The Islamist narrative

[sparklingway]

The Islamist narrative​

By Maajid Nawaz
Monday, 21 Jun, 2010

IDEAS matter. But what matter more than ideas are narratives. Ideas without narratives are like food without spice.

To successfully capture the imagination of the masses, ideologies require symbols, icons, writings and leaders. Importantly they also require narratives; and it is in providing this last part that Islamist extremists have been particularly adept.

One of the most powerful pieces of propaganda used by Islamist extremists today is the view that there is a global war by all non-Muslims against Islam and Muslims. This narrative has spread so far, and grown so deep, that some of the Islamists’ most vocal opponents have also subscribed to it; an indication, if ever there was one, of an idea’s success. Being someone with a long history inside Islamist groups, I remember spreading this narrative many years ago and I remember being met with laughter when I did.

I remember trying to convince people that the UN is against Islam, and I remember being laughed at. That is…until Srebrenica. I remember trying to convince people that Yasser Arafat and the PLO would ‘betray’ the Muslims of Palestine because they were not ‘Islamic’. I remember being laughed at. That is…until Oslo. I remember arguing that Muslims would never be tolerated in Europe, and Bosnia would spread everywhere. I remember being laughed at. That is…until Chechnya.

I remember arguing that western freedoms are tools for colonialism. I remember being laughed at. That is…until the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. I remember arguing that human rights are used to keep us weak whilst our ‘enemy’ grows strong. I remember being laughed at. That is…until Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. People eventually stopped laughing.

The really sad part to this is, by the time everyone had stopped laughing at me, I had stopped believing in this false narrative. Now they laugh when I tell them the opposite: there is no global war against Islam and Muslims. Yes, there are very unjust and unfortunate wars, but these are motivated less by religion and more by geo-political considerations.

One of the greatest dangers of this false narrative spreading is that it feeds directly into Islamist propaganda. If the kuffar are attacking us because, and only because, we are Muslims, we must respond as an ummah and repel the enemies of God...sound familiar?

Strangely though, it does not take much to pick holes in this simplistic, pseudo-intellectual and paranoid perspective. The truth is that it is selfish geo-political reasons that motivate any nation to act on the world stage, nothing more and nothing less. It is certainly not a hatred of Islam, and far less is it hatred of religion.

There is indeed a growing level of ignorance about Islam in certain western countries. Minarets and hijab have been banned in places. Religious sloganeering sometimes infects public discourse and the anti-Muslim far-right is on the rise.

However, can we honestly say that minorities are treated any better in Muslim-majority countries? How is it that the lives of a handful of people on the Gaza flotilla, killed by non-Muslims, were mourned far more than the lives of hundreds of Ahmadis killed during the same week inside Pakistan? And can we honestly claim that we too don’t allow sectarian sloganeering to infect our legal and political discourse? All societies, not just non-Muslims, must be judged by their treatment of their weakest members.

Do Christian-majority countries not also fight each other in addition to fighting Muslims? Were the two largest wars of the last century, the two World Wars, not between and among western countries themselves? Did the Cold War not emerge off the back of the Second World War and involve two Christian-majority nations: the USSR and the US? Was Britain not, until recently, locked in a protracted conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland?

Do Muslim-majority nations also not fight between themselves when their interests are at stake? Was the Iran-Iraq war not one of the longest and bloodiest the region has seen till date? Were Arab Muslims not killing black Muslims in Darfur? Do not Pakistan’s ethnic communities, many of them hostile towards each other, constitute Muslims?

In fact, when it suited their geo-political interests, have so-called kafir nations not helped Muslims against other non-Muslims? During the 1980s did the US not encourage the spread and growth of Islamist movements as a means to counter the USSR? In recent times, did the US not strike the Christian Serbs in defence of Kosovar Muslims? Is the ‘strictest’ Muslim-majority nation in the world, Saudi Arabia, not also one of America’s strongest allies?

Rather than being motivated by some form of desire to ‘destroy’ Islam, western nations, like all nations, are driven only by their national security interests and domestic insecurities. This weak, feeble and shallow analysis that there is somehow a global war against Islam simply does not stand up.

There is no need to ‘fight the kuffar’ because the kuffar are not fighting Islam. Instead, there is a need for Pakistan to better defend its own national interests, like all nations inevitably do. This is not possible if we remain locked in an internal struggle over the future direction of this nation, with competing narratives jousting for the attention of our youth. Strength on the world stage can only come from stability on the domestic stage. That can only be arrived at through developing a consensus on the internal direction the nation should take, and by clarifying and adopting the principles we wish our citizens to live by in public life.

This false narrative may have captured the imagination of Muslims in the East, but its exact reverse is being spread by the far-right in the Europe. And just as Pakistanis know that we do not make decisions as a nation on the basis of some profound hatred for non-Muslims, the opposite would sound just as absurd to them.

The writer is director of the Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism think tank based in the UK.

 

[Desert Fox]

Great post SparklingWay!

 

[Fighter488]

A very thought provoking and brilliant piece of article.

Strength on the world stage can only come from stability on the domestic stage. That can only be arrived at through developing a consensus on the internal direction the nation should take, and by clarifying and adopting the principles we wish our citizens to live by in public life.

Very well said.

 

[Currywurst]

While the article does hold merit.. The fact that it was released by the Quilliam Foundation will be reason enough for UK Jihadis to use it as counter propaganda against the Establishment

 

[EjazR]

^^^
First of all the term Jihadis is a misnomer, because what you really want to call such people are politcal Islamists. Jihad is a very broad term and frequently inaccurate in this context. The term Jihadis is used when actually people should be using political Islamists or people using Islamic for politcal goals.

Secondly, the author of the article is a former Hizb-ut-Tahrir member. This is where his credibility comes from. The Think Tank that he belongs to is only secondary.

This "narrative" is not unique to just Islam but to any politico-religious movement be it Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism e.t.c.

 

[RescueRanger]

Jihadis

Jihad is a term often misquoted as HolyWar... It's actual meaning is "struggle" or "strive". There is the great Jihad and the little Jihad, god has ordained that the greater Jihad is serving your parents and providing for your family and the lesser Jihad is to better your community.

Don't confuse terrorism and extreem ideals with struggle.

 

[Currywurst]

Jihad is a term often misquoted as HolyWar... It's actual meaning is "struggle" or "strive". There is the great Jihad and the little Jihad, god has ordained that the greater Jihad is serving your parents and providing for your family and the lesser Jihad is to better your community.

Don't confuse terrorism and extreem ideals with struggle.

I do wish Muslims in the west were spreading the above definition.. than the usual placards we so often see at every other demonstration.

 

[EgO Boy]

The Islamist narrative​

By Maajid Nawaz
Monday, 21 Jun, 2010

IDEAS matter. But what matter more than ideas are narratives. Ideas without narratives are like food without spice.

To successfully capture the imagination of the masses, ideologies require symbols, icons, writings and leaders. Importantly they also require narratives; and it is in providing this last part that Islamist extremists have been particularly adept.

One of the most powerful pieces of propaganda used by Islamist extremists today is the view that there is a global war by all non-Muslims against Islam and Muslims. This narrative has spread so far, and grown so deep, that some of the Islamists’ most vocal opponents have also subscribed to it; an indication, if ever there was one, of an idea’s success. Being someone with a long history inside Islamist groups, I remember spreading this narrative many years ago and I remember being met with laughter when I did.

I remember trying to convince people that the UN is against Islam, and I remember being laughed at. That is…until Srebrenica. I remember trying to convince people that Yasser Arafat and the PLO would ‘betray’ the Muslims of Palestine because they were not ‘Islamic’. I remember being laughed at. That is…until Oslo. I remember arguing that Muslims would never be tolerated in Europe, and Bosnia would spread everywhere. I remember being laughed at. That is…until Chechnya.

I remember arguing that western freedoms are tools for colonialism. I remember being laughed at. That is…until the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. I remember arguing that human rights are used to keep us weak whilst our ‘enemy’ grows strong. I remember being laughed at. That is…until Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. People eventually stopped laughing.

The really sad part to this is, by the time everyone had stopped laughing at me, I had stopped believing in this false narrative. Now they laugh when I tell them the opposite: there is no global war against Islam and Muslims. Yes, there are very unjust and unfortunate wars, but these are motivated less by religion and more by geo-political considerations.

One of the greatest dangers of this false narrative spreading is that it feeds directly into Islamist propaganda. If the kuffar are attacking us because, and only because, we are Muslims, we must respond as an ummah and repel the enemies of God...sound familiar?

Strangely though, it does not take much to pick holes in this simplistic, pseudo-intellectual and paranoid perspective. The truth is that it is selfish geo-political reasons that motivate any nation to act on the world stage, nothing more and nothing less. It is certainly not a hatred of Islam, and far less is it hatred of religion.

There is indeed a growing level of ignorance about Islam in certain western countries. Minarets and hijab have been banned in places. Religious sloganeering sometimes infects public discourse and the anti-Muslim far-right is on the rise.

However, can we honestly say that minorities are treated any better in Muslim-majority countries? How is it that the lives of a handful of people on the Gaza flotilla, killed by non-Muslims, were mourned far more than the lives of hundreds of Ahmadis killed during the same week inside Pakistan? And can we honestly claim that we too don’t allow sectarian sloganeering to infect our legal and political discourse? All societies, not just non-Muslims, must be judged by their treatment of their weakest members.

Do Christian-majority countries not also fight each other in addition to fighting Muslims? Were the two largest wars of the last century, the two World Wars, not between and among western countries themselves? Did the Cold War not emerge off the back of the Second World War and involve two Christian-majority nations: the USSR and the US? Was Britain not, until recently, locked in a protracted conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland?

Do Muslim-majority nations also not fight between themselves when their interests are at stake? Was the Iran-Iraq war not one of the longest and bloodiest the region has seen till date? Were Arab Muslims not killing black Muslims in Darfur? Do not Pakistan’s ethnic communities, many of them hostile towards each other, constitute Muslims?

In fact, when it suited their geo-political interests, have so-called kafir nations not helped Muslims against other non-Muslims? During the 1980s did the US not encourage the spread and growth of Islamist movements as a means to counter the USSR? In recent times, did the US not strike the Christian Serbs in defence of Kosovar Muslims? Is the ‘strictest’ Muslim-majority nation in the world, Saudi Arabia, not also one of America’s strongest allies?

Rather than being motivated by some form of desire to ‘destroy’ Islam, western nations, like all nations, are driven only by their national security interests and domestic insecurities. This weak, feeble and shallow analysis that there is somehow a global war against Islam simply does not stand up.

There is no need to ‘fight the kuffar’ because the kuffar are not fighting Islam. Instead, there is a need for Pakistan to better defend its own national interests, like all nations inevitably do. This is not possible if we remain locked in an internal struggle over the future direction of this nation, with competing narratives jousting for the attention of our youth. Strength on the world stage can only come from stability on the domestic stage. That can only be arrived at through developing a consensus on the internal direction the nation should take, and by clarifying and adopting the principles we wish our citizens to live by in public life.

This false narrative may have captured the imagination of Muslims in the East, but its exact reverse is being spread by the far-right in the Europe. And just as Pakistanis know that we do not make decisions as a nation on the basis of some profound hatred for non-Muslims, the opposite would sound just as absurd to them.

The writer is director of the Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism think tank based in the UK.

I THINK YOU HAVE LIVED TOO LONG IN USA, THAT WHY U R VICTUM OF AMERICAN NARRATIVE'S.

 

[Currywurst]

^^^
First of all the term Jihadis is a misnomer, because what you really want to call such people are politcal Islamists. Jihad is a very broad term and frequently inaccurate in this context. The term Jihadis is used when actually people should be using political Islamists or people using Islamic for politcal goals.

Secondly, the author of the article is a former Hizb-ut-Tahrir member. This is where his credibility comes from. The Think Tank that he belongs to is only secondary.

This "narrative" is not unique to just Islam but to any politico-religious movement be it Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism e.t.c.

misnomer.. Not for me.. Sure I agree 'Jihad' is a very broad term and depending on the person ranging from Non Muslim to Muslim further down to.. Sunni..Shia.. Ahmadiyya.. Bahai..Sufi.. Wahabbi.. etc.. There certainly is a varying degree of interpretation of the word 'Jihad' .. and 'Jihadis' for me. In my outlook Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a Jihadi organisation banned in Germany and not political Islamic party as defined by its member's .

While his credibility according to you may come from the fact that he was a former member of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, I would believe that the so called credibility gets diminished by the fact that he is also one of the founding members of Quilliam. Easy for the other side to indicate bias and call him a Munāfiq.. perhaps..

While the 'narrative' may not be unique to Islam, The target audience certainly is ..

 

[EjazR]

^^^
I am just trying to help you better understand different sections of muslims. If you can't see the political Islamic side of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, you may need to look a bit deeper in what they say and their manifesto. There is a reason why its still not banned in the UK.
Whilst I admit that the term "Jihadi" is used loosely often, this is actually a positive connotation to these extremists groups which "revel" in being called Jihadi. I use it myself sometimes but in quotes. By calling them terrorists groups or political Islamic groups, it hits the core of their ideology and de-legitimizes them. Nothing hurts them more than deconstructing this image of themselves than this.

Personally, I believe any movement that uses religion for political purposes should be banned and that includes Hibz-ut-Tharir. But the historical fact is that these movements were used in the Cold war with Western support to fight communist and leftists movements across the globe.

And can you please explain how just being a founding member of Qullium makes him a "munafiq" or not credible. I would be interested to know why you would say that. I can understand the politcal Islamists themselves attacking them obviously as they are countering their ideas, but apart from that---as far as they stick to the mainstream thought, I don't see why it would not be credible.

As far as I know all the founding members of Qullium are ex-HizbutTahrir activists. They even have backing of a number of traditional Islamic scholars. And the reason is because traditional Islamic scholars have always been against the political Islamic ideology. Just like for example, orthodox Jews have been against Zionism or the political Judaism ideology.

And each politco-religious ideology has its audience based on the religion it is using to promote political gains. I'm not sure what you mean by the narrative's target audience being unique to Muslims. How can say for example the narrative for Zionism or political Hinduism have Muslims as its audience?

 

[manojb]

I posted a video of same author two months back. Here is link of the same for your viewing

http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-social-issues/55720-jihadist-narrative.html

 

[Currywurst]

^^^
I am just trying to help you better understand different sections of muslims. If you can't see the political Islamic side of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, you may need to look a bit deeper in what they say and their manifesto. There is a reason why its still not banned in the UK.
Whilst I admit that the term "Jihadi" is used loosely often, this is actually a positive connotation to these extremists groups which "revel" in being called Jihadi. I use it myself sometimes but in quotes. By calling them terrorists groups or political Islamic groups, it hits the core of their ideology and de-legitimizes them. Nothing hurts them more than deconstructing this image of themselves than this.

Personally, I believe any movement that uses religion for political purposes should be banned and that includes Hibz-ut-Tharir. But the historical fact is that these movements were used in the Cold war with Western support to fight communist and leftists movements across the globe.

And can you please explain how just being a founding member of Qullium makes him a "munafiq" or not credible. I would be interested to know why you would say that. I can understand the politcal Islamists themselves attacking them obviously as they are countering their ideas, but apart from that---as far as they stick to the mainstream thought, I don't see why it would not be credible.

As far as I know all the founding members of Qullium are ex-HizbutTahrir activists. They even have backing of a number of traditional Islamic scholars. And the reason is because traditional Islamic scholars have always been against the political Islamic ideology. Just like for example, orthodox Jews have been against Zionism or the political Judaism ideology.

And each politco-religious ideology has its audience based on the religion it is using to promote political gains. I'm not sure what you mean by the narrative's target audience being unique to Muslims. How can say for example the narrative for Zionism or political Hinduism have Muslims as its audience?

I thank you for explaining and look forward to your insight. UK Government has in the past shown intention to ban Hizb-ut-Tahrir, it has avoided this because multicultural Britannia has enough civil liberty groups that would like nothing more than to take this as an example of institutional racism.. targeting of a particular faith.. etc.. etc.. The conservatives are in power today and during their time in opposition they have certainly argued for a ban on the organisation. As with all political parties agenda's when in power are quite different to when you are at the back benches so I don't expect to see them implementing a Ban anytime soon.

I have no problem in calling them Extremist groups..I completely agree with you on the exhilaration they feel and the fact that they revel in being called Jihadi.. But to call them political islamic groups in my eyes is providing them and their agenda legitimacy.

Agree wholeheartedly, These groups were provided institutional support and €€€€ by the west in the fight against Communist Ideology. UK and to some extend Germany have until the recent past tolerated and allowed them to grow as long as they did not plot against their host country, more akin to the don't ask don't tell policy of US Armed Forced w.r.t sexuality.

Well Ed claims to be an ex-member,Hizb denies it and there are enough people who would argue that such claims have not hurt him in selling his Book..I do believe that Muslim Counsel of Britain does not think too kindly of him.. but I take your word if scholars are backing him/them.. I am not versed on who the traditional Islamic scholars are that the mainstream Muslim population follows. however examples of Iran.. Saudi Arabia don't really add weight to the notion that traditional Islamic scholars are against political Islamic ideology(maybe our definitions are different). As to Munafiq.. I was just putting on the Jihadi.. Err Extremist hat and being sarcastic,no offense intended.My very first response clearly indicated that the article would not been seen as credible by Hizb-ur-Tahrir and people who sympathize with them .

Quite rightly so.. On the latter part of your statement I would need a little more clarity on what your question really is before I comment..

Maybe lurking was better for me.. Have a good weekend.. I'll respond further if Germany wins today!!!

 

[M8R]

Here's another article on Islamists...:p
Babble Media Mujahids (BMM, and also called, BAAM!) is a group of superheroes operating in Pakistan. They advocate religious tolerance through the killing of heretics and glorification of an independent judiciary. The BMM was formed through divine intervention when in 2005 God invoked a devastating earthquake in Kashmir to punish the people watching Indian movies and indulging in local brews.

The BMM gained a burst of popularity, asking the people to repent, repent, repent… and buy new 657 SL mobile phones and Nofone connections. The outfit has shown great concern for the country’s political, social, economic, cultural, moral, sporting, judicial, nuclear, digital, physical, mental, intellectual, psychological, physiological, geographical, biological, chemical and puritanical state of affairs. Anyone disagreeing is an infidel on the payroll of Asif Ali Zardari, Barack Obama, Madonna, et al.

The BMM’s biggest weapon is a devastating exploding device. It is called the Chattering-Bomb. It is constructed with tons of anarchic talk, cheesy innuendos, fact-free gabble, paranoia, and awe-inspiring gossip. When these ineffectual, I mean, intellectual, compounds are mixed they generate a reactionary effect that helps produce the most vital condition used in infidels: nausea. So, unlike conventional exploding devices that go ‘ka-boom,’ the Chattering-Bombs go ‘ka-blugghhh!’ But I must add that the Chattering-Bomb is a fascinatingly unique device because it may kill the victim but never the bomber. It only makes him/her fatter and louder.

The BMM superhero group’s heroes are: Ka Ka Kami who is an expert at making fast-talking jaws that explode every time Asif Ali Zardari’s name is mentioned but drop in awe every time Bharvi Minion’s picture appears; Dr. Shaddi Mashud, who has an invisible beard that explodes every time Asif Ali Zardari’s name is mentioned but shreds every time he talks to Kashnama Farigh on his show. Ansi Bhai (also known as Sansar Chaprasi), has a sleeping disorder that induces nightmares and explodes every time Asif Ali Zardari’s name is mentioned, but these nightmares turn into sweet lullabies every time the Swat girl flogging video is shown;

Then there are Narmeen Naswari (also called Hasseena Atom Bomb) who has diamond rings on her fingers that are actually tiny, baby atom bombs that explode every time Asif Ali Zardari’s name is mentioned but sparkle every time Immy Bravo flexes his tribal panther biceps at the many jirgas that he loves to hold in London and Mumbai; Yaqeen Sepahi who makes pens, also explodes every time Asif Ali Zardari’s name is mentioned but he runs out of ink every time there’s a suicide bombing.

Another effective weapon that BMM possesses is intriguingly called Chhoti Si Break. Though its immediate translation is ‘a short break,’ this weapon’s technical name is Coatis Commercialus Interruptus. This device pops more than explodes, both suddenly and rudely. Their fuse may be short but the break that they induce in the infidels’ patience can be devastatingly long.

However, the most devastating weapon of the BMM remains the device called Breaking News Grenade. It is actually a small size version of the Chattering-Bomb. It is indiscriminately hurled at infidels even more suddenly and rudely than the Coatis Commercialus Interruptus. Though highly destructive, the Breaking News Grenade is surprisingly made with nothing more than hot air! Thus, it makes a lot of noise and is mainly used to impede an infidel’s senses and bring everything to a stand still, making him feel that the day of judgment has arrived and it’s time to repent, repent, repent… and change your shampoo.

Over the years the BMM has gathered great power, presence and popcorn. It believes that a revolution is at hand and that it is the BMM that will be bleeding it, I mean, leading it. That’s why most BMM leaders are wonderful speakers, passionately speeching instead of speaking, gallantly deforming instead of informing, and declaring jihad against infidel concepts such as objectivity and commonsense.

Contrary to popular belief, the BMM has a lighter and a tad more liberal side to it as well. It has a cultural wing consisting of sirens in the shape of trendy looking androids that are fed burgers and French fries to further fatten their complete ignorance of reality. They talk in strange tongues called ‘minglish,’ and ‘Hinglish.’ One of the biggest successes in this respect has been the conversion of Zion Wamid who was once an uncaring, burger-popping DJ at a Tora Bora disco. Today he is a hero of the BMM.

Speaking on the issue, Wamid said: “Yo, man, like, I was a no-good dude, until the I-mess-I, I mean, the BMM, picked me up, and, like, far out, man, like, repent, repent, repent!”

The BMM’s history has been short but eventful. It believes it is on the verge of a nervous breakdown, I mean, intellectual meltdown, I mean mental showdown, I mean showdown with the infidels that will lead to a glorious Islamic/ Marxist/ judicial/ fundamentalist/ Bollywoodist revolution that will save Pakistan from the wrath of George, Gog, Magog and Rehman Malik’s curly hair.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Jihad is a term often misquoted as HolyWar... It's actual meaning is "struggle" or "strive". There is the great Jihad and the little Jihad, god has ordained that the greater Jihad is serving your parents and providing for your family and the lesser Jihad is to better your community.

Don't confuse terrorism and extreem ideals with struggle.

Thanks for the explanation. While i was very clear in my mind that 'Jihad' is not meant to be mindless violence or decimation of all non-believers, i did not really apply my mind to the concept.
Indeed it is about struggle, but does every struggle by default have to be violent and cause bloodshed? The doctrine of 'Jihad' most certainly did not imply that. As i understand it, the struggle could be within the person, within the community or outside the community. Even that does not seem to be understood by most people, though ironically, all these struggles are ever-present in mankind. It is only when we (conveniently) add our overlays and colours to this that the perversion takes place. Both for the perpetrators and victims/spectators.

 

[Hammy007]

I THINK YOU HAVE LIVED TOO LONG IN USA, THAT WHY U R VICTUM OF AMERICAN NARRATIVE'S.

good one haha

same old ranting......

___________

ask the ask how much he wants us to mourn over ahmedis???, and why??

dozens of pakistanis are killed each, why dont mourn over them, are they lesser pakistanis then "minority" ahmedis???

and one more thing, why the ratio of thanks given by pakistanis to indians to these sort of articles is 1:30??? strange thing isnt it, go to indian defence forum to amuse indians!!