Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Mosque

Culture

إحياء التنوير الاسلامي

Jul 3, 2015 Daniel Chirot and Scott L. Montgomery

سياتل –لقد كتب الروائي الفرنسي العظيم فيكتور هوجو في سنة 1877 " الجيوش الغازية يمكن مقاومتها ولكن الافكار الغازية لا يمكن مقاومتها". ان قوة الافكار هذه الايام سواء كانت للخير أو للشر يجب ان نأخذها بعين الاعتبار وخاصة عندما نفكر في الراديكالية الاسلامية. ان الهجمات الارهابية الاخيرة في فرنسا والكويت وتونس تذكرنا بأهمية ان ندرك انه خلف هذه الاعتداءات هناك افكار خطيرة وليس فقط مجرمين غاضبين ومحبطين.

ان الحركات الجهادية الاسلامية العنيفة لا تشكل خطرا وجوديا على اوروبا او امريكا الشمالية . ان من الممكن ان تلك الحركات قد تتمكن بين الحين والاخر من تنفيذ عمليات ارهابية مميته ولكن ليس لديها فرصة تدمير المجتمعات الغربية او السيطرة عليها . ان المحاولات المذعورة للزحف على البلاد الاسلامية والقضاء على التهديد جاءت بنتائج عكسية حيث أدت فقط الى زيادة جاذبية التطرف الاسلامي.

ان معظم المسلمين يرفضون النماذج القاسية للاسلام ولكن الكثير منهم – ان لم يكن الاغلبية-يتعاطفون مع فكرة الكفاح ضد املاءات الغرب واعادة الدين الى قوته وامجاده السابقة. ان من الخطأ التأكيد على ان اقلية صغيرة من المسلمين فقط يدعمون افعال المتطرفين أو ان الفصائل الاصولية اختطفت الدين الذين لا يمثلونه بالمرة . ان الراديكاليين الاسلاميين يتمتعون بدعم كافي ليشكلوا تهديدا خطيرا في مناطقهم من العالم ومن الاهمية بمكان فهم كيف حصل ذلك.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2023

Our annual fourth-quarter magazine is here, and available only to Digital Plus and Premium subscribers. Subscribe to Digital Plus today, and save $15.

Subscribe Now

Daniel Chirot

Writing for PS since 2015
3 Commentaries

Daniel Chirot, Professor Emeritus of Russian and Eurasian Studies at the University of Washington, is the author, most recently, of You Say You Want a Revolution?: Radical Idealism and Its Tragic Consequences (Princeton University Press, 2020).

Scott L. Montgomery

Writing for PS since 2015
1 Commentary

Scott L. Montgomery is an affiliate faculty member at the Henry M Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. He is the co-author of The Shape of the New: Four Big Ideas and How They Made the Modern World.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 15 Comments on this article

Pascal Vander Straeten Jul 11, 2015

but the power of new ideas is far from new: look at Marxism (late 1800s), Bolshevism (early 1900s), Fascism (1920s), Nazism (1920s), Maoism (1930s), ecology (1970s) ... Saying that islamism is not threat to the West is bs as given nowadays global interconnected world, whatever happens in the muslim world affects one way or the other the remainder of the world... And the force that brought down communism & USSR was not the power of ideas, but rather a soviet economic engine that was failing bringing to awareness the leaders of the USSR that a change was needed. In other words, had the Soviet economic engine not stalled, the Soviet empire would have endured.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Diego Orlandi Jul 9, 2015

Mainstream media seem to act like the Libyian problem doesn't exist. I read on an Italian newspaper that they took the second largest city and are ehaded towards the capital. That is one way to solve a problem, pretend it doesn't exist until it explodes in one's face.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bruce Bean Jul 7, 2015

The message here is clearly correct. There are no simple solutions, no easy fixes, no bumper sticker solutions.
The West and, without question, the US are truly terrible at doing anything over the long term. Chess is the correct analogy; drawing a six-gun is our preferred approach.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jul 5, 2015

Daniel Chirot and Scott Montgomery claim that to fight ISIS and its Islamic terrorism successfully, "military containment" is simply not enough. We need to rely on the "power of ideas and ideals". Indeed, Islam, like all major religions, is primarily spiritual and the Koran is "open to interpretation, whether quite liberal or dogmatic and repressive".
They maintain, support for "the harshest versions of Islam" is low. But it would be equally "wrong to assert that only a tiny minority of Muslims back the actions of the extremists or that fundamentalist factions have hijacked a religion of which they are completely unrepresentative". It's true that many Muslims do harbour a level of anger towards the West, which dominates the world with its secular, non-Muslim culture. They long to return "the faith to its past strengths and glories". Today, a more political set of Islamic ideas, Political Islam, has gained ground, whose supporters, the Salafis, call for a return to the political and moral practice of the first Muslims. They believe Muslims should try to recreate the atmosphere of the time of Mohammed, and thereby end this dark state of ignorance,
Chirot and Montgomery name Jamal al-Din al-Afghani as an influential thinker, who argued that" embracing many of the ideals developed in the West during the Enlightenment was the only way to promote progress". Afghani believed the regeneration of Islam would prepare Muslims to face the challenge posed by the spread of Western values and culture. During the second half of the 20th Century Salafist ideas inspired large movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan and Syria, which had concentrated on campaigns for social and political reform. However, Salafis had also formed militant groups aiming to establish an Islamic state by force. It explains why Saudi Arabia was determined to combat them, and helped Egypt topple the Islamist government in 2013.
Egypt is the birthplace of political Islam, a movement which had its roots in anti-colonial nationalism in the early 20th century and which was founded by the father of Islamic radicalism, Sayyid Qutb. As the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qutb was tortured in prison by the military government of Colonel Nasser. His death made him a martyr. His 1964 work "Milestones", was a very important book in the modern history of Islamism. It advocated the use of jihad (struggle) against jahili (ignorant) societies, and it still inspires many radical Islamist groups today.
The Pakistani philosopher Abul A'la Maududi was another influential figure, who provided the seeds for political movements. While he himself opposed violence, some of those who took on his ideas believed they provided a justification for confrontation.
Since the ouster of Egypt's democratically elected president Mohamed Morsi, there has been an ongoing debate in certain circles over whether it is worth bothering to bid for power legitimately through the ballot box, or whether deposing secular dictators through violence and seizing power - as advocated by jihadist groups - is the only practical option. Efforts like "cultural exchanges" and interfaith dialogue are worth trying. But it takes decades and generations to build trust across sectarian divides. Besides foreign relations rely much on the personal rapport established among leaders. For this reason situation in the Middle East is expected to be fluid.
- Petey Bee Jul 6, 2015
  
  that is, improve it's *image* of trustworthiness, as percieved by others.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Petey Bee Jul 6, 2015
  
  " Efforts like "cultural exchanges" and interfaith dialogue are worth trying. But it takes decades and generations to build trust across sectarian divides."
  
  For this reason, would it be worth it for the West to make it a priority to improve its perception of "trustworthiness"? (in contrast to "credibility"!)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jul 5, 2015

Or, to take a more radical stance . . . Perhaps we should clarify the following principle:

In order to preserve any given fundamental human right, the collective power must forcibly forbid actions, policies, and laws which take away that particular fundamental human right. . . . Follow that one to it's conclusion . . .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jul 5, 2015

I thought the radical Islamist mujahedeen and despotic anti-communist dictators were our allies which helped defeat communism. Doesn't that mean that they are stronger? Can't we just bring back the communists and use them to fight against the Islamists?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kenneth Wallenstein Jul 5, 2015

A battleground of ideas is not trying to win debate points. A battleground of ideas is a massive propaganda effort. We should support Muslim thinkers who espouse religous positions of which we approve. We should bribe or blackmail imams into positions that are to our advantage. We should use actors to play the role muslim leaders who preach an "authorized" version of religion. In case you don't know, this type of political intrigue is how Christianity and Islam were shaped in the past by emporers and caliphs.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Jul 5, 2015

Good heavens: I was so disappointed to read this elementary colomn written by two academics. Or was it a week end. Paper by a high school student😃?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Laventurier Jul 4, 2015

In such a brief form as PS affords, the authors probably should have contextualized their use of the term 'ideas' in the first, rather than penultimate, paragraph. Even then, 'ideas' are not the issue. Imagine a 'debate' between 'Ibn 'Arabi and Dick Cheney. Meaningless. Turn it into a claymation 'Death Match' and maybe, a la Mexican wrestling, you could have some impact on a range of cultures by dramatising and evoking deeper human values, which are not really ideas, but instincts. Which better 'explains' the world to an individual, Darwin or the experience of maternal love and social justice?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Jul 4, 2015

I agree with much of this. But the authors would have us set off in the wrong direction at the start, I think, when they write "The real battlefront is the arena of ideas." Neither the Middle East or the West is in need of another battlefront.

In my view there are harsh realities at play in both the East and the West that need to be thought through outside of all of our ideological positions. To many young men with too little hope, for example, or too much greed with too little regard for its broader consequences.

Rather than a battle of ideas, I'd advocate a conversation within both the East and the West as well as between them, focusing on the Delphic principle of "Nothing in excess."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jaap Bosma Jul 3, 2015

How true!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jul 3, 2015

There is also a kind of Western extremism in the World. Watch American Sniper to get a sense of it. We turn a blind eye to it (or put that 'support our troops' sticker on our SUV) just as much as less extremist Muslims do. Of course, we don't see this as bad because we have utmost faith that our ideas are sound - just like Muslims do.
- Mansoor Ahmed Jul 5, 2015
  
  A juvenile understanding of the complex issue the author advocates, iwill ensure a juvenile response.
  Having said that, the author makes a very profound point, using words that might insult the sensibility of some. It requires a deep understanning of history of Muslim thought and evolution to ufully comprehend the truth of this article. Very well said, very hard to implement in real life.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.