i think part of the problem is that there is a shell game with only two or three definitions. for example, "fundamentalist" in some ways defines all sunni muslims. christian fundamentalists (a term that was coined around 1900 and based on the "fundamentals," a pamphlet outlining anti-modernist evangelical talking points) believe that the bible is the literal truth as inspired by god. sunni muslims believe that the koran is the uncreated literal word of god, this is non-negotiable, it basically the sunni equivalent to the nicene creed and the athanasian formula of the trinity (there are shia groups who have different views).

the term zakaria should have used (i haven't watched the video, my gf says he would be cuter if he had smaller teeth) was islamist, and in particular, violent islamist. one can be an islamist and nonviolent after all. one can be hardcore into extreme orthopraxy, following the most stringent interpretations of the sharia and still be nonviolent.

i think the _red brigades_ is a good model for the world wide islamic terrorists. but, my impression is that the _red brigades_ and other leftist groups were localized flare ups. islamist terrorists seem to have more traction, and i suspect it won't follow the same model, and here is one reason: islamist terrorists draw from a wide range of muslim groups, there are over 1 billion muslims in the world. the _red brigades_ drew from disaffected youth, usually from upper middle to middle class backgrounds. pacific fundamentalist groups like tabligh-jamati seem to be serving as vectors, or carriers, for islamic radicals, who pop in and out of these groups and use their enormous network to move between countries with ease. the equivalent for the _red brigades_ would be the euro-communist parties, who were much less of a societal force, or at least, they had less moral force within the society (i am aware of italy and france's communist parties).

p.s. fundamentalist religious parties do shitty in pakistan too. i think it would be fair to say that the "center of gravity" of muslim nations would favor not explicit and hard-core 10th century shariah, but an islamically flavored system of liberal democracy, that is, in practice as fareed would say illiberal democracy.

I happen to like Fareed a lot, so I'll make an attempt to defend him. If you read Fareed's book The Future of Freedeom, you'll see that Fareed doesn't really just "edge" away from the idea that democracy can end terrorism. He's always been pretty consistent with his advocation of liberalization before democratization - or that democracy is not always the answer to every political or social problem. I think he especially likes to distinguish between liberal and illiberal democracies, explaining how the latter often leads to the legitimization of extremists.

"Zakaria is right that the fundies have little public support, but only if you exclude some mighty key regions, such as Pakistan. And lack of support for fundamentalist political parties is not the same as lack of support for bin Laden or terrorist tactics."

The fact that he leaves out Pakistan is a valid point of criticism, but I'd also say that Pakistan isn't the only significant Muslim country in Asia, though it is in the news a lot. The Muslims in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia combined do actually represent a hell of a lot of Muslims. The majority of Muslims live outside of the Middle East (where support for fundamentalists seems to be prevalent) and the majority of Muslims in countries such as Bangladesh and Indonesia are moderate or liberal Muslims. It's true that he shouldn't shy away from Pakistan, but the point he makes is valid. Oh, since you say that, "lack of support for fundamentalist political parties is not the same as lack of support for bin Laden or terrorist tactics," I'd like to point out that the people who do support fundamentalist parties don't necessarily have to support Bin Laden either. The one's who do support Bin Laden and terrorisism are still a minority - a very vocal minority at times - but a minority nonetheless.

p.s. fundamentalist religious parties do shitty in pakistan too.

I think the evidence is to the contrary. The Talibanesque government in NWFP ruled by the Islamic fundies that was democratically elected (well, as "democratic" as the terrorist-in-chief dictator Mushy would allow) has just passed a law that pretty well establishes a 6th century mullahcracy in that province. This government enjoys popular support from majority of people in that province, and it is carrying out its mandate by passing the Hisba act that is expected to set up a Ministry of Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (sound familiar?).

I would like to hear any arguments that can fit this square peg into the round hole of dhimmi reasoning by Pakistan apologists.

despite the fact that fundamentalist parties recieve paltry numbers in national elections, the majoritarian sentiment in the muslim world, and especially the arab muslim world, seems to agree that the u.s. has imperial aims on their nations. when you ask iraqis why the u.s.-led coalition invaded their country, most say oil (actual poll numbers verify this). the rigging of the lebanese elections, the installation of the iranian shah - these interventions aren't far from the memories of most arab-muslims. again, i'd point to actual grievances - the occupation of palestine, the sanctions on iraq which killed a million kids, the presence of u.s. military bases on saudi holy land. these violations are seen by most, even the moderates. so to present this as just a case of crazy radical fundies is errorenous. often these people end up being the unwitting representatives of entire multitudes, even if everyone else is primarily concerned with trying to find a decent job and feeding their families. until we confront the underlying causes of terrorism, that is, the imperialism of the u.s.a., then bombings like the ones in london will continue. some see this as the necessary price of a planetary market. maybe so. even the romans had the barbarians at their gates as well. still, to present it as a matter of fringe lunatics, zealots seduced by ideology is wrong. it allows 'us civilized folk' to go on riding buses without a worry as to what we're being made to serve, without any consideration of whose backs our prosperity weighs upon. we should expect more from a brilliatn man like zakaria.

It is true, Pakistan needs to be looked at.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030_2.html

talks of opinion polls which show, that opposite to most of the Muslim world,

"Bin Laden's standing went up slightly in Pakistan, to 51 percent"

in regards to the red brigades, this relates to the issues of what violent means are legitimate, humane, and moral.

the revolutionaries of this country, for example, fighting for freedom from british 'taxation without representation', killed entire loyalist families, often bringing plunder and rape from town to town. they did not choose to fight the way the brits wanted them too - when they stood in a firing line, they got served; so they ran around like guerillas, and were called cowards.

abdullah azzam is a name americans should know. he is, ostenibly, the founder of al-qaeda, or at least that's what osama bin laden considered him. yet they had a violent disagreement (literally) - azzam did not condone the killing of civilians. his basic stance was that muslim warriors didn't need to lower themselves to the infidel's level. bin laden's stance continues to be that both the koran and political reality necessitate an eye for an eye. of course, i wish azzam's ideas had prevailed (bin laden may've had him killed), but as far as what works, i'm hard-pressed to make a case against hitting 'soft targets'.

for instance, would spain have withdrawn its support from the invasion/occupation of iraq if only their president had been assassinated? would 9/11 have had such an enormous impact upon our consciences if only the pentagon had been struck?

and i'll go you one further - was it really this muslim army that subverted the noble distinction between military personnel and civilians? or has this been true of nearly every act of war? take the bombing of dresden, hiroshima, nagasaki, the free-fire zones of vietnam.

i don't mean in any way to suggest that americans got what was coming to them. no people deserve a 9/11. yet if coming up on 4 years after that day we can't come to grips with the underlying causes of terrorism (even that which we ourselves are complicit in), then 9/11 may just be a horribly tragic beginning.

If you read Fareed's book The Future of Freedeom, you'll see that Fareed doesn't really just "edge" away from the idea that democracy can end terrorism. He's always been pretty consistent with his advocation of liberalization before democratization...

I have read the book, and it still doesn't fit the London bombers, who grew up in a liberal democracy.

The Talibanesque government in NWFP

well yes, the NWFP isn't most of pakistan. vermont regularly elects a socialist to congress, doesn't mean that's representative of america.

abdullah azzam is a name americans should know. he is, ostenibly, the founder of al-qaeda, or at least that's what osama bin laden considered him. yet they had a violent disagreement (literally) - azzam did not condone the killing of civilians.

i believe azzam ran the pre-al qaeda organization. he was assassinated in 1989, and i gather there is strong suspicion that egyptian islamic jihad, ayman al-zawahiri's group, was involved. the issue with azzam is that he had a narrow view of jihad

1) jihad should be against aggression of non-muslims into muslim countries (ie; afghanistan and palestine, he was palestinian).

2) jihad can not be against muslim countries.

EIG wanted to do jihad against egypt, which was a muslim country, and azzam wouldn't back them.

EIG wanted to do jihad against egypt, which was a muslim country, and azzam wouldn't back them.You meant EIJ, no? EIG (Egyptian Islamic Groun) was the slightly less militant group that Zawahiri's group competed with.

Which I know because of the book you recommended--thanks! :)

thanks for the catch! you are correct.

"I have read the book, and it still doesn't fit the London bombers, who grew up in a liberal democracy."

Ok, Manish, my bad.

the NWFP isn't most of pakistan

Well, that is a different premise from what u wrote in the first post where u made a blanket assertion that fundie parties don't do well in Pakistan, which would mean that all of Pakistan in general. Seems to me that there is no basis in facts or evidence to support that.

Must u resort to changing the premise when there is an evidence disproving ur original claim? Will u at least agree that fundie parties do well at least in a significant part of Pakistan? After all, while NWFP is not all of Pakistan, it is one of the 4 provinces and the largest one in area. Besides, the support to fundiesy has grown since the last half-ass democratic regime under Ms Bhutto because the NWFP was not under a fundie regime in that time. Taking these two facts together, would it not be a reasonable assertion that fundie parties support has in fact grown in Pakistan from 1980's to 2005?

Further, the fundies are also Mush's coalition partners. That gives them legitimate claim to power because of being in the federal parliament. These are the same nice folks that who keep blowing up different targets in India, most recent being a school in Kashmir and the Ram temple.

And that is the truth : the fundification of Pakistan has created a global pustule that keeps oozing terrorists to kill innocent people around the world. Now that some nice rich white folks are getting blown up, the world is taking notice. However, for the last three decades Indians have been victims of their Islamo-fascist terrorism. Not to see any connection between that and the general Talibanization of Pakistan is just living in denial.

Well, that is a different premise from what u wrote in the first post where u made a blanket assertion that fundie parties don't do well in Pakistan, which would mean that all of Pakistan in general. Seems to me that there is no basis in facts or evidence to support that.

no, you read me wrong. i meant explicitly on a national level. when i meant pakistan i meant aggregate national totals. i could be lying, but i'd be an idiot since it is well known that fundamentalists can do well in certain localities (btw, appealing to the NWFP's total area seems bizarre, xinjiang is 1/4 of the area of china, but that doesn't mean that that is a relevant issue when speaking of the salience of islamic radicalism among the uighers of that region).

And that is the truth : the fundification of Pakistan has created a global pustule that keeps oozing terrorists to kill innocent people around the world. Now that some nice rich white folks are getting blown up, the world is taking notice. However, for the last three decades Indians have been victims of their Islamo-fascist terrorism. Not to see any connection between that and the general Talibanization of Pakistan is just living in denial.

as i have said in other places, i think that the fundamentalist climate in much of pakistan is a sufficient condition for global terror (where people in the west get blown up), but not a necessary condition. i do think that a fundamentalist climate in pakistan is a necessary (to a good approximation) condition for terror in india. so the two are very different things. after all, al qaeda was based in sudan for much of the 1990s, there are alternatives to pakistan/afghanistan-where anarchy exists in the muslim world they can find a niche.

certainly if you put a special emphasis on india pakistan is very important. obviously it would be in the context of this weblog, as many individuals have a close relationship to that country. that being said, i think we should be careful about mixing and matching the different issues here. by analogy, just because hizbullah (shia), hamas (sunni), al aqsa martyrs brigade (secular sunni) and the PFLP (secular leftist) are threats to israel does not mean they are threats to the USA. if this was a jewish american weblog i suppose people would focus on these groups, but, i would speak up if i felt they were trying to bait and switch by eliding the distinctions between various terror groups and their aims.

the reason the USA has a modus vivendi with pakistan is that most of its controlled, direct, terror is aimed at India. this might not be moral, but in the game of real politik this is a highly relevant point. i am not an apologist for pakistan, i simply think it is important to express the opinion that some people here seem to put extra emphasis on its role in radicalism because of its relatoinship to india, and since i don't privilege india or south asia much, i think we shouldn't zero in on just pakistan (again, many would argue that the fixation on iran and iraq were because of the threat to the jewish nation, though in hindsight it seems plausible that iraq at least did not pose any great threat to the united states).

Many Muslims may sympathize with religious fundamentalists, but their major concerns are centered around the challenges of their day to day lives. They care more about jobs, housing, economy, and corruption than they do about abstract theological arguments or conflicts in distant lands. They find political parties that address relevant issues more appealing than religious fundamentalist parties.

hmmm..mullahcracy....fundification

I like the neologifixation here :-)

I have read the book, and it still doesn't fit the London bombers, who grew up in a liberal democracy.

One of the interesting points in the book I referenced above (Understanding Terror Networks) is that even limiting the analysis to global Salafist jihadis (i.e. Al Qaeda and friends), the "terrorists" don't all fit one profile. The London bombers would probably fall in a similar group to the French-raised ones who were participating in North Africa. Sagerman (the author) also mentions 2nd gen Pakistani British members of this movement, but I haven't seen much detail yet on them in the book.

the character of models is static, the nature of terror is dynamic.

I haven't watched the clip, but I doubt Zakaria can do a very good job at explaining his people. He comes from Bombay's secular cosmopolitan elite -- what does he know of hard-edged religious working class youth in Leeds?

As for PK politics, the province to watch is the one with 60% of the population -- Punjab. THe NWFP MMA is a sideshow, albeit an unpleasant one. As of yet, the religious parties have been unsuccessful in Punjab, but that hasn't stopped terrorists like the Lashker-e-Jhangvi from emerging. I could opine on what I think will happen there, but the Punjabis are not my people, so I'll take my own advice and shut-up.

NWFP is a sideshow.
MMA or other religious parties in Pakistan, have never won more than 10% of the votes in any national election since 47 (in the very few free and fair elections that were actually held)

razib_the_atheist : "the issue with azzam is that he had a narrow view of jihad [:] 1) jihad should be against aggression of non-muslims into muslim countries (ie; afghanistan and palestine, he was palestinian). 2) jihad can not be against muslim countries."

another interesting historical tid-bit is that osama bin laden actually offered to repel saddam hussien's invasion of kuwait. (i assume azzam would've opposed this intervention too.)

bin laden's mujahadin had just come off a great victory over the soviet empire in afghanistan, and were ready to take on the tyrants within their midsts. this highlights the fact folks like zakaria acknowledge, that this 'war on terror' is more a civil war within islam than a clash of religions or civilizations.

the u.s.a. said no to bin laden, instead deciding to drop tons upon countless tons of explosives, hitting water treatment facilities and other important civilian infastructure. and as if this mass murder of tens of thousands wasn't enough, the subsequent sanctions killed a million people too.

this constituted two out of three of the reasons given for killing american civilians in the fatwa of 1998, which led directly to 9/11 : that is, the presence of u.s. troops in saudi arabia, and the sanctions imposed on iraq. this is 'why they hate us', not some desire to put the entire world until islamic law. as far as most islamic fundies are concerned, us infidels can fuck ourselves to our hearts content, as long as we stop supporting military interventions in the arab/muslim world.

again, perhaps these interventions are legit, but it's important to know why terrorists terrorize -'they hate us because of our freedoms' or 'they are seduced by ideology' reveal an inexcusable disconnection from geopolitical reality.

this highlights the fact folks like zakaria acknowledge, that this 'war on terror' is more a civil war within islam than a clash of religions or civilizations.

There's been a lot of time that's passed since the victory of the mujahadeen in the Taliban--from what I've read, there is a notion of reconquista now by some jihadis (definitely not all--and the people you're talking about might make up the majority). This obviously wouldn't apply to the U.S.--perhaps we'll get a really Machiavellian President who will stop supporting India, the Philliipines, Spain, Portugal, parts of the Balkans, and other lands claimed by Al Qaeda ;)

the u.s.a. said no to bin laden, instead deciding to drop tons upon countless tons of explosives, hitting water treatment facilities and other important civilian infastructure. and as if this mass murder of tens of thousands wasn't enough, the subsequent sanctions killed a million people too.

My understanding is that it's the Saudis who said no, not the U.S. (although I don't know the machinations behind that). But I agree with your general point that non-Muslim military presence in force on the Arabian peninsular and in Saudi Arabia probably was probably a raison d'etre of the expansion from localized jihad struggles to a global one. Mayby it makes sense to see this not as a conflict between civilizations but a conflict between Western economic and neoimperial interests and disempowered Salafist interests--with the "war between civilizations" prophecy being propagated by the former and aided through stupidity, narrow-mindedness, and geopolitical interests by the latter.

Zakaria, I am afraid, has swallowed the big one from the neocons and supported the war. Now he is indulging in all kinds of verbal gymnastics, to explain his position. Setting aside his intellect (which is pretty good) he tries to play both ways, corporate poster boy and objective journalist. And ends up looking more and more as a political transvestite...

Wikipedia reports that India has the third largest Muslim population in the world. But by and large Indian mulsims have mostly refrained from terrorist-related activities(and correct me if I am wrong). I wonder why this is (If I am not mistaken even the Indian PM noted this in one of his interviews). Not that I want them to get "recruited" but just curious as to what other people think about this.

But by and large Indian mulsims have mostly refrained from terrorist-related activities(and correct me if I am wrong). I wonder why this is (If I am not mistaken even the Indian PM noted this in one of his interviews). Not that I want them to get "recruited" but just curious as to what other people think about this.

My uninformed guess would be that if Indian Muslims were predisposed to engaging in some sort of misguided violent defense of the umma, they would probably do it lcoally or in Kashmir, rather than joining Al Qaeda and friends. It's an interesting question; thanks for posing it.

MS, that's a very interesting question. BTW, India has world's second largest muslim population AFAIK. But coming back to teh question of why Indian muslims are not part of the global Salafist jihad, I just happened to read this recent article that talks about the same issue:

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=1190

i could be lying, but i'd be an idiot since it is well known that fundamentalists can do well in certain localities (btw, appealing to the NWFP's total area seems bizarre, xinjiang is 1/4 of the area of china, but that doesn't mean that that is a relevant issue when speaking of the salience of islamic radicalism among the uighers of that region).

Agian, you are comparing apples to oranges. The reason why NWFP is important is because it has a *popular* and *democratically elected* government of fundies. The size of NWFP is important because it gives that much more space to the fundies for training, arming and raising the footsoldiers of the global johad. Comparison with the Chinese is ridiculous because the Uighurs are *not* the government, dude. If they were, certainly the large sanctuary would then become important.

And for those who are trying to dismiss NWFP as a sideshow, I can't decide if you are just living in utter denial or if it is just your wishful thinking. NWFP is the first ever stronghold for the MMA, which uses this power base to exert fundism throughout the rest of Pakistan. You can apologize for Pakistan all you want, or choose to turn a blind eye to it, but if you don't understand the significance of the MMA using NWFP to strengthen jihadism in Pakistan then I am afraid you have learnt nothing from history. Explain to me, for example, how the MMA would have become the terrorist-in-chief Mushy's coalition partner in Pakistan without grabbing power in NWFP, and gaining more and more support in the rest of the country? Is this really just about fundies doing well in "some local constituencies"? Expecially when these same constituencies were *not* controlled by fundies in the late eighties/early nineties? Let's hear the logic : I am all ears.

i think we should be careful about mixing and matching the different issues here.

Again, more wishful thinking on your part. Even if you forget the creation of that islamic cesspool called Taliban by the Pak government, you find the graduates of Pak terrorism schools all over the map. In fact, most acts of global terrorism throughout nineties have had Pakistani connections all over them. First WTC bomber Ramzi yousef was a Pakistani, and lived in Karachi. 9/11 attacks were financed through Pakistan. And now it turns out that not only the London bombings, but also the Egypt bombings of last week are a work of Pakistani jihadis.

All of this is a result of deliberate Islamization of Pakistan under Zia starting in the eighties. Don't believe me? Here's excerpts from Mushy's latest speech to Pakistan, televised on July 21.

Besides, dozens of the Mujahideen organizations surfaced who were openly recruiting and training the common citizens. Funds and donations were being collected to buy weapons. Jehadi literature had been published in this region for the last 25 years. It has all been happening in our society for the last 25 years and its all happening in this region.

Full text:
http://www.infopak.gov.pk/President_Addresses/Speech_Jul_21_2005.htm

The sooner we acknowledge and appreciate this stark reality, the more helpful it will be. We cannot even begin to start thinking about solutions while keeping our heads firmly buried in the sand about how consumed the Pakistani society has become about its delusional notions of spreading jihad, creating ummah and unfurling the green falg of Islam in Kashmir, and consequently how much of a menace this one country has become to the rest of the civilized world.

Sorry, the bold text in the last post should be under quotes. It is directly taken from Musharraf's latest speech, available at the URL underneath.

Gujjubhai,
If you were the US President would you consider invading Pakistan, removing the Musharraf government, occupying the nation ( Marshall plan maybe) and try to establish a liberal democracy ?

Mujahid Bhai,

Bhagwan has not blessed me with enough wisdom to answer such a question even in a hypothetical context. What I do know is that not acknowledging the existence of a problem and ignoring inconveinet facts has never been a useful approach to solving a problem. Unfortunately, in a lot of debates on terrorism including those on threads here on this blog, I see that many people are doing exactly that : they go through incredible verbal and rhetorical gymnastics to deny, deflect, rationalize and do everything else but face the root cause of global terrorism, which is the fundification of Pak and the ideological and financial
support by Saudi Arabia for the creation of a global jihadi infrastructure. Saudi money + Pak military together are running an integrated global jihad operation using the impressionable young minds from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and as it turns out now, people of Pakistani origin in other countries like Britain. Al Qaeda and Taliban are just offhoots - Frankenstianina and may be out of control today, but still the progeny - of this vast enterprise whose foundations were laid down by the Zia regime in late 70's and early 80's to foment terrorism in Punjab. Any attempt at solving the terrorism problem has to recognize these facts, and start with at least this much grounding in reality.

Read the Musharraf speech : it's a confessions of all that is going on in Pakistan for the last few decades. What is really interesting is that all of this would've continued to go on if now whitelives were lost in the West. As long as the victims were Kashmiri or other Indian Hindus, the world would go on its merry way and Pak militiary would 've continued its policy of bleeding India by thousand cuts. Hopefully, this time around, the world will wake up and learn that terrorism is an enemy of civilization itself and assuming that it will stay localized is just stupid. It they are killing brown infidels today and going unpunished, they will certainly turn around and start killing whitey infidels tomorrow. Any solution of terrorism has to be based on the Nato-esque premise that attack on one part of civilized world is attack on everyone. It doesn't matter if the victims are brown, yellow, white or Hindus, Muslims or Christians, terrorism must be stopped. A life on Egyptian muslim victim of terrorism is just as valuable as that of a Kashmiri Hindu or a British Chsritian or an American Sikh.

Gujjubhai, that should be US money + Saudi money + Pak military

Here is another article that looks at the lack of involvement of Indian Muslims in terrorism.