Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

December 6th, 2005

Tags

Comments

14 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Flavors of Terror II

In my last post on terrorism, I offered two graphics to help differentiate between the layers of terrorists and their various origins and aims. Both Kirk and Mark offered some constructive criticism on them and thus they have been overhauled and reworked. May I present…

Firstly, the layers of terror. The text in white is an example for the layer. As we see, the layers are progressively more radical. How does your average sympathetic Muslim move deeper into the circle? How much is the average jump? That is, how many layers does a person usually move through at a time, i.e. most don’t go from Joe Schmo to Usama bin Ladin. How can each level be dealt with? And how do groups on one level adopt the rhetoric of the other, in order to gain legitmacy and/or support? This goes both ways with the most radical toning down their talk to broaden their support base but also more “secular” groups who have regional political goals reaching deeper into the Islamist circle to gain more support (like in Chechnya).

I touched on most of these in the last post though comments on these questions are always welcome.

Next, we had mainstream Islam and the movements which branched off of it over the past. I tried to stick with the main ideological movements and not groups spawned by specific conflicts (such as in Bosnia). As most will see, the graphic is still simplified as pre-Al-Qaeda mixing is not shown, such as Central Asian Hizb ut-Tahrir members who joined the IMU and thused move further inside the circle from the first graphic. Again, along the way, mixing has taken place but I noted only the most significant one, i.e. Al-Qaeda, which resembles its name, the base, in being a type of foundation for global jihad though most of those who fight under it’s name are independent and very loosely connected to the actual organization which is quite small.

Lastly, a third graphic, which I can’t do at the moment (need to figure out the easiest way to make it) would show the past 20 years and the flows from all over the world into the various wars Islamists have made their own (Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Uzbekistan etc.). First you have flows from nearby places. Then the war is over and many move back and spread their knowledge. Then another war, this time more “flows” from further places go into the conflict zone. This repeats all the way through Iraq 2005. I hope you get the idea. If the pattern continues, not only in terms of the amount of wars but also the length of them (e.g. Iraq), war hardened Islamists will increase dramatically world wide. Granted, other factors affect support of them (such as the recent bomings in Jordan), but I hope the idea is clear. Time to go work on my Arabic.

Comments to this entry

Dan
December 6, 2005
9:20 pm
Weren't the Taliban Deobandis?
The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Clarifying Terror
December 6, 2005
9:43 pm
[...] The graphic at left is from a very interesting series of posts on Coming Anarchy on the development of terrorists and terrorism in the Muslim world. Chirol asks: How does your average sympathetic Muslim move deeper into the circle? How much is the average jump? That is, how many layers does a person usually move through at a time, i.e. most don't go from Joe Schmo to Usama bin Ladin. How can each level be dealt with? And how do groups on one level adopt the rhetoric of the other, in order to gain legitmacy and/or support? [...]
Larry Nelson
December 7, 2005
2:22 am
You ask many very important, and vital questions , but offer no answers, or conclutions. Are you too itimidated by the "Liberal" side? Do we still question the "good" that is being created by our troops? Are we being blindsided by the people the believe that "cut&run" is the answere? We "DID NOT" lose Vietman, the Democrats cut funding even while we were withdrawing. "WE" did not lose, the Democracts "GAVE" away every American death. Are we willing to do this again? A strong question!!! And how in the "HELL"
can you ask if our efforts are worth the cost. Is 9/11 past your memory? Is the USS Cole just a footnote to history? We must confront this total evil at ALL costs.

Thank you
Larry Nelson
darin
December 7, 2005
7:05 am
Larry Nelson:
Are you saying that Islam is "total evil"? If that's the case, I think I have to disagree. Islam itself is not total evil, but it is being abused by a small number of people that have totally evil intentions.
I don't think anyone here is "intimidated" by any side, after all, most everyone here is using an alias, and it's not like anybody is going to come track anyone down and arrest them for their opinions.
Lastly, I think this post is more of a "food for thought" post, just like the last one. A thought is planted in the minds of the readers, the readers, well, read, post comments, the thought matures, and becomes and updated post. If the answer to the question was already in the post, then there would be nothing to talk about afterwards. Lastly, I don't think anyone knows the answer to this question, in fact, I'm 100% certain no one knows the answer; if they did, the problem would already be solved. And I'm afraid "killing all Muslim scum-bags" is not an option.
Kirk H. Sowell
December 8, 2005
3:49 am
Dan: Yes, the Taliban were influenced by the Deobandis. According to Ahmed Rashid (Jihad, pp. 44-45), the Deobandi school of thought was founded in 19th century British India, one of several Islamic revivalist movements founded during that time period which are in many ways a precursor to today's Islamist movements. Apparently, according to Voll, they focused on independent Islamic reasoning like the Wahhabis but were comfortable with Sufism. By the 1980s they had established an extensive network of madrasses in Pakistan, and these religious schools counted the Pashtun Afghan "Taliban" as among their students. As you may know, taliban means "students" in Arabic and apparently Pashtu as well.

I also note that John Burgess had a comment on the Deobandis in the original post.

Larry, Darin & anyone else interested in what mainstream historical Islam teaches about violence. See my post, Islam, Muslims & the War on Islamic Terrorism. The post was written in the context of the reaction to the London bombings, but if you read the bullet-points I go through a brief legal analysis of Islamic rules of war and the relation of Islamic law to the war on terror. Essentially, the legal concept of jihad is not a doctrine of pure self-defense, as is sometimes claimed, but neither is it an intrinsically terroristic concept, as Islamic law has rules of war not much different than those of the West.

Darin: I am blogging under my real name. Bring it on.
Kirk H. Sowell
December 8, 2005
4:15 am
I keep trying to copy my full response to Chirol into the comment box, and I believe that it is the spam blocker that is doing it. Maybe too much text at once.

This is the link to my full response: Further Discussions on Islamism. It contains an introduction plus, in the "continue reading" section, all of my comments in response to Chirol's revised post. The comments above are at top, then the response to Chirol's revision (which I can't paste) are in the middle, and then my previous comments to the original post are at bottom.

Note that there is a printer-friendly version.
NYkrindc
December 8, 2005
5:38 am
I like the revised graphs alot better, but have some suggestions. I don't know if they can be integrated to the current graph or if a new one would be necessary. Also, it is implied by your graph but it is not obvious. So here it goes. The progression from your average disgruntled Muslim to the al Qaeda mujaheed seems to also result from a change in focus. That is, at moderate Islamists and Salafists tend to focus their transformation aim on either a particular country or region and they blame the local leadership or apostate regimes for allowing the corruption of Islam. The Takfiris, or al Qaeda, focus on the world system, that is, they look at the countries and regions they want to liberate and focus on the systemic causes for their inability to change the status quo. As such, they focus on the system itself and its main guarantor, in this case the US, as the main obstacle to the reformation of Islam and the return of the Caliphate hence bin Laden's call for cut[ting] the head of the snake [the US] and the apostate regimes in the region will fall.
Kirk H. Sowell
December 8, 2005
6:01 am
Response to NYkrindc's comment:
I think that is correct in terms of al-Qaeda's focus, and most takfiris are global in mind. And what differeentiated al-Qaeda in the 1990s from most other groups was their global focus, their focus on attacking the United States in the (largely incorrect) belief that the regime's survived because of the U.S.

But bear in mind that the term "Salafist" is very broad and it includes the takfiris, it includes al-Qaeda, as well as moderate or pro-democracy Islamists. The terms Salafist and Islamist are essentially synonyms. And I think it is true that many reformist Islamist, both militant and moderate, have been locally focused. Hamas is a perfect example of this. But also bear in mind that the leading reformers among Islamist thinkers are globally-minded. Their goal is to transform Islam, make it faithful to what they view pristine Islam to be, and for the moderates, make it what many Americans might call "liberal Islam," although they would not.

I addressed some of these issues in my full comments (linked above). I'll try again and see if the system will let me paste them in without having to retype everything.
Kirk H. Sowell
December 8, 2005
6:20 am
So this is my version of the classification system, excerpted from my full comments contained in the link above. Note that (1) is analogous to Chirol's inner circle, and then on out as they become more moderate, or at least more pragmatic:

(1) Takfiri Islamist: Islamist who believes that he can kill any Muslim, like the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who violates his version of Islam. Limited to people like Bin Laden, Abu Musab Zarqawi, etc.

(2) Radical but non-Takfiri Islamists: Groups which support terrorism against non-Muslims, usually avoid targeting Muslim civilians, and place much emphasis on social and political reform and build support by establishing extensive social welfare networks. Examples include the Muslim Brotherhood and its branches in Syria, Palestine and Jordan; the Lebanese Hizbullah and the Iraqi Mahdi Army of Moqtada Sadr, both supporting an Iranian-style Shia form of militant Islam; Lashker-e-Toiba, a Pakistani terror group with an extensive social network, and Tabligh Jamaat, a pan-Islamic group, strong in Pakistan and Europe, that is non-military but works to convert mainstream Muslims to al-Qaeda-style Islam.

(3) Moderate Islamists: Groups that base their agenda on Islamic law but reject all terrorism and embrace peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims. Examples include the Egyptian Wasat Party and the Iraqi Dawa and SCIRI parties which look to the Ayatollah Ali Sistani for inspiration. Similar groups exist in Morocco, Algeria, Kurdistan, Kuwait and elsewhere.

(4) Non-Islamist Muslims: These are Chirol's "Everyday Disgruntled Muslims," people with varying degrees of commitment to Islam as a belief system but who do not view it as a base for political action.

Note that groups (1)-(3) are all Salafists.
darin
December 8, 2005
12:47 pm
??Darin: I am blogging under my real name. Bring it on.??
Kirk H. Sowell: I guess I have no choice other than to "bring it on" then. I too, am under my real name, but not full because it's too long. Click on my link if you're personally interested in who I am, but I think that's besides the point.
I read your post in your blog, but I just am afraid that I don't agree that Islam is naturally pure evil. I did a quick check and got "this":http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html for a source to say that Islam is the second largest religion in the world in terms of followers, with 1.3 billion. Number 1 is christianity with 2.1 billion. If Islam was pure evil, wouldn't that mean all 296 million Americans would be dead if the religion taught to kill all Americans?
I think many of the worlds 2.1 billion christians are missing the most important part of the christian teaching, understanding. Understanding the other side, and people of other religions is very important in christianity (except for catholic; catholicism IS true evil.) I think more of an effort needs to be taken by christian people, and christian nations even if america says it has separation of church and state, it is still a christian nation. Next, I think it is important to figure out what we/americans have done to piss of enough Islamic people that they could organize attacks as they have in the past. Then if it is possible, we need to stop doing that.
If people of a region of the world, or people of a religion don't like american commercialization of the area so much that they would be driven to kill americans whenever possible, maybe america should consider not expanding to that area and save some lives. Sure, it's wrong to kill people, but if you stick a bear in a cage, corner it, and poke it with a stick, it's going to attack you, and it's your own fault.
I don't know the answer to the problem, but I do not that the current method of telling people they are pure evil, and they will die, is not helping. The more you tell someone their beliefs are wrong, the more you tell someone they are an awful person, the more they are going to hate you, and the more likely they are going to lash out at you.
Well, I have to admit, I didn't really "bring it on" in a very strong way, mainly because my whole point is that is the exact opposite of what is in need of being done here. I don't claim to know the correct answer to this problem, but I do know a wrong one when I see it.
Lastly, due to time-zone differences, my post/reply will be delayed for almost a day assuming you're in america.
Kirk H. Sowell
December 8, 2005
7:40 pm
Darin:
That was a joke. When I wrote "bring it on," I didn't mean it as a personal challenge. I'm usually pretty serious with my writing and it seems my one attempt at humor failed.

Your comments suggest that you have misunderstood the point of the discussion here. Neither Chirol nor I have ever suggested that Islam or Muslims were evil. Rather the whole point is to distinguish between ordinary Muslims and some which have very dangerous ideologies.
Chirol
December 8, 2005
8:34 pm
Exactly Kirk.

Even suggesting that any religion is evil pretty much guarantees you aren't willing or capable of having an intelligent discussion.
darin
December 8, 2005
11:34 pm
"We must confront this total evil at ALL costs." That was from Larry Nelson. My original comment was in response to that. Kirk's response was then partially to my response (along with others people's' as well), which I interpreted as agreeing with the post by Larry Nelson. "Even suggesting that any religion is evil pretty much guarantees you aren't willing or capable of having an intelligent discussion." I like to think that my response was along those very same lines.
darin
December 8, 2005
11:41 pm
Whoops, I forgot this one last thing.. . The way I started my original post was "Larry Nelson: Are you saying that Islam is "total evil"Â?? If that's the case, I think I have to disagree." Again, so, I'm not saying any Religion is "total evil" (except Catholic, but that was a joke too.) (1) I'm arguing against that thought process.
I think we perhaps may have some misunderstandings built on-top of more misunderstandings. Okay, off to class.

(2) Kirk, when I read your post telling me to bring it on, I didn't read it as a joke the first time. Now that you tell me it was a joke, It totally changes everything :) Sorry I missed that one.