Are we at war with Islam?
 

Disclaimer: I believe in freedom of religion and I don't think any one group, race, creed, religion are all bad. I also realize that Christianity has had its share of issues.

Are we at war with Islam? I've heard numerous people say no, including the POTUS. However, can anyone name one Islamic country that has no ties, either collectively or individually, to terrorist attacks? Islam is called by its adherents the religion of peace and they claim Islam has been hijacked by the few. And there are dozens of Islamic countries. Surely there must be one in which the religion has not been hijacked and used to attack the west?

Malaysia.

There have been lots of rumors, but no ties.

Mmm. I'll be back.

Off the top of my head...
 

Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait and Baharain.

You guys aren't understanding the question. Basically what I'm asking is is there one Islamic country who's citizens aren't involved in terrorism - zero participation? Not just that the government doesn't support terrorism.

GH - hasn't Malaysia picked up a bunch of JI terrorists there?

Since you are making yourself clearer...
 

Qatar and Baharain.

Qatar I might buy, but I'm sure I've seen Baharianis picked up somewhere.

MANAMA, Bahrain — Bahraini authorities are investigating whether the U.S. 5th Fleet base in this Gulf kingdom was the target of suspected terrorists arrested in recent days, government officials said Sunday.


Officials said Saturday that five Bahraini men, including at least one member of Bahrain's military forces, were arrested in the past one or two days for plotting terrorist attacks on the tiny island.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78720,00.html

Are we fighting against a specific interpretation (or group of interpretations) of the Koran? Could groups using this interpretation be considered a seperate 'sect' of Islam?
Thanks,

Solid

Russia's security services, the FSB, have long sought the extradition of Yandarbiyev from Qatar, where they claim he was being sheltered in a diplomatic compound under police protection. Qatar has denied all links to terrorism. The FSB accused him of helping to finance terrorist acts, including the Nord Ost theatre siege in which 40 Chechen gunmen held 800 Muscovites hostage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/art...148534,00.html

Yep, Indonesians mostly (at least one Saudi). Picking them up indicates fighting terrorism, not being involved in it. A bunch have been picked up in Thailand as well.

Ok, Malaysia is tentatively on the list. I'll look again manana. Of course the reason is probably becuase they're all working in sweatshops.

No offense, but if your criterion is that a country is not against Islamist terrorism if any of its citizens are Islamist terrorists, then add the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, China, Russia, Australia, Georgia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Kenya, Spain and Sweden.

The core of al-Qa'ida recruiting has been among Gulf Arabs, but the point of al-Qa'ida was to build ties to Islamists, usually adherents of the Salafi or Wahhabi schools, throughout the dar al-islam, from the Philippines to Algeria, and into the dar al-harb. It was to be the base of a hydra-headed network of terrorists. So naturally you are going to find recruits among any Muslim population. But that really doesn't answer the question.

As far I am concerned, we are at war with a political ideology (and its adherents) which some have termed Islamofascism. Most Islamofascist movements are themselves offshoots of other fundamentalist or revivalist movements in Islam, such as Wahhabism. Many don't even like each other - a Wahhabi like Osama bin Laden would consider a Shi'ite Hizbullah member to be an apostate. But that doesn't matter anymore than it mattered that Hitler probably secretly thought Mussolini was an Untermensch. And cooperation of Islamists with secularists like the Ba'athists of Syria and Iraq or the Communists of North Korea doesn't change this either. And, as in World War Two, where we gave Spanish fascists a pass, a war against Islamofascism doesn't require fighting every Islamist group everywhere. Tactical considerations can come into play.

That said, while from our perspective our war is against Islamofascism, it is up to Muslims to decide whether it is a war against Islam, by choosing sides. Despite the "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric, most Muslims seem to not want to take sides. The terrorists haven't exactly enjoyed a recruiting boost as a result of OEF, the vaunted "Arab street" has been quieter than Detroit after a Stanley Cup win, and every government of a country with a Muslim population denounced the 9-11 attacks. On the other side of the equation, anti-American and anti-Western sentiment is rampant and governments have done little to quell it (and in many cases have fanned the flames), many Muslims do perceive the West as being at war with Islam, and political and religious leaders have done little to engage in the debate over the future of their religion, letting the Islamofascists define the nature of the conflict.

I never get offended. I was waiting for you. From United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, China, Russia, Australia, Georgia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Kenya, Spain and Sweden, are those citizens true Americans, British, French, Canadians, Chinese, Russian, Aussies, Georgian, Belgians, Danes, German, Kenyans, Spanish and Swedes or were they raised in closed enclaves of a Muslim nature? I'm talking about CITIZENS. I don't know exactly how to say it without sounding racist.

Consider this. The police go into a predominantly black neighborhood looking for a gang member. A confrontation or shooting takes place, and a crowd gathers. How often have we seen peo ple the neighborhood protest the police, rather than the criminals, who are after all victimizing other blacks themselves? Does that make the fight against crime a war on blacks?

This is a very imperfect analogy, but I hope the point gets across. It is understandable, but not excusable, that too many Muslims betray that natural human instinct toward tribalism. But Muslims are hardly the only ones to fall into that us vs. them trap. Look at the widely different responses of black and white Americans to OJ Simpson. Did the majority of white Americans rationally consider all of the evidence and conclude Simpson was guilty, while the majority of black Americans rationally analyzed the same evidence and conclude he was not, or did people - white and black - simply not bother with rational analysis?

One problem with the analogy, though, is that there is something in Islam that connects it to Islamofascism, while black criminals are just as much predators on black society as white (if not more). This is the fact that for most Muslims, Islam does sanction violence in the name of the faith. So too many Muslims are forced to argue nuance - this is terrorism (bad) but that is jihad (good); this is suicide (impermissible), that is martyrdom (permissible). Furthermore, while certain commandments and cheek-turning verses notwithstanding, Christianity also has been held to sanction violence in the name of the faith (see, e.g., the Crusades), the Christian world has more effectively dealt with this by separating religion and the state. There is still religiously justified violence in Christian societies - see Northern Ireland, Croatia - but not nearly on the same level. But Islam by its nature cannot so easily separate religion and state. Islam is a law-based religion, and mosque and state are inextricably inclined. The Iraqi constitutional debate attempted to address this, but all they did was put a gloss over it. I mentioned elsewhere the need for an enlightenment or renaissance in Islam, to redefine the relationship, but I honestly don't know whether it will work. Judaism is a law-based religion too, and one which was originally very violent toward non-Jews, but somehow arrived at its own compromise. I don't know if that could work for Islam. Leaving aside the fact that I doubt many Muslims would want to take theology lessons from Jews, there are also many differences between Islam and Judaism that saying the two are law-based, while Christianity is faith-based, ignores.

But leaving aside theological disputations, consider it as a tactical matter. Do we want our war to be with a few thousand terrorists or with a billion people who live all over the globe and have nukes? If we say, "yes this is a war against Islam", we not only concede defeat to the Islamofascists in a theological and political dispute, we immeasurably increase the cost of the war and make enemies out of people for no reason but the accidence of their birth. That's not who we are and not who we want to be.