Maajid Nawaz on the Islamic Nature of Islamic Terrorism

This is a very fraught issue and why it's important to read someone like him with his background. Nawaz was formerly part of the Jihad movement himself and writes about how he got sucked in and how he got out.

What's interesting about him, is his story follows that of many-like the Boston terrorists-who grew up in Western Secular society and got sucked into Jihadism through popular culture, the Internet, and social media .

http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Journey-out-Islamist-Extremism-ebook/dp/B00MJD7CW0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447547189&sr=8-1&keywords=maajid+nawaz

http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Future-Tolerance-Sam-Harris/dp/0674088700/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1447547189&sr=8-3&keywords=maajid+nawaz

Today he runs a foundation at the forefront of getting past Jihadism and coming to a real understanding.

"Maajid Nawaz is Co-Founder and Chairman of Quilliam – a globally active think tank focusing on matters of Integration, Citizenship & Identity, Religious Freedom, Extremism and Immigration - and Founder of Khudi, a Pakistan based social movement campaigning to entrench democratic culture among the nation’s youth."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/maajid-nawaz.html

Nawaz is clear that we have to grapple with the fact that Islamic terrorism is Islamic. This is something I haven't appreciated either.

"It’s time to confront Islamism head on—without cries of Islamophobia. Holding Islam up to scrutiny, rationally and ethically, must not be confused with anti-Muslim bigotry"

See as a liberal, I have had this problem too-I don't want to feel that I'm subtly promoting Islamophobia. But Nawaz makes the point that it's important to be able to distinguish the two.

"Talking about Islam today is a dangerous business. Disagreements about the role this religion plays in the world have become a wellspring of intolerance and violence. Cartoonists have been massacred in Paris to shouts of “We have avenged the Prophet!” Secular bloggers have been hacked to death in Bangladesh. Embassies have burned over YouTube videos. And young men and women by the thousands have abandoned their lives in free societies to join the apocalyptic savagery of ISIS. For years, Western politicians and commentators have struggled to understand this phenomenon. And many have struggled not to understand it, denying any link between “Muslim extremism” and the religion of Islam."

What is different with Nawa, is he says that Islam too must change. That it's misguided and harmful for liberals to give 'Islamism' or political Islam a pass.

"What most discussions of “Muslim extremism” miss, and what is obfuscated at every turn by commentators like Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, Karen Armstrong—and even Nicholas Kristof and Ben Affleck—is the power of specific religious ideas such as martyrdom, apostasy, blasphemy, prophecy, and honor. These ideas do not represent the totality of Islam, but neither are they foreign to it. Nor do they exist in precisely the same way in other faiths. There is a reason why no one is losing sleep over the threat posed by Jain and Quaker “extremists.” Specific doctrines matter."

Again, you see why I prefer to cite him in his own words as this is an uncomfortable truth.

He makes the point in a new post that a defeat of Islamism won't come through how many Jihadists we will kill, this is a war of ideas.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/maajid-nawaz-on-why-france-continues-to.html

"Since 9/11, the whole focus of the international community has been on destroying terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and ISIS, as if they were mere criminal gangs that needed to be disrupted operationally. The briefest survey of the state of the world, from North Africa to the North-West Frontier, demonstrates that this strategy has failed, abysmally."

"The underlying ideology—we call it “Islamism”—has metastasized and must be confronted directly. After more than a decade of conventional, physical wars, we must finally wage an effective war of ideas."

Nawaz insists that we must not leave out the Islamic aspect of Islamic extremism and he's critical of President Obama in this regard.

"To call ISIS “un-Islamic,” as President Obama has repeatedly done, and as Prime Minister Cameron recently stopped doing, is to play a dangerous game with words. Calling out and combating the ideology of Islamism is the only way that non-Muslims can help those liberal Muslims who wish to reform their faith from within. And failing to do so means abandoning the most vulnerable in Muslim communities—women, gays, apostates, freethinkers, and intellectuals—people like Nobel Peace Prize nominee Raif Badawi, who is being lashed in Saudi Arabia for the “crime” of writing a blog."

This is very important. As a liberal, I want to help liberal Muslims first and foremost. Nawaz points out to do this requires a war of ideas more than arms.

Ok, so I've now written three pieces on the Paris bombing and the problem of Jihadmism without mentioning politics. A record for me!

I mean, there used to be a belief that politics stops at the waters edge. I wanted to just talk about the tragedy of the French people and what the real challenges in stemming violent Jihad really are.

Nawaz has some food for thought for liberals like me and President Obama. Nawaz also has a very interesting piece that I may write about in the next few days regarding the rise of political correctness in the US and England at college campuses.

This is another issue that I'v'e wanted to wade into but only with caution as I don't want to say the wrong thing there. I don't want to get on the side of the Right wing David Horowitz cabal about college campuses.

But it must be admitted that liberals have to be at least very concerned about the kinds of things we've seen happen at Mizzou University and Yale recently.

There seems to be a new hypersensitivity where historical books that have any thing in them that someone feels is racist or sexist should simply be thrown in the trash.

Nawaz argues that this new totalitarian version of political correctness also makes it impossible to call out Islamism-as this will be declared a 'microagression' and so forth.

Of course, politics stopping at the water's edge is a nice idea but in the age of Newt Gingrich-political discourse starting in the Newt age-this is no longer possible.

Yes, Repubcans are already trying to blame the Paris attack on President Obama. And the media will no doubt be trying to help them do this.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/after-paris-security-politics-215860

So W gets no blame for 9/11 but Obama gets blame for what happened in a country 5000 miles away. 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353

There are as noted above perhaps some criticism of the President's practice of leaving Islam out of Islamic terror. But just the same, it's not clear how this vindicates W's war in Iraq. 

And as Nawaz argues, it's not about physical but ideological war first and foremost. 

It's been said that tonight's Democratic debate has been put where the fewest will watch it. LOL. 

In the aftermath of yesterday there will be more questions about foreign policy and ISIS.

This I think may help HRC as it's really a major area of expertise for her with her time on Armed Services Committee in the Senate and then Obama's Secretary of State. 

Now doubt there will be questions about Obama's ISIS policy to get her to criticize him or throw her on the defensive but after seeing her Benghazi testimony I have little doubt she'll hit this out of the park 

Ok, I'm gong to get ready to watch the debate. Talk to you soon.