Inside Islam: Are We Ready?
In the days after 9/11, when we asked "Why do they hate us?" it was impolitic to go much further than "because they hate freedom." To actually dig into the details and extremist ideology was not seen as explaining the behavior as much as it was excusing the behavior.
It looks like the mainstream media is getting more comfortable in going that extra yard. This past Sunday's New York Times took a look at the deep discord within the militant Muslim community in the Middle East. After starting out with an anecdote about how the correspondent was nearly killed by some insurgents he was meeting with – but wasn't because of some Koranic fine print about needing the host's permission – the article continues:
With Islamist violence brewing in various parts of the world, the set of rules that seek to guide and justify the killing that militants do is growing more complex.The rest of the piece investigates how even some tenets – don't kill civilians, get parental consent, don't kill inside your home country – are no longer so protected, and there is a growing number of "yes, but …" exceptions in the community that are confusing to insiders and mortifying to the rest of us.This jihad etiquette is not written down, and for good reason. It varies as much in interpretation and practice as extremist groups vary in their goals. But the rules have some general themes that underlie actions ranging from the recent rash of suicide bombings in Algeria and Somalia, to the surge in beheadings and bombings by separatist Muslims in Thailand.
Some of these rules have deep roots in the Middle East, where, for example, the Egyptian Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi has argued it is fine to kill Israeli citizens because their compulsory military service means they are not truly civilians.
No matter what you think of the nature of our military effort, it benefits one to know the lack of consensus on the part of the other side – if only to clarify what America is up against. And it's also somewhat interesting to note that, much as we see within the Christian community in America, schisms over interpretation and orthodoxy are far from religious history.
The other illuminating – though ethically murky – piece aired on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" on Monday. "Portrait of a Suicide Bomber" took the New York Times piece a step further, looking not only at the belief system but the day-to-day existence and lifestyle of a person who was involved in several terrorist acts and was fully willing to die in the cause of jihad.
Am I comfortable with knowing that a reporter is not getting in the way of a murderer, and is merely observing his acts? No – it's that whole 'should a priest turn in a confessed murderer' argument without the priestly vows. But I can see the merit and worth of such a piece, because we're four years into a battle in Iraq and military leaders have come forward to say we need to pour more manpower and time into the conflict.
I also see the value in understanding fully the nature of the threat against us – even if it's ill-formed and inconsistent. It may not be entertaining or easy, but what was true 26 centuries ago remains true today: Knowing your enemy is the key to victory.