Politics mixed with religion mixed with strategic compulsions, I get what you are saying. Till a rival state supports an insurgency movement, there is a remote chance of putting it down completely. Khalistan movement and LTTE were routed because their supporters backed out.
But AQ structure is global and transcends regions and continents. There's much more there than any strategic compulsions.
Mixing religion with state affairs and judiciary will make it impossible to bring any reforms, the state laws itself suppress any dissidence or reforms to the religion.
Its not an insurgency that is the issue. It is the ideology, the ideology has to be wiped clean. If one gets off the Caliphate horse the other one steps on it. Because there is NO one out there with a united and organized voice saying that this is wrong and here is the textual proof of your folly. First, you cannot prove or disprove religious belief. Quite frankly because unlike someone claiming they see wormholes on earth, you cant set up scientific tests and use equipment to try and ascertain or at least give a benefit of the doubt to the findings.
Second, lets say you do have proof and contextual concept. How do you then get a maniac to disagree. Take this excerpt(used by extremists Militants and naysayers of Islam alike).
Which if translated by Pickthall read thus.
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Now people like the ISIS can use this to easily justify what they are doing. Even though there is much context and time-space into this verse and chapter. Lets say you were able to give a complete discourse on this chapter by showing how it was revealed during the events preceding and leading to the conquest of Makkah and on an act by act basis between the Opponents of Islam and Muslims after the violations of treaties made earlier. So if one was to use plain intelligence, it would make sense to attack ,arrest and kill treaty violators who continue to attack a state. Yet , in this case there are always those who will insist that this is standalone and hence means that they have the right to infer that a person killed in Gaza justifies the chopping off heads of Christians and Yazidis in Iraq. How do you convince that person of the context and theological significance of this when they are not willing to budge from their stance that this is a standalone argument that cannot be nullified if taken out of context. The same way you cannot convince a critique of Islam of the same fact.
To promote such an understanding means arguing and debating with bureaucratic orders of "certified" clergy that refused to move into the 21th century by fear of losing their status in society. Then you stand to argue with the drawing room preachers who lie on Sofas and talk of religion. Once you get past those and are able to say even bring a Fatwa. What good is a fatwa against an AK-47 armed man who in his head has only profited by following his view of the scripture and is gaining victory upon victory. For him it is easy to shove his rifle in your face and as a collective religious society the innate doubt that God may indeed be on his side will take over(or that god is punishing us) and the very idea of opposing him will die out right there and then.
So the problem then returns to this singular issue of not having enough confidence in what you believe in to oppose those that are fanatical in their beliefs. Let this be clear as my opinion(
for whatever minuscule weight it carries). There is no silent Moderate Majority of Muslims that oppose these ideas.
There are those that support them but due to their own inability to do something at that time stick to places like Defence.pk.
There are those that dont support them but due to their own inability(
be it from genuine reasons or that they simply are not bothered about it enough to take time out from their 9-5) cant do anything about it.
There are those that are apathetic enough to simply not care at all.
And then there are those who are actively supporting/involved with them and all parallel militant and Quasi militant ideologies.
And the more I see it, the Ratio is not the idea of 10-20% extremists and 80% moderates and so on. But if the aforementioned categories are taken , then its more around 20/20/40/20. Extremism is a growing problem that has its roots with idea and ideologies within Islam, but these have all been tainted by political ideals and the social causes that feed them .
@
Capt.Popeye @
Hyperion @
Armstrong @
scorpionx
