Is a Real Conflict between Islam and the Western World - Essay Example

Is the conflict between Islam and the western World an actual conflict or a conflict that exists only in the minds of certain individuals? Introduction It would hardly be disputed on any front that there is an actual conflict between Islam and the western world. Muslims believe that Islam is the only true religion. And they go on to reason, that anyone who is not a Muslim, is an infidel. As a consequence, the mission of Islamic ideologues is two fold; convert those who are not believers. If there are those among the non believers who choose not to be converted, then they must be eliminated. The extremists have adopted a platform which calls for accomplishment of their objective, by any means necessary. The Islamist are not alone in their imposition stance. The neoconservatives have taken the position that democracy and its western components, should be applied in every country on the globe. The neoconservative reasoning is that a country which practices a democratic form of government, versus an authoritarian form of government is less likely to be aggressive towards other governments of a similar ideological base. Unlike Islam, there are no religious tents associated with neoconservatism, however, the theorists believe that there are many virtues attached.But say the Islamists, therein lies the problem. These so-called virtues of the neoconservative are based in secular tenets, and represent serious challenges to the virtues of Islam. As a consequence, no Islamic country can remain true to the tenets of their religion, while accepting western values. Obviously, this is a conflict. But are we not allowed to co-exist as a people and have differences. Of course, the answer is yes. One of the first rules of being a good neighbor is, not to impose your will upon others, particularly when it impinges upon, or denies your neighbor his space or his rights.This is the arrogant imposition. This paper will present arguments from both sides of the spectrum, which will show that both sides seek to have things as they perceive what the world view should be. This is an argument which causes disdain and does little to reinforce ones faith in the unremitting reasonableness of man. The situation is untenable because both sides seek to impose their will, which each side views as the proper thing to do. Neither side is willing, nor have they expressed a willingness to compromise. The history of Islam extremism, and the tenets which are espoused by most of its spokespersons suggest that, it is all or nothing. In other words, the only true religion is Islam, and if one is not a Muslim, then one is an infidel. “It is not surprising that Muslim jurists would later declare that there are two worlds: the world of Islam--Dar al-Islam--and the non-Islamic world--Dar al-Harb”. .(Bloom) The world of Christianity and the world of extremist Islam are at odds with each other, and due to the ideology of extreme Islamist, there is a tenacious effort, which translates into a war to promote their beliefs on a global basis. It is the prevailing attitude among extremists, that a true leader in the tradition of extreme Islam, should always strive to eliminate any infidel, otherwise one is disobeying God. . That whenever one is placed in a leadership role, the purpose of this honor is afforded one, to enable the slaughter of infidels. David F. Forte makes the point that we must begin to know who the enemy is. This is an emphatically true statement. However, in a realistic sense, the extremists have made it very difficult for anyone to distinguish them from anyone else. They can not be profiled as readily as Forte suggests that we must. Had the authorities been able to profile the 9/11 perpetrators, for sure they would have been arrested. Problem with this enemy is that they conduct their lives as routinely or as mundanely as everyone else. As a consequence, we experience difficulty in distinguishing the bin Laden’s from the mainstream Muslim believers. Forte is however on point when he says that,” Osama bin Laden and his Taliban allies represent a perversion of Islam and are engaged in a campaign to change Islam itself — to define the faith politically, and not primarily legally or theologically”(Forte 2001). The answers to many of the questions which presently beset us concerning Islamic extremism has been codified in the collection of violent Islamic thought called Qutbism. Qutbism is the combination of three ideologies ; Maudidu, al Banna and of course the thoughts of Sayyid Autb. These three ideologies have been combined in an attempt to place some justification on armed jihad in advancing Islam. Qutbism advocates violence and justifies terrorism against non-Muslims and apostates in an effort to bring about the reign of God.(McCants 2006). Sayyid Qutb was an Egyptian Muslim militant who was executed by the Egyptian government in 1969. Quib believed that there are two spheres in this world; one is of Muslims and the other is of ignorance. In his mind, these were absolutely divergent spheres. As such, it was not possible for them to exist side by side. Ignorance in his mind, was embodied by anyone who was not a Muslim.Therefore, if any Muslim is true to the faith, .(Qutb) they would be obligated to participate in the animation of the infidel. Muslims as a whole, from the time of Mohammed, believed in the concept of defensive jihad. Qutb began to openly advocate offensive jihad, and this earned him the label of being militant among mainstream Muslims. .(Eikmeier 2007). Coupled with the fact that Qutb was one who ridiculed Muslim scholars he became persona non grata among mainline Muslims. This led Qutb to become a member of the “The Muslim Brotherhood which appealed to its faction through an ideology”, (Morgan 2007) while Al Qaeda participates in extremely violent actions. Albeit different in their methodology’s, their long range goal is the subjugation of non-Muslim cultures. Within this ideological base founded by Qutb, there is the promotion of ‘Shia revolutionary thought’. One of the most prominent proponents of this ideology is the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Abul Ala Maududi (1903-1979) was one of the founders of todays’ Islamic Extremist ideology, and he was a Deobandi alumni.(Abdul-Majid). Ahmadinejad espouses an ideology which runs parallel to that laid out by Maududi, who believed the decline of the Muslim community is a direct result of Muslims practicing a form of Islam which is not advanced in the koran. He felt that these misguided practices were the direct result of the moving away from the core. He felt compelled to remind Muslims that Islam was of course based in religion. In so being, it was suppose to be the center of an individuals life.He reminded Muslims that Islam is more than a religion; it is a complete social system that guides and controls every aspect of life including government That everything which they believed, thought ,or engaged in, should contain Islamic teachings. “Maududi reminded Muslims that Islam is more than a religion; .(Haddad) it is a complete social system that guides and controls every aspect of life including government”. His thoughts run parallel to those of Qutb, who also felt that non-Muslims were not fit to rule over Muslims, and that wherever the situation presented itself, it was in defiance of God’s law. He advocacy was consistent with the “Shia Revolutionary Thought”, which is the establishment of Islamic states, which would manifest themselves with a global proliferation, until the entire globe is a Muslim state.The most profound aspect of his advocacy, and still parallel to his contemporaries, .(Haddad) was that he also promoted the concept of offensive jihad. Ayman al-Zawahiri, was a master at presenting the ideas of Qutb. Zarahari made the acquaintance of Osama bin Laden, during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The two cultivated a close relationship which spawned the merger of bin Laden;s Maktab and Zawahiri’s Egyptian Jihad, which they dubbed al Queda. The man who generated the ideas in this newly formed bond was Al-Zawahiri, while bin Laden was the rhetorical organizer.the organizer and leader.”(Henzel 2005). al Qaeda’s manifesto Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner, was the sole creation of “Al- Zawahiri . This manifesto brought together the strategies of Qutb and provided al Qaeda with a focus, and presented their followers with the commitment to the dictum of (Aboul- Enein,2005) (Knapp 2002) unrestricted jihad In his presentation of Knight’s Under the Prophets Banner, Zawahari makes it clear why in their minds, it was necessary to initiate a large scale attack, one that would have a diversified impact, and attract international attention to their new focus.(Henzel 2005). This new focus of bin Laden and Zawahiri began in the final decade of the millennium, when large scale targets were identified, versus the small hit and run efforts of the past. It was not that these small projects were unsuccessful, because the extremists felt they were in fact gaining ground with the global surge of attacks on local apostate regimes. However, it was now time to solidify everyone among the ranks. These two men were aware that the attack on the World trade Center would not cause the United States to crumble. As was pointed out earlier, bin Laden was the organizer, and he needed a big bang which would create a cohesiveness among the Muslim masses.”(Henzel 2005) Eikmeier feels that Al-Zawahiri and bin Laden were intent in causing an all-out war between Islamic extremists and the west. That the resulting fallout would cause most of the secular governments in the middle east to fall and would of course be replaced, in their minds, by the rightful and God ordained benefactors. The hope was that the impact would present a domino effect, throughout all Islamic lands. ”(Eikmeier 2007) In today’s conflict, there is a problem in the identification of who the enemy is. There are home grown terrorists, there are immigrant terrorists, and even tourist who are terrorists. There is no sure fire way to profile the enemy. While this presents a problem for national security, it also sometimes represents an infringement of the individual freedoms of the innocent. These innocents can be Muslim fundamentalists, as well as westerners. As was mentioned earlier in the thoughts of Forte, Strange 1966, also makes reference to the essence of the extremists, which he says is his center of gravity. And as Eikmeir 2007, we are dealing with individuals who have chosen to operate from a broad idelogical base, and a much broader profile base. They have become willing camelians in the quest for offensive jihad. President Bush has ended the debate and accepted “Islamic-Fascism” as the ideological label. (Bush 2006) By engaging in this so-called war on terror, is it possible that the neo-conservatives have initiated a perpetual conflict with the Islamic extremists? George Bush has said, “it will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated, he called the war "a task that does not end."(Bush 2001). Exactly what is the thrust of Bush’s statement. Is he saying that the conflict with the Islamic extremists is destined to last ad infinitum, or is he stating that when he leaves the oval office at night the conflict ensues, and when he returns to the oval office the next morning it continues to persist. If it is perpetual, how and when do we bring it to a halt? This assertation by Bush, clearly states that the task ahead is a formidable one. One for which most of the strategies and solutions have not yet been devised.To begin, there are some who feel that the method which have been selected to mitigate the conflict, is not the proper one. That money and time has been thrust at an objective, which is unachievable. How is it possible to defeat the war on terror, when both sides are maintaining ideological positions which are diametrically opposed to each other. The divide, at least from the Islamic extremists standpoint are so divergent, and so engrained, until there is no room for compromise. The battle cry is centered around what has become commonly known as the “Bush Doctrine”. (The evolution of the Bush Doctrine 2003)., is actually a policy analysis which was initially prepared for George Bush’s father in 1992. An articulation of The George W. Bush Doctrine, which emphatically addresses the issue of preemptive war can be found in the text of the "National Security Strategy of the United States", which was published on 9/20/2002. President George W. Bush states,. "We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed... even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack... The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively." (Bush Doctrine 2002). Essentially President Bush has committed to striking wherever the perception of a problem might be. Whether the strike is deemed legal or not. There is an obvious conflict, and it is not merely perceptual. Muslims firmly believe that Islam is the only true religion. That ones life; economy, education, government, family, and politics, should have its roots in the culture and religion. Moreover, it is the mission of Islamists, to cultivate the teaching of Islam to every corner of the globe.This of course runs counter to the neoconservative postulate. Wholesale support for establishing and maintaining democracies in the process of nation building is laudable because it is their belief that in the long run, it will result in a reduction of the extremism which festers in the midst of radical Islam. Neoconservatives present an iron clad case on the probability of a democratic form of government attacking a government possessing a similar ideology, versus the probability of an authoritarian government willing to compromise with those who are not of their same ideological stance. This line of reasoning among neo-conservatives reinforces the idea, that a democratic form of government would be the most appropriate form of government to promote globally. It is also a well articulated postulate that under democratic forms of government, the rights and liberties of the citizenry receives greater civil leverage.However, in this instance, neo-conservatism is confrontedwith a cultural and religious confrontation, and both sides are unyielding because they both believe that they are correct. Neoconservatives firmly hold the belief that they better serve their own interest, my extending them selves to others across the globe. The foreign policy of the neo- conservatives is such that they have a heads up on most of the occurrences across the globe. The linear thought on this is that this gives them a better handle on all incoming and outgoing information and persons. Because they are involved on almost every level and aspect of world affairs, they are knowledgeable on the appropriate response. Of course, all of this pre-supposes that the incoming information is correct.respond by describing their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. The foreign policy of the neoconservatives is consistent with countering the efforts of Muslim extremists, as they steadfastly maintain that the U. S. military and its neo- conservative allies must be formidable enough to police the world and all of its actors, otherwise men like Ahmadinejad, and Usama will cause the world to descend into chaos. Conclusion The issue of the radical Muslims and their unyielding stance is an extremely volatile one. The extremists who advocate a jihad against the west are using the scripture to justify and recruit followers, who are being taught to believe in the mind set of Muhammed. That Islam must be practiced in every corner of the globe, and if it requires force to get the message across, then so be it. Moreover, these followers are being taught that anything which is western, runs counter to Islamic thought and values.That there is no means of reconciliation between Muslims and infidels.This paradigm represents a clear and obvious danger to the Christian world in general and the United States in particular. The stance and the actions of extremist Muslims have fostered a position among neo-conservatives, which is also uncompromising. Both sides postulate that their positions must be steadfastly maintained, for survival. Neither side is willing to give one iota, and this is not a perceptual dilemma, this is actual. Extremists Muslims are murdering people in their self stated quest to preserve their cultural and religious heritage, and People are dying in the name of preserving democracy. It seems as humans, we have digressed into a logical regression. The conflict between radical Islamic extremists, is a reality, and it is a problem which will be present for some time. Both sides are claiming that they possess the panacea, however their positions are conflicting ones, which does not permit the other side to perpetuate or exist. Bibliography Bloom, H., Islam’s war against the west, Retrieved on line on September 13, 2008, from www.howardbloom.net Forte,D.F.,(2001) Religion is not the enemy, article National Review.com October 19, 2001 Ibid McCants, W., (2006) Problems with the Arabic Name Game,retrieved on line on September 13, 2008, from www.teachingterror.net Qutb, S. The Right to Judge, retrieved on line on September 13, 2008, from www.shadowsofswords.worldpress.com Qutb, S. “On Jihad”, in Jihad in Modern Islamic thought a collection,Retrieved on line on September 13, 2008, from www.majalla.org Eikmeier, D. C., (2007) Qutbism; An ideology of Islamic-facism, Parameters, Spring 2007 Ab dul-Majid Jaffy, Maulana Maududis’ Two-Nation Theory, Who was Abu Alaa Mauduah?, Retrieved on line on September 10, 2008, from www.witness-pioneer.org Haddad G. F., A word about Mawdudis Ideas,Mawdudi, Abu al-Ala, Human Rights, the west and Islam, Ibid Henzel C., (2005) “The origins of al-Queda’s Ideology: Implocations for U. S. strategy”, Parameters 35 Spring 2005 Aboul-Enein, Y. H., (2005) “Ayman Al-Zawahiri” Knight under the prophets banner: The Al-Queda manifesto” military review 85, January-February 2005, retrieved on line on September 13, 2008, from www.usacac.army.mil Knapp. M. G., (2002) Distortion of Islam by Muslim Extremists, 37-42 Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin July-September 2002 Henzel C., (2005). “The origins of al-Queda’s Ideology: Implocations for U. S. strategy”, Parameters 35 Spring 2005 Ibid Eikmeier, D. C., (2007) Qutbism; An ideology of Islamic-facism, Parameters, Spring 2007 Strange, J.(1996) Centers of Gravity & Critical vulnerabilities, Primary sources of moral or physical strength, power and resistence, Quantico Virginia; Marine Corps University Foundation, 1996 Bush, G.W.:(2006) U.S. at war with Islamic-facists, CNN.com, 10 August 2006 Bush, G. W., ( 2001) Speech delivered to U.S. Congress, transcript by White House office of the Press Secretary, 20 September, 2001 The evolution of the Bush Doctrine, in The war behind closed doors, frontline, PBS, February 20, 2003 National Security Strategy of the United States National Security Council September 2, 2002 Read More