Defining the Enemy

Words matter. They matter more than usual when defining an enemy in a war.

Our enemy has had no problem defining the enemy. Their enemy is everyone who opposes the spread of Islam. The West is high on that list because of its military and economic power and because it is the engine of globalization. Globalization is the organism that carries the pathogens that will transform or destroy traditional Islam and other tribal, pre-modern ideologies: capitalism, democracy and secularism.

We do have a problem defining our enemy. Here is a list of proposed names for our enemy that I see every day on the internet, arranged from the least specific (least likely to inspire political backlash) and least inclusive to the most specific and inclusive:

Criminals
Extremists, Terrorists
Radical Islam, Political Islam
Islamists, Fundamentalists
Traditional Islam
Islam

Another characteristic of this list is that it implies a response level appropriate to the enemy definition. If the enemies are criminals with no ideology that connects them, then we need do nothing in addition to business as usual—catch them and send them to jail and the problem is solved.

If the whole religion of Islam is identified as the enemy, the response cannot be business as usual and World War III is upon us.

I refer to Radical Islam, Islamism and Traditional Islam as the enemy in generalized contexts, but when being specific I use Traditional Islam, for the following reason:

The Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam:

We are advocating on behalf of all humanity, including Muslims who are themselves victims of Radical Islam. This group will never claim that Islam as a religion is inherently radical. We will take action against Radical Islam based upon concrete political grounds only.
http://hrcari.wordpress.com/about/

The only criticism I have of that statement is that it does not address the theological source of Radical and Political Islam. That source is traditional Islamic law.

Those who describe the problem in Islam as Radical and Political usually trace it back to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in 1929) and the writings of Sayyid Qutb, 1906-1966. What they miss when they say that today’s problem only appeared in the 20th century is that Qutb got his ideas from that influential Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, who was born in 1263 and died in 1328.

None of Qutb’s ideas were new to him or Islam:
• Separation of religion and state should not be allowed.
• The use of force is allowed to overthrow non-Islamic governments (sedition).
• The use of takfir — the Muslim equivalent of excommunication -- which carries a death sentence, is allowed.

My conclusion is that Islam must be reformed to remove traditional Islamic law that threatens non-Muslims. Our present problems with Islam did not start in the 20th century.

Originally posted on 5/16/09