Comments on: The Passing Fad of Jihad http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/ A new book by GNN's Stephen Marshall Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:11:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Susan http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4501 Susan Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:35:54 +0000 http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4501 The Wahhabis were created by the British Empire in the 1700s in order to eviserate the Ottoman Empire, and all of these groups like the so-called Muslim Brotherhood are based upon Wahhabism. Wahhabism is NOT an indigineous Muslim group, they were created by the British. If the Muslims wish to get out of the mess they are in today, they need to strike at the root of their problems, which is Wahhabism. The Wahhabis were created by the British Empire in the 1700s in order to eviserate the Ottoman Empire, and all of these groups like the so-called Muslim Brotherhood are based upon Wahhabism.

Wahhabism is NOT an indigineous Muslim group, they were created by the British. If the Muslims wish to get out of the mess they are in today, they need to strike at the root of their problems, which is Wahhabism.

]]> By: ShahidMiller http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4460 ShahidMiller Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:18:27 +0000 http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4460 I think that's fair. It is a pretty fine line to walk for sure. I think that’s fair. It is a pretty fine line to walk for sure.

]]> By: Stephen http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4414 Stephen Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:20:48 +0000 http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4414 Shahid, thank you for this. I guess it's a tricky line to dance, being critical of one writer's downplaying of a real threat while avoiding the trap of beating a drum for the neo-conservative (or whatever we call it) war dance. So if my language comes off as inflammatory or alarmist, I take that as a valid critique. It may well be, as you suggest, a reaction to Saunders' simple mantra. I guess the major thrust for me in writing the piece, - as you obviously see, was to remind Westerners that crazy as the jihadists may sound, we can't write off the legitimate grievances that, in some way, are at the root of this conflict. Shahid, thank you for this. I guess it’s a tricky line to dance, being critical of one writer’s downplaying of a real threat while avoiding the trap of beating a drum for the neo-conservative (or whatever we call it) war dance. So if my language comes off as inflammatory or alarmist, I take that as a valid critique. It may well be, as you suggest, a reaction to Saunders’ simple mantra. I guess the major thrust for me in writing the piece, - as you obviously see, was to remind Westerners that crazy as the jihadists may sound, we can’t write off the legitimate grievances that, in some way, are at the root of this conflict.

]]> By: ShahidMiller http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4410 ShahidMiller Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:40:14 +0000 http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4410 I will not try to speak to the authenticity of this Muslim group or that (as is partially discussed above); but I do question your rhetoric Stephen. Though it’s obviously intentionally tempered here and there, it comes off as sounding akin to much of the alarmist rhetoric we get here in the West. Perhaps some of this is driven by your foil, Doug Saunders, and his admittedly bad historical analogy. I think, though, that some of it may be because you have developed a slightly bent perspective having personally met with a number of actual radicals and got a sense for their “really realness”. The threat we’ve been warned of does indeed have a corporeal form ... Yes radical Islamists present a problem for the west; but it’s also true that every problem is an excellent way for those with the “solution” to that problem to gain power. The radical “Islamists” may be a threat to our lives, but they are not a threat to our civilization -- nor is tackling radical Islamism “the challenge of the 21st century” as some have described. Those who characterize the situation as such (I know you are not one) see an opening to advance their own world view, which to my estimation is a form of (intractably paradoxical) democratic-fascism. Doug Saunders goes too far and thus trivializes a significant dilemma (yes we do need to focus on promoting policies that will stem the growing radicalization of the Muslim world against the West); but I would suggest that we have a double dilemma in that, as Mr. Muhammad stated, we have a community engaged in a dialectical play with the radical forces they want to warn us of – this community is the collective force of neo-imperialism, corrosive militarism, and xenophobia, all of which threaten the West from within (not to mention the rest of the world from without). In talking of anything akin to an “Islamic threat”, we must be careful not to fall into the language or symbolic games of those who would seek to gain by inflating this problem. This is certainly what you risk doing when as part of a piece dealing with the real threat of Islamic terrorism, you do things like casually mention that the second most popular name for boys born in England is “Muhammad” (a rhetorical device menaced at its periphery by the binary opposition of rival “civilizations” with the new and dangerous one threatening to supplant the old, traditional, and “rightful”, first one). I will not try to speak to the authenticity of this Muslim group or that (as is partially discussed above); but I do question your rhetoric Stephen. Though it’s obviously intentionally tempered here and there, it comes off as sounding akin to much of the alarmist rhetoric we get here in the West.

Perhaps some of this is driven by your foil, Doug Saunders, and his admittedly bad historical analogy. I think, though, that some of it may be because you have developed a slightly bent perspective having personally met with a number of actual radicals and got a sense for their “really realness”. The threat we’ve been warned of does indeed have a corporeal form …

Yes radical Islamists present a problem for the west; but it’s also true that every problem is an excellent way for those with the “solution” to that problem to gain power. The radical “Islamists” may be a threat to our lives, but they are not a threat to our civilization — nor is tackling radical Islamism “the challenge of the 21st century” as some have described. Those who characterize the situation as such (I know you are not one) see an opening to advance their own world view, which to my estimation is a form of (intractably paradoxical) democratic-fascism.

Doug Saunders goes too far and thus trivializes a significant dilemma (yes we do need to focus on promoting policies that will stem the growing radicalization of the Muslim world against the West); but I would suggest that we have a double dilemma in that, as Mr. Muhammad stated, we have a community engaged in a dialectical play with the radical forces they want to warn us of – this community is the collective force of neo-imperialism, corrosive militarism, and xenophobia, all of which threaten the West from within (not to mention the rest of the world from without). In talking of anything akin to an “Islamic threat”, we must be careful not to fall into the language or symbolic games of those who would seek to gain by inflating this problem. This is certainly what you risk doing when as part of a piece dealing with the real threat of Islamic terrorism, you do things like casually mention that the second most popular name for boys born in England is “Muhammad” (a rhetorical device menaced at its periphery by the binary opposition of rival “civilizations” with the new and dangerous one threatening to supplant the old, traditional, and “rightful”, first one).

]]> By: Stephen http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4394 Stephen Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:23:00 +0000 http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4394 "People know Bush is a war criminal as is Blair and that democracies allow people like them to do whatever they like, including raise taxes, increase indebtedness and to serve their billionaire banker masters." again, i agree with everything you are saying. and this was indeed the point of the letter. these feelings, beliefs, convictions (whether Westerners agree with them or not) are widely held in the Muslim world and this is why the jihadists differ from the urban guerrillas. and as this imperial drive continues, i believe, the radical front will only be emboldened. not fade away... “People know Bush is a war criminal as is Blair and that democracies allow people like them to do whatever they like, including raise taxes, increase indebtedness and to serve their billionaire banker masters.”

again, i agree with everything you are saying. and this was indeed the point of the letter. these feelings, beliefs, convictions (whether Westerners agree with them or not) are widely held in the Muslim world and this is why the jihadists differ from the urban guerrillas. and as this imperial drive continues, i believe, the radical front will only be emboldened. not fade away…

]]> By: Muhammad http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4393 Muhammad Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:14:57 +0000 http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4393 Not many, however I know the intellectual roots of the modernists. There are two broad branches, one is traditional and 'wahabi' with roots in the harsh Arabian desert, the other is modernist rooted in Egypt with well educated and middle class followers. The two merge in many parts of the Islamic and especially Arab world. They both more or less reject traditional Islam and jurisprudence (mathabs). Their more recent inteligensia (people like Qutub and Maududi) are just western educated journalists or engeneers, they had no grounding in Islamic knowledge. >but my experience has been very different. and if you’re suggesting they are not a problem or a threat or a force that should be dealt with… > They are nothing but a phantom created by the western ruling elites to achieve their own socioeconomic and geopolitical aims. Sure there are groups of jihadists, but their power has been exaggerated, their aims are mistaken and mis-represented dialectically within the west by western 'experts'. The rhetoric of the jihadists is given focus by the mass media for its own reasons and it is carefully crafted and edited to deliver the aims of the ruling elites so that 'the people' fall in line behind their 'solutions'. It is classic dialectical Thesis, Anti-Thesis, Synthesis all falsely driven by an unknown power . I am an ordinary Muslim who knows my religion, I know its people I know their roots and culture. Iraq was a secular state under Sadam invaded under false presences by Blair and Bush. Afghanistan was a war zone for 30 years...and the US hired the Northern Alliance (a bunch of thugs) to get rid of the Taliban. The US is no Globo Cop...it is a Globo Theif, pretending to be looking for justice. Its all lies anyone not indoctrinated by the Mainstream Media knows what is going on. The billions of dollars being spent on Propaganda are being wasted... People know Bush is a war criminal as is Blair and that democracies allow people like them to do whatever they like, including raise taxes, increase indebtedness and to serve their billionaire banker masters. Amazingly these jihadists their words and actions appear to be benefiting the global elite and its agenda!! Coincidence? I doubt it Not many, however I know the intellectual roots of the modernists. There are two broad branches, one is traditional and ‘wahabi’ with roots in the harsh Arabian desert, the other is modernist rooted in Egypt with well educated and middle class followers. The two merge in many parts of the Islamic and especially Arab world. They both more or less reject traditional Islam and jurisprudence (mathabs). Their more recent inteligensia (people like Qutub and Maududi) are just western educated journalists or engeneers, they had no grounding in Islamic knowledge.

>but my experience has been very different. and if you’re suggesting they are not a problem or a threat or a force that should be dealt with… >

They are nothing but a phantom created by the western ruling elites to achieve their own socioeconomic and geopolitical aims. Sure there are groups of jihadists, but their power has been exaggerated, their aims are mistaken and mis-represented dialectically within the west by western ‘experts’. The rhetoric of the jihadists is given focus by the mass media for its own reasons and it is carefully crafted and edited to deliver the aims of the ruling elites so that ‘the people’ fall in line behind their ’solutions’. It is classic dialectical Thesis, Anti-Thesis, Synthesis all falsely driven by an unknown power .

I am an ordinary Muslim who knows my religion, I know its people I know their roots and culture. Iraq was a secular state under Sadam invaded under false presences by Blair and Bush. Afghanistan was a war zone for 30 years…and the US hired the Northern Alliance (a bunch of thugs) to get rid of the Taliban. The US is no Globo Cop…it is a Globo Theif, pretending to be looking for justice. Its all lies anyone not indoctrinated by the Mainstream Media knows what is going on. The billions of dollars being spent on Propaganda are being wasted… People know Bush is a war criminal as is Blair and that democracies allow people like them to do whatever they like, including raise taxes, increase indebtedness and to serve their billionaire banker masters. Amazingly these jihadists their words and actions appear to be benefiting the global elite and its agenda!! Coincidence? I doubt it

]]> By: Stephen http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4382 Stephen Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:26:34 +0000 http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4382 not sure where it's stated that muhajiroun are dangerous. never got that impression, except perhaps to themselves. they do however have the lingo down. besides i listed far more authentic sources than that group and anyways, the point of this response was to say that the ideological and political motivation driving jihadists is far more substantial and contextual than that which was driving the 70s era guerrillas. as for your interpretation of the modernist/rationalist/nihilists, they are definitely Marxists of a stripe, but i think you'd have an interesting discussion with Anjem and Abu Izzadeen. both of you claim the other is not truly Islamic. while i doubt their way is anything close to what Muhammed would wish, obviously that's not for us to decide. but if you're suggesting there is no base to the antipathies expressed by the jihadists, then i don't know what Islamic countries you've visited. but my experience has been very different. and if you're suggesting they are not a problem or a threat or a force that should be dealt with... that the rational side of the complaint (ie. Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan) should not be digested and dicussed, then i wonder who you are. because i believe there is value in these points. and that if we don't deal with them with authentic desire for Islamic autonomy, then the jihadists will always have their base of support, real or imagined. not sure where it’s stated that muhajiroun are dangerous. never got that impression, except perhaps to themselves. they do however have the lingo down. besides i listed far more authentic sources than that group and anyways, the point of this response was to say that the ideological and political motivation driving jihadists is far more substantial and contextual than that which was driving the 70s era guerrillas.

as for your interpretation of the modernist/rationalist/nihilists, they are definitely Marxists of a stripe, but i think you’d have an interesting discussion with Anjem and Abu Izzadeen. both of you claim the other is not truly Islamic. while i doubt their way is anything close to what Muhammed would wish, obviously that’s not for us to decide. but if you’re suggesting there is no base to the antipathies expressed by the jihadists, then i don’t know what Islamic countries you’ve visited. but my experience has been very different. and if you’re suggesting they are not a problem or a threat or a force that should be dealt with… that the rational side of the complaint (ie. Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan) should not be digested and dicussed, then i wonder who you are. because i believe there is value in these points. and that if we don’t deal with them with authentic desire for Islamic autonomy, then the jihadists will always have their base of support, real or imagined.

]]> By: Mohammad http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4381 Mohammad Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:08:05 +0000 http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4381 You appear to have spent some time with these 'jihadists' and yet learnt nothing about them. Al Mouhajiroun are/were about as dangerous as my granny (who is a Muslim too so she must be a potential suicide bomber too). The Islamic world during the 19th century was fascinated by 'the west' and its technology and economy. Many were seduced. A group of modernists 'reformed' Islam to make it fit into the 'western world'. Two men were especially influential, they influenced the Ikhwani Muslimeen (Muslim brotherhood). Muhammad `Abdu and his teacher Jamaluddin al-Afghani http://www.marifah.net/forums/index.php?s=c66a278be9f86ba33b18b0f4fa96239b&showtopic=2581&pid=10464&st=0&#entry10464 They 'secularized Islam' the new generations of Muslims especially in the Arab world adopted this secularism...they may use 'Islamic language', but their actual actions and thoughts are modernist/rationalist/nihilist...they are marxists and believe in social/political revolution and clothe it with Islamic language. I find it difficult to believe that someone like you who is supposed to have spent time with these people and be so ignorant. You are either a disinfo agent or a liar. You appear to have spent some time with these ‘jihadists’ and yet learnt nothing about them.

Al Mouhajiroun are/were about as dangerous as my granny (who is a Muslim too so she must be a potential suicide bomber too).

The Islamic world during the 19th century was fascinated by ‘the west’ and its technology and economy. Many were seduced. A group of modernists ‘reformed’ Islam to make it fit into the ‘western world’. Two men were especially influential, they influenced the Ikhwani Muslimeen (Muslim brotherhood). Muhammad `Abdu and his teacher Jamaluddin al-Afghani

http://www.marifah.net/forums/index.php?s=c66a278be9f86ba33b18b0f4fa96239b&showtopic=2581&pid=10464&st=0&#entry10464

They ’secularized Islam’ the new generations of Muslims especially in the Arab world adopted this secularism…they may use ‘Islamic language’, but their actual actions and thoughts are modernist/rationalist/nihilist…they are marxists and believe in social/political revolution and clothe it with Islamic language.

I find it difficult to believe that someone like you who is supposed to have spent time with these people and be so ignorant. You are either a disinfo agent or a liar.

]]> By: Stephen http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4356 Stephen Sun, 03 Feb 2008 19:08:51 +0000 http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4356 good point marcus... but then, you've made it, so we're all set! good point marcus… but then, you’ve made it, so we’re all set!

]]> By: marcus http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4351 marcus Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:34:10 +0000 http://www.wolvesbook.com/2008/02/02/liberals-and-the-jihad/#comment-4351 why is it that one has to state the obvious over and over again? that said, thanks for the good post. (maybe at the end you leave too much open, maybe you should -again- have made reference to the pincer the security state and the jihadists are forming to keep their grip on... well, us, simply.) why is it that one has to state the obvious over and over again? that said, thanks for the good post. (maybe at the end you leave too much open, maybe you should -again- have made reference to the pincer the security state and the jihadists are forming to keep their grip on… well, us, simply.)

]]>