One answer could be that an assumption was made that jobs would always provide income for the payments of such mortgages. So, up to this stage, blame can be leveled in two directions. First, towards those politicians who threatened political retaliation if the financial system didn’t lend beyond rational limits; and second, Wall Street financiers who risked breaking the financial system by relying on poor judgment regarding the public’s ability to overcome economic challenges. Economists and those investigative committees expected to be formed will tell us more about the American roots of this economic debacle.
Prague, September 16, 2008 | At the invitation of the Prague Security Studies Institute (PSSI), a think tank for international relations in the Czech Republic, I delivered a lecture on “Jihadist Strategies against Europe: Background, Projections and Options.” The event was co-sponsored by the Brussels-based European Foundation for Democracy, and the forum was attended by PSSI officers, diplomats and NGO members. It is to note that under the forthcoming Czech Presidency, the European Union may be able to take perhaps more daring steps in recognizing the importance of the dissident segments of the Greater Middle East in the process of opposing totalitarian ideologies. In this lecture, part of my second summer European tour, I called on policy makers to focus seriously on a strategic support to dissidents and democracy forces in the Arab and Muslim world instead of relying exclusively on the so-called hopeless engagement with Jihadist movements. For, as I tried to make the case, findings tells us that in every balanced opportunity when counter Jihadist Muslims engage the Jihadists in a battle of ideas, the counter Jihadists win. And everytime the Jihadists have no challengers from within the Arab and Muslim political culture to contend with, they naturally win.
Subject: Short interview with World Defense Review in reaction to the car bomb that exploded in Syria today. The main thesis is that the Syrian intelligence may have been behind this explosion to prepare for retaliation against anti-Syrian communities in Lebanon and to convince the West that the Syrian regime is also “targeted by Terrorism.”
As shown by world networks, the hellish flames ravaging the Mariott Hotel in Islamabad seemed like a vision of the Apocalypse. That’s at least how many survivors of the Terror attack that massacred more than 60 and wounded hundreds have described it: “The end of the World.” But beyond the barbaric bloodshed and the human suffering ensuing, the heavy question fuses fast: How to read this Jihadi mayhem and what is the message behind the bombing?
Walid Phares, a visiting fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, talks to RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel about Al-Qaeda’s setbacks in Iraq and the future of its ideology.
Moving fast to reach out to the Islamist regime in Khartoum, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah organization openly declared its backing of Omar Bashir’s government as the latter in turn solidified its alliance with Hezbollah. This development, which surfaced as of the end of July, comes in parallel of an attempt by the Khomeinist-inspired organization to sign a collaboration agreement with Salafist factions in Beirut a few weeks ago. But the Hezbollah-Sudan exchange of declarations of support is by far the most significant convergence of Jihadi forces from the two branches of Islamism since Iran began funding Hamas and Islamic Jihad more than a decade ago.
The post-Soviet world has never been closer to what we knew as the Cold War than right now. Iran is pleased. We should all be concerned. New proxy conflicts may soon emerge.
The following short piece is a summary of an analysis I discussed during this summer June-July with European officials as a Visiting Fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. Among the main groups and fora I presented these ideas to were: The Majority Party EPP at the European Parliament in its Conference in Paris; the secretariat for international relations of the European Socialist Group; the Center for International Affairs in Rome with the participation of the Chief of Staff of the Italian Armed Forces; members of the Budenstag on National Security and Foreign Affairs in Berlin, counter terrorism officials at the European Union including from the UK, Germany, Spain, Czech Republic, Rumania, Belgium, Slovakia, Poland, Estonia, as well as top officials at the interior ministries offices on radicalization in Germany, France and the UK. I will expand in another posting on the circulation of ideas and the various challenges facing Europe and the West in general per these discussions. The summary below was initially presented at the Paris Conference and shared with the various officials I met with.
Innocent minds may question how that impacts our lives. However, events that unfold in Beirut have a direct effect on the war on terror, or to be more precise, on the jihadist war on democracies. Here is why:
In a video accusing China’s Communist Government of “mistreating Muslims” a Jihadi group threatened to attack the Summer Games in Beijin. A spokesman of the Turkistan Islamic Party accuses China of “forcing Muslims into atheism and destroying Islamic schools. The “Turkistan Islamic Party” is most likely based across the border in Pakistan, where sources affirm it received training from Al Qaeda.
Many in the West and in other regions of the world were impressed by the issuing of a fatwa (Islamic theological edict) condemning Terrorism by one of the leading religious centers in the Muslim world, the Darool-Uloom Deoband in India. An Islamic seminary said to have ‘inspired’ the Taliban has, according to the said document denounced “terrorism” as against Islam, calling it an “unpardonable sin.”
Hoping for a major change in ideology, international counter terrorism authorities and policy makers have been asking experts to determine if the Deobandi declaration will help counter the calls for violent Jihad by al Qaeda and its ilk around the world. In the war of ideas with the Jihadists, many Western architects of strategic communications look for any sign that hearts and minds may be changing course and sympathies. From Washington DC to Brussels and beyond, bureaucrats tasked with exploring the Muslim world for new trends, shop around for what they call “counter-narrative against extremism.”
The Deobandi School, a classical third branch for Salafi Islamism (along with Wahabism and Muslim Brotherhood), has significant weight in the South Asia Theater. Its teachings based on a strict interpretation of Islamic law have reached many countries, including Afghanistan and Britain, where they are said to have indoctrinated the Taliban.
“If they change course, al Qaeda and the Taliban are finished,” I heard in Europe and the United States. So the question now is have they changed doctrinal direction and is this fatwa the evidence?
I regretfully conclude that it is not the case yet.
It looked good at first
Tens of thousands of clerics and students from around India attended a meeting at the 150-year-old Deoband, north of New Delhi, and declared that they stand “against acts of terrorism.”
“There is no place for terrorism in Islam,” Maulana Marghoobur Rahman, the older rector of Deoband, told Reuters. “Terrorism, killing of the innocent is against Islam. It is a faith of love and peace, not violence.” Rahman said it was unjust to equate Islam with terrorism, to see every Muslim as a suspect or for governments to use this to harass innocent Muslims.
“There are so many examples of people from other communities being caught with bombs and weapons, why are they never convicted?” said Qazi Mohammed Usman, deputy head of Deoband. The meeting defined terrorism as any action targeting innocent people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, whether committed by an individual, an institution or a government.
These statements could be seen as impressive when quoted by news agencies rushing to break the good news, but to the seasoned analysts of Salafism, the solid doctrinal roots of Jihadism were kept untouched. Here is why.
Goals of the fatwa
From the fatwa itself and the statements made as it was issued, the following political goals likely motivated the gathering and the fatwa.
Create a separation in the eyes of the public discourse between Islam (as a religion) and terrorism as an illegal violent activity.
Such a move is legitimate and to be encouraged as it diminishes the tensions towards Muslims in non-Muslim countries, particularly in the West, as some are claiming that the Islamic religion is theologically linked to the acts and statements of the Jihadists. The logic of “we are Muslims and we are against Terrorism,” helps significantly the disassociation between the community and the acts of violence. However, without criticizing the ideological roots of this violence, the fatwa seem to state a wishful thinking, not an injunction. A more powerful fatwa should have openly and expressly said: “we reject the calls for violent Jihad regardless of the motives.” For the followers of Jihadism do not consider their Jihad as “terrorism.” Their answer has always been -to these types of fatwas- “but we aren’t performing terrorism, we are conducting Jihad.” Thus, at this crucial level, the Deobandi fatwa missed the crux of the problem.
Deny governments the ability to use the accusation that Islam condones Terrorism to oppress Muslims.
The fatwa is concerned with geopolitics more than theological reform. Concern for the safety of one’s co-religfionists is of course legitimate and should be addressed. But Jihadism, the legitimizing root of political violence, cannot be ignored in any effort to protect the lives of Muslims.
There is no evidence that modern day governments have expressly linked religion to terrorism; quite the opposite. Almost all national leaders involved in the confrontation with Jihadi forces since 9/11 have clearly made a clear distinction between religion and terrorism.
Some even went further by negating any link whatsoever between theological texts and Jihadism, which of course is not accurate. For in the texts, there are passages used by the Terrorists in their indoctrination. Hence, the Deobandi fatwa should have instead asked clearly the Jihadists not to use these citations or else they would be considered as sinners themselves. But instead of using their religious prominence to remove the theological weapon from the hands of the Jihadists, the Deobandi clerics are attempting to shield the Jihadists from the actions of Governments by denying that these extremists are indeed using — and abusing — religion.
Some may argue that the fatwa’s open goal is to defend Muslims from being unjustly targeted by non-Muslim governments (a positive move) but a thorough analysis of the text used shows that the main intention of that declaration is to defend the Islamists from being contained by both Muslim and non-Muslim Governments around the world. In other words by denying that Jihadism is the root cause of many acts of Terror in Europe, the US, Africa, the Greater Middle East and Asia, the Deobandi fatwa in fact is shielding the Jihadists from the accusation of Terrorism, thus protecting them.
Who is “innocent”?
The fatwa defined terrorism as violence “targeting innocent people.” Such a definition is not new and doesn’t set clear boundaries. For the question at hand is what does “innocent” mean? On several web sites and on many shows on al Jazeera television, Jihadi apologists often use the Arabic term“bare’e” for “innocent” and assure the audience that Jihad cannot target the latter.
But Usama Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, and to some extent Hassan Nasrallah, all claim that innocence is relative. Al Qaeda explicitly targets innocent civilians and has authorized the massacre of 4 million US citizens as of 2001. Bin laden explains that civilians who vote for and pay taxes to the infidel enemy are not “innocent.”
Hezbollah targets innocent civilians as well, not only in Israel but also in Lebanon and overseas (as in Argentina). The concept of “innocent” isn’t that innocent in Jihadism. For the militant ideologues can render individuals and groups “bare’e’ or not “bare’e” at their discretion.
Leading Islamist scholar Sheikh Yusuf al Qardawi expounds at will on the innocence of civilians, detailing how civilian populations have been considered as part of the war efforts of the enemies of the Caliphate. In short, the status of “innocence” doesn’t overlap fully with the status of “civilians.” It is a matter of discretion in Jihadi warfare. Hence, to claim that Terrorism is defined as targeting innocent people is to claim that not all civilians are innocent, and that not only breaches international law, but gives credence to Jihadi violence.
Who is a “terrorist”?
Moreover, still the fatwa doesn’t identify al Qaeda, or any other similar group, including the Taliban, as Terrorist organizations. And as of now, no subsequent fatwas based on this Deobandi fatwa have done so yet. Therefore, in terms of identification of terror entities, the edict has failed to show its followers who is the terror perpetrator.
This text simply doesn’t bring novelty to the debate about Jihadi-rooted Terrorism. For years, particularly since 2001, Islamist ideologues and militant groups have refrained from simply naming those terror groups as such. Spokespersons have constantly repeated that condemning terrorism in general is enough.
If the Muslim scholars followed this logic on the question of occupations, then neither Iraq nor Palestine should be specifically mention. But that is not the case.
Legal basis
The Deobandi fatwa didn’t explain what where the legal basis for the edict. Was there any new ground broken? Which were the previous rules that have changed regarding terrorism? Is the fatwa a reminder of a principle or a new principle to be adopted? Is the rejection of terrorism a duty (wajib) and what kind of obligation?
All these questions are warranted so that a fair assessment of the statement can be issued. Unfortunately, the legal grounds are not specific enough to enable readers — and eventually followers — to understand the absolute injunction of rejection of Terrorism.
The body of fatwas
Historically, there have been similar statements and fatwas issued in other quarters of the Middle East, yet they haven’t had a definitive impact on reality. And by exploring the reason behind the inefficiency of these declarations, one finds that the body of fatwas remains below the level of a reform, of a doctrinal radical rejection of Jihadism as a aqidah (doctrine).
The Deobandi fatwa — like its predecessors — tells followers that the principle of Jihadi wars (efforts) is sound and that the level of innocence of the target is discretionary but that engagement in violence has to be disciplined and not chaotic. In short, don’t give the infidels an alibi to compromise the ultimate goals by waging irresponsible acts of violence. Simply put: we don’t need Jihadism to be labeled as Terrorism.
Because of its unclear stipulations, there is room for more precise fatwas calling for violence against one or another targets, and receiving support from indoctrinated segments of society. These future fatwas could undo this Deobandi fatwa.
So in the end, how to deal with this and with similar edicts? At first one should welcome any statement that delegitimizes al Qaeda’s hot-headed Jihadism, even if the fatwa doesn’t cross the doctrinal line. Any call to stop terrorism is positive and should be built upon.
In principle the Deobandi fatwa should be considered as a step that needs more steps in the direction of a doctrinal reform. Minimally, these fatwas should name al Qaeda and similar groups as Terrorists. But to be considered as breaking a new ground, they must render Jihadi violence illegitimate and terrorism against non combatants illegal, regardless of any theological, ideological or political goals.
Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. He is the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad.
In an interview with the Slovak News Agency, Professor Walid Phares visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy said Europeans must begin to distinguish between Islam as a religion and Jihadism as an ideology. “European Governments and Union must allow and encourage debates between Jihadists counter Jihadists in the Muslim communities. Phares was interviewed by Monika Polakova of the Slovak News Agency (TASR) on 30-Jun-2008. The interview was published later. The interview original posting can be found here [ Visit Website ]
Four years after identifying the Darfur drama as a genocide under international law many around the free world are yet to absorb the power of Jihadism in international relations. Today’s Sudan crisis will only open their eyes to what many in the diplomatic and academic elites are feverishly attempting to camouflage. While many have been arguing that the free nations of the world face a cohort of regimes that sympathize with and support the Jihadist networks, many others — on the apologist side- have been arguing that there is no such thing as Transnational Jihadism.
It is important, said Phares that “Europeans identifies the phenomenon of Jihadism, understand why their perception of it was compromised for so long, and move forward to design new more efficient policies to contain it.” Phares expanded as follows:
As part of his activities as a Visiting Fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy, Dr Walid Phares delivered a lecture on the “Future of Salafi Jihadi Terrorism” at the Italian Institute of International Affairs in Rome, Italy’s leading strategic think tank. Dr. Phares, who was introducing his new book The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad, analyzed the global trends of the Jihadist movement, focusing on the Salafi networks.
I delivered this lecture on the Confrontation with Jihad on April 23, 2008at George Washington Universityand it was posted on Fora TV (the equivalent of C-Span online).
It was watched since, by more than 14,000 viewers. My goal is to have a maximum of Americans watch it because I am trying to offerbasic ideasin this season of great debates on the War on Terrorism.
Just a littlestep in the greater effort to win the war of ideas.
In his latest audio released by as-sahab (media arm of al Qaeda), the organizations Zaeem (supreme chief) elaborates on the difference between the pure Jihadists and those Islamists who lost their way and determination to continue the fight in the path of the founding fathers, which he calls the “Salaf of Islam.” This complex speech (by Jihadist standards) can be only understood — and thus explained to decision-makers and the public if the listener-analyst is able to grasp the multi-layered world of Jihadism.
While the West is busy living its daily life, a beast is busy killing the freedom of a small community on the East Mediterranean: Lebanon. Indeed, as of last week, the mighty Hezbollah, armed to the teeth with 30,000 rockets and missiles and aligning thousands of self described Divine soldiers has been marching across the capital, terrorizing its population, shutting down media, taking its politicians and the Prime Minister as hostages, and looting at will. The hordes of Lebanons Khomeinist Janjaweeds have conquered already half of the Middle Easts cultural capital, Beirut. As I have reported before, Hezbollah has occupied West Beirut and has since sent its storm troops in multiple directions to resume the blitz.
As I have warned several times over the past year, and many articles later, Hezbollah has indeed waged its expected blitzkrieg against the democratically elected Government of Lebanon. Within 24 hours, the pro-Iranian super militia blocked all accesses to the Beirut International Airport, established an exclusive security zone around the organizations headquarters in south Beirut, deployed its forces into several Sunni neighbourhoods in the capital and erected check points across the country. Within 48 hours or more the Party of Allah may be in control of large areas of the Lebanese Republic. In short, this could mutate into a slow motion coup dEtat. Whats behind the blitz?
President Bush’s March 27 assessment of the state of the war in Iraq raised important strategic assertions that warrant greaterattention from the public and the defense and national security sectors. The principles announced by the president with regard to the measurement of success and the risks of failure on the Iraqi battlefield constitute a series of componentsof what I would coin as the next stage in the confrontation against the forces of terror in the region.
In an audiotape posted on Internet, Osama Bin Laden threatened Europe with punishment because of its “negligence in spite of the opportunity presented to take the necessary measures” to stop the publishing of the Danish cartoons. It also menaced the Vatican with retribution for an alleged role in incitement “against religion.”
Addressing a Breakfast at the invitation of the European Ideas Network at the European Parliament, FDD’s Senior Fellow Walid Phares underlined the necessity for legislators, intellectuals and researchers on both sides of the Atlantic to develop a common strategy on confronting the threat of Jihadi terrorism, which “is growing global, lethal and showing all signs of a long term planning.” Dr Phares, the director of FDD’s Future Terrorism Project and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy was the guest speaker of EIN for its monthly breakfast event. The meeting, which took place at the European Parliament, was attended by a number of experts and members in addition to MEPs Mihael Brejc, James Elles, Maria Martenes, Angelika Niebler, Jan Olbrycht, John Purvis and Peter Stastny.
Dr. Walid Phares, the Director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is a respected author whose latest book is available to the public today. Titled The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad, Dr. Phares, who has been acclaimed by peers as the one who can best understand the minds of the Jihadists, will finally tell us what he thinks should be done globally about the threat posed by Jihad.
As part of his activities as a Visiting Fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy, Dr Walid Phares delivered a lecture on the “Future of Salafi Jihadi Terrorism” at the Italian Institute of International Affairs in Rome, Italy’s leading strategic think tank. Dr. Phares, who was introducing his new book The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad, analyzed the global trends of the Jihadist movement, focusing on the Salafi networks.![[]](http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20080102_pharesWalid.jpg)