The problem of Islamic radicalism

[Razgovory]

Well, we all do here.  I mean, this is an internet forum, I would expect his messages to come from machines.

[LaCroix]

I notice you have a tendency, at least in this discussion, to deliver verdicts ex machina, without much explicit reasoning as to why you think it's true.

[Jacob]

So no surprise I basically agree with the Canadian lawyer contingent.

As we've collectively pointed out before, this regional terroristic phenomenon has been around for a while, and its Islamic coloration is pretty recent.  There is always a certain subset of young people who are drawn to radical and violent messages, and under the right historical conditions they will take the next step.  The ideology may not be pure superstructure in the Marxist sense but what matters more than the specific content is that it "fits" a particular historical moment and can be shaped to justify violence.  Islam fits that criteria but it by no means unusual in that respect.

I do think there is an Islam "problem" but it's a different problem.  The Islam of the Qur'an is essentially progressive for its time and place, and many of the problematic passages are not so troubling in context (for example, there was some debate over whether during wartime blood could be shed in sacred precincts - the Qur'an says this is permitted - hence the various references to "killing 'X' wherever they may be found" - that isn't a warrant to kill the Other at all times, but simply saying that if there is a state of war or an attack that takes place in a sacred area, it is permitted to engage in warfare and there no requirement to withdraw.).  Historically in Islam as in Christianity or Judaism there have been swings back and forth between more traditionalist/literalist interpretations and more allegorical/spiritual ones.  The scientific revolution came to the Islamic world somewhat later than in the Christian West, but it did come, and let's not forget that witches were still being burned after Newton in the West, and western systems of criminal and civil justice still bore strong imprints of traditional Christian notions well into the 20th century.

If you look at the Islamic world in the early 20th century, you would see mostly a mix of: (1) modernizing Islams that are compatible with the new rising secular states in places like Turkey or Iran, (2) traditional Islams that are essentially non-violent and political quiescent and which incorporate various folk traditions - some harmless and picturesque, some retrograde, (3)traditional academic Islams associated with the Azhar (Sunni) or Qom/Karbala (Shia) schools.   There are also the Wahabbi reformationists, pushing a highly stringent, formalist, and literalist interpretation of Islam but numerically they are not significant.  Finally, beginning in the late 19th century and continuing through and past the mid-20th century, there is a strong current of (secular) anti-imperial and anti-Western literature. 

A few key things happen in the mid-to-late 20th century to change this picture:

(1) huge oil deposits are discovered in the Wahabbi heartlands.  By the latter part of the century the Saudis are pouring huge resources into promoting their sect.  These Salafi schools aren't necessarily useful for teaching students useful skills for the modern world, but do fill their student's heads with propagandistic nonsense.  And they are scattered all over the Islamic world.

(2) Some of the more virulent strains of anti-imperial and anti-Western thought became Islamized - the Muslim Brotherhood in the Sunni world and the alliance that took down the Shah in  the Shi'a world are examples.

(3). There great promise and expectations raised by post war nationalist moments -- Nasser and the Baath - were horribly disappointed, leading to disillusion of secular alternatives to the old imperial and monarchical regimes.

(4) The secular liberation and revolutionary organizations that formerly attracted youth prone to revolutionary violence either fell apart as the Cold War wound down or were co-opted by practical considerations - e.g. the PLO engaging into the peace process and assuming responsibility for territorial rule.

All these contingent historical forces are driving a supply and demand for a very small minority of extremely violent, Islamist extremists and a somewhat larger minority of passive sympathizers.

Excellent summary

[Siege]

Well, i have been telling you about Islam for the last 15 years, but you guys never cared.
Now is too late to do anything about it.

[Oexmelin]

Excellent summary

Minor point: "Islam" (which seems to be used as a stand-in for the Arab world) did not, and could not (much like "Christianity"), evolve in a silo, independently from what was happening elsewhere, presumably to different outcomes, as if these were two simultaneous parallel experiments in historical development (this is why the whole "decline" narrative of the Ottoman empire seems so unconvincing).  It may seem like a trivial point - or one worthy of antiquarianism for earlier time periods, but concepts like "the Scientific Revolution", "secularism", "nationalism" came to the Arab world already inflected with their European past and parameters. This is why imperialism matters. Not out of some desire to assign blame (it's a cheap trick on the right and on the left), but on understanding how it shaped historical possibilities and contingencies.

[Jacob]

Excellent summary

Minor point: "Islam" (which seems to be used as a stand-in for the Arab world) did not, and could not (much like "Christianity"), evolve in a silo, independently from what was happening elsewhere, presumably to different outcomes, as if these were two simultaneous parallel experiments in historical development (this is why the whole "decline" narrative of the Ottoman empire seems so unconvincing).  It may seem like a trivial point - or one worthy of antiquarianism for earlier time periods, but concepts like "the Scientific Revolution", "secularism", "nationalism" came to the Arab world already inflected with their European past and parameters. This is why imperialism matters. Not out of some desire to assign blame (it's a cheap trick on the right and on the left), but on understanding how it shaped historical possibilities and contingencies.

Fair point.

[Valmy]

Well, i have been telling you about Islam for the last 15 years, but you guys never cared.
Now is too late to do anything about it.

Could we have done something about it 15 years ago?

[Berkut]

yes, as i've been arguing this entire time, i don't think islam or any religion causes much. we're full circle again

Of course - religion doesn't cause much, but Imperialism does.

So no to blaming 100 dead concert goers on the religious views of the people pulling the trigger, yes to blaming lots of "stuff" on Imperialism, but not the dead concertgoers. They get blamed on...well, something else I guess?

[dps]

Hell, ask a person on the street in any Western Country about what the Vietnam war was about, odds are it was about American Imperialism.

Yes because we were desperate to conquer all that...um...whatever it was they had there and kill all those...whomever it was that lived there. I would hope most people in Western Countries know about the Cold War and are not under some sort of delusion we really gave two shits about conquering Vietnam.

Probably a vain hope.  I mean, yeah, they probably know about the Cold war, but many of them probably consider it solely a result of Western imperialism.

[Martinus]

Excellent summary

Minor point: "Islam" (which seems to be used as a stand-in for the Arab world) did not, and could not (much like "Christianity"), evolve in a silo, independently from what was happening elsewhere, presumably to different outcomes, as if these were two simultaneous parallel experiments in historical development (this is why the whole "decline" narrative of the Ottoman empire seems so unconvincing).  It may seem like a trivial point - or one worthy of antiquarianism for earlier time periods, but concepts like "the Scientific Revolution", "secularism", "nationalism" came to the Arab world already inflected with their European past and parameters. This is why imperialism matters. Not out of some desire to assign blame (it's a cheap trick on the right and on the left), but on understanding how it shaped historical possibilities and contingencies.

So I guess we should just go back to the good old imperialism, given that we will be blamed whatever we do, but at least this way we can at least make life more bearable for some women, gays and freethinkers.

[LaCroix]

So I guess we should just go back to the good old imperialism, given that we will be blamed whatever we do, but at least this way we can at least make life more bearable for some women, gays and freethinkers.

why would you be blamed for imperialism?

[Eddie Teach]

So I guess we should just go back to the good old imperialism, given that we will be blamed whatever we do, but at least this way we can at least make life more bearable for some women, gays and freethinkers.

why would you be blamed for imperialism?

Why not? Poland has shown several times it wants to participate as a member of the West.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

basically Necla Kelek says that Islam as a religion failed, and it failed in 622 in Mecca when Mohammed failed to convince the inhabitants of the city to convert. After his retreat to Medina he transformed into a warlord after which he proceeded to force his religion -a powerideology (is that even a word in english?)- upon the people. Convert, submit or die. They did so successfully for a long time.

Looks like junk history to me.  There simply isn't much good historical evidence for that went on in Arabia in the 620s; it's all speculation.  But the key point here is that historically speaking centuries went by before the conquered lands became fully Islamized and while the conquered peoples might not be thrilled with their position (conquered peoples rarely are) it looked pretty good as compared to see the situation for religious minorities in Byzantine lands (or for that matter Catholic Europe).

no, the keypoint here is that Mohammed was incapable of convincing the Meccans peacefully and had to wage war on them to get them convert. Just as he used violence to remove anyone who criticised/ridiculed him, like Asma bint Marwan. Murdered while holding her suckling infant to her breast.

That is the key: a violent religion with a violent man as its prophet, who created and subverted the rules to whitewash his warmongering. A man who's backrupt character is unassailable because he's the prophet, and saying anything against him gets you branded as an apostate. Game to be killed in other words.

Wether or not the Byzantines were worse is a red herring: they're long gone, but mohammed's character (and thus his actions) is still beyond reproach.
the core is rotten. And unless that core is neutralised it'll keep causing more rot.

[Malthus]

Excellent summary

Minor point: "Islam" (which seems to be used as a stand-in for the Arab world) did not, and could not (much like "Christianity"), evolve in a silo, independently from what was happening elsewhere, presumably to different outcomes, as if these were two simultaneous parallel experiments in historical development (this is why the whole "decline" narrative of the Ottoman empire seems so unconvincing).  It may seem like a trivial point - or one worthy of antiquarianism for earlier time periods, but concepts like "the Scientific Revolution", "secularism", "nationalism" came to the Arab world already inflected with their European past and parameters. This is why imperialism matters. Not out of some desire to assign blame (it's a cheap trick on the right and on the left), but on understanding how it shaped historical possibilities and contingencies.

On the contrary: such issues as "decline" are always viewed as relative. It is exactly because (say) the Ottomans did not exist in a vacuum independent of others that it is obvious that they "declined". Staying the same while others advance (or even advancing, but more slowly in comparison with others) = "decline". This is the point Paul Kennedy made in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and while I don't agree with everything in that book, he makes a good case for this.

The consequences of "decline" are that the society in "decline" becomes a prey to those stonger. The history of the Ottomans demonstrates this, as they went form being very clearly predators (fir example, taking land and slaves from Christian Europeans) and "imperialists", to becoming prey, and finally collapsing.

The ME is home to a set of civilizations who have gone through this process repeatedly: the Arab empire, predators in the early middle ages, became prey - to invading Turks (who adopted Islam) and only in the last couple of centuries, to invading Europeans (who did not).

It has been a long time since non-Turkish Muslims were the predators. ISIS or Daesh is, very much, an organization set on reversing this (restoring the Caliphate), though it lacks all of the usual attributes of a successful predator - such as better technology, better organizational skills, or an ideology that is widely attractive outside of its home base.

[Berkut]

Excellent summary

Minor point: "Islam" (which seems to be used as a stand-in for the Arab world) did not, and could not (much like "Christianity"), evolve in a silo, independently from what was happening elsewhere, presumably to different outcomes, as if these were two simultaneous parallel experiments in historical development (this is why the whole "decline" narrative of the Ottoman empire seems so unconvincing).  It may seem like a trivial point - or one worthy of antiquarianism for earlier time periods, but concepts like "the Scientific Revolution", "secularism", "nationalism" came to the Arab world already inflected with their European past and parameters. This is why imperialism matters. Not out of some desire to assign blame (it's a cheap trick on the right and on the left), but on understanding how it shaped historical possibilities and contingencies.

On the contrary: such issues as "decline" are always viewed as relative. It is exactly because (say) the Ottomans did not exist in a vacuum independent of others that it is obvious that they "declined". Staying the same while others advance (or even advancing, but more slowly in comparison with others) = "decline". This is the point Paul Kennedy made in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and while I don't agree with everything in that book, he makes a good case for this.

The consequences of "decline" are that the society in "decline" becomes a prey to those stonger. The history of the Ottomans demonstrates this, as they went form being very clearly predators (fir example, taking land and slaves from Christian Europeans) and "imperialists", to becoming prey, and finally collapsing.

The ME is home to a set of civilizations who have gone through this process repeatedly: the Arab empire, predators in the early middle ages, became prey - to invading Turks (who adopted Islam) and only in the last couple of centuries, to invading Europeans (who did not).

It has been a long time since non-Turkish Muslims were the predators. ISIS or Daesh is, very much, an organization set on reversing this (restoring the Caliphate), though it lacks all of the usual attributes of a successful predator - such as better technology, better organizational skills, or an ideology that is widely attractive outside of its home base.

Indeed - this is why I just get kind of fed up with whines and cries of "Imperialism!" especially as it related to the ME.

The ME has not historically been some technologically backward areas exploited by Europeans. It isn't Africa, or North America, or South America, where guys with guns and smallpox came along and just kicked the shit out of people who had zero chance of resisting them.

The ME has a long and varied history of various and varied groups, both internally and externally, coming in, going out, kicking ass, getting their asses kicked, conquering neighbors, being conquered by neighbors, conquering each other, being conquered BY each other.

To trot out "Imperialism" as the catch all, one stop shop to explain ME/Islamic history is so ridiculous. It is picking one particular set of data points and pretending that they happened in isolation, like nothing else mattered but the particular case of some Europeans showing up and carving up some portion of the area in some fashion.

Why not blame it all on the Ottomans? Or the Mongols? Or <insert whatever historical group had a profound impact on the makeup of the region>.