Oldgateboatdriver said:
I don't think the "terror" to which Ms. Ali alludes is limited to the extreme examples of it from ISIS and Al Qaeda only. I saw it as including the terror imposed, for instances, on Muslim women in London, England, or the Netherlands or France, who are verbally assaulted by Muslim men in public on the street, for walking alone (without male escort) or not wearing a hijab; or the terror of being punished for unknown sins by the religious police in say, Saudi Arabia or Iran, or merely because you did not abide by their interpretation of Islam; or the terror imposed on young Muslim women in North America by their fathers to prevent them from going out with boys (or even their girl friends so that, god forbid, a man should accidentally join them at the restaurant) or going to school "undressed' (meaning without being covered from head to toe in 30o - 100% humidity weather when everybody else is wearing shorts and T-shirts), etc.
Basically I saw her thesis as being against the "terrorizing" of Muslims by other Muslims into total personal obedience to the rules and precept of the religion they have decided to be the "true faith" ones. These "terrorizing" Muslims are much much more numerous than the ones you singled out.
If you pair that with the fact that Islam, as a religion is also a political system, in that it seeks to impose on everyone the religions teachings as the law o the land to be imposed on all by the political powers that be, that is where she feels that a reformation is necessary so that Islam can become, like just about all other religions by now, a personal and private matter rather than a political and societal imposed one.
I saw the
highlighted bit, with my own eyes, in Singapore where Muslim men, some from Malaysia but mostly, I was told, from nearby Indonesia, come to Singapore on Sundays and 'terrorize' the (mostly Indonesian) housemaids on their day off. The difference between e.g. Europe, on the one hand, and Singapore, on the other, is respect for the rule of law. In Singapore the police are
johnny-on-the-spot and the Muslim men are carted away, quickly, and hustled across the border with their passports stamped so that they cannot return for some months. Such verbal assaults (I'm told these "assaults," which are almost never more than verbal ... out of fear of the
proportionate police reaction) are, apparently, a breach of Singapore's laws regarding personal privacy and public conduct ~ remember this is the place where gum chewing, in public, is against the law ... or, at least, dropping your 'used' gum anywhere is.)
And I agree,
OGBD, it is a form of terrorism. I was also told, by a Malay acquaintance, that this attitude, including the dress codes, is relatively new. It is, my acquaintance told me, an "import" from the Middle East, brought by Arabian
sheiks and
imans who have been invited to Malaysia and Indonesia by a handful of fundamentalist people in high (high enough) places. Some Malays (I don't know about others in e.g. Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines) want to fight back and, in at least one mosque in one city the "imported"
iman was ousted and the congrgation agreed that they would engage only a native born Malay who was educated in Malaysia.
That, ousting an
iman and insisting upon a local fellow, instead, is one example of real "soft power," at work. That one Malay congregation was (I hope still is) sufficiently comfortable in its own "skin," sufficiently confident in the strength of its own
"culture" to face down the foreign fundamentalists who claim that they have the 'Holy Writ" on their side. This sort of "soft power" ~ the very best kind ~ is never the result of any government programme, and never a "gift" from foreigners. It is "bottom up" or "grassroots"
power that reflects the strengths and determination of the people, themselves. It was easier, I suspect, in that particular Malay congregation because I think it was in an upper middle class district filled with well educated people. Poorly educated people often (usually?) are less "comfortable" and "confidant" and, therefore, less willing to stand up against outside influence.
I think there is a big difference between the "comfortable," and "confident" local community
power I saw in one small place in one small country and the fanaticism that, I suspect, animates many IS** members. IS** is, I believe, using its own brand of "soft power" but it is
imposed rather than being self generated and self sustained and I think (
hope) it's influence is easier to counter, discredit and destroy (see e.g. Italian
fascism, German
national socialism and Japanese
Shinto based militarism). It is my thesis that
imposed or
imported can be valuable and long lasting, but only as a catalyst for the creation of local, indigenous
power: the great legacy of the British empire, for example, was the "rule of law," respect for which is still a defining characteristic of some democracies (America, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, India and Singapore just to name a few) and which, I assert, delayed the decline of democracy in others.
At the risk of repeating myself: the best
"soft power" is home grown, but, just for example, a couple of poor, Easter European Jewish immigrants named Samuel Goldwyn and Louis B Meyer had more to do with giving America "comfort" and "confidence" than did Franklin D Roosevelt or even Thomas Jefferson.
General Electric and
General Motors were as important to the expansion of America's
soft power as was General Marshall and his amazingly generous "plan" to rebuild Europe. Louis Armstrong, Josephine Baker, Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald did more to shape "our" anti-communist "narrative" than did everyone in the CIA,
Voice of America, the US State Department and
Radio Free Europe, combined. Governments and old, tired, armchair strategists, like me, need to remember that.
op:
