Here is the money quote:
Ultimately, this war within Islam will be won by those who present the most compelling theological argument.We can't kill our way to victory. Men and women make choices about what they believe and how they act. With the right conditions they overcome the effect of coersion. Then the brain counts.
How is the United States Government (USG) helping this process? Can we help? Are we more likely to overplay our hand than not? Are large numbers of troops in Afghanistan helping or hurting? What about a smaller number of military personnel, with more Special Operations Forces (and support personnel), perhaps with increased emphasis on the Diplomatic, Informational and Economic sides?
Keep in mind that this is an area of the world where Islam is important, but there is no "one Islam". The win will go to "the most compelling theological argument."
Regards — Cliff
10 comments:
"Fight fire with fire", eh? I winced more than just a little to hear this one. "Most compelling theological argument"??? I would suggest the competition to create such is how "the faithful" on both sides of every religious conflict in history have wound up dead on the points of each others' bayonets.
What we need most here is not an argument at all, but, rather, the most compelling compassionate response from both sides.
The Dalai Lama says the difference between ethics and religion is like the difference between water and tea: "The difference between ethics and religion is like the difference between water and tea. Ethics without religious content is water, a critical requirement for health and survival. Ethics grounded in religion is tea, a nutritious and aromatic blend of water, tea leaves, spices, sugar and, in Tibet, a pinch of salt. But however the tea is prepared, the primary ingredient is always water. While we can live without tea, we can't live without water. Likewise, we are born free of religion, but we are not born free of the need for compassion."
I think your argument is interesting, but is it going to sell amongst people who believe Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet?
This isn't about us, except to the extent that we are either (1) in the way or (2) can make the way a little straighter. In the end, it is about what the People of Islam decide. Are they going to follow a path to a greater Islam and a world wide Caliphate, or are they going to follow the path of letting each person choose for himself or herself. Thus, "the most compelling theological argument [within Islam]" wins.
But, if you can sell your idea across the Umma, more power to you.
Regards — Cliff
The money words in your quote are: "the war within Islam." It is an internal issue...and the US...a Christian nation....have no sway in their war...except by force...and then only by picking a side to support.....but then that is an outside and frankly artificial stimulation to the conflict.
All we can hope to do is kill a lot of our own folks.....spend a ton of money we don't have....and hope like hell that when the war within Islam is won...it might go our way. If not, then there will emerge a war between Islam and us...or the so-called free world.
Until then, we have our oar in pond belonging to someone else.
To borrow a phrase from middle school daze......we need "mind our own bee's wax" or we are going to get stung.
That's my point--"selling" more war to a constituency who believes only in war solves nothing. Marvin Gaye and some guy whose initials begin with JC have it right--only love can conquer hate. We can fight all we want, but we won't ever be able to stop fighting if that's the only tool in our drawer. And, not for nothing, but just as there are hawks and doves among the one side we may know best, there are as well among the other. We make a mistake not to address reasonable people on all sides with a better priority for compassion, understanding and mutual respect, NOT religious rhetoric. Along the way, many more people undecided in the middle of the argument will be swayed towards compassion if braver people on both sides are appreciated for it. We of all people should understand how religious rhetoric and violence only amp up the compulsion to return more rhetoric and violence.
"...and the US...a Christian nation...."
WRONG!
I think we are missing the point, which is that it isn't OUR theology, but theirs. The solution in Afghanistan can't be settled by us. We might wish the Afghanis would move forward on principles suggest by Kad Barma, but we won't be able to enforce that. So, in a region suffused with theology, the arguments may well be settled along theological lines.
Regards — Cliff
Going back to the first comment, Kad said: "What we need most here is not an argument at all, but, rather, the most compelling compassionate response from both sides."
The problem at the moment is that the Wahabbists think that ensuring you accept their way is compassionate—they are saving you from perdition. And there we are.
Regards — Cliff
the "Puritan", exclusive, intolerant, rigid Islam is not just an Afghan problem. One of the causes of the problem is a loss of identity---just as Islamophobia is partially a result of a loss of identity in the West.
----that is why a compelling argument is necessary....and for Muslims, this has to be a theological argument because religion is part of our identity.
The only way the U.S has a chance of influencing this narrative is to empower American Muslim scholars who can advocate for an Islam that values plurality, universality, diversity as well as the Quranic values of equality, liberty, justice, compassion and mercy.
Military violence or oppression/control will only get you hate.
By the way---the best way to cool down the fires of hate is by Justice. The U.S. has a lot to answer for in Afghanistan---it has killed many civilians which it callously referred to as "collateral damage"---such a term might ease the minds of the Americans but does nothing to reduce the pain of the Afghans. The doors to compassion and mercy will open easier once justice is seen.
I agree with some of your last comment Cliff, it isn't about OUR theology, and that is the bind. We bring our theology to the fight, to the solution, because that is our frame of reference. And, it is the wrong frame.
I disagree with your statement that Kad's approach won't work because "we can't enforce it." And that is MY point. Who died in the universe and left us King? Who are WE to wander the earth enforcing our "solutions" in someone elses country?
Certainly, we can offer our advice, our compassion but beyond that, almost anything else necessarily draws us into being FOR one group which then positions us as AGAINST another, or as in this case, several groups.
American society has become too enamored with our exceptionalism and our position in the world as a super-power (which we are rapidly losing). Just because lots of folks want to come here and be part of the "American experiment" doesn't indicate that what we are selling actually will sell in other parts of the world. Apparently, many ME nation-states don't WANT to be "just like us." And we need to let them be what they want....and sometimes....things get ugly while they sort it all out. Things got very ugly when we sorted out our differences with George and his countrymen in England, and we were not particularly amenable to external interference unless specifically invited and agreeable to play by OUR rules.
So, the solution to the "Afghanistan" problem is to stop trying to GIVE them a solution from OUR perspective. In other words, "get out of their business."
Finally, we ARE a Christian nation in terms of our national philosophy. BUT....I certainly agree that today we are much less Christian than perhaps ever before......and becoming less and less each year that passes. The chances are quite good that within several decades, the US will be predominantly Muslim. At least, that is the popular projection.
Thank you.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment