Il y a quelques semaines j’ai posté des tweets d’Iyad Badhdadi sur Les différents courants dans l’islam et comment distinguer les extrêmistes de non extrêmistes.
Voici la suite de sa conférence - Désolée c’est en anglais.
There’s a lot of anxiety about the MB and Salafi parties and while I don’t think it’s unfounded, I think it’s short-sighted. I’ve said several times that Islamism is a very wide spectrum. On this spectrum the MB is a range rather than a point. It’s important to note that the MB was initially formed in the crucible of the late 1920s and shaped through to the 1960s.
The MB is not the child of the Arab Spring, or the father of the Arab Spring, and wasn’t formed in the crucible of the Arab Spring. Until the Arab Spring, the MB had a grudging truce with the tyrants, like a long-nagging couple who just learned to live with each other.
When the Arab Spring started, the MB was merely the most politically organized non-state group at the time. Tweep @APHClarkson described it as a crisis of organization – that ideological alternatives to the MB exist but are simply not organized.
@iyad_elbaghdadi a crisis of organisation. The alternatives to MB are there but, with exception of Libya’s NFA, have not built mass parties
I’d like to challenge that, though. I don’t think an ideological alternative is truly ready. And if one was, it probably should wait. The MB goes on because there’s no alternative to the MB. That says a lot about our intellectual crisis and not much about the MB.
The Islamism of the Age of Tyranny is on the way out, and it shouldn’t be obstructed. It should be allowed to run itself into the ground.
I truly believe that standing in a way of an idea prolongs its run; better just step out of its way and let it fall on its face.
Several Islamisms are around today that were forged in an Age of Tyranny, born of the same womb as the Mubaraks, Assads, and Gaddafis.
With the Mubaraks, Gaddafis, and Assads (almost) gone, these “Islamisms” think they own the scene. But they’re actually in hostile waters.
The Arab Spring has low tolerance for authoritarians and totalitarians. But it also longs for a reconnection to (or rediscovery of) Islam.
So these ideologies in the Arab Spring are like a huge salt water fish in a river. It’s thinks it owns the place, but it’s actually dying. When you remove a fish from water it thrashes around a lot. This isn’t a sign of vivaciousness. It’s a sign of imminent death. That’s why I’m not worried about the MB or Salafism. As per the analogy above, they’ll have to either grow fresh-water lungs, or just die.
What I’m truly worried about, though, is the reintroduction of the idea of change through violence into the Muslim psyche. This is where we get to #Syria, folks. And this is what I’m really worried about.
To truly understand what I’m saying you should know I’m more concerned with ideas than events.
I’d rather if the idea of liberty wins decisively 30 years from now, than if it takes parliament today but last no longer than a generation.
What Tunisia and Egypt said, very loud, was that we don’t need violence to achieve change.
Libya and Syria challenged that. I hereby declare that it was naïve of me to think that someone like Assad or Gaddafi can be removed peacefully.
In fact, I truly believe that if Ben Ali or Mubarak or Saleh had the chance, they’d have done what Assad and Gaddafi did. Libya introduced the idea of a national liberation war not from a foreign enemy but from a tyrant of our own flesh & blood.
Syria, however, is reintroducing some very dark ideas into the Muslim psyche.
(By “Syria” here, I mean the Syrian conflict/situation as it stands today.)
Syria is saying: The world doesn’t care, even if you all get slaughtered.
Syria is saying: You are on your own, not only against your tyrant but against the world behind him.
Syria is saying: Foreign powers want us to remain subjugated. They are not a friend, they are an enem ;
Syria is saying: The West only talks of your liberty and your human rights if you live in an island of oil.
Syria is saying: If your land has no oil, then the West does not deem you worthy of liberty or human rights.
Syria is saying: The chemical weapons the tyrant has are more important to the world than the blood of all those women & children.
The Syria situation is, in short, saying all these things that Alqaeda and the Jihadists have been saying for decades.
Ideas die when events disprove their logic, and live & grow when ideas confirm them.
That’s why fighting Alqaeda circa 2003-4 was so frustrating; no matter how many the US would kill in Iraq, it was proving their logic. That’s also why a single man, Mohammad Bouazizi, did more to challenge the idea of Alqaeda than the entire US army.
The Syria stalemate is vindicating all of the ideas that made Alqaeda and Jihadism popular.
As the West worries about Alqaeda finding safe haven in Syria, I worry about it finding safe haven again in the Muslim heart & mind.
Shortly after Bin Laden’s death, I wrote this: http://bit.ly/izrjxw – arguing that when he died, Alqaeda was already a fossil.
The Syria stalemate has resuscitated that fossil and blew new life into its lungs, and new blood into its veins.
So once again I say, if something isn’t done about Syria, Alqaeda’s idea (if not Alqaeda itself) will live again.
It may be already too late.