Because to a fundamentalist (though not necessarily militant) Muslim, Islam is the fulfillment of all mankind requires, spiritually, politically, and economically. There is no need for political ideologies, political parties, or democratic elections. Everything you need is spelled out in the Quran, according to their belief.
Actually, you could say the same about fundamentalist Jews and Christians, not just Muslims.
I don't see why that invalidates the central point of her column. See below:
Lumping all these groups under a single rubric creates the image of one worldwide and powerful jihadi movement rather disparate groups whose differences can be exploited. For example, Irtanians hate al Qaeda, which considers them to be infidels. And Arab Sunnis will never the follow the lead of Shiite Iranians, no matter the current cockiness of Tehrans leaders.
By exaggerating the unity and destructive power of terrorist groups, we play into al Qaeda's hands, says James Fallows in the current Atlantic Monthly after conversatiosn with 60 of America's top terrorist experts. We bolster Osama bin Laden's ego and reputation (along with the inflated self-image of Ahmadinejad.)
We also blur the strategies for countering such groups as Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, Pakistani's Lashkar-e-toiba or British Islamist cells. Such strategies differ by country and involve diplomacy and police work as much as military actions. |
