« Book Review - "Future Jihad" - Part 6: al Qaeda | Main | The Moral Blindness of Omar Shakir »
March 24, 2007
Motivations and The Mahdi
One of our current problems in the war on jihadism is that we can't even call it by it's rightful name. We insist on "War on Terror", an unfortunate description started by our president. I think he had good motives in that he wanted to divide moderate Muslims those with evil intent and get good Muslims on our side.
Unfortunately the world didn't cooperate. We should have called a spade a spade right off the bat and termed it "War on Jihad". There is an important religious aspect to this war whether our government wants to admit it or not.
The Khumeinists (and here) in Iran are one leg of the jihad. They are motivated not by nationalism but by religious beliefs. The Ayatollah himself is on record as speaking out against Iranian nationalism, saying among other things that "Those who, in the name of nationalism, factionalism, etc, create schism and disunity among Muslims, are armies of Devil, opponents of the holy Quran and helping agents of the superpowers", and that "Our Movement is Islamic before being Iranian." (I've got another quote somewhere and will put it up when I find it- ed)
The way I see it too many people look at Iran and the situation in the Middle East as if they were looking at 19th century Europe. They see it in terms of power struggles between nation-states. I believe this is mistaken. We will never understand what is going on unless we understand their motivations, and the Western concept of nationalism isn't one of them.
Ahmadinejad and The Creation of Chaos
From the invaluable MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute):
In his just-published memoirs, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy relates the story of a meeting between three European foreign ministers together with Javier Solana of the European Union and President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The meeting, which took place at the United Nations on September 15, 2005, dealt with what Douste-Blazy characterized as "the generous European offer" to Iran regarding its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad was characterized by Douste-Blazy, a surgeon and a professor of medicine by profession, as stubborn, and the meeting was described as leading nowhere. Suddenly, Ahmadinejad changed the course of the conversation with the following aside: "Do you know why we should wish to have chaos at any price?" he asked rhetorically. "Because, after the chaos, we can see the greatness of Allah."(emphasis added)
A casual observer would ignore or pass over the mention of "chaos". Ahmadinejad is, after all, fairly nutty by our standards. He did, after all, host a holocaust denial conference last December.
Unfortunately it's not so simple. It is rumored that Ahmadinejad and some of his close associates are members of the Hojjatieh, a radical sect within Shia Islam.
The Hojjatieh believe that chaos and bloodshed will prompt the return of the 12th Imam, or Mahdi (Muhammad al-Mahdī (محمد المهدى) (or Muhammad ibn Hasan ibn Al). To Muslims, the Mahdi is "the ultimate savior of mankind", and will one day arrive to set things right by Muslim standards.
Patrick Poole, writing for FrontPage Magazine, elaborates on the Mahdi
Most Shiites await the return of the 12th Shiite Imam, Muhammad ibn Hasan, the last direct male descendent of the Prophet Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, who disappeared in 874AD and is believed to be in an invisible, deathless state of existene, or “occultation”, awaiting his return... His reappearance will usher in a new era of peace as Islam vanquishes all of its enemies. The Sunnis, who reject the successors of Ali, believe that the Mahdi has yet to be born.But rooted in the Shiite ideology of martyrdom and violence, the Hojjatieh sect adds messianic and apocalyptic elements to an already volatile theology. They believe that chaos and bloodshed must precede the return of the 12th Imam, called the Mahdi. But unlike the biblical apocalypse, where the return of Jesus is preceded by waves of divinely decreed natural disasters, the summoning of the Mahdi through chaos and violence is wholly in the realm of human action. The Hojjatieh faith puts inordinate stress on the human ability to direct divinely appointed events. By creating the apocalyptic chaos, the Hojjatiehs believe it is entirely in the power of believers to affect the Mahdi’s reappearance, the institution of Islamic government worldwide, and the destruction of all competing faiths.
So far this is interesting but only from an academic view if you're not a Muslim. But here's where it gets interesting.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has clearly indicated that he is a true believer in this faith. It has been reported that he has told confidants that he anticipates the immanent return of the Mahdi. When he previously served as Mayor of Tehran, he advocated for widening the roads to accommodate the Mahdi’s triumphal entry into the city. One of his first acts of office as President was to dedicate approximately $20 million to the restoration and improvement of the mosque at Jamkaran, where the Mahdi is claimed to dwell.
Pool also quotes Ahmadinejad as saying that "“Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi.".
By itself we would not rely on one article from FrontPage Magazine. But talk about the Mahdi has a way of popping in with regard to Iran.
Again from MEMRI, we have on the website of the governmental Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting(IRIB) an article titled "Waiting for the Mahdi: Official Iranian Eschatology Outlined in Public Broadcasting Program in Iran" . The link is to the actual Iranian website (note the .ir), where they have helpfully provided an English translation.
The document is rather lengthy and readers can go to it and form their own conclusions, but here is the summary by MEMRI
The program describes in glowing terms the messianic age to be inaugurated by the Mahdi. He is to begin his uprising in Mecca, and then march on Iraq, where he will establish his "seat of world government" in the city of Kufa and subjugate the current world powers. This will be an age of unparalleled happiness; there will be completely new technologies at mankind's disposal, and "corruption, war, and rebellion will no longer exist." Neither will "liberal democratic civilization."Various days of the year are mentioned as being propitious for the appearance of the Mahdi, though the program says that the precise date cannot be known.
The series also includes, in parts not reproduced here, a lengthy polemic against the West, focusing on Evangelical Christians, Zionism, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Hollywood. It also gives a historical survey of Western thinking, from Saint Augustine to Francis Fukuyama.
Just as with the mention of "chaos" by Ahmadinejad to the European ministers, if we didn't know any better we would pass over this article on IRIB. Non-Muslims would, or should, treat it with academic curiousity, but that's about it. Decent people don't make fun of what other people believe, we just don't believe in it.
The problem is that we've seen and heard too much from Ahmadinejad and his cohorts over the past several years. When we read this stuff we have to pay attention.
Yes I know that Ahmadinejad does not hold all of the real power in Iran. Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei is the Supreme Leader and holds, well, supreme power. But from what I can tell Khameini and his fellows differ from Ahmadinejad more in style than substance. They share his Khumeinist goals of creating a regional Shiite superpower armed with nuclear weapons.
The reason motivations matter is that the way I see it Iran isn't going to give up on obtaining nuclear weapons because of a few trade sanctions or a "carrot and stick" approach. No I'm not saying we ought to go to war against them, as I've proposed many options that fall short of that while being more intensive than "sanctions".
All I'm saying in this post is that we must stop looking at Iran and the Middle East as if it was 19th century Europe.
Posted by Tom at March 24, 2007 8:17 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/864
Comments
You said this: "We should have called a spade a spade right off the bat and termed it "War on Jihad"."
Jihad is required of ALL Muslims. Jihad can be of the hand or pen and non violent or it can be global terrorism. By declaring "War on Jihad" wouldn't that be twisted by the messianic Muslims as a way to justify a global fatwa? Every Muslim on Earth would be required to rise up and defend the religion that we'd have declared war on.
A War on Jihad makes all Muslims our enemy because ALL Muslims perform Jihad.
Posted by: Ruo Netoo at November 25, 2007 5:05 AM
You make good points, Ruo Netoo, and thank you for stopping by. Indeed we do have to be careful in what we say because the jihadists will try to use it against us.
But by the same token we have to realize that anything we say will be twisted around and used against us.
So it's really a question of do you gain more than you use with any action or statement? I tend to think that by declaring a "War on Jihad" we gain more than we lose and here's why:
You say that all Muslims are required to perform jihad; yes and no. Yes in that's what the Quran requires, but no in that many are going to refuse to take up arms against us. What we do is say that the jihad we are fighting is defined as "that jihad which seeks to undermine our societies, either by force or by destroying our values".
Right now you've got a bunch of Muslims who will tell you that jihad means "peaceful inner struggle". Fine, we say; you can have that definition and we have no problem with you. This will spark a struggle within Islam over the meaning of jihad, and we have to work to make sure the right side wins.
So as long as we say that we're not against the "peaceful inner struggle" jihad we can isolate the extremists. I don't buy the notion that if we say this all Muslims are going to rise up against us.
But that's just me. What do you think we should call our current war, if you believe that we're in one?
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at November 25, 2007 2:46 PM
I do believe we are in a war. I do believe it is named as best as is possible. I recognize the shortcomings of fighting a war on a tactic. But I see it this way. Imagine the film, Red Dawn, but the Wolverines are not loyal Americans, they are Muslims. And instead of hiding in the mountains and being hunted down, those Muslim "Wolverines" live in every neighborhood, they work in every occupation and industry or profession and branch of government.
And they are convinced that our explanation of a war on Jihad is just BS, (I don't think that is much of a reach). Doctors, pharmacists, cops, bus drivers, sanitation workers, auto workers, construction workers, food service people, air traffic controllers and etc. all of whom we rely on to do their jobs as trained and to the best of their ability.
And then imagine what they could do to 'the enemy' when no one was looking and they were assured they wouldn't be caught.
It's not a fight we can win without bringing an Iraqi style of existence to America...or worse.
I'd like to avoid that as long as possible, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: Ruo Netoo at November 25, 2007 7:17 PM
I just realized I was quoting you back to yourself! LOLOL
What Might Have Happened
It is easy to smile at what bin Laden thought would happen, for in fact he was wrong on all counts. But what if he had waited 5 - 10 years? What if he had waited until he was able to infiltrate hundreds into this country instead of barely more than a dozen?
Instead of 19 hijackers on 4 airplanes, imagine 50 - 60 on a dozen or more.
Imagine also that the terrorists are not only boarding airplanes, but that al Qaeda has infiltrated people into the FAA, where they now work as air traffic controllers. Others are mechanics at working at airlines. On the appointed day they all work in unison. The air traffic controllers issue bogus commands, and the mechanics sabatoge aircraft.
Truck bombers attack attack police stations and government offices, not just in Washington DC or New York, but around the country.
U.S. Military bases experience terrorist attacks carried out by soldiers and sailors working for al Qaeda. Aircraft are destroyed and ships crippled. Others in intelligence or communications units work to sow confusion.
Still terrorists act as snipers in cities, perched atop buildings or holed up in strategically located apartments, shooting at random those below.
How would Americans have acted then? The answer is that we don't know, but it might get ugly very quickly.
Phares lays out just such a scenario in Future Jihad. Now, I think the chances of such a plot going undetected are pretty slim, even in a pre-9/11 mentality. Yet even so, it is not clear that if we had caught some terrorists we could have prevented the entire operation. It is something to think about, certainly.
http://theredhunter.com/2007/03/book...6_al_qaeda.php
Posted by: Ruo Netoo at November 25, 2007 7:23 PM
Thank you for your response, Ruo Netoo. And thank you for reading "what might have happened". It's scary but it could have been, I think. Kind of like a "what if our carriers had been at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked?"
Your point that we must avoid giving the impression that we are making war with all Muslims is a good one. Point taken.
bty, I alwauy rather liked "Red Dawn", despite its obvious implausibility ;-)
So I'll accept the term "War on Terror" if those who use it then go on to accurately describe our enemy instead of hiding behind all of this political correctness. If our leaders would simply say that we are NOT just fighting al Qaeda, but a worldwide movement of radical Muslims, then I'd be satisfied. We need to say that the problem goes well beyond "terrorism". If we would say that Saudi Arabia was not our friend but was being harmful by spreading their evil Wahabbi ideology I'd be happy.
We need to put Muslims on notice that if they accept our values and assimilate into our culture and countries, then fine, we'll accept them as immigrants. If they don't then stay out or leave.
We need to demand that Muslims reform their religion. Wahabbism and Khumeinism have to go.
We have to separate out the radicals from the reformers, and go all-out in championing and supporting the latter.
Sadly, none of this is happening.
I can't tell for certain, but you seem to get this. President Bush may or may not, I'm not sure. A minority I think of Americans get it, and certainly very few Europeans get it.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at November 25, 2007 9:07 PM
