Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post - Obama's Muslim Appointee Echoes Muslim Brotherhood

redleg99 · 05-02-2009, 12:32

I agree that Mogahed’s use of the word racism is probably incorrect. I think the phenomenon she is trying to describe is conflation of all Muslims with Jihadis, and the assumption that therefore Jihadis can speak for all Muslims.

I think that few Americans would believe that the Black Panther Party or the Nation of Islam speak for all African-Americans, or that adherents of the Christian Identity movement represent all Christians. And yet, there does seem to be an assumption here in the U.S. that Jihadis do speak for all Muslims.*

This belief is abetted by the fact that many pubic statements made by Muslims in the English-language news media concerning Jihadis are apologetic. While, I haven’t quite nailed down the reasons for this, the answers seem to lie certain aspects of Sunni religious tradition (the idea that Muslims are one ‘Ummah, and thus differences are plastered over), and Arab Culture (a seeming unwillingness to air dirty laundry in public.)**

However, there is some evidence that Muslims seem to be having a different conversation among themselves than the one that is apparent in the Western media. Fawaz A. Gerges’ Journey of the Jihadist highlights many disagreements among Muslims and Jihadis over violence wrought in the name of Islam.***

So why do I think any of this is important? Inevitably, how we think of our enemy will determine how we fight. If we believe that all Muslims are really Jihadis, it becomes difficult to conceive that strategies such as the Awakening movement / Tribal reconciliation / Sons of Iraq will have much effect, since we are asking Muslims to fight other Muslims.**** On the other hand, if we can see the differences among Muslims, then a strategy of separating the reconcilable from the irreconcilable seems possible, and while this isn’t the only possibility open to us, I think it makes some sense try it where we can.

* For example, see Robert Spencer’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades. Believe it or not, this was one of the first books specifically on Islam that I ever read.

** These are personal observations, but I think some support for them can be found in Raphael Patai’s The Arab Mind

*** Two other potential sources for this are Faisal Devji’s Landscapes of the Jihad and John L. Esposito’s Who Speaks For Islam? I say potential, because I have only skimmed them so far.

**** As someone who was involved in a small way in one of these projects, I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the Iraqis involved would identify themselves as Muslims, and more than a few of those could be classified as devout.

05-02-2009, 12:32	#3
redleg99 Asset Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 43	I agree that Mogahed’s use of the word racism is probably incorrect. I think the phenomenon she is trying to describe is conflation of all Muslims with Jihadis, and the assumption that therefore Jihadis can speak for all Muslims. I think that few Americans would believe that the Black Panther Party or the Nation of Islam speak for all African-Americans, or that adherents of the Christian Identity movement represent all Christians. And yet, there does seem to be an assumption here in the U.S. that Jihadis do speak for all Muslims.* This belief is abetted by the fact that many pubic statements made by Muslims in the English-language news media concerning Jihadis are apologetic. While, I haven’t quite nailed down the reasons for this, the answers seem to lie certain aspects of Sunni religious tradition (the idea that Muslims are one ‘Ummah, and thus differences are plastered over), and Arab Culture (a seeming unwillingness to air dirty laundry in public.)** However, there is some evidence that Muslims seem to be having a different conversation among themselves than the one that is apparent in the Western media. Fawaz A. Gerges’ Journey of the Jihadist highlights many disagreements among Muslims and Jihadis over violence wrought in the name of Islam.* So why do I think any of this is important? Inevitably, how we think of our enemy will determine how we fight. If we believe that all Muslims are really Jihadis, it becomes difficult to conceive that strategies such as the Awakening movement / Tribal reconciliation / Sons of Iraq will have much effect, since we are asking Muslims to fight other Muslims.** On the other hand, if we can see the differences among Muslims, then a strategy of separating the reconcilable from the irreconcilable seems possible, and while this isn’t the only possibility open to us, I think it makes some sense try it where we can. * For example, see Robert Spencer’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades. Believe it or not, this was one of the first books specifically on Islam that I ever read. ** These are personal observations, but I think some support for them can be found in Raphael Patai’s The Arab Mind *** Two other potential sources for this are Faisal Devji’s Landscapes of the Jihad and John L. Esposito’s Who Speaks For Islam? I say potential, because I have only skimmed them so far. **** As someone who was involved in a small way in one of these projects, I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the Iraqis involved would identify themselves as Muslims, and more than a few of those could be classified as devout.
redleg99 is offline