A Complex Question

Submitted by Alex (United States), Apr 22, 2009 at 12:31

I agree with Rita Katz that the goals of the terrorists whose struggle is currently most prevalent in the world, the jihadists, have irrational goals. One could add that the late Islamist theorist, Sayyid Qutb, in his book, Milestones, said that defeat would actually be a better option for Islamists in the violent struggles that he urges them to undertake in the modern world, becau victory is measured by the material standards that corrupt divine attributes and motivations.

I am not sure if I agree with Dr. Pipes that the greater long-term threat is from non-violent Islamists; could Erdogan, Hamas and others have succeeded in legitimizing their agendas through elections without the violence from other jihadist groups that introduced that agenda through great violence? On the flipside, may it be that Hamas, in particular, participated in elections only after being militarily routed? Could participation in elections lead to splinter factions who fight the cause their own way?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".