Introduction. Know your
Enemy--a basic tenet we all learned as lieutenants, some of us even as privates. This
simple concept is at the heart of being a foreign area officer. We are charged with area
understanding, cultural understanding and sensitivity, language as the bridge to others;
but at our core, we are warriors--and as such must know our enemies, even those who
are only potential enemies. So who are our enemies in the early years of the
21st Century? They are many and aggressive, seeking to punish America
and Americans wherever we reside or work around the world. Many, it seems, share a
common religion, regardless of their nationality; it is a religion that binds them. And,
unfortunately, for a miniscule segment of that religion, their interpretation of their faith is
one that appears to counter many of our nation's central beliefs. That religion is Islam.
But is this
accurate? Is Islam, one of the world's great religions, the enemy? Does Islam demand
our destruction? Does it represent a monolithic threat that we must, for our very
survival, destroy? And the real, bottom line question--how much do you as a FAO really
know about Islam? Have you invested in study and greater understanding of the
world's second largest religion? It matters not if you are a Latin American FAO, as this
author was, a Western European specialist, an Africanist, or an Orientalist. In this
case, the events and challenges of the 21st Century require that you be a
globalist in order to understand this global religion, some of whose adherents seek to
reduce us and our allies to nothing.
The intent of this
brief paper is to provide you with some initial understanding of Islam. Don't think of it as
"Islam for Dummies"; it is not even that fluent or complete. The article represents some
basics--the kind that at least make one aware of what one does not know--and should
prompt all FAOs to seek out more wisdom in this area, regardless of one's regional
specialty. We shall introduce some basic tenets of Islam. For those of us who know
there are two major divisions of Islam--Sunnis and Shi'ahs--we shall briefly describe
some differences. We shall examine common world views--how many of us see the
Islamic world, and how many Muslims see the West. We will examine the three Jihads-
-did you even know there were three until the first half of this sentence? Next, we
examine Islamic Revivalism--reviewing its four basic typologies, and what each means
to us. Finally, the article seeks to assign some basic practicality to the reading exercise
by presenting some opportunities and policy options. As a foreign area officer, these
policy options and opportunities will be readily recognized, as they are at the heart of
the FAO skill set.
Pretest. Let us begin with a simple test (seven questions)
of our individual background knowledge. Don't worry; it's an easy TRUE/FALSE
review--and no one is keeping score but you! Most Arabs are Muslim--true or false?
Most Muslims are Arabs--true or false? Most Muslims live in the Arab world--true or
false? Most Muslim nations are oil rich--true or false? Islamic revivalism is unique to
the Arab world--true or false? All Fundamentalists are revivalists--true or false? Are
most Arab-Americans Sunni or Shi/ah? The answer to Question 1 is--TRUE; most
Arabs are Muslim, about 95%, of which 85-90% are Sunni. The answer to Question 2
is--FALSE; only about 20% of Muslims are Arab, about 186 million out of over a billion
adherents. The answer to Question 3 is--FALSE; in Pakistan and India alone there are
over 250 million Muslims, and Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim nation. The
answer to Question 4 is--FALSE; most Muslim nations do not have strategic oil
reserves lying below their nation's surface. The answer to Question 5 is--FALSE again;
Islamic revivalism is a global phenomenon. And the answer to Question 6 is--TRUE; all
Fundamentalists are Revivalists, but as you will learn later, not all Revivalists are
Fundamentalists--which represents opportunities for our country. The final, seventh
question is neither true nor false; the Department of Homeland Security states that only
21% of Arab-Americans belong to either Islamic sect, and that in fact over 42% are
Catholic.
How did you do?
If you were like this author, and I suspect many were, then the answer is, "Not too
good." That's okay. We study to learn more about our world--the central professional
goal for all foreign area officers. We begin this learning introduction with a review of
some of the basic tenets of Islam.
Basic Tenets of Islam. First, what is Islam; what does it
mean? The root of the word means peace and submission. It is truly a religion of
tolerance, and holds many aspects or demands for socio-economic equity. As one
knows, Muhammad is the Prophet of Islam. I say "the", the singular, because he is
seen as the last, the final word, if you will. But did you know that Islam also believes in
many Christian and Jewish prophets who came before? They believe in Abraham,
Moses, even Jesus--and are, in fact, the third and lasy of the three global religions in
the Abrahamic . But the singular importance of Muhammad is that his is the last,
definitive word from God. The tenets of Islam are easily divided into five faraidh,
or obligations (one might even call them "pillars").
The second
tenet of Islam is Salat. This is the tenet of prayer. The practice of prayer--its
form, its number--is different between the two major sects of Islam, Sunnis and Shi'ahs.
Sunnis pray a single prayer five times a day with arms folded, and believe that entry
into paradise is solely at the mercy of Allah. Shi'ites believe in five different prayers,
and pray only three times a day. In contrast to Sunnis, they believe that paradise and
entry into paradise is guaranteed, as long as one obeys and follows the laws of the
religion.
The third tenet of
Islam is Sawm. This is the fast. It has much in common with other fasts of other
major religions--Passover or Lent, for example. The Islamic fast is lengthy--from dawn
to dusk for thirty days. Islam even provides laws for when dawn and dusk occur--
coming from a time when our technical measurements of light were less precise. The
practitioner holds up a thread in black and a thread in white. When one can tell the
color difference, it is dawn; when one can no longer tell black from white, it is dusk.
The fourth tenet
of Islam is Zakat. This is the practice of alms giving, or charity. The basic rule for
giving is 2.5%. But this is then followed by lengthy rules for giving more--remember the
basis of economic equity previously introduced? A business man may be required to
give more, a married man may be required to give more, and so on. Equitable
distribution of wealth for all Muslims is central to its practice.
The fifth, final
tenet of Islam is Haj. A Haj is a visit to Mecca. A Haji is one who
has completed a single pilgrimage. Islam has other descriptive words for those who
have visited Mecca on more than one occasion. The five Faraidh pillars
presented describe the practice of the religion. But are all practices equal? The answer
is NO; this answer defines the key differences between Sunnis and Shi'ahs.
Sunni & Shi'ah: What's the difference? When Dorothy arrives in Oz, she is
quickly asked, "Are you a good witch or are you a bad witch?" If there are good
Muslims and bad Muslims, how does one identify them, and what is the difference?
First, Sunnis represent 85% of the total number of Muslims, Shi'ah the remaining 5 %.
Instead of paragraph text, these differences are better and more briefly summarized in
the form of a simple chart.
The "Western"
world view, if one even exists, is informed by three elements. The first is the "Golden
Age" of the Arab World and of Islam. A culturally rich society, the Arab enlightenment
predates that in the West by centuries. This point of view often assumes that the
Golden Age is a thing of the past; of course, one sees that such a point of view is
troublesome to many. The second of these problematic, largely Western elements that
serve to box-and-bin our perceptions of Muslims and their world is the "Crusades".
These holy wars--at first designed to protect pilgrims visiting holy sites in the Arabian
Peninsula--quickly led a life of their own. Some Muslim adherents view these
incursions as just that; and even less radical believers may use the Crusades as
philosophical or religious launching points to define current policies and activities in a
negative manner. The final element of note in the Western point of view deals with the
issue of Colonialism. In the Post-WWI and --WWII world, some might suggest that the
world was divided up on the whims of the victors. This simplistic view is easy for other
cultures to defend or over-state. While many in the West might apply these three
elements to define their world view of the region and its predominant religion and chalk
it up to "old news"; however, for much of the Muslim world, this is anything but old
news. It is a foundational world view whose effects are still felt in the 21st
Century.
The "Muslim
world view", again even if one universal point of view exists, contains four elements that
from many Muslim's vantage is simply a continuation--and a highly negative extension
over time--of a profoundly negative bullying wrought with a complete lack of historical
understanding and cultural sensitivity, much less the long-term historical context.
Within this foreign policy quagmire of opinion Is the current view that our war in Iraq is
pure strategic adventurism; even many of our staunchest supporters shares this view.
While many do not support our Iraq participation, they may remain firm supporters of
the Global War on Terrorism. This is, of course, further complicated by one of the
thorniest policy issues that divide Western and non-Western world views. This third
world view perception is the United States' continued support of Israel. While not all
Muslims call for the destruction of Israel, many see it as yet another "Crusade". This
Islamist perception may be the second hardest challenge we face in both
understanding and getting past these points of view to shared solutions. The hardest
challenge, in this author's view, is the Muslim perception shared across much of the
Islamic adherents regardless of typology, is that of Western decadence, as a direct
threat to the fundamental teachings of Islam.
The fundamental
disconnect between these competing world views is two-fold. First, for the West, the
"Golden Age, Crusades, Colonialism Historical Perspective" is often based on who is
right, or better-stated, whose cultural/historical background decides who is right. The
Western world view often dramatically clashes with Muslims' perceptions. The West
sees the situation in terms of both history in the region and policy designed to achieve
desired [Western] goals or policy objectives. While for the West this means a
pragmatic, geopolitical focus, for the Muslim, the perception of how the world should
operate pragmatically is very different from the Muslim's perspective. The Muslim
perspective is often informed by what's right according to their religion. This is most
often reflected in regional issue resolution as "It is God's Will." Where Islam's "God's
Will" and the West's more pragmatic strategic approach meet is often across a wide
and deep social, cultural, religious, and political chasm. As a foreign area officer of any
regional specialty, as both a warrior and as a cultural/regional Subject Matter Expert
representing our country in or to many foreign countries, knowing these perceptions
and how to communicate them around the globe as our nation's "Strategic Scout,
Forward-Deployed", understanding these dueling hemispheric perceptions is critical for
your growth and as an official USG representative in your FAO role.
three Jihads. The Jihad is likely the most
inflammatory word in the GWOT lexicon. Yet it remains the least understood from the
Islam perspective. Much of Islam's focus on Jihad has nothing to do with a holy war--a
reverse Crusade to reduce Christendom to ashes. It misuse by radicals at the peak of
the terrorist pyramid--where the "Base" is all Muslims as potential, yet unlikely
supporters; the Radicals as sure supporters who may share a point of view of more
extreme actors, but who stop short of translating that into direct action against
perceived enemies in the West; or of the Muslim actors who commit acts of terror and
represent just a fraction of the Muslim population worldwide. Such a model is true of
terrorism writ large, regardless of religious context. This model applies a small fragment
of Muslim belief and activism. J'h'd' (jahada) is simply defined as "to strive, to
apply oneself to the utmost to an endeavor".
The second jihad
is the battle against evils within the Muslim world. The ummaic jihad addresses
wrongs by written or spoken word. This external jihad is non-violent in nature, and is a
struggle of freedom, justice, and truth. These aspects parallel Christian concepts of
Justice, Balance & Compassion, and Knowledge; both share the Abrahamic tradition
and hardly espouse the route of terrorism.
The third jihad is
the most problematic, especially so at its more fundamental religious core. The jihad
al-asghar is the smaller, lower, lesser jihad; it is also an external jihad. It is martial
in nature--a war in God's name. It is used to protect and promote the integrity of Islam--
a defense of the umma. It is a struggle against aggressors who are not Muslims,
a response to Crusades, for example. This third jihad, despite its martial focus, is never
a fight between Muslims.
How does one
translate this information into a usable, useful framework for understanding and
discussion by a regional specialist where Islam isn't a central feature? First, one must
understand that Islam includes a wide diversity of beliefs, practices, and politics
(examined in some detail in the next section). Salafi Islam, or Fundamentalist
Islam, represents only 15-20% of the faithful. And of that, only 1% are adherents of
salafiyya jihadiyya, whose adherents are the most extreme version, and who see
only the route of violence will work to ultimately establish the goal of the Islamic State,
or Caliphate. Jihadis believe that only they are the true sect; all other Muslims a merely
Muslim. They believe that hostile unbelievers rule and would see Islam eliminated. They
believe not only that only the Caliphate can properly implement the holy laws of the
universal holy state, but also that they must continue to wage an eternal holy war
against non-believers. To the jihadi: 1) there is only one God; 2) only he can write laws;
3) that means there can only be one sovereign & one religious government for all; 4)
that anyone (country or individual) who writes laws has set themselves up as a false
god and must be the focus of the eternal jihad. SO if other, less rigid sects of Islam
exist, what are they, who are they, and how can one define them?
Islamic Revivalism. Understanding Islamic Revivalism helps the non-Muslim
layperson better understand the dynamic of extreme Islamic radicalism we experience
in the 21st Century. This pluralistic revival is best understood via a brief
examination of the four central Islamic typologies--Fundamentalists, Traditionalist,
Modernists, and Pragmatists. Before we learn the similarities and contrasts pertinent to
these Muslim sub-groups, it is useful to establish some over-arching characteristics that
apply to the current world. Islamic revivalism, like similar catholic or protestant activities,
contains more than a bit of the use of religion as a political vehicle; in fact, the most
extreme adherents insist that only a caliphate, an idealized Islamic state with one
religious ruler, can exist, and that all other political paradigms (any State not run as a
strict Islamic-based entity, strictly following God's laws and no others) are invalid and
must be attacked. Centrality of equitable treatment for all and justice are touch stones,
as previously highlighted.
The Islamic
Pragmatist is best suited to work with the West from most perspectives of
commonality of interest. They are the most vocal proponents of secularism. They reject
Taqlid, the Islamic profession of "blind faith". They are firm believers in the
strength of the history of their shared Islamic culture across the globe. They believe that
secular possibilities have been overwhelmed by the failure of secular governments to
achieve meaningful Muslim goals--resulting in a wide range of secular crises--a)
Identity, where the loss of roots and a sense of community is created by urbanization;
b) Legitimacy, where the faithful ask, "What did secularization do for me today?"; c)
Penetration, where secularists and their governments have failed to spread the word
concerning pragmatism and how it works for Muslims; d) Distribution, where wealth, a
key feature of Islamic justice and equitable treatment reflected in Islam's pillar of alms-
giving, has not resulted in fair and equitable treatment for all citizens in a secular
government; and e) Participation, which many see as limited, an inequitable sharing of
political power or resources. They
also believe in Ijtihad, the exercise of personal judgment based on the Qur'an
and the Sunnah. While on the surface this appears to be the slice of the Islamic faithful
with whom one would choose to have lasting relationships, one must be careful; two
prominent Pragmatists one may recognize are Anwar Sadat and Saddam Hussein.
The Islamic
Modernists also share many touch points with the West. However, the mjor
disconnect is their lack of support to secular governments. Like Pragmatists, they do
not support blind faith, the taqlid. They support Ijtihad, or personal
interpretation of key Islamic texts. And, as the name suggests, they support
modernization. They strongly believe in Muslim self-determination, and are willing to
work within all political systems in the Muslim fight for justice.
The Islamic
Traditionalists are a bit more difficult to work with for the West. They adhere to
taqlid concepts of blind faith. Unlike Pragmatists or Modernists, they do not
believe in Ijtihad, or personal interpretation of religious texts. They are professed
pacifists and fatalists, but are against modernization. The theocracy is requisite to
Traditionalists, and the non-religious State is anathema. One statement by Ayatollah
Sayid Kazem Shariatmadari, as Ayatollah Khomeini competitor in Iran, paints the key
picture: "Democracy can't survive in a theocracy."
The key test for
the West is posed by Islamic Fundamentalists. They reject blind faith and
secular nationalism. They allow the ijtihad. A snapshot of some of history's key
Fundamentalists should reveal much to the reader. Muhammad ibn-Abd al-Wahhab
(1703-1792) was an early member; allied with the House of Saud, he was an
instrumental voice for Wahabbism; Wahabbis, such as Usam bin Laden, represent a
key, continuing threat to the West from Saudi America and beyond. Muhammad Ahmad
Abdullah al-Mahdi is known to many FAOS for his conflict in the Sudan, notably with
Lord Gordon. Hassan al-Banna was kicked out of Egypt by Nassar, and readmitted by
Sadat, where he influenced some current Fundamentalists. Most FAO readers know
the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran and his impact on the West.
So what does
this mean to the West? First, Fundamentalists reject the internal jihad; their external,
martial jihad is the only correct interpretation. Second, Fundamentalists reject all forms
of government other than the Caliphate. Other interpretations of Islam allow a non-
government state as long as the created, man-made laws are just and moral;
Shar'ia to Fundamentalists means that only Islamic law and only one
interpretation of Islamic law is true. Most important, perhaps is the views of
Fundamentalists on da'wa, the call to Islam. For most Muslims, it is not only the
personal calling, but the calling to a life which draws the non-faithful to Islam. It is often
exercised, as with other religions, using missionary work. The much harsher
Fundamentalist version is that all other Muslims have lost their way, and that they must
be encouraged to find their way back to the true faith, and to bring themselves to the
jihad al-asghar against apostate rulers, the occupiers, and the non-believing
world.
Opportunities & Policy Options: What Every FAO Should Know. Our focus as
foreign area officers is to assist with policy option development--achieved through
greater cultural, historical, language, and other subtle contexts based on regional
specialization and deep experience. The basic understanding of Islam is vital, this
author believes, across all regional specialties due to its potential for global impact and
the interest of the people and governments in the several countries we as FAOs are
assigned. Coupled with understanding is the absolute necessity of understanding how
the FAO can assist in opening strategic opportunities through this deeper perception
one refines via long experience in uniform as both a warrior and as a foreign area
officer. The first opportunity--one all FAOs will recognize from their immersion training
in various military schools abroad--is that even in the strictest military-to-military
exchange, economic, scientific, technological, and cultural exchange foci are possible.
That potential for dialogue drove this author to provide this briefest introduction to
Islam. Developmental assistance, long an interest application of the FAO's brother
specialty of Civil Affairs (some of you may remember the old days when PsyOps, Civil
Affairs, Special Forces, and pure FAOs were all linked in the Army in one specialty)
stems from the baseline tools mentioned previously. Assistance in the softening of
rhetoric, the pursuit of support across cultures, and greater tolerance (think the Golden
Rule in its many manifestations across all religions and cultures) may provide a crack
which then provides opportunity, which may ultimately lead to a broader set of policy
options. Seeking to better understand Islam across all foreign area officer regional
specializations, as a fulcrum on which to better balance a wider strategic array of
policies, was this article's goal. Like any brief introduction, this paper requires significant
investment in the development of more complete understanding; for those readers who
were less familiar, the author trusts this effort to serve you as a touchstone for
advanced learning about Islam.
Rod Propst is the Principal Terrorism
and Security Analyst at Analytic Services, Inc., in Arlington, Virginia. He has previously
authored articles on diplomacy, escape and evasion, and analysis of FAO-related literature in the
Journal. A retired U.S. Army officer, among Propst's FAO assignments was as a Defense
Attaché in Mexico City, and as an operator in a national asset unit.
&n
bsp; The first tenet is shahada, or professing faith. Many of you
are already familiar with the profession--"There is no god, but God, and Muhammad is
the messenger of God." This saying has six important aspects. The first is the
Quran, the Holy Book of Islam; it is the root source of the religion. Many
adherents believe in the hadith; this is a book of the accounts of Muhammad's
life; this is joined by the Sunnah, a book of the actual--it is believed--sayings and
deeds of Muhammad. The fourth aspect of shahada is the Iman, or faith.
The five elements/articles of this creed include Allah, angels, prophets, and holy books-
-sounds as if this has many parallels to many Western religions. The fifth aspect of
shahada is Ijma, or communal consensus; this sense of equity permeates
the religion. The sixth aspect of shahada is Qiya, or analogical reasoning;
Islam is a religion of reason, with rules based on reason.
World Views. The world view one brings to the study of Islam and what can only be
loosely described as the "Arab World" permeates one's perceptions. Yet, the "Western"
world view in many cases differs dramatically with the world view many Muslins share--
even those who are not radicals who would destroy the world we live in.
&n
bsp; The greatest jihad is the jihad-i-akbar. This is simply a concept
that defines the personal jihad, a jihad of doing good, fighting temptation, and avoiding
evil; this set of rules is similar to parallel Christian values.
