We know that the al Qeada terrorists say they are following the Quran and trying to establish a new Caliphate. Is this all it is ? We often call them “islamofascists” because they seem to be another millinerian ideology like communism and Naziism. Are we correct ? There is an interesting post on this subject at the Harvard Law blog. Certainly the Assassins were a cult of Islam hundreds of years ago, but as that post points out, mass mayhem as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan and even Pakistan yesterday, were not part of the Assassin code. They killed the target but avoided “collateral damage” as much as possible. Other anarchist groups of western cultures also avoided injury to women and children. Al Qeada is different. But, it doesn’t seem to be working for them unless mayhem is really the purpose and not establishng a new Muslim Caliphate. They don’t seem to fit the anarchist model, nor the Assassin model. Maybe they are that most modern of types, the nihlist to whom all rules are anathema.
You and I don’t agree on much politically, but that is indeed a thought-provoking post at Harvard Law.
I picked up an interesting book last time I was in the UK called “The Islamist” at Heathrow Airport, the biography of a UK citizen who was at one time in radical Islamist groups and then left. Unfortunately for me, the US customs were greatly interested in the fact that I had this book on me.
The best point the book makes is that Sufi Muslims are a lot more peaceful, but don’t find it appropriate to discuss faith in the public sphere. Thus, less condemnation for the extremes than we might hope.