A Crack of Light in the Press

Abu Dhabi's new daily, The National, seems to be a refreshing new idea. A paper with actual journalism. I found a recent article by Fawaz Gerges to be a refreshing read coming out of the region, even in an English paper. In it, he discusses the traditionally interpreted meanings and bases of jihad and how al-Qaeda's project to radically reinterpret these tenets has failed, producing a backlash in the Arab world against their senseless violence. Even so, his comments require some adjustment, especially for those in the West who would think he is wholly accurate about opportunities at hand.

Al Qa'eda has lost Muslim minds because it has failed in its attempt to radically redefine jihad and gain acceptance of indiscriminate violence in the name of Islam. A number of recent opinion surveys confirm that an overwhelming majority of Muslims are not merely unsympathetic to the ideology of bin Laden and his followers - they place direct blame at his feet for the harm he has caused to the image of Islam and the damage his movement has wrought within Muslim societies.

Another comment is interesting, but I think needs a little nuance. I don't have time to look up the Gallup poll right now, but I will either post a comment or a second post with the info. I think that, while very few people think the attacks of 9/11 were completely justified, there are a lot of people who were happy to see America's nose bloodied, maybe just not in such a horrific way. I think there is a middle answer between Gerges' assertion that the attacks have very little support and the common Western notion that a vast majority supported it.

Gallup conducted tens of thousands of hourlong, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than 35 predominantly Muslim nations between 2001 and 2007, and found that only 7 per cent of respondents believed the September 11 attacks were "completely" justified. Contrary to the perception in the West that the actions of al Qa'eda enjoy wide support in the Muslim world, 90 per cent of respondents condemned the killings on religious and humanitarian grounds.
Despite the real and potent challenges to al Qa'eda and its ideology evident in these debates, they have not received the attention they deserve. The West has failed, by and large, to understand the critical distinctions in Muslim opinion on these matters, and to forge policies to address the legitimate grievances of many Muslims - foremost among them the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war in Iraq.

Gerges goes on to talk about the distinction between AQ and resistance to occupation. Yes, there is a distinction. Some of the resisters are fighting occupation. Americans would do the same. Just look at the movie (I know it's a movie) Red Dawn. Charlie Sheen and Patrick Swayze were insurgents and they were heroes. But there's a difference between guys like that, and the guys who are doing the same thing in Iraq, etc, and the thugs who man sectarian death squads, bomb civilians, and so on. And furthermore, people try to argue against the American definition of Hamas and Hizbollah as terrorist groups, saying that they're political parties. Well, if they were really just political parties, then why did their militias mount what were basically armed coups, albeit stopping short of toppling the government, in Gaza and Lebanon? They did not increase their power by political means, they maneuvered into political power through terror. Yes, they had some electoral successes before that, but the bottom line is that they are armed groups, seeking political power through any means available.

Here's Gerges on the subject:

While al Qa'eda's "jihad" is clearly regarded by most Arabs and Muslims as terrorism, Palestinian, Lebanese, and Iraqi groups that employ violence in the service of what is seen as resistance to foreign occupation are considered legitimate. Muslims still regard the defence of besieged or occupied territories as honourable examples of jihad. It is not the violence per se that is the issue. Rather, the question is, What is the justification for taking up arms?

Gerges, calling for the U.S. to moderate its policies to take advantages of changes in support for AQ and their like, says: "In most of the Muslim world, the US is admired for its democracy and freedoms."

I'm not so sure. I hear a lot of people throwing freedom and democracy back in the U.S.'s face. America's democracy and freedom at home is questioned, and its attempts to promote the same in the region are thoroughly discredited among many. So, I don't know that his statement is true here.

In closing, Gerges says:

There is more than a glimmer of hope: the fact that al Qa'eda has been marginalised and discredited, not by military force but by exegetes using sound theological arguments is encouraging. It should make us appreciate that it is the articulation of ideas - not military force - that will defeat those who would engage in terrorism.

I agree that ideas are important, but at the same time, I think that refutation of AQ does not equal an opening for rapprochement between the U.S. and the Muslim world. I think that the issues and wounds go much beyond AQ and support for AQ. See this Brookings Institution poll for an idea of the depth of the problem. AQ is, and always has been a marginal phenomenon. There needs to be a much deeper change in public opinions for the U.S. to have an opening. Much of this needs to come from changes in U.S. policy, but it also needs time for views in the Muslim world to change.

It is great to see this discussion in a regional paper. Unfortunately, I do not know of any plans to launch an Arabic language twin of this ambitious new project. It is sorely needed.