<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Mark Durie</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/mark-durie/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Boko Haram and the Dynamics of Denial</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mark-durie/boko-haram-and-the-dynamics-of-denial/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=boko-haram-and-the-dynamics-of-denial</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mark-durie/boko-haram-and-the-dynamics-of-denial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2014 04:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Durie]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boko Haram]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kidnap]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sharia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slavery]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225383</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Islam is not the victim here. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/lead.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-225394" alt="lead" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/lead.jpg" width="322" height="172" /></a>It is a common refrain of pious Muslims in the face of atrocities done by other Muslims in the name of Islam that Islam must not be shamed. Whenever an Islamic atrocity potentially dishonors Islam, non-Muslims are asked to agree that ‘This is not Islamic’ so that the honor of Islam can be kept pristine. The real issue, however, is not what would be good or bad for Islam’s reputation; Islam is not the victim here. The pressing issue is not to get people to think well of Islam, but how, for instance, in the case of Boko Haram’s kidnapping of the Nigerian schoolgirls, the girls can be rescued and, above all, how Boko Haram’s murderous rampage can be halted.</p>
<p>Qasim Rashid, an American Muslim, recently published on FoxNews.com a heart-felt expression of deep distress at the kidnapping of Nigerian girls by Boko Haram (‘<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/08/what-prophet-muhammad-would-say-to-boko-haram/">What would Muhammad say to Boko Haram</a>’).  He declared that Muhammad himself would not recognize this group as acting in line with his teachings:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Boko Haram’s claim that Islam motivates their kidnappings is no different than Adolf Hitler’s claim that Christianity motivated his genocide. This terrorist organization acts in direct violation of every Islamic teaching regarding women.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Qasim Rashid is not the only Muslim who has been speaking out in support of the kidnapped girls, while denying that their plight has anything to do with Islam (see <a href="http://www.investigativeproject.org/4381/deceptive-islamist-support-for-nigerian-girls">here</a>).</p>
<p>Qasim Rashid is a member of the Ahmaddiyah community, which is regarded as unorthodox by most Muslims. Indeed Ahmaddiyahs are often severely persecuted for their beliefs in Islamic nations.  Although Qasim Rashid does not speak for mainstream Islam, he is nevertheless to be commended for speaking up against Boko Haram’s repugnant acts.</p>
<p>But does the claim that Boko Haram is not Islamic hold up to scrutiny?</p>
<p>What counts as a valid manifestation of Islam? Ahmaddiyah beliefs can be considered Islamic, for those who hold them do so on the basis of a reasoned interpretation of Islamic canonical sources, even if the majority of Muslims reject them as Muslims. By the same token, the beliefs of Boko Haram must also be considered a form of Islam, for they too are held on the basis of a reasoned interpretation of Islamic canonical sources.</p>
<p>It needs to be acknowledged that Boko Haram has not arisen in a vacuum.  As <a href="http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2014/05/10/sharia-hiskett-diagnosed-nigerias-and-the-worlds-islam-problem-in-1993/">Andrew Bostom has pointed out</a>, violent opposition to non-Islamic culture has been a feature of Nigerian Islam for centuries. Today this hatred is being directed against Western education and secular government, but in the past it was indigenous Africa cultures which were targeted for brutal treatment, including enslavement and slaughter.  The modern revival of absolutist Sharia-compliant Islam in the north of Nigeria is a process which has deep roots in history.  It has also been in progress for decades.  Khalid Yasin, an African American convert to Islam and globe-trotting preacher, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s943004.htm">waxed lyrical</a> about the advance of Sharia law in Nigeria on Australian national radio in 2003:</p>
<blockquote><p>“If we look at the evolution of the Sharia experiment in Nigeria for instance. It’s just a wonderful, phenomenal experience. It has brought about some sweeping changes, balances, within the society, regulations in terms of moral practices and so many things. …What did the Sharia provide? Always dignity, protection, and the religious rights?”</p></blockquote>
<p>But let us consider the evidence Qasim Rashid gives for his view that Muhammad would disown Boko Haram.  His arguments can be summarized as follows:</p>
<ul>
<li>‘Boko Haram violates the Koran 24:34 [i.e. Sura 24:33] which commands, “and force not your women to unchaste life,” i.e. [this is] a condemnation of Boko Haram’s intention to sell these girls into prostitution.’</li>
<li>‘They violate Koran 4:20 [i.e. Sura 4:19] which declares, “it is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will; nor should you detain them,” i.e. a specific repudiation of Boko Haram’s kidnapping and detention.’</li>
<li>‘Prophet Muhammad’s dying words embodied these commandments. He implored, “Do treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers.”’</li>
<li>The seeking of knowledge is an obligation on all Muslims, including ‘secular  knowledge’.</li>
<li>‘Islam &#8230; commands female education.’</li>
</ul>
<p>Although Qasim Rashid’s views are sincerely held, his reasoning is weak. Let us consider his points in order.</p>
<p><i>Compel not your slave-girls — Sura 24:33</i></p>
<p>Contra Qasim Rashid, Sura 24:33 does not say ‘force not your women’ but:</p>
<blockquote><p>“… compel not your slave-girls to prostitution when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail goods of this world’s life. And whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (The Quran translation used here is cited from a translation by Ahmaddiya scholar Muhammad Maulana Ali).</p></blockquote>
<p>The word translated ‘slave-girl’ here can also mean a young woman, but in this passage it clearly refers to female slaves. A standard interpretation of this verse by Sunni commentators – such as <a href="http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=2424&amp;Itemid=79">Ibn Kathir</a> – is that if someone owns a slave girl, he should not prostitute her, but if he does, Allah will forgive her.</p>
<p>Strictly speaking, this verse does not appear to apply to the situation of the Nigerian girls taken by Boko Haram.  The outrage is that they were taken captive and enslaved in the first place, becoming what the Koran refers to as ‘those whom your right hand possesses’.  That they may have been raped by their captors seems highly likely, but this is not the same thing as being prostituted to produce income for their owners. Islam permits men to have sexual intercourse with their slave women, and also to sell them into the service of another, but it frowns on hiring them out for prostitution.</p>
<p>In Sura 33:50 of the Koran it is stated that it was permissible for Muhammad to have sex with his female slaves:</p>
<blockquote><p>“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowries, and <i>those whom thy right hand possesses</i>, out of those whom Allah has given thee as prisoners of war”,</p></blockquote>
<p>and in verse 23:6 this prerogative is extended to Muslim believers:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Successful indeed are the believers &#8230; who restrain their sexual passions except in the presence of their mates [their wives], of <i>those whom their right hands possess</i>.”</p></blockquote>
<p>The actions and teaching of Muhammad also support the practice of sexual slavery for women taken captive in jihad.  Chapter 547 of the <i>Sahih Muslim</i>, a revered collection of sayings of Muhammad considered reliable by most Muslims, is entitled ‘It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a captive woman…’. Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, the translator and editor of the <i>Sahih Muslim</i>, added the following footnote to this chapter:</p>
<blockquote><p>“As for the expression <i>malakat aymanukum</i> (those whom your right hands possess) [it] denotes slave-girls, i.e. women who were captured in the Holy War … sexual intercourse with these women is lawful with certain conditions.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Boko Haram is reported to be intending to sell the girls at a slave market.  This is no doubt based upon the precedent of Muhammad’s own practice. There are many examples from Muhammad’s actions and those of his companions which could be cited.  For example, after putting the men of the Jewish Quraiza tribe in Medina to the sword, Muhammad’s biographer Ibn Isaq reports that he sold some of the Jewish women and used the money to buy horses and weapon:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children of B. Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth. … Then the apostle sent Sa‘d b. Zayd al-Ansari brother of b. ‘Abdu’l-Ashhal with some of the captive women of B. Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons. (<i>Sirat Rasul Allah</i>, by Ibn Ishaq)</p></blockquote>
<p>The rest of the Jewish slaves were divided among the Muslims.  Muhammad himself took one of the leading Jewish women, Rayhana, for his concubine, but she refused to marry him:</p>
<blockquote><p>The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana d. ‘Amr b. Khunafa, one of the women of B. ‘Amr b. Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry her and put the veil on her, but she said: ‘Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you.’” (<i>Sirat Rasul Allah</i>, by Ibn Ishaq).</p></blockquote>
<p>Rayhana, who became Muhammad’s concubine by capture in warfare, is revered to this day as one of the ‘wives’ of the prophet of Islam.</p>
<p>In addition to the support for this practice found in the Islamic canon, historical sources give ample evidence that enslavement of women as captives of war and resulting sexual servitude has been a persistent feature of Islamic warfare conducted by pious Muslims.  Consider for example the report of Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani, Saladin’s chronicler, of the fate of 8,000 Christian women in Jerusalem who were unable to pay a ransom for their release after the conquest of that city by Saladin:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Women and children together came to 8,000 and were quickly divided up among us, brining a smile to Muslim faces at their lamentations. How many well-guarded women were profaned, how many queens were ruled and nubile girls married, and noble women given away, and miserly women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept hidden stripped of their modesty, and serious women made ridiculous, and women kept in private now set in public, and free women occupied, and precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things put to the test, and virgins dishonoured and proud women deflowered, and lovely women’s red lips kissed, and dark women prostrated, and untamed ones tamed, and happy ones made to weep!” (<i>Arab Historians of the Crusades</i>, ed. by Francesco Gabrieli, pp. 96-97).</p></blockquote>
<p>It is has been widely accepted by Islamic jurists down the ages that Islam permits Muslim men to have sex with women who have come into their possession through being taken captive in war, either because they personally captured them, or because they acquired them by purchase or gift from another.  Indeed this was the legal basis in Islam for the harem system: the women of the harem were mainly sourced from jihad campaigns waged against non-Muslim communities.</p>
<p>It is simply incredible that Qasim Rashid would quote a verse which prohibits Muslim men from hiring out their concubines for sex as evidence that Islam is against the use of sexual violence against captive women.  If we are supposed to deny the label ‘Islamic’ to Boko Haram, are we also to conclude that Saladin and even Muhammad himself cannot be called Muslims?</p>
<p><i>Inheriting and troubling wives — Sura 4:19</i></p>
<p>Sura 4:19 is another passage cited by Qasim Rashid.  Maulana Muhammad Ali’s translation throws a different light on this passage:</p>
<blockquote><p>“O you who believe, it is not lawful for you to take women as heritage [i.e. to inherit them] against their will. Nor should you straiten them by taking part of what you have given them …”.</p></blockquote>
<p>The standard explanation of this verse is that it prohibited two practices: a man ‘inheriting’ the wife of his male relative, which had apparently been a pagan Arab custom before Islam; and oppressing one’s wife in order to make her seek a divorce, so that she will pay back the bride-price. This latter practice had been occurring in Muhammad’s time, because if a Muslim man divorced a wife, he was not entitled to any financial compensation, but if a woman initiated divorce proceedings, she had to compensate him for her bride-price.  (See <a href="http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=695&amp;Itemid=59">Ibn Kathir</a> and also <a href="http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/ch004-44.pdf">Muhammad Ali&#8217;s explanation in footnotes</a> which both concur with the explanation given here.)</p>
<p>Sura 4:19 is thus not a prohibition against detaining women: it has absolutely nothing to do with the situation of the captured Nigerian girls.</p>
<p><i>Treating Your Women Well:</i></p>
<p>With regard to Muhammad’s command to Muslims to treat their wives well, these words could apply as an instruction for the men who have married the captured girls, taking them as their wives.  It says nothing, however, about the issue of their capture, enslavement or sale.</p>
<p><i>On Seeking Secular Knowledge:</i></p>
<p>With regard to Qasim Rashid’s next point, most pious Muslims would agree that seeking knowledge, including Western scientific knowledge, is an obligation for Muslims.  Most Muslims do not agree with Boko Haram’s desire to banish all learning apart from Islamic instruction.  However antipathy to non-Islamic education and knowledge has had a long history in Islamic thought.  This is not a new idea, nor even a particularly aberrant one, but is part of the broad range of Islamic theological perspectives.</p>
<p><i>Learned Muslim Women in the Past:</i></p>
<p>With regard to Qasim Rashid’s fifth argument, it is of course possible to find examples in history of capable Muslim women who were well-educated.  On the other hand there are traditions of Muhammad which denigrate the intellectual capacity of women, such as the following:</p>
<blockquote><p>Once Allah’s Apostle went out to [to pray] … Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you …” The women asked, “O Allah&#8217;s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” (<a href="http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=6&amp;translator=1&amp;start=0&amp;number=301#301"><i>Sahih Bukhari,</i> Book 6, Hadith 301</a>)</p></blockquote>
<p>In any case, asking what Muhammad would say on the subject of educating women is irrelevant to what Boko Haram has done. It did not attack the girls’ school because Boko Haram believes women should not be educated.  They did it because they are opposed to secular, non-Islamic education per se, and they believe they have the right to kill, enslave and plunder people who they count as their enemies.  They also wish to terrorize their enemies by stirring up as much fear and emotional trauma to them as possible.</p>
<p><i>Islam Is Not The Victim Here:</i></p>
<p>Qasim Rashid writes: “Do not give the terrorists known as Boko Haram the dignity of attributing any religion to their name.” This is a common refrain of pious Muslims in the face of atrocities done by other Muslims in the name of Islam: whenever an atrocity dishonors Islam, non-Muslims are asked to agree that ‘This is not Islamic’ so that the honor of Islam can be kept pristine.</p>
<p>However the real issue is not what might be good or bad for Islam’s reputation.  The sight of Boko Haram’s leader <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/boko-haram-leader-admits-to-abducting-200-schoolgirls-says-allah-told-him-to-sell-them-119128/">saying</a> on video that ‘by Allah’ he will go to market and sell the captive girls, because his religion permits him to do so, has already dishonored Islam.  Muhammad and Saladin, by their actions, could equally be considered to have dishonored Islam, but this is beside the point. The real challenge here is not preserving the honor of Islam, but what can be done to counter Boko Haram.</p>
<p>What is crystal clear is that nothing can be gained by denial of the truth about the jihadis’ religious ideology. Other Muslims may — and<b> </b>do! — disagree with Boko Haram&#8217;s beliefs. That is a not a bad thing.  But what will not help anyone – least of all the victims of this outrage – is putting forward weak arguments that no-one should judge Islam on the basis of Boko Haram’s actions.  That line of thought is completely irrelevant to addressing the problem.</p>
<p>Islam is not the victim here. The pressing issue here is not to get people to think well of Islam, but how these girls can be rescued, and above all how Boko Haram’s murderous rampage can be halted.</p>
<p>To achieve progress with this second goal it is necessary first and foremost to acknowledge the theological character of the challenge.   In historical contexts, such as colonial India and the Dutch East Indies, colonial governments were able to turn the tide on long-running and costly Islamic insurgencies by acknowledging the religious character of the challenge they were facing – that they were up against a jihad.  This enabled them to pursue appropriate strategies, such as:</p>
<ul>
<li>Getting leading mainstream Muslim scholars to issue credible rulings (fatwas) which declared the specific jihad insurgency to be sinful and forbidden by Islam.  (Such fatwas continue to be used by Islamic regimes today to counter their home-grown insurgents.)</li>
<li>Making it a primary military objective to pursue and take out the ideologues – Islamic clerics – who were driving the insurgency through recruitment and religious formation of the jihadi combatants.  It is essential to cut off the flow of ideology.  US Navy Seals may be able to go in and rescue the kidnapped girls, but many more girls will continue to be kidnapped until the transmission of the ideology is disrupted.</li>
</ul>
<p>Attempting to persuade non-Muslim Westerners that Islam is not the problem actually makes it much harder to formulate an effective strategy for countering jihadi insurgencies.  The aversion of the US State Department to acknowledge that Boko Haram was an Islamic religious movement – they only classified it as a banned terrorist organization in late 2013 – has had a crippling effect on America’s ability to make a difference in Nigeria (see <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/377680/obama-state-departments-understanding-boko-haram-was-even-more-delusional-you-thought">Nina Shea’s analysis</a>).</p>
<p>Boko Haram will not be contained by sending in hostage negotiation experts, or making public statements about poverty, disadvantage and<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/377680/obama-state-departments-understanding-boko-haram-was-even-more-delusional-you-thought"> ‘poor government service delivery’</a>. These are not the cause of all this hatred.  Acknowledging the potent religious roots of the insurgency movement is the basic first step in shaping a credible response.  To accept this is not the same as saying that Boko Haram’s interpretation of Islam is correct.  One can be completely agnostic about what is or is not true Islam but yet grasp that Boko Haram is an interpretation of Islam, which at least for its followers has become the most compelling interpretation around.  Finding a solution to the challenge of Boko Haram can only start from this premise.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>Mark Durie</strong> on <strong>The Glazov Gang</strong> discussing <strong>The Islamic Role in Boko Haram’s Kidnapping of the Nigerian Schoolgirls</strong>:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JfInxh4OsRY" height="300" width="470" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mark-durie/boko-haram-and-the-dynamics-of-denial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tony Blair on the Islamist Threat</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mark-durie/tony-blair-on-the-islamist-threat/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tony-blair-on-the-islamist-threat</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mark-durie/tony-blair-on-the-islamist-threat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2014 04:48:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Durie]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=224447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The damage we do when we deny the challenge of Islam itself.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ipeI1.gif"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-224448" alt="ipeI" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ipeI1-450x313.gif" width="315" height="219" /></a>Tony Blair delivered a major speech on April 23 entitled, “Why the Middle East Matters”. In summary, he argued that the Middle East, far from being a “vast unfathomable mess” is deep in the throes of a multi-faceted struggle between a specific religious ideology on the one hand, and those who want to embrace the modern world on the other.  Furthermore, the West, blinded up until now as to the religious nature of the conflict, must take sides: it should support those who stand on the side of open-minded pluralistic societies, and combat those who wish to create intolerant theocracies.</p>
<p>In his speech Blair makes a whole series of substantial points:</p>
<p>He states that a ‘defining challenge of our time’ is a religious ideology which he calls ‘Islamist’, although he is not comfortable with this label because he prefers to distance himself from any implication that this ideology can be equated with Islam itself. He worries that “you can appear to elide those who support the Islamist ideology with all Muslims.”</p>
<p>He considers Islamism to be a global movement, whose diverse manifestations are produced by common ideological roots.</p>
<p>He rejects Western non-religious explanations for the problems caused by Islamist ideology, including the preference of “Western commentators” to attribute the manifestations of Islamism to “disparate” causes which have nothing to do with religion.  Likewise he implies that the protracted conflict over Israel-Palestine is not the cause of this ideology, but rather the converse is the case: dealing with the wider impact of Islamist ideology could help solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.</p>
<p>According to Blair, what distinguishes violent terrorists from seemingly non-violent Islamists – such as the Muslim Brotherhood – is simply “a difference of view as to how to achieve the goals of Islamism”, so attempts to draw a distinction between political Islamist movements and radical terrorist groups are mistaken.  Blair considers that the religious ideology of certain groups like the Brotherhood, which may appear to be law-abiding, “inevitably creates the soil” in which religio-political violence is nurtured.</p>
<p>He considers “Islamism” to be a major threat everywhere in the world, including increasingly within Western nations. The &#8220;challenge&#8221; of Islamism is “growing” and “spreading across the world” and it is “the biggest threat to global security of the early 21st Century.”</p>
<p>Because of the seriousness of the threat of this religio-political ideology,  Blair argues that the West should vigorously support just about anybody whose interests lie in opposing Islamists, from General Sisi in Egypt to President Putin in Russia. He finds it to be an absurd irony that Western governments form intimate alliances with nations whose educational and civic institutions promote this ideology: an obvious example of this would be the US &#8211; Saudi alliance.</p>
<p>In all this, one might be forgiven for thinking that Blair sounds a lot like Geert Wilders, except that, as he takes pains to emphasize, he emphatically rejects equating Islamism with Islam. Tony Blair and Geert Wilders agree that there is a serious religious ideological challenge facing the world, but they disagree on whether that challenge is Islam itself.My Blair’s speech is aimed at people who do not wish to be thought of as anti-Musilm, but who need to be awakened to the religious nature of the Islamist challenge. He is keen to assure his intended audience that if they adopt his thesis they would not be guilty of conflating those who support radical Jihadi violence with all Muslims.Two key assumptions underpin Blair’s dissociation of Islamism the religio-political ideology from Islam the religion.</p>
<p>First, Blair presupposes that Islamism is not “the proper teaching of Islam”. It may, he concedes, be “an interpretation”, but it is a false one, a “perversion” of the religion, which “distorts and warps Islam’s true message.”  He offers two arguments to support this theological insight.One is that there are pious Muslims who agree with him: “Many of those totally opposed to the Islamist ideology are absolutely devout Muslims.”</p>
<p>This is a fallacious argument. It is akin to asserting that Catholic belief in the infallibility of the Pope cannot be Christian merely because there are absolutely devout protestant Christians who totally oppose this dogma.  The fact that there are pious Muslims who reject Islamism is not a credible argument that Islamism is an invalid interpretation of Islam.</p>
<p>Blair’s other argument in support of his belief that Islamism is a perversion of Islam is an allegation that Christians used to hold similarly abhorrent theologies: “There used to be such interpretations of Christianity which took us years to eradicate from our mainstream politics.”  This is a self-deprecating variant of the <i>tu quoque </i>logical fallacy, in which another’s argument is attacked by accusing them of hypocrisy. Here Blair rhetorically directs the<i> ad hominem</i><i> </i>attack against himself and his culture. In essence, he is saying “It would hypocritical of us to regard Islamist ideology as genuinely Islamic, because (we) Christians used to support similarly pernicious theologies in the past (although we do not do so today).”</p>
<p>This logic is equally fallacious: observations about the history of Christian theology, valid or not, prove nothing about what is or is not a valid form of Islam.</p>
<p>Blair’s second key assumption is a widely-held view about the root cause of “the challenge”. The fundamental issue, he argues, is people of faith who believe they and only they are right and do not accept the validity of other views. Such people believe that “there is one proper religion and one proper view of it, and that this view should, exclusively, determine the nature of society and the political economy.” “It is not about a competing view of how society or politics should be governed within a common space where you accept other views are equally valid. It is exclusivist in nature.”</p>
<p>Hilary Clinton <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120803000739/http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/07/195782.htm">has expressed</a> a very similar understanding of extremist religionists, who “define religion in such a way that if you do not believe what they want you to believe, then what you are doing is not practicing religion, because there is only one definition of religion.”</p>
<p>Such views about religion may reflect the secularist Zeitgeist, but they offer a very weak explanation for the challenge of radical Islam.  The problem is not that Islamists believe they and only they are right.  The problem is all the rest of what they believe.Consider this: Tony Blair himself believes his goal is valid, true and worth fighting for, namely a tolerant, open, democratic society, and the Islamists’ goal of a sharia society is invalid.  He does believe that his view should determine the nature of society.  Likewise many religious groups believe that they follow the one true religion, including the Catholic Church, which Tony Blair formally joined in 2007: Mother Theresa of Calcutta certainly did not consider alternative religious views equally valid to Catholic dogma.  But none of this certainty of belief implies that Tony Blair or Catholics in general are disposed to become terrorists, cut hands off thieves or kill apostates.</p>
<p>Blair’s argument manifests the paradox of tolerance. His vision of a good society is one in which people must respect the views of others as “equally valid”. At the same time he argues that we should disallow and combat Islamism because it is “perverse”. He is asking for Islamism not to be tolerated because it is intolerant.If Blair’s explanation for Islamist nastiness is flawed, what then is the explanation? This takes us back to Islam itself.  Does Blair’s position on Islam hold water?</p>
<p>Blair’s arguments for his positive view of Islam are weak. The validity of Islamism does not rest or fall on whether there are pious Muslims who accept or reject it, nor on whether Christians have advocating equally perverse theologies in the past.  In the end, Islam as a religion &#8211; all mainstream Muslim scholars would agree &#8211; is based upon the teachings of the Sunna (the example and teaching of Muhammad) and the Koran. Islam’s religious validity in the eyes of its followers stands and falls on how well it can be justified from those authorities.There are at least three respects in which Islamist ideologies claim strong support from Islam &#8211; that is, from the Koran and Muhammad.</p>
<p>One is the intolerance and violence in the Islamic canon.  The Koran states &#8220;Kill them / the polytheists wherever you can find them (Sura 9:5, 2:191). Muhammad, according to Islamic tradition, said “I have been sent with a sword in my hand to command people to worship Allah and associate no partners with him. I command you to belittle and subjugate those who disobey me …” He also said to his followers in Medina, &#8220;Kill any Jew who falls into your power.&#8221; Following in Muhammad’s footsteps, one of Muhammad’s most revered companions and successors as leader of the Muslim community, the Caliph Umar, called upon the armies of Islam to fight non-Muslims until they surrender or convert, saying “If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.”</p>
<p>It will not do, in the face of many such statements found in the Koran and the traditions of Muhammad, to throw one’s hands up in the air and say there are also bad verses in the Bible.  If Jesus Christ had said such things as Muhammad did, Christianity’s political theology would look very different today and medieval Christian Holy War theology – developed initially in response to the Islamic jihad – would have come into being as part of the birth-pangs of the religion, just as the doctrine of the Islamic jihad did in the history of Islam.</p>
<p>Islamist apologists find it relatively easy to win young Muslims over to their cause precisely because they have strong arguments at their disposal from the Koran and  Muhammad’s example and teaching.  Their threatening ideology is growing in influence because it is so readily supported by substantial religious foundations.  Islamism may not be the only interpretation of Islam, but by any objective measure, it is open for Muslims to hold it, given what what is in their canon.</p>
<p>Blair makes a telling over-generalisation when he states that Islamist ideology is an export from the Middle East.  Another important source has been the Indian sub-continent.  Today Pakistanis today are among the most dynamic apologists for Islamism. Abul A’la Maududi, an Indian (later Pakistani) Islamic teacher and founder of Jamaat-e-Islami was writing powerful texts to radicalise Muslims more than 70 years ago &#8211; including his tract <i>Jihad in Islam</i> (first published in 1927). His works remain in widespread use as tools of radicalization by Islamist organisations. Maududi’s theological vision was driven, not by Middle Eastern influences or Saudi petrodollars, but by his life-long study of the Koran and the example of Muhammad.  The spiritual DNA of Maududi’s Islamist theology was derived from the Islamic canon itself.</p>
<p>The second point to understand about Islamist ideologies is that the conflation of politics and religion, which is one of Blair’s main objections to Islamism, has always been accepted as normative by the mainstream of Islamic theology.  It is orthodox Islam.  As <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2006/04/27/islam-and-the-west-a-conversation-with-bernard-lewis/">Bernard Lewis pointed out</a>, the separation of church and state has been derided by most Muslim thinkers since the origins of Islam:  “Separation of church and state was derided in the past by Muslims when they said this is a Christian remedy for a Christian disease. It doesn’t apply to us or to our world.”</p>
<p>The third point about Islamist ideologies is that their vision of a closed society in which non-Muslims are second-class participants is in lock-step with the conservative mainstream of Islamic thought.  Here again Bernard Lewis:  “It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam began to assert that their society in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesmen for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity.” (<i>The Jews of Islam</i>, Princeton University Press, 1987, p.4).</p>
<p>Tony Blair is right to call the world to engage with and reject radical Islamist ideology. This is a defining global challenge of our time.  He is also correct to affirm that this ideology is religious.  But he is profoundly mistaken to characterize it as un-Islamic.  The fallacious arguments he puts forward for distinguishing Islam from Islamism are nothing but flimsy rhetoric.  The hard evidence against separating Islamism from Islam is clear, the sentiments of some pious Muslims non-withstanding.</p>
<p>Islamism is a valid interpretation of Islam, not in the sense that it is the only ‘correct’ or ‘true’ one, but because its core tenets find ready and obvious support in the Islamic canon, and they align with core principles of 1400 years of Islamic theology.  (To make this observation is not the same thing as saying that all pious Muslims are Islamists!)</p>
<p>Blair is right to call for the West to combat “radical Islam”, but the reason why “radical” is a correct term to use for this ideology is that <i>radical</i> means “of the root,” and Islamist ideas are deeply rooted in Islam itself. Islamism is a radical form of Islam. This explains why the radicalization project has been advancing with such force all over the world.</p>
<p>In order to combat radical Islamic views we do need to have a frank and open dialogue about the dynamics of radicalization. Blair is concerned about the damage being caused by denial about Islamism, but he indulges in his own form of blinkered thinking, which is just as unhelpful.  He was right to identify Islamist ideology as the soil in which violent jihadi ideologies &#8220;inevitably&#8221; take root, but fails to identity mainstream Islam itself as the soil in which Islamism develops. In reality the Islamist movement is but the tip of the iceberg of the Islamic movement, a deeper and broader revival of Islam across the whole Muslim world.</p>
<p>When countering radical Islamic ideologies, Western leaders should refrain from putting themselves forward as experts on theology, who are somehow competent to rule on whether a particular interpretation of Islam is valid or “perverse”. There is something ridiculous about secular politicians ruling on which manifestations of Islam are to be judged theologically correct. As Taliban Cleric Abu Qutada once said, “I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Quran that justifies jihad violence in the name of Islam. Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Quran?”</p>
<p>Ritual displays of respect for Islam should not be naively used as sugar to coat the pill of opposition to the objectionable beliefs and behaviour of some Muslims. Leaders need to be absolutely clear about what values they stand for, and insist on these values. They should not need to express a theological opinion about what is or is not valid Islam in order to challenge the anti-semitism of Palestinian school textbooks, the denial of basic religious rights to non-Muslim guest workers in Saudi Arabia, incitement against Christians in Egypt, the promotion of female genital mutilation in the name of Islam in the Maldives, or the UK practice of taking child brides.</p>
<p>In this post-secular world, our leaders need to “do God” with less naivety.  They need to grasp that the inner pressure they feel to manifest respect for Islam whenever they object to some of its manifestations is itself a symptom of the ideology of dominance which powers the Islamist agenda.  They should resist the pressure to mount an apology for Islam.  The mullahs can do that.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.   </b></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mark-durie/tony-blair-on-the-islamist-threat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>44</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sheikh Al-Bouti Dies By the Means He Promoted</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-durie/sheikh-al-bouti-dies-by-the-means-he-promoted/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=sheikh-al-bouti-dies-by-the-means-he-promoted</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-durie/sheikh-al-bouti-dies-by-the-means-he-promoted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 04:26:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Durie]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Assad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cleric]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mohamed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sunni]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[University]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=182863</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Assad-supporting cleric meets the same bloody fate he prescribed for infidels and blasphemers. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-durie/sheikh-al-bouti-dies-by-the-means-he-promoted/000_nic6201239-jpg-1000x297x1/" rel="attachment wp-att-182924"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-182924" title="000_Nic6201239.jpg.1000x297x1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/000_Nic6201239.jpg.1000x297x1-450x262.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="157" /></a>On March 21, Sheikh Dr Mohamed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti of Syria was killed, along with 40 others, by a suicide bomber at the Iman mosque in Damascus.</p>
<p>A 2009 publication edited by John Esposito and Ibrahim Kalin listed the 500 most influential Muslims in the world. Al-Bouti was no. 23.  He was Imam of the Ummayyad Mosque and Dean of the Department of Religion at Damascus University, where he had taught Islam for more than half a century. Aged in his eighties, Al-Bouti was regarded as one of the eminent Sunni jurists of the modern era.</p>
<p>Al-Bouti had long been a critic of Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood.  More recently, the Brotherhood&#8217;s spiritual leader Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawy has been fanning the flames of unrest across the Middle East, reaching millions of viewers on Al-Jazeera.  When asked the question on Al-Jazeera TV,  &#8220;Is it permissible to target those who support the [Syrian] regime, especially government scholars?&#8221; Al- Qaradawy replied: &#8220;We should fight to kill all those who work for the government, whether civilians, army, scholars, or ignorant.&#8221;  Al-Qaradawy has also mocked Al-Bouti (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WNaReoAGRU">here</a>) and called him a mad imbecile (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbLSgkrEhfU&amp;feature=youtu.be">here</a>) and threatened him with Allah&#8217;s wrath and people&#8217;s anger if he did not repent.</p>
<p>Also stirring the pot from the safety of Saudi Arabia has been <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21564913-influential-rebel-preacher-who-needs-tone-things-down">Adnan al-Aroor, an exiled Syrian Sunni Cleri</a>c, who has cursed Al-Bouti and called for his death.</p>
<p>The loss of Al-Bouti will be sorely felt by the Assad regime.  Well-known for his opposition to revolution, he was the most senior Sunni cleric who still supported Assad.</p>
<p>Al-Bouti&#8217;s support was consistent with a sharia principle which states that it is unlawful for Muslims to revolt and take up arms against their Muslim ruler, even if he is unjust.  Most scholars agree that this is forbidden.  Ibn Taymiyyah made the famous comment that &#8220;sixty years under an oppressive ruler are better than one night without any ruler.&#8221;</p>
<p>Muhammad himself said:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The best among your rulers are those whom you love and they love you in turn, those who pray (make supplication) for you and you pray for them. The worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and they hate you in turn, and you curse them and they curse you.&#8221;</p>
<p>Someone asked: &#8220;O Messenger of Allah! Shall we confront them with swords?&#8221;</p>
<p>The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: &#8220;No, as long as they hold prayers among you (i.e. as long as the ruler is a Muslim). If you see from your rulers what you hate, hate the action they do but do not rebel against them.&#8221;  (<em>Sahih Muslim)</em></p></blockquote>
<p>In order for Muslims to rebel, the ruler should first be declared to be a <em>kaffir</em> &#8220;unbeliever&#8221; who has abandoned Islam.  Declaring Muslims to be <em>kaffir</em> is known as the practice of <em>takfir</em>. There have been many <em>takfir</em> rulings against President Assad and his supporters in recent times to justify fighting and killing them (for example <a href="http://ahlusunnahwaljamaah.com/2012/02/14/takfeer-alawi-assad/">these two</a> rulings against Assad and Alawites on a Salafist website).</p>
<p>It is not surprising that in a statement released after Al-Bouti&#8217;s death, President Assad, after declaring Al-Bouti to be a martyr, <a href="http://www.syriaonline.sy/?f=Details&amp;catid=12&amp;pageid=5379">pledged to continue to work to eliminate &#8220;<em>takfiri thinking</em></a>.&#8221;</p>
<p>In recent years there have been concerted efforts by leading Muslim scholars to suppress the practice of <em>takfir</em>, notably the <a href="http://www.ammanmessage.com/http://www.ammanmessage.com/">Amman Message</a>, sponsored by King Abdullah of Jordan and signed by over 500 leading Muslim scholars, including Al-Bouti and Al-Qaradawy. Nevertheless many Muslims accept the use of <em>takfir</em> against apostates from Islam, against groups regarded as heretical such as the Ahmadis, and against those who, like Salman Rushdie, are considered to be blasphemers.</p>
<p>Islam has a long doctrinal tradition of warfare &#8211; the institution of jihad &#8211; which offers Paradise to those who die fighting. Indeed in Islam, all warfare should be religious, because it is forbidden to wage war without a religious mandate.</p>
<p>The principle of Islamic law that Muslims should not take up arms against Muslim rulers is pragmatic.  It helps protect Islamic societies from being torn apart by sectarian conflict.  The dogma of jihad and practice of <em>takfir</em>, if invoked by competing parties in a conflict, can produce extraordinary devastation, as was witnessed in the Iran-Iraq war, in which there were more than a million &#8220;martyrs.&#8221; It was on such grounds that Al-Bouti supported Assad &#8211; and opposed the more radical <em>takfiri</em> Muslims, who now constitute the opposition forces in Syria.</p>
<p>His distaste for armed rebellion notwithstanding, Al-Bouti was a theological conservative who endorsed the classical principles of Islamic jihad.  In <em>Fiqh Al-Sira </em>(&#8220;Jurisprudence of the Life of Muhammad&#8221;) he defined the doctrine of jihad to consist of the duty of Muslims to impose Islamic government on the world if they have sufficient military force. In support of this principle he cited Sura 9:123:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>As well as the words of Muhammad:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: &#8216;None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,&#8217; and whoever says, &#8216;None has the right to be worshipped but Allah&#8217;, Allah will save his property and his life from me [i.e. from Muhammad], except justly [i.e. he has committed a crime], and his account will be with Allah?&#8221;  (<em>Sahih Al-Bukhari</em>)</p></blockquote>
<p>Al-Bouti also taught that atheists, idolaters and polytheists could be fought against, to compel them into Islam, while Christians and Jews could be permitted to live alongside Muslims provided they submit to sharia law and pay tribute to the Islamic authorities.  He pooh-poohed the distinction often made between offensive and defensive jihad:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;It is nonsense to want to distinguish the two aspects of defensive and offensive warfare in the struggle for the cause of Allah.  The legitimacy of jihad does not depend upon the right of attack or defense as such; it is based upon the necessity of establishing an Islamic society which follows the laws and principles of Islam, therefore it matters little how one pursues jihad towards this end, whether offensive or defensive.&#8221; (<em>Fiqh Al-Sira</em>, from the French translation of Z. Diab, pp. 187-188).</p></blockquote>
<p>Like many other leading Muslim scholars, Al-Bouti issued a fatwa endorsing &#8220;martyrdom operations&#8221; &#8212; suicide bombings &#8212; in Israel.  This fatwa was cited by Nawaf Hayel Al-Takrouri in <em>Martyrdom Operations in Islamic Jurisprudence</em> (<em>al-Amaliyat al-Istishhadiyya fi Mizan al-Fiqhi</em>) along with 31 other similar rulings:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;These operations are one hundred percent legal if the one who carries it out intends to inflict defeat upon the enemy, but not to kill himself. If he intended to kill himself, he has committed suicide and he is not a martyr. His intention must be to inflict defeat upon the enemy and not death [to himself]. Allah might save him supernaturally.&#8221;</p>
<p>Then he [Prof. Al Bouti] gave an illustration.  He said:</p>
<p>&#8220;A man says, &#8216;Since I am tired of life, I am going to carry out a [martyrdom] operation.&#8217; This [person] would be committing suicide.</p>
<p>Someone else says, &#8216;I am pursuing jihad in the cause of Allah to strike the enemy. If I die, that is good; if I don&#8217;t die, that is better.&#8217; This [person] will be a martyr, Allah willing. Furthermore, this an act of vengeance.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>It is a bitter irony that this respected scholar was killed at the end of a long and productive life by someone who was acting out the very belief he had promoted against Israelis: that a Muslim who blows himself up to inflict defeat upon &#8220;the enemy&#8221; has not committed suicide, but is a martyr enjoying the delights of paradise, provided his intentions are &#8220;good.&#8221;</p>
<p>Muslim armies down the centuries have found the doctrine of jihad to be a potent weapon against their non-Muslim foes. However bellicose dogmas, which even &#8220;moderate&#8221; Muslims, such as Al-Bouti espouse, have the capacity to tear societies apart in a bloodbath if conditions for their implementation are triggered. The recent slaughter of 41 civilians in the Iman mosque in Damascus was but a microcosm of the larger theologically-driven tragedy which is engulfing Syria, and threatens to make mince-meat of much of the Middle East. For too long Arab states have tolerated and even invested heavily in the promotion of jihadist dogma in their societies.  Those who stoke the fires of jihad better watch out for the blowback.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-durie/sheikh-al-bouti-dies-by-the-means-he-promoted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Insider Killings&#8217; in Afghanistan</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-durie/insider-killings-in-afghanistan/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=insider-killings-in-afghanistan</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-durie/insider-killings-in-afghanistan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 04:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Durie]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghan insider killings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[COPS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=141493</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Members of the Afghan army are increasingly turning their weapons against us.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ins.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-141507" title="ins" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ins.jpg" alt="" width="323" height="215" /></a>In the past two weeks at least nine Americans <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/us/war-in-afghanistan-claims-2000th-american-life.html">have been killed by their Afghan allies</a> in what is known to as &#8220;insider killings.&#8221;  Members of the Afghan army, having been trained and armed by NATO forces, are turning their weapons in increasing numbers against their foreign allies, killing at least 40 NATO troops this year so far.</p>
<p>These killings are demoralizing, not only for the troops, but also for the folks back home.  They make people war-weary.  Mrs. Marina Buckley, the mother of Lance Corporal Gregory Buckley who was killed by one of his Afghan allies just before he was due to return home, spoke for many when she said: “Our forces shouldn’t be there.  It should be over. It’s done. No more.”</p>
<p>These killings have been blamed on foreign spies and Taliban infiltrators, but such theories have been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/world/asia/afghanistan-blames-spies-for-insider-attacks-on-western-troops.html">discounted by military investigators</a>, who could only link one in ten killings to Taliban infiltration.</p>
<p>The generals seem to be mystified, for Colonel Lapan, spokesman for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff commented, “we don&#8217;t know what’s causing them, and we’re looking at everything.”</p>
<p>They could also look at Islam, and at history.</p>
<p>Let us wind the clock back 120 years to Aceh, today part of Indonesia.  In 1892 the sultanate of Aceh, a staunchly Islamic region, had been under Dutch military occupation for twice as many years as the Americans have been in Afghanistan.  When the Dutch first stormed the Acehnese capital Kutaraja (now Banda Aceh) in 1871 they naively assumed that control of the rest of the countryside would quickly follow. Instead they became entangled in a conflict which lasted for decades.</p>
<p>A poignant legacy of the Aceh-Dutch war is a military cemetery in Banda Aceh, reputed to be the largest graveyard of Dutch troops outside Holland.</p>
<p>As the decades passed, the Acehnese waged a tenacious insurgency from jungle hideouts, and Dutch leaders cycled through various theories to explain their military failures.  One theory was that the passing of time would see a steady reduction in hostilities.  Time did pass, and this theory ended up in the trash.  Another theory was that a &#8220;concentration line&#8221; of forts could effect a safe haven around the capital to guarantee security, but the attacks continued.</p>
<p>A particularly demoralizing aspect of the conflict was a pattern of Acehnese allies turning against and killing Dutch soldiers.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuku_Umar">Teuku Umar</a> was an early leader of the Acehnese resistance who became an ally of the Dutch, as a result of which he was rewarded with weapons, money and command of hundreds of troops.  Then he turned these weapons and troops against his supposed &#8220;allies,&#8221; inflicting heavy casualties.  The Dutch regarded this as an odious betrayal, yet today the name of Teuku Umar is recognized as one of Indonesia&#8217;s greatest heroes and boulevards all over the country are named after him.</p>
<p>The problem of deceit and betrayal was also a rank-and-file problem.  There was no shortage of would-be Acehnese martyrs who, for the sake of gaining a victim, were willing to feign friendship with the Dutch, before drawing their knives against them.  The phenomenon of unpredictable killings by the Acehnese came to be known as <em>Atjèh-moord</em> &#8220;Acehnese murder.&#8221;</p>
<p>The failure of Dutch military policy in Aceh – and the resulting drain of Dutch blood and treasure – caused a host of political difficulties for governments back in Holland.  The war became intensely unpopular.</p>
<p>The turning point in the Aceh-Dutch war came in 1891-92 when Christian Snouck Hurgronje, an expert in Arabic and Islam, was sent to do field research into &#8220;the pernicious Aceh Question&#8221; (<em>het verderfelijke Atjeh-questie</em>).</p>
<p>Snouck Hurgronje was the preeminent Western expert on Islam of his generation.  After completing a PhD on Islamic theology in Holland, he spent a year in Mecca in 1884-85, living as a Muslim, studying at the feet of the Sheikhs, and making a special study of Indonesian Muslims.</p>
<p>After his field trip to Aceh, Snouck Hurgronje published a two-volume report on the Acehnese society in 1893, which included a military analysis, and offered a blueprint for winning the insurgency.</p>
<p>At the heart of Snouck Hurgronje&#8217;s explanation of the &#8220;Aceh Question&#8221; was a theological analysis.  The Acehnese war, he explained, was <em>jihad</em>, a theologically motivated struggle against the Dutch as infidel-occupiers of Islamic territory.</p>
<p>Because it was a theological struggle, grounded in the deeply held Islamic convictions of the Acehnese people, the Aceh war could not be won by capturing a few key cities or neutralizing a handful of key leaders.  Indeed, as time passed, and the early chieftain leaders were superseded, the insurgency came to be dominated by clerics, whose influence greatly increased as a result of the jihad.  (This same pattern can be observed in Afghanistan over the past decade.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-durie/insider-killings-in-afghanistan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 517/549 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 07:53:12 by W3 Total Cache -->