How to Defeat Radical Fundamentalism

It is a common aim of the US Military, of secular scientists, of the fear-obsessed American patriot, to defeat violent radical, fundamentalist Islam. I think the violent part is important because there are other religions around the world that are just as radical, just as purely entrenched in their positions but nobody really feels like defeating them. The Amish are generally used at this point.

The title of this post does not specifically mention Islam, and that's because I think that Islam is only a special case at this point in time, rather than Islam having some qualities that are particular heinous. On this point I disagree with a number of my tribe. I think if you look back in history it is easy to pick times when Christians were just as awful, when ideologue secularists were just as awful, when Hindus were just as awful, and so on. The reason for radical Islam's danger is not so much because of the religion, it is because of geo-politics.

This doesn't mean that I don't believe that the beliefs held by violent, fundamentalist Muslims aren't dangerous. I also believe that these people truly do believe what they are saying, as is very difficult for many liberal people who live in essentially a secular society. Nor do I think that there is no justification within the Islamic religion for such violent acts. The reason that I think that the problem is geo-political is because human beings can use any belief system to justify atrocity. The Japanese of World War II had managed to combine Buddhism and Shintoism into a belief system within which it was possible to commit unspeakable atrocity. Throughout most of Christian history horrible crimes were easily justified through a cursory glance through The Bible. Stalin was an Atheist supposedly changing the world to become a worker's paradise, a justification for the murder of millions.

So, we have a group of people who really believe in some religious nonsense that enables them to do horrible things. How do we stop this from continuing? One approach people try is to attempt to show them how stupid their ideas are. This is essentially the approach of the New Atheists, and there is some success in changing people's minds from a religious point of view to being more secular, but this only works for those people amenable to such approaches, and those who are amenable are not those who we are worried about. A rationalist, evidentialist approach works for young people who have been exposed to a number of ideas who are not convinced by their faith and are convinced by the efficacy of a secular society. These are people who have not completely identified with their faith. For those who have identified entirely with their faith challenging that faith with rational objections, appeals to reason etc. have been shown by Scott Atran to actually increase that faith. That's right, using reason against those with faith is considered an attack on their faith, which increases it.

Another approach has been to attempt to militarily defeat fundamentalist Islam. While the US military has had enormous success in dismantling the operating apparatus of Al-Qaeda, it simply cannot extinguish an idea through the use of force. Young people turn to radicalized terrorism through the need for a purpose, a cause, something to cling to in a world that is changing. They are more influenced by their peers than by authority or organizations. What motivates them to be radicals is rootlessness and outrages they see through the media.

It seems that direct action against radicalized fundamentalists can at best reduce the efficiency of their operations, but cannot remove the motivation to be a radicalized fundamentalist. So, it seems indirect action is a more sensible method to use. But what indirect method? Well, let us look at an example of where what we would now consider radical fundamentalism has been changed to moderate religion and secular humanism, Europe. It is about three centuries since Europe hung witches, in Britain the death penalty for Blasphemy was ended in 1676 (although you could still get three years imprisonment). The beliefs of the majority in Europe three hundred years ago were equivalent to the beliefs of radical fundamentalists in modern Islam. Clearly Christian nutjobbery has been effectively removed from Europe where the idea that killing someone for having different religious beliefs in repugnant.

How did this happen? It happened through the process whereby more knowledge was attained, spread, and this knowledge led to an improved life. Information and ideas were produced by intelligent people, discussed by those who were informed and intelligent, and then spread downward through society until the new became taken for granted. Improved economic and societal results for most people supported the worth of secular advancements and people wanted those improved conditions. Almost nobody in Europe set out to remove radical, fundamentalist Christianity, but it happened very effectively over just a couple of centuries.

The point, ironically enough, is that the way to remove radical, fundamentalist beliefs is through evolution by natural selection. A civil society based on enlightenment laws, with respect for humanity as designated through human rights outperforms radicalized fundamentalism. People living in such societies are hugely richer, more free, happier and safer. Radical fundamentalism disappeared in Europe not throughout any direct action but simply because young people at the time when they are identifying who and what they are preferred lives of increased freedom, wealth and happiness.

The method for defeating radical fundamentalism is simply to give young people a superior alternative. This superior alternative is not just money, it is freedom, self-direction, knowledge, the chance to do something worthwhile. If you are a young person in the Middle East today you are in the midst of the collapse of a traditional world, caught between the traditions in which you were raised, and the inability to compete in a global marketplace dominated by a militaristic West. What if there was a chance to compete? What if you could go to school and be the equal of anyone else? What if you could be part of the process of revitalizing and reinventing your part of the world as a better, more free society?

The defeat of radical fundamentalism has several components, the most important piece being an attitudinal change. Instead of thinking of a global threat think of radical fundamentalism as a natural problem that arises when countries go from the middle ages to modernity. It should be thought of a social problem, like poverty or disease. Those who become terrorists should, and must be, treated like criminals rather than like soldiers. In fact, they should be treated like mentally ill criminals, people to feel sorry for and rather repulsed by, rather than as an enemy. There is nothing to take the sting out of a jihadi army than for the rest of the world to feel somewhat sorry for these backward people. It is more effective to ignore radical fundamentalism than to fight it.

The second piece is the strengthening and support of moderate Islam. Once again this largely is something that would come about naturally. There are a large amount of Muslims in the world, and the vast majority of them would like a nicer tv, better education, a vote, safe streets and to get along with their neighbors. The largest proportion who think like this are the young, and there is a much larger proportion of young Muslims than young Americans. Before the invasion of Iraq, young Iranians favorite place in the world was the USA. Simply by exposure to the American culture, media, way of life young Iranians were choosing to be more like Americans. Without any interference Iranians were going to make themselves a largely secular democracy within the next two decades. This may soon happen, but interference in the area retards this process. There is no need to actively support a natural process that will give the desired result. if the West want to reduce the dangers of Islam then the best thing they can do is build Western schools, hospitals, media outlets etc. and leave the rest alone.

The final piece is to be better as a society ourselves. The more noticeably honorable, effective, peaceful, and moral the West can be, the more impressive it is as an example. The West has ideals that it has described to itself. To defeat radical fundamentalism we need to be better than it as people and as a society. If you sign a treaty you must abide by it. If you state that you believe in human rights then you must give those human rights to everyone at all times. If you want to be a shining beacon on the hill, you need to act like it. Mohandas Gandhi changed the world. He didn't do it by fighting anyone. He didn't do it by re-education. He did it by the example of his own life. As he said, "My life is my message."