# Will a Female POTUS fuel the fire of Islamic Extremists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2007, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378 "2007-11-14T16:36:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/1 "2007-11-14T16:36:58Z")
The Islamic Extremist view of the role of females in their society differ greatly from the role [women](http://www.islamfortoday.com/ruqaiyyah09.htm) actually play in the religion of islam. Now we are not talking about practitioners of the islamic faith, we are talking about absolutists and extremists of the islamic religion. Terrorist groups like the Taliban, Al Qaida, Hezbollah - do you think if we elect a female POTUS their views of Americans will change or stay exactly the same? Listening to NPR “On Point” just now people were talking about Clinton and her campaign. Supporters and opponants alike are talking about her electability - stating republicans and independants who would vote republican simply to avoid Clinton getting into office. One call in asked the question about Islamic Extremists and their view of women in society, and if we were to elect Clinton would their fire for the US be fueled even more or quelled in some way. So I thought this should go in GD because people may wish to discuss this topic. Do you think electing a female POTUS would change in anyway the views islamic extremists have of the US? If so what do you think would be the change? ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/2 "2007-11-14T16:46:34Z")
A female POTUS wont fuel Islamic extremists any more then they are fired up now. Their declared intention is to carry on killing,maiming and torturing until the entire population of the world is their particular brand of muslim and everyone is under Sharia law. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/3 "2007-11-14T17:24:33Z")
[QUOTE=Lust4Life] A female POTUS wont fuel Islamic extremists any more then they are fired up now. Their declared intention is to carry on killing,maiming and torturing until the entire population of the world is their particular brand of muslim and everyone is under Sharia law. [/QUOTE] No, it isn’t. They just want the US out of the Middle East, particularly out of Saudi Arabia, since that is their holy land, and they consider the presence of our troops an abomination. They also resent our intrusion in the Israel/Palestine situation. Basically, they want the US to stop interfering in their countries and respect their sovereignty. As to the OP, I’m sure it would bug them on a personal level, but I don’t think it would actually hinder the way they deal with our country. Maybe, though. I have a hard time seeing Ahmadinejad being respectful to President Clinton. We don’t get along with him very well NOW, though, so it might not make a huge difference. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/4 "2007-11-14T17:31:02Z")
How much did Margaret Thatcher disturb them as British Prime Minister? I don’t see how Clinton would be any worse than Bush to them. They might consider it an improvement. They know he has zero respect for their sovereignty. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/5 "2007-11-14T17:43:26Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] How much did Margaret Thatcher disturb them as British Prime Minister? \ Jim [/QUOTE] How much did Thatcher deal with islamic extremism during her tenure? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/6 "2007-11-14T17:55:19Z")
Won’t make any difference at all. They’re not attacking Germany because of Merkel, or going after any countries solely because they have a female head of government. They’re going after the U.S. as it is. (And the U.S. has a female Secretary of State, if that matters.) Things could change based on what Clinton does, but who she is won’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/7 "2007-11-14T17:57:37Z")
[QUOTE=miss elizabeth] No, it isn’t. They just want the US out of the Middle East, [/quote] _Wrong_. But it’s an interestingly popular[myth.](http://middleeastinfo.org/article4453.html) As for the OP, I’d have to say that it’s doubtful that a woman, a gay man, or a six armed circus juggler would lessen fundamentalists’ belief that they’re at war with the west. We’re dealing with religious fanatics, the actual facts of the world play secondary importance, if that, in their worldview. I don’t see much we could do having all that big an effect upon the nutter-branch of Islam. Except, perhaps, electing a Jew. Man oh man, we’d get some good conspiracy theories out of that one! ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/8 "2007-11-14T18:14:41Z")
Mainstream Islam wouldn’t have a problem with a female President. Women have led four Islamic countries already: Turkey Pakistan Indonesia and Bangladesh. The loonies couldn’t get more pissed off at us than they already are. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/9 "2007-11-14T18:20:59Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] _Wrong_. But it’s an interestingly popular[myth.](http://middleeastinfo.org/article4453.html) [/QUOTE] [my cite](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/weekinreview/19vann.html?_r=1&oref=login&pagewanted=all&position=&oref=slogin) Of course some Islamic fundamentalists want to see America turn to Islam and adopt Sharia as our own laws. Just as some people in the US want to forcibly convert all Muslims to Christianity and nuke Mecca. But to say thiat is the reason they attacked us, and is the reason they continue to fight us, is wrong. They want us out of the Middle East. It’s been stated hundreds of times, by their own leaders, including Bin Laden. It’s not a myth, its a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/10 "2007-11-14T18:34:57Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] But it’s an interestingly popular[myth.](http://middleeastinfo.org/article4453.html) [/QUOTE] Are we supposed to read this large article and guess what part of it you’re trying to point out? Jesus Christ, at least you can provide a quote or two. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/11 "2007-11-14T18:48:30Z")
[QUOTE=miss elizabeth] [my cite](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/weekinreview/19vann.html?_r=1&oref=login&pagewanted=all&position=&oref=slogin) [/quote] One that focuses on one single Islamic extremist, yet you clearly were responding to a quote about “Islamic extremists” in general. Fallacy of composition or bait and switch? [QUOTE=miss elizabeth] But to say thiat is the reason they attacked us, and is the reason they continue to fight us, is wrong. They want us out of the Middle East. It’s been stated hundreds of times, by their own leaders, including Bin Laden. It’s not a myth, its a fact. [/QUOTE] Simply for the record, you seem to honestly be claiming that there is a fairly massive movement of people who believe they are at war with the west, that they have to destroy our governments, institute a global system of Sharia and who believe that secularism itself constitutes an attack upon Islam… but it’s only our presence in the middle east that drives attacks. You are deliberately ignoring the constellation of their beliefs in order to focus on one, tiny, subset of them. It’s a cartoon caricature of fundamentalist Islam that, interestingly enough, places the lion’s share of the blame on us instead of them, for their own actions. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/12 "2007-11-14T18:49:55Z")
I’d be more worried that a female POTUS will fuel the fire of **Christian** extremists. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/13 "2007-11-14T18:50:08Z")
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] How much did Thatcher deal with islamic extremism during her tenure? [/QUOTE] I don’t really know, but it was the country that had controlled large parts of the Middle-East. I would think the UK would be as important to their sensibilities then as the US is now. Jim ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/14 "2007-11-14T18:54:13Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] Simply for the record, you seem to honestly be claiming that there is a fairly massive movement of people who believe they are at war with the west, that they have to destroy our governments, institute a global system of Sharia and who believe that secularism itself constitutes an attack upon Islam… but it’s only our presence in the middle east that drives attacks. [/QUOTE] That appears to be true. An infidel military presence in Dar-al-Islam is humiliating to Muslims’ pride. And [it’s all more about **pride** than about poverty or ideology or anything else.](http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/a_matter_of_pride_4529) ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/15 "2007-11-14T18:57:35Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] I’d be more worried that a female POTUS will fuel the fire of **Christian** extremists. [/QUOTE] I imagine that, wherever this line of thought is presented (not as a question, but as fact), they’d be behind most of the fear-mongering– ‘If we elect a woman, she’ll get us attacked again!’ ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/16 "2007-11-14T18:58:32Z")
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] How much did Thatcher deal with islamic extremism during her tenure? [/QUOTE] > **[Murder of Yvonne Fletcher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Libyan_Embassy_Siege)** > > The murder of Yvonne Fletcher, a Metropolitan Police officer, occurred on 17 April 1984, when she was fatally wounded by a shot fired from the Libyan embassy on St James's Square, London, by an unknown gunman. Fletcher had been deployed to monitor a demonstration against the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and died shortly afterwards. Her death resulted in an eleven-day siege of the embassy, at the end of which those inside were expelled from the country and the United Kingdom severed diplomati... > **[1986 United States bombing of Libya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya_(April_1986))** > > The United States Air Force (USAF), Navy, and Marine Corps carried out air strikes, code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon, against Libya on 15 April 1986 in retaliation for the West Berlin discotheque bombing ten days earlier, which U.S. president Ronald Reagan blamed on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. There were 40 reported Libyan casualties; one U.S. plane was shot down. One of the claimed Libyan deaths was of a baby girl, reported to be Gaddafi's daughter, Hana Gaddafi. However, there are do... (note where the F-111s took off from) [http://www.tkb.org/Incident.jsp?incID=3757](http://www.tkb.org/Incident.jsp?incID=3757) ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/17 "2007-11-14T19:00:43Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] Are we supposed to read this large article and guess what part of it you’re trying to point out? Jesus Christ, at least you can provide a quote or two. [/QUOTE] Well, yes, reading the whole of a thing is useful for someone who wants to learn about something. But if you require a soundbyte… > [@](#): > > As this passage shows, the authors no longer insist in their fetwa on the restoration of the caliphate. Their goal is a political system based on the shari’a or, more properly, on their understanding of it, because, as outlined above, the shari’a is a post-Qur’anic construction. As most of the Islamic fundamentalists do, Jarisha and Zaibaq resort to the neo-Islamic and neo-Arabic term al-nizam al-lslami. They plead, too, for the absolute imposition of the Islamic shari’a as the incontestable framework or orientation for resolving all issues, to be applied in all times, in all places, and for all peoples. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/18 "2007-11-14T19:32:17Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] Well, yes, reading the whole of a thing is useful for someone who wants to learn about something. [/QUOTE] Actually, I did end up reading most of it, but I think it is extremely poor form to think that others are obliged to read a long article that you use as a cite just because you threw it out there. And frankly, your cite would be better if 90% of that long article had anything to do with the point you’re trying to make. At least **BG** ’s long citation is actually on point to his argument. But anyways, you seem to be committing the same fallacy that you accuse **miss elizabeth** of committing. She provides a cite that Osama bin Laden offered a truce to Western governments willing to quit the Arab world, and you say he’s just a subset of a movement. Then you provide your own cite and say that your cite is an authoritative summary of that movement. Then you make a strawman of **miss elizabeth** ’s argument just for good measure. I will also point out that your cite seems to be a discussion of the context of different views within political Islam, so there are also statements that contradict your point: “Still, Islamic fundamentalists are not traditionalists; their ideal is the selectively perceived and arbitrarily purified state of seventh-century Islam. . . . Aside from these references to the debate on the caliphate we can conclude from the study of Islamic fundamentalist literature that the caliphate and its restoration are no longer pivotal issues in contemporary political Islam. The focus now is on another concept, the nizam Is/ami—the formula of the search for a divine Islamic order in the age of fundamentalism. Within Islam there is considerable dissent on the authenticity of the concept of nizam in Islamic sources.” So the article you cite seems to say that radical political Islam is split on the fundamental (hee-hee) issue of what precisely they are struggling for. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/19 "2007-11-14T19:37:37Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] One that focuses on one single Islamic extremist, yet you clearly were responding to a quote about “Islamic extremists” in general. Fallacy of composition or bait and switch? Simply for the record, you seem to honestly be claiming that there is a fairly massive movement of people who believe they are at war with the west, that they have to destroy our governments, institute a global system of Sharia and who believe that secularism itself constitutes an attack upon Islam… but it’s only our presence in the middle east that drives attacks. You are deliberately ignoring the constellation of their beliefs in order to focus on one, tiny, subset of them. It’s a cartoon caricature of fundamentalist Islam that, interestingly enough, places the lion’s share of the blame on us instead of them, for their own actions. [/QUOTE] There are a number (even a sizable number) of people within this country that would like to force the people of the Middle East to convert to Christianity, but they are not the people driving the war in Iraq (directly). In a similar way, there are a number of people in the Middle East who would like to see America convert to Islam, but that is not the reason they fight us. They want to see the whole world become Islamic, just as Christians want to see the whole world convert to their religion. So what? For the record, I am absolutely not claiming that “there is a fairly massive movement of people who believe they are at war with the west, that they have to destroy our governments, institute a global system of Sharia and who believe that secularism itself constitutes an attack upon Islam… but it’s only our presence in the middle east that drives attacks.” For the record, I am saying there is a relatively small movement of people who want to use terror tactics in order to force us out of that part of the world. I am also saying there are religious people who believe they possess the Ultimate Truth, and want to see everyone recognize that. A very very small number of those might even consider using force, and some of those may have hooked up with the earlier alluded to group using terror tactics, thinking that was a good way to achieve these ends. There is absolutely overlap between these different groups, and I never said their wasn’t. But, primary agenda of the groups attacking the US is that we leave that part of the world alone. This is evidenced by their own words. The “one single Islamic extremist” I focused on happens to be the primary leader of the group responsible for attacking the US. It is you who are engaging in “bait and switch” when we are talking about groups that are fighting the US and you bring up every Muslim with a grudge against America. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378/20 "2007-11-14T23:39:26Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] Actually, I did end up reading most of it, but I think it is extremely poor form to think that others are obliged to read a long article that you use as a cite just because you threw it out there. And frankly, your cite would be better if 90% of that long article had anything to do with the point you’re trying to make. At least **BG** ’s long citation is actually on point to his argument. [/quote] If you view a discussion of the history, ideology, and goals of Islamic fundamentalism to be off point to a discussion of what the ideology and goals of Islamic fundamentalism are, that’s your call. I would hope, though, that the reason for citing the nature of Islamic fundamentalism would be obvious and not ‘poor form’ for most people interested in learning if it was hostile to the west “just” because we were in the ME or not. [QUOTE=Ravenman] But anyways, you seem to be committing the same fallacy that you accuse **miss elizabeth** of committing. She provides a cite that Osama bin Laden offered a truce to Western governments willing to quit the Arab world, and you say he’s just a subset of a movement. Then you provide your own cite and say that your cite is an authoritative summary of that movement. [/quote] By definition, Islamic fundamentalism believes that Sharia law is the only correct path to governance. No fallacy. [QUOTE=Ravenman] Then you make a strawman of **miss elizabeth** ’s argument just for good measure. [/quote] That’s absurd. There was no strawman. I assumed that she was talking about radical Islam, which is a substantial movement: the “Islamic extremists” who were the subject of the OP. In fact, she was specifically responding to a quote about what Islamic extremists’ declared intention is and attempted to specifically rebut it. When she responded to a specific quote, she specifically used the pronoun “they”, indicating that she was responding the quote, not the subset of Islamic extremists represented by Bin Laden’s group. Thinking that she was addressing the topic wasn’t a strawman, because she hadn’t yet made clear that when she was talking about Islamic extremists, she wasn’t really talking about them, just Bin Laden’s group. Further, talking about the visible outcroppings of Islamist ideology (eg. theocrats like the Taliban and terror groups like Hezbollah) without looking at the underlying agenda gives a drastically oversimplified picture. [QUOTE=Ravenman] I will also point out that your cite seems to be a discussion of the context of different views within political Islam, so there are also statements that contradict your point: “Still, Islamic fundamentalists are not traditionalists; their ideal is the selectively perceived and arbitrarily purified state of seventh-century Islam. . . . Aside from these references to the debate on the caliphate we can conclude from the study of Islamic fundamentalist literature that the caliphate and its restoration are no longer pivotal issues in contemporary political Islam. The focus now is on another concept, the nizam Is/ami—the formula of the search for a divine Islamic order in the age of fundamentalism. Within Islam there is considerable dissent on the authenticity of the concept of nizam in Islamic sources.” [/quote] Nothing there contradicts my point. The Caliphate is not synonymous with Sharia law. If you require another soundbyte: [ > [@](#): > > Q: You write that Neo-fundamentalism has been gaining ground. What is meant by the term Neo-fundamentalism? > > Olivier Roy: Fundamentalism, meaning a return to the “true” tenets of religion, is as old as Islam itself. The contemporary trend called neo-fundamentalism combines technical modernism, de-culturization, the rejection of both traditional Muslim and modern Western cultures, and globalization. > > Q: Who are the people recruited into this movement? > > OR: Neo-fundamentalism is particularly appealing to alienated youth because it turns their cultural alienation into a justification for forging a universal Islam stripped of customs and traditions and thus acceptable to all societies. It appeals to the well-educated, and the disenchanted, offering a system for regulating behavior in any situation, from Afghan deserts to American College campuses. Contrary to the Islamists who wanted to build an Islamic State in a given country and thus became embroiled in nationalism, neo-fundamentalists are championing the transnational ummah, they address the universalist yearning of Muslims who cannot identify with any specific place or nation. The constructivist ummah therefore must span the globe, where it battles the Western political, economic and cultural uniformity that, ironically, it requires to sustain itself. ]( [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/publicity/royinterview.html](http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/publicity/royinterview.html)) [QUOTE=Ravenman] So the article you cite seems to say that radical political Islam is split on the fundamental (hee-hee) issue of what precisely they are struggling for. [/QUOTE] But agrees that they take a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam and the importance of Islamic (ie. Sharia) law. > [@Miss Elizabeth](#): > > There are a number (even a sizable number) of people within this country that would like to force the people of the Middle East to convert to Christianity, but they are not the people driving the war in Iraq (directly). In a similar way, there are a number of people in the Middle East who would like to see America convert to Islam, but that is not the reason they fight us. They want to see the whole world become Islamic, just as Christians want to see the whole world convert to their religion. So what? Your tu quoque fallacy aside, and ignoring that the scope and nature of Christian fundamentalism is nothing like Islamic fundamentalism… you honestly need to ask the question “So what?” So there are people dedicated to the destruction of western society and replacing it with a global Islamist rule… and the response to that is so what? The ‘so what’ dynamic is, as the OP asked, whether or not having Hillary as president would change how Islamic fundamentalists would look at us. > [@Miss Elizabeth](#): > > For the record, I am absolutely not claiming that “there is a fairly massive movement of people who believe they are at war with the west, that they have to destroy our governments, institute a global system of Sharia and who believe that secularism itself constitutes an attack upon Islam… but it’s only our presence in the middle east that drives attacks.” The fact that there is a massive movement is beyond question. They are the “Islamic extremists” referenced in the OP. I had assumed you were actually talking about them. I seem to have been mistaken. > [@Miss Elizabeth](#): > > For the record, I am saying there is a relatively small movement of people who want to use terror tactics in order to force us out of that part of the world. I am also saying there are religious people who believe they possess the Ultimate Truth, and want to see everyone recognize that. So, then, to reformulate: There is a fairly massive movement of people who believe they are at war with the west, that they have to destroy our governments, institute a global system of Sharia and who believe that secularism itself constitutes an attack upon Islam… but it’s only our presence in the middle east that drives attacks and you refuse to admit that the movement is not small. In general, when faced with fundamentalists themselves who cast their view of the world world as a struggle for Islamic supremacy, and you telling me that’s not the issue, I’ll trust their own descriptions of their own positions. > [@miss elizabeth](#): > > A very very small number of those might even consider using force, and some of those may have hooked up with the earlier alluded to group using terror tactics, thinking that was a good way to achieve these ends. What the OP actually said was: > [@](#): > > Do you think electing a female POTUS would change in anyway the views islamic extremists have of the US? You specifically responded to a correct statement that fundamentalists justified violence in the name of Islamic supremicism. In response to that, a statement of “Islamic extremism” in general, you responded by saying that “they just want the US out of the middle east.” That was, you were directly responding to the correct assertion that Islamic fundamentalism is typified by the desire to institute global Sharia with the incorrect assertion that “they” (ie. Islamic extremists) “just” want the US out of the ME. This is false to facts. > [@miss elizabeth](#): > > There is absolutely overlap between these different groups, and I never said their wasn’t. But, primary agenda of the groups attacking the US is that we leave that part of the world alone. This is evidenced by their own words. Which is the bait and switch. The was referring to “Islamic extremists”. You responded directly to that, used a specific pronoun “they” which made it look as if you were referring to the people the OP was talking about, but instead you are talking about only a small subset of all Islamic extremists. (You’re still wrong about Al Quaeda, which I’ll get to) > [@miss elizabeth](#): > > It is you who are engaging in “bait and switch” when we are talking about groups that are fighting the US and you bring up every Muslim with a grudge against America. The thread is about “The Islamic Extremist view”, “absolutists and extremists of the islamic religion” and/or “Terrorist groups like the Taliban, Al Qaida, Hezbollah”. Some facts for the peanut gallery. Radical Islamic factions, like some in the Muslim Brotherhood, are not motivated by a desire to get the US out of the ME. In fact, recent documents show that members of the MB planned a violent movement in America in order to institute Sharia. [ > [@](#): > > A 1991 strategy paper for the Brotherhood, often referred to as the Ikhwan in Arabic, found in the Virginia home of an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, describes the group’s U.S. goals, referred to as a “civilization-jihadist process.” > > “The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions,” it states. This process requires a "mastery of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’ " > > Success in the U.S. “in establishing an observant Islamic base with power and effectiveness will be the best support and aid to the global movement,” it states. > > A transcript of a Brotherhood orientation meeting recorded in the early 1980s includes discussions of the need for “securing the group” from infiltration by “Zionism, Masonry … the CIA, FBI, etc. so that we find out if they are monitoring us” and “how can we get rid of them.” Discussions later turn to “weapons training at the Ikhwan’s camps” in Oklahoma and Missouri. ]([Client Challenge](http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/091707dnmetbrotherhood.35ce2b6.html)) The MB itself, those trained/indoctrinated by it and its ideology itself has had [direct impact upon terrorists](http://www.cfr.org/publication/9248/) and theocrats the world over. Again, towards the aim of Sharia, not “just” getting the US out of the ME. Further, **elizabeth** , if you want to fight your ignorance, you might be interested that you are profoundly wrong about even Al Quaeda. [ > [@](#): > > The policy of the United States, Bush proclaimed, is to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture. > > In response, Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Osama Bin Laden’s chief lieutenant in Iraq, released an audiotape of his own. In it, he denounced the very principles President Bush has pledged to promote. “We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it,” Zarqawi announced. According to him, elections, representative government and popular sovereignty are “the essence of infidelity and deviation from the true path,” and any who seek to promote this “malicious ideology,” whether in Iraq or elsewhere, will be treated as infidels and put to death. > […] > Such thinking is certainly not new. In his day, Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual godfather of the modern Islamist movement executed by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1966, had argued that “obedience to the Sharia becomes a necessity for human beings so that their lives may become harmonious and in tune with the rest of the universe.”5 Today’s radicals, however, have refined this formula still further. In obedience, Ayman al-Zawahiri argues, there can be no middle ground. One either accepts God and his law, or does not: > > ``` > Sharia is the course we should follow, since it is sent from God Almighty. No rational human being can adopt an unsteady or wavering position vis-ˆ-vis sharia... Either you believe in God and abide by His judgment, or you have no faith in God, and then there is no point of arguing with you regarding the details of sharia. > > ``` > > […] > Naturally, the notion of separating church from state or minimizing the influence of religion in political life is anathema to these elements. After all, there is no history of such a separation in the region, and no central institution akin to the church to govern Islam. While some form of secular authority has traditionally wielded power, its legitimacy was based on its role as the defender of the faith and upholder of the law. Thus those who disconnect religion from politics cannot be true believers. Indeed, Zarqawi has mocked the “secularist democrat who separates religion from state, politics, and life even though he claims a thousand times, in his own tongue, that he is a faithful Muslim.”10 > > Likewise, the radical ideology of al-Qaeda blurs the public-private distinction that is one of the foundations of liberal democracy. The Islamist view of law encompasses all aspects of life. Qutb wrote that “it is necessary that we clarify the point that legislation is not limited only to legal matters, as some people assign this narrow meaning to the Sharia. The fact is that attitudes, the way of living, the values, criteria, habits and traditions, are all legislated and affect people.”11 Al-qaeda defines this subjugation to God in all areas of life as a higher form of freedom-“the freedom of monotheism, ethics, and virtue.” ]([http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2005/09/robbins.php](http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2005/09/robbins.php)) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-female-potus-fuel-the-fire-of-islamic-extremists/426378.md?page=2)