May - Lost in the Analytical Woods
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Clifford May-
Where do such ideas come from? In large measure from advisers – so perhaps it would be instructive to examine more closely what those advisers are actually saying.
U.S. Navy Commander Youssef H. Aboul-Enein “has advised at the highest levels of the Defense Department and the intelligence community” according to the jacket notes on his book, “Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat.” This reader’s opinion: Aboul-Enein, who was born in Mississippi and raised in Saudi Arabia, is struggling, seriously and sincerely, to grapple with the pathologies that have arisen from within the Muslim world and to formulate a coherent American response. That should not suggest that his efforts have been entirely successful.
Aboul-Enein states that the “challenge to America’s national security in the twenty-first century” comes from “Militant Islamist Ideology.” Good for him for not talking of “violent extremism,” a term designed to hide rather than reveal. He urges that policymakers adopt a “nuanced” approach to this challenge – one that “disaggregates” militant Islamism from both Islam and Islamism.
To charge that “all Islam is evil,” he says, is a mistake. For many Muslims, Islam is “a source of values that guide conduct rather than a system that offers solutions to all problems.” It is no less incorrect, he adds, to “insist that all Islam is peaceful.” Islamic scripture provides ample justifications for hating, oppressing and killing non-Muslims. But it is neither accurate nor productive, he argues, to confirm the militants’ claim that theirs is the only authentic interpretation of Islam – that Muslims not waging a “jihad” against “infidels” are, at best, misguided; at worst, traitors to their faith.
As for Islamists, he confirms that they seek “unacceptable outcomes for the United States in the long run.” One example: Muhammad Badi, supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said last year that Muslims should strive for “a government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world.”
Despite that, Aboul-Enein argues that Islamism has “potential” as an “alternative to Militant Islamist Ideology.” His rationale: Islamists intend to achieve their objectives not through violence but “within the political and electoral frameworks of the countries in which they operate.”
This is where, in my view, he gets lost in the analytic woods. Islamists may prefer ballots to bullets. But is that because, as Aboul-Enein asserts, they “abhor the violent methodologies espoused by Militant Islamists”? Or is it because they see elections as a less bumpy path to power?
Sheikh Yousef Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, has said that Islam will “conquer Rome ... not by the sword but by preaching.” But if you were to infer that he has a moral objection to violence, you’d be wrong. Qaradawi has praised Hitler for his “punishment” of the Jews, adding, “Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.” What’s more, Aboul-Enein’s book is filled with examples of Islamists who became militant Islamists – who picked up weapons when peaceful means failed to achieve their ends, and who did so without remorse.
Aboul-Enein can’t quite decide whether Hamas, which is committed to the genocide of Israelis, “is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group.” He seems conflicted, also, in regard to Saudi Arabia, praising King Abdullah for having “attacked terrorism” but also noting: “Saudis have unfortunately been heavily involved in Militant Islamist groups, even volunteering to fight American forces in Iraq.” And it was Saudi royals who gave refuge and teaching positions to such exiled militant Islamists as Muhammad Qutb and Abdullah Azzam. Among their star students at King Abdul-Aziz University in Jeddah was the young Osama bin Laden.
Perhaps most difficult to square in Aboul-Enein’s analysis is simply this: On the first page of his book he describes militant Islamists as Muslims who call for “the strictest possible interpretation of both the Qur’an (Muslim book of divine revelation) and the hadith (the Prophet Muhammad’s actions and deeds).” On the last page, he endorses President George W. Bush’s charge that “Militant Islamists have hijacked Islam.” But can strictly interpreting Islamic scripture really be synonymous with hijacking Islam? If not, small wonder that so many American officials advised by Aboul-Enein and others sound confused.[[In-content Ad]]
Where do such ideas come from? In large measure from advisers – so perhaps it would be instructive to examine more closely what those advisers are actually saying.
U.S. Navy Commander Youssef H. Aboul-Enein “has advised at the highest levels of the Defense Department and the intelligence community” according to the jacket notes on his book, “Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat.” This reader’s opinion: Aboul-Enein, who was born in Mississippi and raised in Saudi Arabia, is struggling, seriously and sincerely, to grapple with the pathologies that have arisen from within the Muslim world and to formulate a coherent American response. That should not suggest that his efforts have been entirely successful.
Aboul-Enein states that the “challenge to America’s national security in the twenty-first century” comes from “Militant Islamist Ideology.” Good for him for not talking of “violent extremism,” a term designed to hide rather than reveal. He urges that policymakers adopt a “nuanced” approach to this challenge – one that “disaggregates” militant Islamism from both Islam and Islamism.
To charge that “all Islam is evil,” he says, is a mistake. For many Muslims, Islam is “a source of values that guide conduct rather than a system that offers solutions to all problems.” It is no less incorrect, he adds, to “insist that all Islam is peaceful.” Islamic scripture provides ample justifications for hating, oppressing and killing non-Muslims. But it is neither accurate nor productive, he argues, to confirm the militants’ claim that theirs is the only authentic interpretation of Islam – that Muslims not waging a “jihad” against “infidels” are, at best, misguided; at worst, traitors to their faith.
As for Islamists, he confirms that they seek “unacceptable outcomes for the United States in the long run.” One example: Muhammad Badi, supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said last year that Muslims should strive for “a government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world.”
Despite that, Aboul-Enein argues that Islamism has “potential” as an “alternative to Militant Islamist Ideology.” His rationale: Islamists intend to achieve their objectives not through violence but “within the political and electoral frameworks of the countries in which they operate.”
This is where, in my view, he gets lost in the analytic woods. Islamists may prefer ballots to bullets. But is that because, as Aboul-Enein asserts, they “abhor the violent methodologies espoused by Militant Islamists”? Or is it because they see elections as a less bumpy path to power?
Sheikh Yousef Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, has said that Islam will “conquer Rome ... not by the sword but by preaching.” But if you were to infer that he has a moral objection to violence, you’d be wrong. Qaradawi has praised Hitler for his “punishment” of the Jews, adding, “Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.” What’s more, Aboul-Enein’s book is filled with examples of Islamists who became militant Islamists – who picked up weapons when peaceful means failed to achieve their ends, and who did so without remorse.
Aboul-Enein can’t quite decide whether Hamas, which is committed to the genocide of Israelis, “is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group.” He seems conflicted, also, in regard to Saudi Arabia, praising King Abdullah for having “attacked terrorism” but also noting: “Saudis have unfortunately been heavily involved in Militant Islamist groups, even volunteering to fight American forces in Iraq.” And it was Saudi royals who gave refuge and teaching positions to such exiled militant Islamists as Muhammad Qutb and Abdullah Azzam. Among their star students at King Abdul-Aziz University in Jeddah was the young Osama bin Laden.
Perhaps most difficult to square in Aboul-Enein’s analysis is simply this: On the first page of his book he describes militant Islamists as Muslims who call for “the strictest possible interpretation of both the Qur’an (Muslim book of divine revelation) and the hadith (the Prophet Muhammad’s actions and deeds).” On the last page, he endorses President George W. Bush’s charge that “Militant Islamists have hijacked Islam.” But can strictly interpreting Islamic scripture really be synonymous with hijacking Islam? If not, small wonder that so many American officials advised by Aboul-Enein and others sound confused.[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092