Is Political Islam a Threat to the West?

As the world witnesses Muslims frequently embracing "Islamic" political parties in the Middle East, many ominously foresee this trend as an inevitable threat to "the West."

This contentious issue anchored last week's prestigious Doha Debates moderated by veteran BBC journalist Tim Sebastian in Qatar, which hosts controversial topics in front of a diverse, engaged audience of 350 people. The motion "This House Believes that Political Islam is a Threat to the West" was defeated by 51% to 49% following a vote from the passionate audience, which included several members from the "Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow Conference" who were invited to observe and participate

In support of the motion, Maajid Nawaz, a former leader of the radical Hizb ut-Tahir who has since totally renounced his affiliations, stressed that Muslims and Islam are not inherently undemocratic or extremist, but rather the modern politicisation of Islam creates a dehumanising ideology soaked in separatism and violence. As he told me after the debate, "Political Islam is an ideology. They believe in exporting this divisive ideology to Muslims in the West...Terrorists emerge from these parties. They don't believe in our same democratic values."

However, Shadi Hamid, a research fellow at Stanford University debating against the motion, disagreed: "With the exception of Hamas or Hizballah, every single mainstream Islamic party has renounced violence."

Hamid's debating partner, Sarah Joseph, Editor of the Muslim lifestyle magazine Emel, won over the audience by vocalizing her frustration at the nebulous and generalized definitions of the "West" and "political Islam."

Meanwhile, Yahya Pallavicini, an Italian Imam and government adviser, argued for the motion lamenting the misuse of religion by Islamist political parties who selfishly hijack theology to "legitimise violence" and demonise women.

The debate highlighted a glaring problem when discussing this powder-keg issue. Namely, these conversations routinely obfuscate the highly complex and diverse citizenry of the world by carelessly lumping them into simplistic categories, such as " The West" and "Political Islamists," purely for the sake of rhetorical convenience and ideological propagation.

Following the debate, I asked Maajid Nawaz to clearly define "The West." He replied: "By 'The West' I mean America and Europe."

It must be comforting for some to know that the late Samuel Huntington's antiquated model parceling the world into fictitious, neatly carved regions is still the hallmark for enlightened debates on global relations.

To be fair, the side arguing against the motion did not articulate the complex variety of "political Islam" either. Instead, they spent an inordinate amount of time on Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood as a model of non-violent Islamism.

Without nuance, one can never understand the difference in the mindset between mainstream, practicing Muslims engaging the political arena, such as Muslim Americans for Obama, as opposed to certain "political Islamists, " such as Hamas or Muslim Brotherhood. After the debate, Hamid offered clarification: "For the latter, Islam is the primary motivator for their politics. They want to see Islam and Islamic law play a larger role in public policy." They are unlike the former who merely vote like other Americans citizens based on their candidates' respective platforms, instead of a passionate desire to implement Sharia.

Sadly, many incorrectly equate the vastly different intentions of both groups merely due to their tangential nexus of being identified as "Muslim."

Moreover, right wing, xenophobic political ideologues, especially in the United States and Europe, recklessly connect all versions of political Islam with Al Qaeda as a dire warning to those who dare let such political parties gain influence and popularity. Haroon Moghal, Director of Public Relations at The Islamic Center at New York University, underscores the key differences: "Al Qaeda has no real political goals. Its main interest seems to be in killing lots of people...men, women, children, Muslim or not." Mona Al-Oraibi, a British-Iraqi Muslim journalist, concurred and like many in the audience, both Muslim and Non-Muslim, lamented over the fact that "all Islamic political expression is lumped into 'terrorism' and 'extremism."

Also, if all "political Islam" is defined as those who use the democratic system to exalt a polarizing and violent version of Islam inspired by Sharia, then how do we explain Turkey's successful AKB party: a pro-Western, democratic party that won the popular vote due to its adherence to conservative, Islamic values.

Although Islamist extremists used terrorism in Bali [2002 Hard Rock Café Bombings] and home-grown British citizens committed the atrocious 7/7 bombings in London, those acts should not be wholly imputed to the vast majority of diverse Muslim citizens worldwide committed to peacefully promoting their religious values by proactively engaging the democratic system.

Indeed, if the United States and UK truly embrace the democratic ideals they preach, they must eventually respect the wishes of a voting Muslim population, even one that freely elects hard-line Islamist parties, such as Hamas. The U.S. must engage them -- at least diplomatically -- as to not commit an affront towards the fundamental principles of free democratic elections or to the Muslim citizens that participate in them.

Furthermore, by supporting repressive regimes such as Hosni Mubarak's Egypt and Saudi Arabia's royal family -- instead of democratically elected Islamist leaders -- the U.S. reveals its glaring hypocrisy and double standards in dealing with the Middle East. This shameful Machiavellian foreign policy follows a disturbing legacy in which U.S. has deliberately circumvented Middle Eastern democracy for its owns selfish initiatives; most notably in overthrowing Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddeq in favor of the brutal tyrant, Muhammad Shah Pahlavi, in 1953. Mosaddeq's crime? His desire to nationalize his country's most important resource, oil, and wrest it from U.S. and European control and exploitation.

However, observing the debate with the "Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow" and hearing their diverse range of opinions, one should emerge hopeful that the bulwark of reactionary, monolithic thought [whether it be "Islamic" or "Western" -- whatever you wish those terms to mean] will be stifled by this emerging generation. As Hussein Rashid, a PhD candidate in Harvard University's Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, remarked, "One thing to keep in mind is that 'Islam doesn't speak, Muslims do.' It is Muslims who define what Islam says and does, within broad parameters. The new generation is engaged, informed, and articulate. It scares the Islamists, because [the new generation] won't fall for the ideologues."

Ultimately, the debates highlights the utter complexity and inter-connectedness of the modern, globalized terrain; one where simplistic talking points no longer suffice to have meaningful discussions about political Islam's relationship with itself and the world. As with any political ideology and process, the threat or benefit is ultimately derived from its adherents who must wield the power to use it proactively as a moderate, enlightened shield of self-determination rather than a poisonous, lacerating sword of intolerance and separatism.

Comments

[roxn]

Quoting the writer "Indeed, if the United States, UK truly embrace the democratic ideals they preach, they must eventually respect the wishes of a voting Muslim population,"

Although he does refer to Hamas, let’s look at Islamic populations in the West, where they have reached large enough numbers for ex. in Holland or the UK, where groups of Muslims have called for either Islamic enclaves (run under Islamic law) or to have the Shari'a integrated into Western legal systems. In Holland a 'moderate' Muslim politician just this month called for a separate area/state for Muslims and in the past he has called for every student in Holland to be taught Islam, even where Christianity is not taught. In the UK there are regular calls for Shari'a law.

Is the writer saying that Western democracies will have to one day implement Islamic laws according to the wishes of Muslim voters?

What we should do is to look at the way moderate Muslim countries are run. In Egypt it is a crime to leave Islam; the punishment is imprisonment, torture and having your travel documents confiscated. Women are worth only half a man in court.

Western laws are based on consensus, under Islam the laws are based on a (god's law), which can't be challenged without insulting the religion, the prophet; where the punishment is death in places like Saudi Arabia.

Western society has to guard against these changes, even if they come via moderates.

It's We The People !!

[MagisterLudi]

arvay posted "The only feasible solution is to create from Israel and Palestine a single secular democratic state with equal rights for all."
What noble sentiment.
Now the reality.
1. Setting up states with incompatible populations is one of the worst legacies of Colonial era. Examples failed colonial Frankensteins: Iraq and Lebanon.

2.There's a singular democratic state there- it is called Israel. 20% of its citizens are Palestinains. The ONLY reason it is democratic--- European Jews set it up. Doubt it? Look around Middle East--every state is ruled by a despot.
3. The idea of destruction of Israel via demographic pressure is the latest fantasy in a LONG string of fantasies entertained by Arabs.The tragedy--- Palestinains believe everyone of them.
And instead of earnest negotiations with Israel---forever waiting for yet silly fairytale to come true,
Sad, really.
...Never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Biggest barrier to stability in the territories right now--the political Islam policies of Hamas.

[arvay]

Bad examples.

Lebanon was working until Israel forced hundreds of thousands of refugees to migrate to Lebanon, upsetting the ethnic balance. In 2006, the PRO WESTERN Lebanese government was undermined by Israel's insane bombing campaign, and ethnic strife was made worse.

Iraq was stable under Saddam (like Yugoslavia under Tito) -- we created the instability with our invasion.

You might remember a place called "India" -- a democratic country with a large multiplicity of ethnic groups. Despite a shaky start and some continued friction, Indians have a sound national identity that supersedes their ethnic divisions.

The apartheid Zionist state will eventually be overwhelmed by the demographic reality of a much higher Palestinian birth rate. Even some in the Israeli leadership has said so, publicly. Their solution so far is the wall, in which Jewish people are creating their OWN ghetto.

You can't make this stuff up.

[arvay]

A decline in Islamic politics would be a step forward. These nations would become much stronger and effective in combating the Zionist artificiality created in their midst, leaving only Israel with its religiously motivated settler fascists to deal with.

Unfortunately, Israel's presence continues to encourage the religious approach, due largely to the corruption of puppet states like Egypt and outdated royalists such as saudi Arabia. Nothing real will be accomplished in the region until this foreign irritant is removed. In the meantime, the Islamist fighters may be a useful fighting force.

[MagisterLudi]

Let us review a long list of causes CONSATANATLY cited by Arabs as causes for the decline of their civilization:
Crusaders, Mongols, Mamluks, Ottoman, British, French, Israel, United States. Israel is simply the latest in this LONG list of preoccupations.
Always looking for someone to blame EXCEPT themselves-- one of the primary symptoms of this decline.

Spain, with a population of 44 million, translates more technical literature into Spanish every year than the entire Arab Middle East has translated into Arabic since the fall of the Abbasid Caliphate in 1258!!!
Is this also Zionist fault?
Start thinking for yourself. Your culture will benefit from that ALOT more.

[arvay]

Some of the blows they took from, say, the Mongols, did actually knock the pins out from under their civilization -- Baghdad and Damascus razed and the population slaughtered, so they're not making it all up. Read up on it.

And remember, the Europeans had a long period of cultural and economic decline after the fall of Rome. They were, indeed, invaded and disrupted by Huns, Avars, Mongols, Visigoths, Vikings, Magyars etc. So let's not be so high and mighty. And much of Europe's great ideas and science was preserved for them by the Arabs when they were on top.

Right now,in the world that we're living in since 1948, the Zionist state pushed into their region serves as a disruptive force, creating millions of stateless refugees . And until the Egyptians taught them that Arabs can, in fact, fight -- they were aiming at an Eretz Israel eerily reminiscent of Grossedeutschland. I'd say that having an aggressive neighbor, financed by a superpower and convinced of its own racial superiority is distraction enough for any culture.

[arvay]

We really can't discuss "political Islam" without also looking at its ideological cousin -- Zionism.

Zionism is a 19th century political mythology based on the ideas that Jews are a "people" who are entitled to a specific land, currently mostly occupied by Israel. It has both political and religious aspects.

Politically, it's practically indistinguishable from the German "Blut und Boden" idea pushed by the Third Reich. Zionism asserts the same kind of right to intervene for its "people" in the same way that Germany once asserted its right to saw off pieces of Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Religiously, it claims the same kind of divine authority that many Muslim extremists assert. And it's also intolerant. Many American Christians would no doubt be surprised to learn that it's a crime to proselytize for Christianity in Israel -- where Jesus was born. Just like Saudi Arabia. And Jewish settler fanatics often attack hapless Palestinians with the same kind of ferocity visited on Copts in Egypt.

The central problem is that these mutually excluding ideas are mutually reenforcing. Every time one or the other side acts forcefully, the other side is helped and encouraged.

The only feasible solution is to create from Israel and Palestine a single secular democratic state with equal rights for all. This kind of solution to the multi-generational mideast struggle, will, among other things, help to focus the Islamic populations on the problems of their own, often corrupt and inept governments, rather than the ever-reliable Zionist threat.

[arvay]

Indonesia is a very good example of a nation that's predominantly Islamic but separates "church and state." They're just lucky that Zionists didn't pick their area as their promised land, radicalizing their population and sparking endless conflict.

[MagisterLudi]

Gee, too bad its too far to blame it on your usual bete noir.
"From 2004 to 2007, 110 churches were closed in Indonesia as a result of attacks from radical Muslim groups or by local governments coerced by these groups, reported Compass Direct News."

Too bad there are no Zionists to blame.

"In Indonesia a special governmental permission is needed to open a new church or a Buddhist temple. Even to remodel one. The permission is rarely given."

Too bad there are no Zionists to blame.
JAKARTA, August 19 2001 – On Sunday (August 17) a Muslim mob stormed a church service in Cipayung, East Jakarta, forcing Christians to flee and then erecting banners in the street declaring a ban on “churches and religious services.”
Too bad there are no Zionists to blame.

" More than 4,000 people have died in two years of conflict between the Muslim and Christian communities in the Moluccas, formerly known as the Spice Islands, 1,600 miles northeast of Jakarta, the AP reported.
Thousands of Islamic jihad troops reportedly are aiming to Islamicize the region by converting, killing, or driving out Christians. "

Nice and tolerant, eh pal.

[arvay]

Despite these inter-group conflicts in remote areas (we've had a few here in the US, you know) the Indonesians are moving forward. They designed and operate a communications satellite and their overall orientation is favorable to the west.

They have also stomped on various al Qaeda-like groups, and yes, the remoteness of the Zionists is an advantage, otherwise they'd have to deal with another disruptive force.

I don't know about their bureaucratic regulations on building houses of worship, but I do know that Israel prohibits Christian proselytizing -- just like Saudi Arabia -- and doesn't extend the right of return to Jews who've converted.

Tolerance, pal?

[MagisterLudi]

[BBC]Three girls have been decapitated and another badly injured as they walked to a Christian school in Indonesia. Analysts say the militants have targeted central Sulawesi and believe that it could be turned into the foundation stone of an Islamic state. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4387604.stm
Nice and tolerant. No radicals here. Ha!

[arvay]

And Jewish settlers routinely harass, maim and even kill Palestinians. You SO want to believe in Jewish-Israeli superiority and islamic inferiority, it's painful to watch.

[MagisterLudi]

Some ideas:

Any coupling of these two concepts so inherent to Islam-- mosque control over political structures is inherently dangerous to the world. In any shape or form. Almost inevitably it ends in Iranian oppressive theocracy.

Only when the people of the region can throw off the yoke of political Islam can there be serious progress in their development. it is no accident that prosperity of most nations is in inverse proportion to their devoutness of their citizens.

Political Islam that seeks confrontation with the West is far more dangerous to itself than to the West.
I am not sure how big the window of opportunity is. When the oil wells run it will be too late.

[MagisterLudi]

THE question for people who live in countries under Islam is "How do we reform without losing our culture and spirituality?".
Hint--- Uniting political control with Islam is THE worst possible answer. It is all a fantasy, and a dangerous one to boot. Or but it sounds so "nice" especially when people start throwing around words like' freedom 'and 'tolerance.'
"Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow" should be confined to where they belong---mosques and madrasas to issue moral and ethical guidance for the people. AND NOTHING ELSE.

AND Leave the running of the country AND the education AND scientific development well alone!

Conclusion: The Muslims should be discussing how to separate politics and Islam in a reasonable manner.
Everything else is window dressing at best and religious propaganda at worst..

[MagisterLudi]

Perspective:
Chinese had a lot to complain about. Japanese invasion, civil war,the horrors of cultural revolution, Gang of Four etc.
They could've EASILY walloped ins self- pity, victim narrative and recriminations another century or so,. But-- they ---didn't!!!
Chinese culture values hard work, education far more than types of the obsessive and hyperbolic blame game, so beloved by many in some Islamic cultures.
There would be no shame for ANY civilizations mired in centuries of severe decline to learn from Chinese ethos. Hmmm?

[MagisterLudi]

Ironically enough this question is FAR nore important for the Islamic civilization itself that the West.
Europe, North America, Far East, Australia are centuries ahead of the current state of the Islamic civilization.
It is more relevant to ask which manifestation of the "political Islam" can help people living under its control catch up to the rest of the world.

[MagisterLudi]

"Is Political Islam a Threat to the West?"

Certain aspects-- no. Those which seek to reform the Islamic countries FROM WITHIN by using the models of tolerance, liberation of women, reduction of religious domination and superstition, improvement of education opportunities, mass literacy for men and women.
There are plenty of models to be found in the Far East.
Certain aspects--yes. Those which are joined ideologically with revanchist Islamicism and/or quasi fascist Baath governance model. And those that are neurotically obsessed with victim narrative. You know the historical arc:--" If only it weren't for: Crusades, Mongols, Brits, French, Ottoman, Americans, Israelis etc.
I think we're all familiar with those.
Actually, a far more vital question is "What manefestations of " political Islam" are dangerous to the Muslims themselves?" Agreed?

[mommadona]

"As he told me after the debate, "Political Islam is an ideology. They believe in exporting this divisive ideology to Muslims in the West...Terrorists emerge from these parties. They don't believe in our same democratic values.""

And from the WESTERN side:

"Political (CHRISTIANITY) is an ideology. They believe in exporting this divisive ideology to (CHRISTIANS) in the (EAST AND MIDEAST)..­.Terrorist­s emerge from these parties. They don't believe in our same democratic values."

We westerners have our own ideological kook cases too.

[MagisterLudi]

Big difference.
Christian political ideologies have been largely under control in the West for the last 300 years or so,. (Don't argue, its an incontrovertible fact). Hence, the astonishing scientific, technological and political development which resulted in absolute Western domination of the world. ( Yes, things can and will change).
Islamic civilization is right now in deep decline. It is a fact, not a notion.
Arguably, "political Islam" is largely to blame.
( Hint no, it is not Crusaders, Brits, Americans, Zionists, Freemasons and the Avon lady.)

[ohioan73]

The reason there may always be these kinds of threats is because I think the Qaran might be being interpreted incorrectly by people who feel oppressed for whatever reason. I don't know if there is a "turn the other cheek" in Islam but they seem to interpret from God that if a man strikes, then you strike back or you are not a man. With that kind of thinking, there is no hope for anyone to consider non-violent resistance which is always proven to work. If the people in the middle east had a problem with the USA, they would have gained a lot more sympathy from the world by protesting us without innocent bloodshed. After attacking and killing our people on our soil and several thousand other innocents, the world is against them now. They put peaceful Muslims at risk.

Having said that, the USA stoops to their level by participating in torture. If we don't stop our inhumane POW treatment we could be at risk for being just as hated as the Islamic terrorists. We were halfway there under Bush's administration. Diplomacy is the key. The world is watching.

[OliverTwist]

A reasonably practical working definition of what people mean by "the West" is "the Christian world," that part of the world, anywhere in the world, that has social structures and values derived from Christian influences over the last two thousand years.

That is why what is happening in "the Middle East" is seen by many, including George Bush, as a modern version of the "Holy Land" Crusades (as distinguished from the Crusades against the Cathars in France and perhaps also against the Nazis in Germany).

[Jimmyboyo]

Political islam, political xtianity, political judaism, etc are all threats to the world.

None of them can compromise with the other. Each has their fairytale gawwwwdddddd on their side = no compromise

When politics and religion get in the same cart together , the whirlwind follows destroying all in its path.

Secularism though not perfect does leave room for compromise and working together

[rudiy]

When reading and viewing ME and Muslim media you constantly hear and read , that the United States and UK should accept Hamas, without condition, as the duly elected government of Palestinians.
However, you never hear that Israel's government was also elected and therefore should be accepted by the Muslim and Arab governments, without condition.
In fact the venom and hate spewed againt the "West" , Israel and all Jews is overt and overwhelming. The West is blamed for every bad thing, most Muslims refuse to accept that 911 had a Muslim component, Mumbai's killers were Muslim and much.
Muslims complain about the west stereotyping them, but do far worse in their media and by their religious leaders.

[Jimmyboyo]

Yes and no

Each group with "religion onj their side" is insane and propagandist. We in the US are. Israel is. Muslims etc

Muslims under Osama bin Laden perpetrated 9/11

Hamas are religous zealot terorists

BUT one must also accept

1- The US with Great Britan birthed religous islam via
.....a....­perpetrati­ng a coup in democratica parlimentary system IRAN and setting the shah up as a dictator who outlawed gathering of Iranians except in mosques = the combining of political disent with religion and the ayatolhas came to power
.....b...We the US trained Osama bin Laden and religous muslims in afganistan to fight our war against communist russia

2- Israel birthed Hamas by financing, training, and backing them as a counterweight against SECULAR PLO. Israel didn't want to deal at all with palestinians thus they wanted to neuter the PLO and ended up backing religous Hamas to acomplish their goal. Now religous Hamas is a monster of israel's creation

Crazyness all around. Blame for one thing or another for all to share.

[RabidRightRebel]

Sadly Islam is stuck in a time warp. What needs to be modernized in the same way that Luther modernized Christianity. Until it throws off many of its antiquated notions it will be an albatross around the neck of those that follow it.

[Jimmyboyo]

luther modernized xtianity????????

LOL

The renesance and age of enlightenment modernized the WEST because it seperated religion from politics (tried to)

Luther was just as backwards as he catholic counterparts

LOL

Luther modernized nothing. he just perpetrated the same dark ages fairytales as the catholic church.

The enlightenment with its reopening and studying PAGAN greek philosophers, studying pagan roman greco architecture and science, etc modernized the west. The trying to seperate religion from politics is what modernized the west

[KillTheMessenger]

To the West? No. But it is pretty obviously a threat to Islam. And it is even more obviously a threat to countries with Islamic populations.