Introduction

I will argue through this paper that popular support is extremely critical to the medium and long-term success of any insurgency, revolution, liberation movement, or group that is seeking freedom through arms and is labeled a “terrorist” group. The paper will examine failure of this thesis. Two examples are analyzed to highlight their failures in garnering popular support which led to their eventual downfall.

Issue Analysis

Post’s elaboration of targets is best used to better assess the importance of public opinion amongst wider audience and popular support within base. He distinguishes between the target of the violence and the target of the message that the “terrorist act” carries. The former being the target of the attack is the direct enemy or its support. However, the former tends to be the groups support base as well as neutral third parties that can go either way for their support in the conflict at hand. The public opinion amongst the message’s target audience is critical because it provides the human capital necessary for continued expansion as well as for providing the networks necessary for logistical strengthening in combat operations. No struggling group can survive long without this immediate and continued support of the broader base.

A few examples of terrorist organizations that failed once popular support and positive public opinion was lost will be offered. However, it must be noted that this is a brief list offered only to highlight the critical need of popular support and not to conclude that all terrorist organizations fail because of this reason.

Ernesto Guevara, better known as Che, is undoubtedly one of the most well-known revolutionaries of modern time. His success in Cuba, alongside Fidel Castro, motivated his inspiration to take the revolutionary ideology and practice to Africa and Latin America. In both contents, all self-reported data (personal journals) as well as official state intelligence of various nation-states verify the fact that Che’s military prowess and fame were not enough to garner popular support for armed uprisings against colonial and imperial powers in either context.

Rather in both, his uncompromising personality led to personal disputes with the peasant leadership which handicapped him from building popular support. As a matter of fact, some reports from personal journal captured in Bolivia, the location of his demise, indicate that the peasants actually not only refrained from joining or supporting the revolution but actually became informants. In Che’s case it was not his military tactic, which was actually very successful in Bolivia, but rather his diplomatic abilities, or lack thereof.

Another icon of resistance is the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). This group, founded in 1964, was created with political and paramilitary structures and purposes. From its inception it carried out one of the hardest fought struggles against the State of Israel. In its early years its bloody campaigns earned Palestinian popular support but this same characteristic lead to conditions that weakened it internationally. The PLO for most of its existence, until 1991, was labeled a terrorist organization and severely persecuted in Palestinian territories, Israeli prisons, and internationally as well. Most notably, in 2006 the Hamas political entity won two-thirds of the representative seats in the Palestinian authority because of its proven years of corruption at all level of government. This decay of responsibility contributed to its internal corruption which undoubtedly eliminated its native support and created the current reputation in which it is seen as an illegitimate authority that has been placed and supported in government because of its Zionist and American appeasement. This double edged sword of losing international support because of civilian targets and losing native support because of the corruption lead to a near-complete loss of legitimacy.

These two examples offer the examples that loss of popular support whether from direct support bases or extended networks of aid leads to conditions which detrimental to longevity. However, this is remedied with a shift in operational targets and methods employed (i.e., tactics).

It is recommended that terrorist organization shift in their primary targets (i.e., targets of the attacks). In the current frameworks of law, local or internationally, targeting unarmed or nonmilitary targets severely restraints the perceived legitimacy of the armed group. In other words, targeting civilians is intolerable and its intentional use further vilifies the culprits. This vilification destroys the possibility for neutral third parties.

The shift in methods is a further extension of the first point: to avoid civilian targets. Armed struggles are characterized by violent opposition by regular or irregular armies. The irregular army is at a political disadvantage because by default the current conceptualization of the nation-state makes it the only actor to legitimately have authority to the use of violence. This advantage can be countered with strategic maneuvering that highlights the abusive nature of the state. However, what is most important is for the terrorist group to continually evaluate and adapt their tactics to ensure that their direct base of support remains supportive.  In addition this shift in methods and tactics should focus developing methods that attack and weaken the state without ever harming the civilian components, even those supporting the state. This inclusive protection approach is critical because just as native support can be lost the neutral third party or even opposing conflict party can become a source of popular support.

Conclusion

In short, if revolutionary groups wish to succeed they need to actively protect civilians by limiting their tactics (i.e., attack methods and tools) and targets. Perhaps the exceptions to not targeting nonmilitary targets are cyber operations so long as the consequences can be controlled for. Scholars and practitioners must realize that the criteria for legitimacy are constrained by time and space so the actions of groups evolve so must their concerted effort to be effective at obtaining their intended goals. Let me close on a simple reminder that one of the greatest successes of this method of inclusive protection approach was Nelson Mandela. He was once considered a terrorist because of his efforts in armed struggle against the Apartheid regime but was able to garner popular support by winning the hearts and minds of his base as well as the international community.

In the post-9/11 era there is an extreme emphasis within the academic literature, as well as within popular media, to attempt to define, identify, and promote Moderate Muslims and Moderate Islam. This is done in an attempt to combat the perceived enemy of Extreme or Fundamentalist Islam. This biggest failure in this endeavor is that the process in which a moderate is determined is flawed and consequently moderation is ill defined.

Academic researchers, political think-tanks, social commentators, religious scholars, and the common man have taken it upon themselves to define what is moderate. Some, like the RAND institute, carry out this task explicitly and give detailed lists and a rich description of what a Moderate Muslim is and how he/she can be identified. Others, like Mark Levine, author works on what they call extremists and make mention of moderate role models through implicit and soft models of comparative rhetoric. Regardless of the methods of articulation all these works have the same critical flaw: there is not a systematic and analytically appropriate method of determining what a moderate position is, nor its position to extreme position.

Personally, I stress and value the approach of discussing moderate positions as opposed to moderate person because a person can more readily and more easily switch positions, willingly or unwillingly, to what others may deem a moderate or extremist position. However, a position is more enduring so long as it is stable in of itself.  In other words, it is the position of the perspective, in relation to other perspectives on the same matter that is of vital importance and not necessarily the identity of the individual holding that position. The argument is that moderation, and its specific location on an conceptual spectrum concerning a specific topic, is a relation concept that can only emically (i.e., internal to the topic itself) determined. The level of analysis and the extremes of the spectrum within that level are determined by the factor being focused. This need for an organized, systematic, prioritized, and categorized approach was also made clear in T. Ramadan’s recent article “Good Muslims, bad Muslim” in the New Statesman (February 12, 2010).

I propose that moderation be defined through a triangulated method. In other words, a moderate position will be determined by two factors: (a) the level of analysis of the topic and (b) the two extremes related to the spectrum of the chosen topic. An attempt will be made to elaborate this process by using the central topics of Islam and Muslims. In no way will this paper offer any conclusion on what is a moderate position in Islam but rather it seeks to outline and explain a method to better determine what such a position would be.

Now to turn our attention to the topic of a Moderate Muslim, we must first determine what specific topic we are dealing with. If we are determining a Moderate Muslim then the only knowledge that can be considered for analysis would be authentically Islamic sources of information. It is ridiculous to attempt to determine a religious (i.e., Islamic) moderate by using the criteria of another religion, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, or atheist ideology. This particular point of contention cannot be stress enough: in order to determine a Moderate Muslim Islam must be used to develop the criteria to characterize such a position. Otherwise the analysis is confounded by the incompatibility of philosophy due to inconsistency. Now this is not to say there cannot be an interfaith comparison, but that would be a separate issue and not one concerning the determination of a Moderate Muslim. Another example will be offered to make this point. In order to determine an average-proficiency of English-language abilities of English-as-a-second-language speakers cannot be used to determine this point because there are incompatibilities in the rules and the use of the English language. As such, in order to determine a point of Islamic moderation for Muslims only authentically Islamic criteria can be used to determine it.

Once the level of analysis is determined, the extreme points must be identified. This is accomplished by clearly articulating the topic of choice as well as the context within which the discussion is being framed. Staying with the above example of a Moderate Muslim, we must decide if we are trying to determine a moderate position regarding worship, wealth, social habits, political leanings, etc…. This specification process is crucial because it will provide the specific subfield in which to look for the criteria to determine the extremes of the spectrum and eventually the moderate position. For example, it is of little significance to know the eating and sleeping habits that re prescribed within Islam if we are attempting to determine the extreme positions of political thought within the Islamic tradition. In other words, the topic of concern will determine the vertical (level of analysis) and the horizontal (extremes on the spectrum) tracks.

To further elaborate on the practical application of this triangulated method of determining a moderate position it is beneficial to discuss one more example: human rights. The topic of human rights has been at the central of much international discourse within the last 60 years or so. Perhaps this is because of its multidisciplinary roots and multicultural applications. Often times the punishment methods and prescriptions of Islamic law have been labeled extreme and in contradiction to human rights. However, if we were talking about human rights within Islamic law then we must use Islamic sources of knowledge to properly conceptualize the ideas of rights, violation or preservation of these rights, and the purpose and understanding of Islamic law in relation to its subjects. These are the same dynamics which the progressive and liberal movements of international relations call for in presenting a collaborative existence of autonomous and sovereign nations. Islam, though not a nation-state at present time, must be conceptualized as an autonomous and sovereign entity that can determine its own limits of human rights.

It seems that the current trend of globalization has influenced philosophical, political, practical, and academic thought by seeding them with the concept of standardization. It is the current pattern of attempting to standardize and universalize all aspects of human existence that confounds diversity and limits plurality of thought and practice to flourish.

In conclusion, it is stressed that moderation be defined through a method of triangulation. Specifically, that a moderate position will be determined by two factors: (a) the level of analysis of the topic and (b) the two extremes related to the spectrum of the chosen topic. Though short and introductory in nature, hopefully this essay has elucidated the massive shortcomings of the current trend within academia and popular media concerning moderation. In the end, context is everything!

This paper is to argue that the insurgent qualities to present day political opposition as well as the autonomously-minded independence and anti-globalization movements across the world are rooted within the modern American conceptualization and development of insurgency against tyrannical rule.

The US was founded on the works of guerilla groups. The first hostilities (i.e., Battle of Lexington & Concord as well as the Battle of Bunker Hill) were the clashes between British soldiers and local militias. However, this organized, yet localized, armed resistance was founded on the collective works intellectual agitators. The best examples of such work are the numerous newspapers that regularly called for resistance to British oppression and tyranny. However, the most well-known works within this category of literature are Paine’s Common Sense and The Federalist (i.e., The Federalist Papers, collective work of A. Hamilton, J. Madison, & J. Jay).

Furthermore, the often overlooked aspect of this social and military insurgency is the economic backing and stability that he resistance had from within the American context. The first example would be the socioeconomic backing that the Founding Fathers had: most had good to high-status occupations in addition to being entrepreneurial with multiple careers (though it must be strongly emphasized that all were highly educated). The second example, and perhaps of the most significant, is that of the Boston Tea Party. This act of economic terrorism stands as a central event to American Revolutionary folklore. The link between the British’s perceived tyranny through financial means and the symbol of resistance in the Boston Tea Party is of critical importance to properly understand the greater context of the American insurgency.

It is clear that military localization, intellectual agitation, and economic strength and stability played key roles in the American insurgency. However, there is one key factor that was the underlying key for these mentioned factors and the insurgency in general: the comparatively greater ease of communication afforded to the American audience. This can be further broken down into two major components: (a) physical accessibility to material and (b) the literacy rates (i.e., intellectual accessibility). At the time of the American Revolution newspapers were highly popular and books were becoming more widely accessible. In addition, this physical access was a result of, as well as a contributing factor to, the significantly high literacy rates of the American colonists. As a matter of fact the accessibility of reading material was so effective within the American context that the Founding Fathers had access to the translated writings (actually the first writings ever to conceptualize the colonists as Americans and not just Europeans in America) of the their South American contemporaries.

As mentioned earlier, localized armed forces have always been part of the American experience. However, in recent times (e.g., 1990s and especially post-9/11) there have been significant qualitative and quantitative changes in their existence and operation. There have been reports that the number of state militias in the US have doubled or tripled. In addition, these militias have also made a strategic effort to achieve legitimacy (e.g., http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/11/2216134/militias-seek-official-sanction.html) as well as carry out plans that enable their social role to be increased in status (e.g., Michigan Militia and the Hutaree plot).

Intellectual agitators have also been playing an increased role in the current sociopolitical dynamics in the US. For example, the Tea Party Movement can currently be considered the most prominent political insurgency. They have been directly influenced by the works of Neo-conservative think tanks based in Washington, D.C. In addition, this movement and the militias mentioned above have also been promoted and legitimized through certain media personalities and channels.  As a side note but just as significant, there have also been increased instability and reform in education that has been backed and influenced by the conservative insurgency and its xenophobic tendencies.

Business sponsors have played the most important role in the current insurgent patterns because they have funded the think tanks that develop the ideology, the community organizations that strike political, and the media channels that legitimize and promote the insurgent mindset. The best example of these ties are the corporate sponsorship of the Tea Party Movement by Koch Industries and Fox News. Most of these sponsorships are carried out through intermediary third parties that serve as filters for the general public. In addition, these intermediaries usually operate as conservative research or organization groups that have wide support with little public scrutiny. In addition, these third parties also serve as means to employ (give money to) particular personalities that are inclined to the current conservative ideology that drives this particular insurgency.

In conclusion, the comparison between the founding context of the US and current instability in the US there seems a direct heritage of insurgency. The conservative strand of American political thought are seeking to take control of US political in order to restore what they see as the original intent of the US. However, though their insurgent tactics are similar some would argue that the content of the ideology differs greatly (e.g., greater good of group vs. greater personal good). This essay was intended to draw attention to often overlooked activities and relationships. This would provide a greater awareness of the logistical capabilities of the social structures supporting the status quo of injustice and inequality. Furthermore, it is expected that once American insurgent tendencies are revealed and acknowledged then the political tactic of labeling foreign dissent (whether political, social, economic, or militarily) as insurgency will lose its general effectiveness.

Introduction

Conflicts have two sides but three parties, which align themselves: the two conflict parties and the audience. The following is an elaboration of how the audience’s silent or explicit approval of differential treatment is the major cause of conflict, particularly within the highlighted international conflict: Palestine and the Israeli Occupation. The dialectic understanding of conflict dynamics will be recommended as the best to highlight the current situation and the possible outcome of such patterns. Due to the overwhelming presences and effectiveness of Israeli propaganda the discussion will focus on international neglect of the Palestinian side which voices Israeli violations of different types.

Ben Gurion, one of the founding leaders of the modern State of Israel stated that “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?” Furthermore, he also stated that “They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” and that “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” These simple quotes from one of the most revered leaders of Israel make it clear that even the leadership of the Zionist project known as Israel is fully aware of their transgressions that remain hidden in plain sight to the international world.

Issue Analysis

Definition based on Plato’s the Republic, a “Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to pursue truth by seeking agreement with one another” (Wikipedia, dialectics). As stated within the definition the use of this method of discourse is to reach truth through the exchange of differing perspective. Dialectics allows for the opposing views to address each other’s weaknesses and false assumptions while making advances on discovering the truth based on all information available. Its value to the following discussion is that both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have developed prejudiced, biased, and misinforming propaganda machines that on themselves do not present the truth of the matter.

UNDHR states that “everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” In addition Article 11 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) is clear proof of this right of return:

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations

Both of these evidence indicate that the international community has reaches some form of consensus on the right of return of refugees, Palestinians being no exception. However, pro-Israeli scholars of international relations and law have justified this denial based on the nonbinding limitations of the UN General Assembly as well as the interpretation that descendants don’t have this right. In truth, history has proven that these arguments are as shallow as is the Zionist ideology is in regards to moral and ethics.

The first rebuttal concerning binding resolutions is that Israel has always been in violation of numerous resolutions and international laws. In addition, Israel has had the privilege of the US or the UK, permanent security members, vetoing any resolution that would be harmful to the Zionist project. Furthermore, Israel has always uses Palestine’s lack of international recognition and autonomy, which results in a crippling dependence on international aid, to press for UN resolutions that Palestine must adhere to in order to further Palestinian suffering and strengthen Zionist expansion.

The second rebuttal of interpretation seems to be the most absurd of either of them. The reasoning behind refusing to grant refugee descendants the right of return would make sense under certain conditions: (a) Zionist ideology not rooted in the fact that modern Jews (alleged descendants of refugees of Judea) be given the right over the land of Palestine because of their maternal lineage or chosen religion and (b) that there is a consensus that citizenship is passed from parent to child.

As is the case with the issue of right of return, the use of the liberal approach to international relations has only emboldened the hawkish realists (i.e., Israel and the US). The most current reports indicate that there have been at least 131 UN resolutions concerning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  In addition to the above issue the UN has placed aid and pseudo-recognition of Palestine conditional upon punishment for War Crimes or violation of international law. Unfortunately, the Zionist project has always been protected by veto-holding members or they have been in violation to resolutions in open contempt towards international law and standards.  In addition, Israel (along with its protective sponsor) has been distinguished members of a small community of nations that have not joined the World Court.

Perhaps the most controversial and complicated issue to address dialectically is the role of religion in this conflict. The Israeli state is based upon the Zionist mythology which is a fictional development of political thought that places Jewish identity as the sole determinant to possession and control of Palestine. One of the central pillars to this myth is that the Jewish state must rebuild the 3^rd temple and implement a Jewish-exclusive agenda concerning its domestic policy.

On the other hand, the Palestinians have always been neglected and forced, in sociopolitical ways, to neglect Islam or accept a demonizing characterization of its role in the conflict. Though the conflict itself is no religious at its core, it’s over the theft of land and oppression of the Palestinian people, Islam does play a role in motivating and theoretically framing the existential struggle. Furthermore, the site of the proposed 3^rd temple is the Al-Aqsa mosque which is Islam’s third holiest site. Furthermore, a rhetorical breakdown of the discussion of this conflict has always been aimed at excluding the Muslim worlds by labeling it the Arab-Israeli or Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Truth of the matter is that Muslims around the globe of a great diversity claim some stake in the preservations of Jerusalem as a Muslim city to ensure the safety of the Al-Aqsa mosque.

The final touch to the hypocrisy that is expressed in discussing or approaching the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the role of democracy. Israel happens to be the only nation without a constitution that is considered a modern democracy. In addition, Israel openly denies the rights of a major portion of its rightful residents through forced expulsions into the Gaza Strip or West Bank and by denying the right of return. A clear evidence of the disregard for democracy that the Zionist project has is the recent kidnappings and incarceration of the democratically-elected representatives that had ties with the political party of Hamas.

Conclusion

Upon briefly covering these issues it is evident that Israel has developed majoritarian and extremist stance, that is oppressive and costly to the Palestinian people, all while justified as a struggle against a minority extremist portion. This is how the maladaptive conduct of the Israeli state has become official doctrine and internalized ideology which is further pedaled across the world through the Zionist propaganda machine.

This simple yet clear breakdown of these issues delivers the point that these opposing worldviews must be dialectically analyzed to come to certain truth because the current dynamics favors one side at the cost of the other. If we were to systematically look at this issue from both sides then we could understand that there are two possible conclusions: Either both sides of the conflict accept injustice as legitimate and useful. This would only increase the spiraling of the problem or both sides relinquish such actions and denounce ineffective and unjust tactics. It is wise to think that this would help to create an environment of mutual trust and the possibility of a just peace.

We must understand and accept the fact that secular democracies are a fundamentalist movement that seeks to prevent religious groups from fully practicing their religion of choice. This form of government especially diametrically opposed to the Islamic faith. This is because Islam was explicitly developed as a religion and a political state with the religious guidelines serving as the foundation for the social and political practice of the populations. History is contains evidences that Islam, and Islamic ruling in particular, allows for diversity in different schools of thought and different religions.

     In order to further elaborate this point certain words must be understood, in order to make their practical implications clear. Secular is defined as “not overtly or specifically religious” (Merriam-Webster Online, 2009) while a democracy is defined as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections” (Merriam-Webster Online, 2009). When these terms are combined it is clear that secular democracy is a form of government devoid of religion or religious guidance. Furthermore, a secular government cannot, by definition, be a democracy if the people governed over wish to have their chosen religion (e.g., Islam) be the foundation for governance. This would be nothing more than tyrannical fundamentalist mode of operating; which a fundamentalist can be defined as “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles” (Merriam-Webster Online, 2009). Berna defined this term as the use of an ideology in all aspects of personal, public, social, and political life while forcing this upon others, whether through internal acceptance or at least external obedience. This latter definition is useful in seeing how a secular democracy upon a religious community would be incompatible.

     The seriousness of this matter cannot be stressed enough due to the rhetorical attacks on so-called Islamic fundamentalists. The truth of the matter is that those who attack Muslims seeking to establish and Islamic government are only seeking to force their own foreign (i.e., secular democracy) upon the populations. Rhetoric is a fundamental tool in the political aspects of any conflict for it is the means by which the masses are mobilized and the opposing parties engage each other in. The labels and descriptions implemented are used in proxy of explicit language that is meant to demean certain aspects of the other. This pattern has been well used by the US in the past (e.g., Cold War). For example, the US would describe itself as open in order to label itself benign. However, it would describe the USSR as closed which was being used to call them duplicitous and aggressive (Marquardt, 2007).

     It is a well-established and undisputed or refuted fact that secular democracy, as developed and promoted by the West, is against there being an active role of religion in politics; especially as it pertains to legislature. The dynamics of such a government seeks to rule people while denying them the right to fully live their religion. It is my opinion that this principle is rooted in the early American failures of Protestant Christianity (i.e., religious colonies in the New World. However, this cannot be applied globally because Islamic history is evidence that a religiously-grounded government can rule a plural society successfully.

          There is a hadith from the Prophet Muhammad stating that “Difference of opinion in my community is a mercy for people“. This is interpreted as meaning that the scholars can differ in jurisprudence while all being correct. The inherent flexibility in Islam has allowed for 4 major schools of thought to develop within the boundaries of orthodox Islam. The example of the difference of opinion is a clear proof of this. However, further evidence of this is found amongst the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad. It is recorded that two amongst the closest to the Prophet Muhammad disagreed on whether it was permissible to pray in one garment. They disagreed but the scholars have noted that each followed sound evidences and one was chosen as preferable over the other; not that one was right and the other was wrong.

          Islamic principles have made it clear that diversity amongst mankind is the natural state of things on this earthly world (e.g., Quran 5:48). In addition, the Prophet Muhammad stated “Treat people with good character.” This statement was made to apply to all, regardless of religion. However, in particular to non-Muslims under Muslims rule he stated that “Whoever unjustly kills a person of the covenant of dhimmah, Allah has prohibited Heaven for him.” This brief set of evidences make it clear that an authentic Islam form of governance would protect the life, property, honor, and dignity of all persons regardless of religion. The clearest example of this is when the Prophet Muhammad drafted and implemented the Constitution of Medina. This state constitution placed the polytheist, Jewish, and Muslims tribes on equal standing as far as rights and protections were concerned; it only differed in that the Muslims were the ruling group. Centuries later (i.e., 711-1100 AD) across the world in Al-Andalus (i.e., Muslim-ruled Spain) the Jews were enjoying their Golden Age.

     In conclusion, the only thing that can be said is that there must be acceptance of Islamically-based democracies that are chosen by the people rather than internationally imposed secular governments. This issue goes well beyond the scope of Sudan, it goes to Western involvement across the Muslim world. There needs to be a sincere effort to promote systems of governance that not only are just and beneficial to the people but be rooted in the local cultures. However, the sad truth of current affairs is that secular democracy, an oppressive fundamentalist movement, is being pushed like a commodity and the people being governed are turned into consumers of Western Christian culture.  If these dynamics don’t change then it would not be surprising to see a cultural collapse similar to the recent financial meltdown.

References

Jok, M.J. (2007). Sudan: Race, religion and violence. Oxford, UK: Oneworld.

Marquardt, J. J. (2007). Transparency and security competition: Open skies and America’s Cold War statecraft, 1948-1960. Journal of Cold War Studies, 9(1), 55-87.

Merriam-Webster Online. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/

            Epistemic communities can be defined as a group of individuals that share an ideology and attempt to accomplish common political objectives, through individual and collective efforts. This concept has been utilized to explain the successes of global efforts in contemporary times (e.g., Global Warming policy & international finance oversight). However, and perhaps due to the relative novelty of the concept, little has been written about how epistemic communities have been used in historical cases. It is the author’s opinion that the efficient use of epistemic communities was a pivotal tactic in the rapid and successful establishment and spread of Islam.

            The Prophet Muhammad was born and raised in the city of Mecca. Though he received little support and much resistance to his message it is here that his mission started. However, Muhammad had one key advantage: Mecca was a key city for the Arab tribes in respect to their religion for it was the site of their annual pilgrimage. The tradition was that various Arab tribes would make a pilgrimage to the city of Mecca and pay homage to their particular idols. This allowed the opportunity for Muhammad access to peoples that were vital to his mission’s success. First, was that the people Mecca, particularly the ruling Quraish tribe (which he was a part of), held a high place in the hierarchy in Arab society. Second, was that the annual pilgrimage gathered a diverse set of people at the same time and within reach of Muhammad’s efforts.  At first thought these social dynamics seem too small in comparison to the current nation-state politics that take place (as well as the examples used to elaborate epistemic communities). However, taking into account the material (communications and trade) and social pace of Muhammad’s times reveals that the tribal system of politics that existed was comparable to the current international system.

            It is known through authentic sources that whenever given the choice between two options Muhammad would always choose the easiest. With this said, it is not difficult to understand why Muhammad chose to share his message with this family, the ruling Quraish tribe. It’s necessary to know that his efforts with his family were tactical in that he knew his grandfather and, later, his uncle were the chief leaders of Mecca. Though his family initially rejected his message, even one of his uncle’s took the initiative to attack Muhammad and his character at every opportunity, it cannot be said that it was a total failure for his grandfather and one of his uncles continued to safeguard Muhammad even though they rejected his message. After the initial debut of the message of Islam, Muhammad chose to approach key members of the Meccan society. One of the first people approached was Abu Bakr, a friend of Muhammad. Abu Bakr was critical to the spread of Islam because he was an educated man that was known for his vast knowledge of Arab history. Another noteworthy example of how Muhammad built his epistemic community of believers was with the case of the two Omars. Muhammad was known for making the supplication to G-d that one of the two Omars (i.e., Omar ibn al-Khattab or Omar aka Abu Lahab) come to the fold of Islam to “strengthen it”. The scholars have elaborated that the strength Muhammad mentioned was of physical strength, for both were known as fierce warriors, and the natural leadership they both possessed, especially within the Arab social system.  Further evidence of the critical need for one of these individuals to accept Islam was the turn of events that occurred once Omar ibn al-Khattab became a Muslim; it was at this point and with him leading the effort that Islam changed from a secret religion to an open religion and invitation. Eventually, though his group of followers was mainly comprised of the weak and poor within Meccan society. This position allowed the enemies of Islam to ruthlessly and viciously attack and oppress the Muslims. Conditions reached a point that Muhammad and his followers knew they needed to leave Mecca for sake of Islam and their own survival.

            At this point, Muhammad used the strategic religious importance of Mecca to further the message if Islam. It was recorded that during the pilgrimage season Muhammad would approach groups of people to inform them of Islam. Though mostly unsuccessful, after a few years Muhammad found sympathetic ears in some men from the city of Yathrib (later name Medina tu Nabi, city of the Prophet, or Medina for short); this city was located a few hundred miles north of Mecca. Even before this contact in Yathrib, the Prophet Muhammad sought out and achieved support in the form of political asylum for a group of his followers. He did this by sending them to King Najashi of Abyssinia, a Christian kingdom. This area of the Horn of Africa became the gateway for Islam into Africa and is until today home to a strong and vibrant Muslim community. The spread through the Arabian Peninsula and eventually the rest of the world began with Yathrib. This move started with a small handful of men from Yathrib that heard and accepted Islam. Upon their second visit to Mecca they pledged their allegiance and returned to Yathrib with one of the Muslim companions of Muhammad. This was an important political project headed by the small epistemic community of believers. It was vital because it led to two of the three tribes of Yathrib to accept Islam and welcome Muhammad and the migrant Muslims of Mecca. Once Yathrib became the home to the Prophet and his closest followers Islam took the first step to a legitimate foothold within the social and political sphere. Evidence of this is the constitution of Medina, signed by all the leaders of the Yathrib tribes, which made Muhammad the leader of Medina and Islam as the official way of life. This base eventually allowed the Muslims to develop religious or at least friendly political ties with other Arab tribes and foreign kingdoms.

            The examples above show how the strategic spread of Islam through a small community of believers eventually allowed the spread of Islam to the rest of the world and eventually an Islamic empire. This small piece of Islamic history shows how Muhammad was able to further the message of Islam within the hostile society of pagan Mecca by strategically approaching politically powerful individuals of the immediate location and those abroad (i.e., of other Arab tribes in other Arab towns/cities).

This freedom is understood differently from culture to culture but from an Islamic perspective it can be understood to be a freedom granted so long as the nature and aims of the speech is constructive. The Islamic concept of promoting good and forbidding evil is at the root of this freedom. For example, there is a document story that the Caliphate Umar ibn Al Khattab (RA) once addressed the muslim community regarding a particular marriage issue. During this address a women spoke out and reprimanded Umar for being stricter than what the Prophet Muhammad had been on the people regarding this issue. Umar in turn acknowledged her statement and his own mistakes and corrected himself. This example, along with numerous others within Islamic history, is indicative of the freedom of speech being a tool for social change along moral guidelines.

The fact that these incidents were don’t within a socially approved venue in line with the function topic or question asked deem them to be acceptable. In addition, a critical analysis of the content of both these speeches reveals that in fact no derogatory, vulgar, or remotely offensive comments were made.

Though I have strong opinions concerning both these topics (racist tendencies of Israel & homosexual marriages) I wish not to venture into the discussion of the specifics. I feel that they are too complex to discuss them together so this makes it an inopportune time. Nonetheless, I intend to discuss these at a later time. However, I feel that the conclusion to these ordeals is that people across societies should be supportive of people voicing concerns or revealing their true opinion, especially when it is truth they speak.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090324/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_protest. What is also noteworthy is the fact that the military provided security escort to the protestors. To me this is a clear use of the military (to strengthen the political moves of the powerful and oppress the minority) against civilian populations; a thought that is repulsive to most Americans should it happen in the US (or any other Western country for that matter)

     Some argue that the concept of loyalty oaths is completely in line with democratic principle while others disagree. Personally I would rather look at the historical use of loyalty oaths in this hostile manner to explore the relevance and effectiveness of such a power-politics move.  

To start off with related issues we can look at White supremacists in the US who fight the permissibility of minorities engaging in civil activities (e.g., voting). Following is the link to an article on the issue (place close attention to the quotes): http://current.com/items/89665778/gop_attempts_to_oust_white_supremacists.htm

The Israeli politicians and population don’t completely reject this concept but rather make it conditional upon the loyalty oath and federal service given by the Arab Israeli. It is noteworthy to mention that Orthodox Jews are given exceptions to service and other duties without having to relinquish their civil rights. The following is a Jewish justification for such actions and more: (http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=9884).

     So perhaps we can take this trend one step further and see if it is religion that plays a role. In my readings I found that the Japanese American loyalty (as well as equality and right to freedom) was being questioned during World War II. More noteworthy is that I found religion factor played a significant role:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:cdJiXJMzU-kJ:www.geocities.com/dnsinitiative/wells.doc+extremists+demanding+japanese-american+loyalty&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The concept of Japanesse American’s loyalty and civil rights being questioned persuaded me to ponder upon the experience of other minorities (NOTE: I am a first generation US citizen since my parents are from Central America [Costa Rica]) and furthermore whether a Good Muslim can also be a good American. This dilemma was brought up when the concept of authority and loyalty of Muslims should be only to God (Allah in Arabic) and his Prophet Muhammad (Peace, mercy, and blessings be upon him, his family, his followers, and all the prophets). Particularly what came mind when the Quran states

(29-10) Lo! those who swear allegiance unto thee (Muhammad), swear allegiance only unto Allah. The Hand of Allah is above their hands. So whosoever breaketh his oath, breaketh it only to his soul’s hurt; while whosoever keepeth his covenant with Allah, on him will He bestow immense reward.

Of Course this being only one of many verses that speak of this concept. Fortunately, I was able to find an interesting article that spoke of this exact issue and was able to put it all into perspective: http://www.csidonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=341&Itemid=1

The author was able to effectively clarify to me that indeed a good Muslim can also be a good American. However, being a Latin American and having served in the military previously I was more than aware of the oaths for naturalized citizens (e.g., my parents) and servicemen. What I found most interesting is the oath for naturalized citizens. The Oath of Citizenship states:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me G-d.

To me the most crucial point is that a person who wishes to be naturalized citizen must “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any…sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen….” In current, secular, nation-state politics this makes sense. However to a practicing Muslim the only sovereignty that exists belongs to God alone. This does indeed create an interesting dilemma in my perspective. To make it clear I am not an Islamic scholar and do not make edicts, but to me it appears that an Muslim’s Islam is jeopardized by becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States of America. Now in my opinion the problem arises in the counter-Islamic law and focuses in the domestic and international policies of the United States. In simple terms a good Muslim is loyal to the society around them because of their loyalty with God and his Prophet. Hypothetically, should the US have been an Islamic country (not to be confused with Muslim ruled) ruling according to Islamic law then the oath would have been fine. Interestingly enough I am an American-born citizen, so have not had to make such oaths but am questioning the validity of freedom of religion with the wording found in that oath. An elementary suggestion would be offer a secondary oath that has wording that allows for religious affiliation to not obstruct this political affiliation. The subjects discussed here are more complex than I could possibly be able to get into so I offer this posting as nothing more than food for thought and an expression of some of my thoughts on the matter.

Though I, among many, can elaborate shared elements and common outcomes of both, I would rather let you the reader investigate further and come to your own conclusions. However I will leave you with this: There is a need for Islamic leaders to return to a sense of practical urgency in their work as is evident in both these contributions.