In the West, discussions about Islamism and Islamic extremism tend to paint Muslims with a broad brush. This sort of attitude is a gross oversimplification between there are deep and significant differences among the Islamists - differences which the West needs to not just understand, but perhaps even use in order to undermine extremism and violence.

The Economist explains:

The ideologists of al-Qaeda reject the division of the world into modern states. To them, the only boundaries that matter are between Islam (of which they believe they are the only authentic representatives) and infidels. By contrast, Hamas and Brotherhood thinking is pragmatic, accepting the reality of national boundaries. [...]

Al-Qaeda is first and foremost a movement which sponsors and co-ordinates acts of violence, not just in the Islamic heartland but anywhere it can hit back at the western enemy. In the ideology of the Brotherhood, including Hamas, resort to violence is justified only in the exceptional circumstances of “self-defence” and “occupation”—conditions which are deemed to exist in Israel, the West Bank and American-occupied Iraq.

It’s not likely that Western powers would make common cause or alliances with either al-Qaeda or Hamas; this doesn’t mean, however, that they should be treated exactly the same. If left to themselves, the two groups would probably end up in a violent, armed conflict. That isn’t something which the West should promote, but it is something which the West can use.

Groups like Hamas, if they are more pragmatic, might be moderated and changed in the long run — changed in ways that might eventually allow for negotiations and peace. Why is this important? Aside from the fact that Western systems cannot be imposed upon the Islamic world, there is the simple fact that, in the long run, groups like Hamas may be better suited to deal with the extremism of al-Qaeda than the West. Hamas has cultural and religious authority which would make them credible opponents of other forms of extremism.

Then compare political Islam among the Sunnis to the Shia variety, of which Iran is the vanguard. Vast religious differences, stemming from a split that occurred in the seventh century, separate these groups. They still give a sharp edge to the conflicts of the present day, most obviously in Iraq, where thousands of lives have been lost in Sunni-Shia violence.

In its doctrine and ethos, the simple, back-to-basics Sunni Islam from which the Brotherhood and al-Qaeda sprang is about as different as any Muslim practice could be from the sophisticated, scholarly world of the Iranian Shias, with their elaborate clerical hierarchy and long tradition of studying and adding to a corpus of texts.

Most Americans are probably aware that there are “Shia” and “Sunni” Musilms, but most are also probably clueless about what those differences mean, either religiously or politically. A person cannot credibly comment on or form a judgment about political Islam in the Middle East without at least being generally familiar with all these difference — Islam isn’t a single monolithic faith (though even Muslims themselves try to portray it as such).

 

Read More:

• Islam
• News About Islam
• Islam and Politics
• Islam and the Koran
• Shia Islam
• Wahhabi Islam