Being Realistic about Terroism - Part 3

Given the different type of Muslims in our world how do we tackle the problem of terrorism. We need a flexible solution that detains or kills Type 1 Muslims, empowers Type 2 Muslims and convince Type 3 Muslims that terrorism is not a good option (If all of these types are confusing you then please look at my last blog entry. I will not repeat my classification at this time). Notice last week that I did not state the percentages of Muslims that fall into each group. That is because we really have no way of finding out how big each group is. The sociological methodology has not yet been created to survey such a diffuse and suspicious population. We know that there are enough Type 1 Muslims to create a lot of trouble but beyond that we are just guessing. So anyone who tells you that most Muslims are warmongers or most are peaceful is just guessing as well.

The key is the Type 2 Muslims. It is in the interest of everyone that such individuals become more powerful in the Muslim community. There interpretation of Islam is one that allows for us to live in peace. I have heard some people argue that Islam is a religion that preaches violence more than other religions. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. We want the Muslims who see Islam as a religion of peace to gain more influence in their communities so they will convince Type 3 Muslims of their religious interpretation. As such our policy towards terrorism should center on the fact that we need to empower Type 2 Muslims.

Does this mean that military action is off the table? Not really. There are times where the Type 1 Muslims are so powerful in a given area that military action may be necessary to stop them. I am under no illusion that Type 1 Muslims can be reformed in any great number. But that military action must be measured and justifiable to Type 2 Muslims. The case for war must be made in ways so that at least the Type 2 Muslims, if not the Type 3 Muslims, accept the need for violence. Deaths to non-combatants will empower Type 1 Muslims to recruit from Type 3 Muslins and must be avoided. I understand that this seems like I am arguing for “politically correct” war but actually I am arguing for “politically smart” war. We must move in ways that reduce the threat of Type 1 Muslims but do not inhibit the ability of Type 3 Muslims to emphasis a peaceful interpretation of Islam.

We who are non-Muslims must negotiate in good faith with Type 2 Muslims and give them some of what they want. They can then take such victories to their communities and show the fruits of non-violence. This does not mean that we capitulate to Type 2 Muslims in all areas, but we have to understand that if we listen to and can address their concerns that we are helping them to create a more peaceful community. On the other hand we must fight to never reward the violence that comes from Type 1 Muslims. If police action or limited military action is necessary to punish then we must carefully engage in such action.

Ultimately it is Muslims who will change Muslims. It does not matter if I think that the Koran is a book of peace. It matters if Muslims believe such and work to promote such peace. There is a limit to how much we can life up Type 2 Muslims. If it looks like they are co-oped by non-Muslims then their influence in the Islamic community will wane. However, our governments need to weigh each action with the question of whether this will empower peaceful Muslims to have more influence in their communities. Even when violence is necessary for dealing with Type 1 Muslims this question must take priority as we decide how to engage in that violence. Only when we have developed this priority will we be able to develop measures that will attack the problem of terrorism at its roots, and thus create long-term, instead of temporary, solutions.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker