Yes, Islamic Extremism Is Islamic, but That’s Just the Beginning of the Debate

[Valin]

National Review:

David Adesnik

December 17, 2015

 

(Snip)

 

Although the president’s intentions are honorable, his refusal to acknowledge any substantive relationship between Islam and extremism is both factually deficient and likely to cultivate precisely those exaggerated fears that he seeks to assuage.

 

Leading scholars observe that extremist ideologies do indeed intersect with major currents in Islamic thinking. As Dr. Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institution writes, “ISIS draws on, and draws strength from, ideas that have broad resonance among Muslim-majority populations.” He notes, for example, that overwhelming majorities in a number of Arab countries favor the death penalty as a punishment for apostasy. While it might be undiplomatic for the president to raise that particular point, he should open the door to a discussion of how certain Islamic traditions might be more easily expropriated by ISIS or al-Qaeda.

 

(Snip)

 

Regardless of how the president balances the imperatives of diplomatic courtesy and analytic precision, the public discussion of the relationship between Islam and terrorism should begin with an emphasis on the school of thought that leading scholars describe as jihadi-salafism, radical jihadism, or simply jihadism. The leaders of both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State adhere explicitly to this movement. In a Brookings Institution analysis paper, Princeton’s Cole Bunzel explains that while jihadi-salafi thinking might be extreme, it is based on a “reading of Islamic scripture that is also textually rigorous, deeply rooted in a premodern theological tradition, and extensively elaborated by a recognized cadre of religious authorities.”

 

While salafism might not directly encourage extremism, it has elements that are suitable for legitimizing an extremist interpretation of Islam. As Bunzel notes, “Salafis view themselves as the only true Muslims” and consider the practitioners of “major idolatry” — including all Shi’ites — to be apostates. In addition, many believe that democratic government is a form of apostasy. Jacob Olidort, also of Princeton, observes that since all Salafis share “the same theological DNA,” the transition from nonviolent to jihadist interpretations of the faith is “not a big conceptual leap.”

 

(Snip)

 

Nonetheless, the president was right on Sunday to reiterate the importance of rejecting anti-Muslim prejudice and bigotry. In light of recent suggestions that the government should register its Muslim citizens or temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States, such a reminder was necessary. Yet it should set the conditions for a serious debate about Islam and extremism, rather than be an excuse for not acknowledging their interactions.

 

Refusing to acknowledge the relationship between terrorism and Islam “isn’t even effective at countering Islamophobia,” writes Brookings’s Hamid, because “claims that ISIS and Islam are unrelated sound entirely divorced from reality.” Rather, by describing how certain Islamic traditions are conducive to extremism under certain circumstances, the president could show that Islam itself is not a threat while encouraging productive discussions about how to prevent further attacks.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

One of the things I discovered in my studies of the Who, What, Where, Why, How of GWOT is there are nonviolent & violent Salafis. The thing is in very very very many cases the Islamic terrorists started out as nonviolent Salafis, and it was/is a small step to go from the nonviolent to the violent version.

 

Another thing I am sad to say is we are not really fighting the War Of Ideas, which is where this war needs to be won.