-02 23:03 |
| #3 Point of information: Israel is a secular Jewish state, in the same way that the U.S. is a secular Christian state. About 80% of the citizens are at least nominally Jewish, the rest being Moslem, Christian and "other". All have equal rights under the law, except that only the non-ultra-Orthodox Jews are required to serve in the IDF, although the others are welcome (lots of Druze and Beduins do so). |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-08-02 18:31 |
| #2 Jim in KY, Jim I assume you grew up in a christian household and are a Southerner like myself. Maybe I assume too much, but regardless I totally agree with many elements of your statement. However, I'll tell you this. Most people don't follow their religion's or denomination's teachings that far beyond reason as do Binny and the Wahabbis. Many of my Catholic buddies will laugh at yonder Pope's contraception ban when they throw religion to the wind and strap on those jimmies when going undercover! Also for instance, the church I was brought up in does not tolerate any other religious views, it points to other views as sinful, even other christian views, and believes and propogates the same ideas about Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, hell all other religions as tools of the devil. It ain't a small denomination either, and it is pretty mainstream in its teachings. Their way of dealing with non believers is to try to convert those people, not kill them, and believe it or not this is how many Muslims operate too. I remind you here that Christianity does have a history of forced conversion as does Islam. Actually most sects of Islam are sometimes even a little more tolerant of other faiths than is my former denomination of Christianity. They at least see Christ as a prophet, while the Chrisitans I know see Muhammad as some dumb ass anti-christ. I have no preference either way and could care less about people's religious compunctions as they are a waste of my time outside of metaphysical and philosophical discussion. I see your point about Islam though, as the loudest statements we hear from Islam are from the haters and killers, but most people are just people trying to get along Jim like me and you. Most people, Muslims included, think about family and kids and putting food on the table rather than establishing a caliphate to rule the world. Binny may actually believe all the bullshit he's spittin, but mostly I think it is just convenient that he has history and his religion to point to as a reason for his want to rule over people and kill those who get in his way. If he didn't have Islam or Wahabbiism I should say, he would find some other excuse, just like Hitler did. I think it is very ironic that the word Jihad and the German word Kampf mean basically the same thing, struggle. Binny's little Mein Kampf will hopefully end like Hitler's did, by him eating a bullet or some cyanide, but sadly I doubt Binny will go that easy. I agree that we should crush, exterminate and destroy radical islamists bent on murder and the destruction of the west. But let's not group millions of people together with a few asshat extremists. I know a few Christian extremists who sympathize with Eric Rudolph's crazy ass secretly. But we shouldn't paint all Christians as bad because of a few people's actions. That would be the greatest loss in the war on Terror. That's what Bin Laden seeks, a reason to inflame Muslims the world over. We in the civilized world don't need or want that. I'm with you though. And I appreciate your point of view, I think we all just need to step back every now and then and examine why we think what we think and how it relates to the WoT and our future as a free and democratic nation. I personally don't want anyone's religious views ruling over my life, and like you said I bet most other folks share that same fear of radical religion ruling the world, no matter what the religion would be. Unless of course that religion involves some hot naked young women, a couple of..., well I wont go there, but I think you get my point. EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-08-02 16:18 |
| #1 Islams biggest problem -Islam does not acknowledge any other religion or viewpoint as being legitimate. No other philosophy or outlook is to be tolerated and anybody who disagrees is an apostate that is to be killed by any means available. This is not how the world works, the 21st century world, not the 9th century world. In the 9th century maybe you could get away with shit like that, but now it doesnt fly. Islam has lost all legitimacy with me over the last couple of years because of this quality it has clung to. Even moderate muslims seem to deny the right of existance to Israel, and see western influence as evil. They see Iraq in 12th century terms as crusaders and occupiers, they need to wake up and get with the times before they get what the radicals want-isolation from the rest of the world. I don't think they would like that any more than they would like the current situation. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-08-02 15:26 |