Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Mosque

Comments 12

Revivir el Iluminismo del Islam

Jul 3, 2015 Daniel Chirot , Scott L. Montgomery

SEATTLE – En 1877, el gran novelista francés Víctor Hugo escribió: "Se puede resistir a la invasión de un ejército, pero no se puede resistir a la invasión de las ideas". Hoy en día, el poder de las ideas, para bien o para mal, es algo que debemos tener en cuenta, especialmente al contemplar el radicalismo islámico. Los recientes ataques terroristas en Francia, Kuwait y Túnez son sólo los últimos recordatorios de lo importante que es entender que, detrás de estas atrocidades, existen ideas serias, no simplemente criminales furiosos y frustrados.

Los movimientos jihadistas islámicos violentos no plantean un peligro existencial para Europa o Norteamérica. Ocasionalmente pueden perpetrar actos terroristas mortales, pero no tienen ninguna posibilidad de destruir o apropiarse de las sociedades occidentales. Los intentos motivados por el pánico de ingresar en países musulmanes y extirpar la amenaza han sido contraproducentes y sólo sirvieron para aumentar el poder de atracción del extremismo islámico.

La mayoría de los musulmanes rechazan las versiones más duras del Islam, pero muchos -si no la mayoría- sienten empatía por la idea de luchar contra los dictados de Occidente y regresar a la fe de sus fuerzas y glorias pasadas. Sería un error afirmar que sólo una pequeña minoría de musulmanes respaldan las acciones de los extremistas o que facciones fundamentalistas se han adueñado de una religión a la que no representan en absoluto. Los radicales islámicos gozan de suficiente respaldo como para ser una amenaza seria en su parte del mundo. Es importante entender cómo sucedió esto.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Featured

Xi Jinping’s Vision for Global Governance

Jul 11, 2018 Kevin Rudd
Work in an Age of Automation

Jul 12, 2018 Susan Lund & Eric Hazan
How To Avoid a Trade War

Jul 10, 2018 Dani Rodrik
Time to Untie the ECB’s Hands

Jul 12, 2018 Stefan Gerlach
The Global Economy’s Uncertain Future

Jul 9, 2018 Jim O'Neill

Daniel Chirot

Writing for PS since 2015
1 Commentary

Daniel Chirot is Professor of Russian and Eurasian 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.

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.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 15 in all 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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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"!)
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 . . .
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?
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.
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😃
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?
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."
Jaap Bosma Jul 3, 2015

How true!
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.