Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

ARTICLE: “The Salafi Conundrum: ‘Salafis are the fundamentalists of the Muslim world,’ says Ihsan Bagby, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky,” by Caryle Murphy, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 11-17 September 2006, p. 10.

ARTICLE: “Muslim’s win in Minn. seen as step for community: House candidate did not stress religion in primary race,” by Andrea Stone, USA Today, 14 September 2006, p. 6A.

Great summary piece on Salafism in the Post. Worth reading--seriously. It speaks to the essential desires of Salafist fundamentalism, which I frequently compare to the Christian Amish. And by that I mean we’re talking a vast majority that just want religious apartheid on peaceful terms. And I don’t add the phrase “even in America” to that last sentence. Rather it would make more sense to say “especially in America,” for two reasons: 1) this is a land of surpreme religious freedom and 2) who wouldn’t feel like distancing themselves more from politics right now in America than Muslims.

And yet, we’re just beginning to see the emergence of Muslim political figures. They will rise because of that oppression--both real and perceived… and self-inflicted by the fundamentalist types. They will rise most naturally, just like Democratic former military who’ve served their country overseas and now feel the profound duty to shape its long-term foreign policy in the region, informing our entire body politic in the process.

I know, I know. Muslims can’t be withdrawing from political life AND emerging in political life at the same time. Surely a far more realistic analysis would force a choice between those two diagnoses.

But why should the yin-yang effect of globalization be any different here in America--source code for this era’s globalization--than anywhere else?