True but there is no reason that they have to be at militant war with each other.
Where have you been? Khomeini, bin Laden, the mullahs of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan say they are at militant war against us and non Islamist muslims, and act on it, murdering folk throughout the world where ever they can get away with it.
Baathism and islamism are totalitarian and actively, violently against democracy. They are at militant war against democracy and reason. Totalitarianism and democracy have been and always will be at war.
Fundamentalist Islamism is more about choosing the one ideological ground that is both indigenous and has the best popular ground than anything else.
If you mean by 'popular" as in 'liked', you're wrong. Muslims are like most other people - they can't get up huge liking for an ideology which is against dancing, music, fornication and intrudes into every nook and cranny of their lives and demands they live like out at the arse 8th century peasants and which followers are threatening and violent - it's too political.
If you you mean 'popular' as in, 'on the street and comes from ordinary people' you're also wrong. A follower of islamism has to be indoctrinated in the same way a follower of Nazism or communism is.
Whether they realize it or not, very few of its followers actually want it or believe in it; they support it because they see it as the one thing that can maintain independence from the West
They do want and do believe it. They believe it so much that some will kill themselves for it and many will kill others for it. Fundamentalist islamism is joined by most because it gives them the one place most of their corrupt rulers will actually allow political headroom: at the mosque and in the repression of women. The followers are mostly enticed into the movement because it's well financed by oil rich fanatics thus allowing the movement to deliver social and educational services.
It's not independence from the West that makes the adherents stay, it's belonging to something that gives a social space and personal meaning.
The attack on the West coming from the Islamist movement is part and parcel of its attack on all that is not like the movement. Many islamist movements are led to attack the West because it's too risky to take on the national governments but not risky to attack the West as an outlet for their followers' dissatisfactions. They attack the outer evil because it's not possible to safely attack the closer evil. In the cases of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, (and at one time Iraq and Iran) the governments are seen to be supported by the US, so the attack is indirectly aimed at demonstrating or attesting to governments disconnection from their citizens.
If you mean 'popular' as in the only place a lot of folk can go to get a pretence of political head room, you're right.
One way or another, America could worm its way into any political movement but not with fundamental Islamism This is why the middle easterners support it. IF there were alternatives that they could believe are as incorruptible, then you would see fundamentalists pushed to the fringes overnight.
The alternative is democracy and the rest of the panopoly of modernity.
The one thing the corrupt rulers of the ME and Islamists agree about is the inadmissibility of democratic forms. They may be enemies, but they are both enemies of democracy and so constantly attack it. |
