Deconstructing "Jihad"

Andrew Sullivan recently featured a Channel 4 documentary on the eye-popping focus and content of some of the teachings in a mosque in Britain.

LISTEN AND LEARN

I've been slowly working my way through each of the installments and the rebuttal, listening carefully, taking notes.

I find these little glimpses quite a treasure trove. There is much of analytical value. For instance, one can remark the so-called seal of completeness, viz. no one else has the Truth (just lies) and only here can one find the Truth. While that is a common seal in a religious-teaching context, a more moderate approach would not suggest that ALL else is lies, but some others might just have pieces of the truth and it is only through reason and study of al-Islam can one find the whole Truth.

WE ARE ALL ISLAMIC NOW

So, this brings up the question of whether pundits are willing to spend the time to actively engage Islamic thinkers on the topics raised here. Do we all have to become mujtahids, in order to have a dialogue with our moderate Muslim counterparts, with whom we would make common cause against a radical belief system that so many see as ultimately threatening to civil order and peace itself.

TO DO IS TO BE (OR NOT TO BE)?

Moreover, in discussing "jihadi" and radical concepts, does one unwittingly do the work of spreading the jihadi viewpoint/propaganda -- the catch-22 of talking about what one would really like to bury?

Myself, I think, at some point, such messages ought not to be let to fester unattended, unanswered. Their frame of reference tends to seep into the common "understanding" with deleterious effects on how folks come to understand and judge issues.

THE NATIONAL STAGE OR LOCAL THEATER

There might be a question of *who* should address them. National leaders run the risk of legitimizing and publicizing their opponents with a direct "debate". Still, I think one could craft a governmental effort. Nonetheless, much could be accomplished among a few, dedicated intelligentsia and the political punditry machine.

Here is one person who is deconstructing Osama's message, in detail, including concepts like "the myth of grievance", etc.

THE GOALS OF ENGAGEMENT

Everyone has to be concerned about the "Clash of Civilizations", perhaps even more so since the Bush Administrations bungling of the effort in Iraq may have precluded the very, very important "first steps" and started a cycle of blame and recrimination all its own.

Nevertheless, I think a deconstruction of narratives goes a very long way to framing the discussion, the "ideological challenge", in ways simple enough for people without comprehensive learning to say to themselves, "See, I agree with that, and that other stuff is not what I value", or "This is what I think you ought to be teaching, instead." It's a lot more detailed and meaningful than "they hate Freedom and we don't".

Last, I would just observe that it would be facetious, IMO, to engage in such an exercise just as a matter of propaganda. One has to truly listen back, to see what might be learned and to be open to changes oneself.