The problem with Islamists in the Arab world is that they are often too unorganized (just look at the divisions among SYRIAN Islamists in Syria while their country is burning) and many of them lack long-term visions. They are too shallow in many ways.
What genuine Islamists in Syria and elsewhere (Libya for instance) should be doing is to shun groups like Daesh completely and similar groups and try to gain a better reputation in the region and West. Once that happens they can grow in power, reform if necessary and cater for the people. Right now they are only present in chaotic countries and outsiders, especially decision makers in the West, might find it difficult to distinguish between the goals of for instance the Islamic Front and Daesh. I am talking about the simpletons here which most people are including the media and even to a big extend governments and their apparatuses.
Many more people like Tariq Ramadan are needed. Educated people who while adhering to a form of Islamist ideology are not against relations with the world or progress in general.
The Arab world as the cradle of civilization with ancient proud cultures and today mostly an Islamic identity should be able to develop a common cross border ideology based on culture, modernity and traditions.
Islamists should not be so shallow that they believe that the world today can be compared to the time of for instance the Abbasid Caliphate 800 years ago. It's a totally different reality today.
Islamists should be open to different opinions and be inclusive of people who are not Islamists whether Muslims or non-Muslims. Today I see too many village idiots who cannot do that and whose actions oppose Islamic teachings. Or people who compete in appearing more "Muslim" while in reality they are some of the biggest sinners.
If for instance KSA was a bit more liberal (in terms of laws), if some of the idiotic recent laws were removed and the people had a bigger say directly (a constitutional and not an absolute monarchy for instance) it would be a very good model to follow for Islamists. A model that should also incorporate non-Muslims and secularists which all past Caliphates (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abassid, Fatimid, Ottomans) did. In fact their policies were ahead of their time in many ways especially pre-Ottoman era which historians can attest. Here I am talking about for instance religious freedom (what was back then understood as religious freedom) etc.
@Dr.Thrax @Falcon29 @Ahmed Jo @Full Moon @Frosty @Gasoline etc.
I really believe that this is something that we need/have to discuss much more in the open. Islamists and non-Islamists alike.
I won't really judge anything this shortly after the so-called post Arab "Spring" period but hopefully I have delivered the message across.
EDIT:
Of course the US and West are not against the murderous Al-Assad regime truly. If they were he would have been gone long ago. Like Gaddafi, Saddam and others before them. The West is perfectly fine with status quo as Syria has no importance to them. Their main battle against Russia is fought in Ukraine nowadays, they (USA) are more busy with the rise of China as well.
As long as extremists (mostly Daesh) and refugees are not flooding the EU they won't care that much about whether Al-Assad will stay or not. I said it more than 2 years ago and warned people that the US/West will not act and that Obama's "red lines" were nonsense.
In a way most of the blame goes to Daesh. Without them we would not be here. So this confirms the absolute lunacy/retardation of some Islamists (those who have joined Daesh from across the world). They are too stupid and can't see what is going on in the wider picture. Instead they are dreaming about conquering half of the world and establishing a Caliphate.
If the Islamists want to have a future they need to follow what I wrote above. If they did I have no doubt that many more locals would side with them and it would seriously challenge some of the incompetent regimes. Either that or a completely new route (a third one) should be followed. I can't see another route than combining secularism with the values of the region. I personally believe that Islam can coexist in a secular society which Turkey is a living example of. A country that is as conservative as many Arab countries. No big difference with Syria for instance or Lebanon to mention a few.
GCC too is not as conservative as many people believe either. Much of the conservatism is more bound in family values and was to a great extend imposed by the rules of the state, for instance in KSA. So KSA could with some changes adopt a "Turkish model" if necessary. UAE's model for instance albeit not perfect (neither is Turkey's though) is advancing in the right direction.
All signs point to such an development as you cannot fight the changes of this world unless you are one of the few untouched tribes of this planet but even they are dying out quickly. What is certain is that changes are necessary and will arrive. The important thing here is to make the transition as bloodless as possible.
