Those who insist to interpret our conflict with the West in terms of a “Battle of ‘Aqeedah” rather than what it actually is; part of the same neoliberal imperialist power struggle that is playing out around the globe; would seem to advocate this position, at least partially, because it relieves them of having to understand the modalities of this conflict and from the obligation to develop effective strategies. In a battle of belief, there are no “effective” strategies, because, no matter what you do, they will keep fighting you anyway…since it is just what they believe in.
If you disrupt the profitability of their companies, they will just pour more money into their campaign; they will absorb the losses, and press on. If you attack them militarily (as if you can), they will redouble their efforts, send more troops, etc, etc. Basically, there is nothing you can do, so it doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you just fight them by some way…what strategy, what tactics you apply, isn’t important. For them and for us, it is an all or nothing battle to the death. That is what they are saying.
OK, that is completely irrational. Is there antagonism between Kufr and Iman? Of course there is; always has been, always will be. But that antagonism does not manifest itself in aggression and violence at all times in all places. The Kuffar are not driven by an unrelenting desire to eradicate the earth of Muslims. That is not true at all, and only someone with very little education in the religion would think it is; not to mention very little education in history, and very little experience in life.
There are identifiable reasons for their aggression wherever it exists, and it has very little to do with religion. As I have mentioned, the West has no problem being allied with Saudi Arabia, with Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, etc. The adherence of people in Afghanistan to their interpretation of Islam is exactly the same now as it was before the US invasion – that fact does not prompt the US to continue its occupation in an effort to either convert the population to Christianity or to exterminate them. Muslims in China have no difficulty practicing their religion, except the Muslims in East Turkistan, and that is because of their independence struggle, not because of their religion.
Now, you may tell me that the West accepts places like Indonesia and Malaysia because those populations are “weak in their Deen”. Well, then we come to one of the odd paradoxes of this mindset. On one hand they will say that the West accepts “diluted” Islam, which necessarily means that Western leaders are basically scholars of the religion, that they are all ‘Ulema possessing intricate knowledge of ‘Aqeedah, which enables them to distinguish between “true” Islam and “compromised” Islam. But on the other hand, we always say “the problem is, the West does not understand Islam”; so which is it? Either they are experts in ‘Aqeedah or they are ignorant; can’t be both. No. For them, a Muslim is a Muslim. They barely know the difference between the Sunnis and Shi’ah, much less the difference between one ijjtihad and another.
Be serious. When a thief robs everyone on the street, and then he robs you, you say it is because you are Muslim? Really?
It is not a battle of ‘Aqeedah in Brazil, in Venezuela, or throughout Latin America (where Christianity is more devoutly followed than in the West); it was not a battle of ‘Aqeedah in Vietnam. It is not a battle of ‘Aqeedah in Greece, in Spain, in Portugal. But somehow, for some reason, when they do the same things in the Arab world that they do everywhere else, it suddenly becomes a battle of ‘Aqeedah?
Do they hate Islam? Obviously. Is that hatred what motivates them? Obviously not. If it was this hatred that motivated them, it would motivate them everywhere equally. We always say that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists or extremists (which is true, of course) but it is also true that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not under attack either. Where we are under attack, we are under attack for identifiable reasons unrelated to the religion; reasons that have to do with economic domination and suppression of independence.
We can identify the reasons, the motives, and the modalities of the conflict, and we can develop effective strategies and tactics, if we will just remove our own ideological blinders, and dismiss the hollow religious rhetoric of “leaders” who thrive on incitement and prolonging crises.