The problem of Islamic radicalism

[Berkut]

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

It is an excellent summary, if you start with the conclusion you want and then interpret the history to fit into that conclusion.

For me, it isn't that interesting - it is a lot of explanation for why we have the problem. That is fine, but my issue is not with the analysis for how we got here, but rather the willfull demand by many to pretend like we are not here at all.

As evidenced by this contingent, who (as an example) were just insisting that radicalism is a small fraction of the Islamic community, which we shown to simply be untrue. When majority populations of large countries believe that Sharia law (to include the death penalty for apostasy and adultery) is the way the state should be organized, you cannot possibly argue that the issue is a minor problem of some small minority of view "like Fred Phelps".

Yet nobody who made that analogy has even acknowledged how terrible flawed it is...

[Valmy]

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.

I am pretty sure ideas such as "secularism", "the Scientifice Revolution", "nationalism" can be passed on without a European Empire necessarily having to set up shop. Indeed all those concepts were already functioning the ME before the Ottoman Empire fell. That is what the Young Turks were all about.

[alfred russel]

I am pretty sure ideas such as "secularism", "the Scientifice Revolution", "nationalism" can be passed on without a European Empire necessarily having to set up shop. Indeed all those concepts were already functioning the ME before the Ottoman Empire fell. That is what the Young Turks were all about.

But European Empires did sort of set up shop in the Ottoman Empire.

[Valmy]

But European Empires did sort of set up shop in the Ottoman Empire.

Only to protect them from Russian aggression.

[Malthus]

But European Empires did sort of set up shop in the Ottoman Empire.

Only to protect them from Russian aggression.

They also did what we might now call "the Putin move" - intervening with claims to be protecting minorities the Euro-powers had an interest in (the Russians of course did this the most  ).

In the history of Zionism, this is one issue the early Zionists struggled with - the Turks were happy to take their cash-for-worthless-land-in-Palestine deal, and cared not a jot for the opinions of local Arabs on the matter, but were worried that Jews would be another national minority constantly seeking (and getting) Euro-intervention (the Zionists argued to the Turks that no Euros gave a shit about Jews, so they were 'safe'  ).

[Valmy]

They also did what we might now call "the Putin move" - intervening with claims to be protecting minorities the Euro-powers had an interest in (the Russians of course did this the most  ).

Hey! How do you know the French DIDN'T care about all 100 Ottoman Catholics

[crazy canuck]

That is fine, but my issue is not with the analysis for how we got here, but rather the willfull demand by many to pretend like we are not here at all.

Who are these people you have in mind?

[The Minsky Moment]

It is an excellent summary, if you start with the conclusion you want and then interpret the history to fit into that conclusion.

What conclusion is that? 

it is a lot of explanation for why we have the problem. That is fine, but my issue is not with the analysis for how we got here, but rather the willfull demand by many to pretend like we are not here at all.

How can you address a problem without understanding it? 

As evidenced by this contingent, who (as an example) were just insisting that radicalism is a small fraction of the Islamic community, which we shown to simply be untrue. When majority populations of large countries believe that Sharia law (to include the death penalty for apostasy and adultery) is the way the state should be organized, you cannot possibly argue that the issue is a minor problem of some small minority of view "like Fred Phelps".

This is shifting ground.  The problem identified in other thread and carried over here was the problems of terrorism, of systematic organized violence to achieve political change.  Now you are raising the issue of human rights as it relates to internal management of a state.  That's a significant issue but its manifestation goes well beyond Islam - witness the recent spate of killings in India of persons suspected of eating beef, for example -- and it conflates different problems.  Its true most of the Sunni terrorists embrace strict Sharia; the reverse however is not true.  There are strict legalist Muslims who strongly oppose the terrorists and their methods and indeed do so on the basis of Sharia itself.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

Even junkier history. 
What is the factual, historical basis for these accounts?

It's odd to criticize a religion on the one hand, and on the other hand accept entirely uncritically every scrap of text or tradition regardless of provenance.

[Berkut]

This is shifting ground.  The problem identified in other thread and carried over here was the problems of terrorism, of systematic organized violence to achieve political change.  Now you are raising the issue of human rights as it relates to internal management of a state.  That's a significant issue but its manifestation goes well beyond Islam - witness the recent spate of killings in India of persons suspected of eating beef, for example -- and it conflates different problems.  Its true most of the Sunni terrorists embrace strict Sharia; the reverse however is not true.  There are strict legalist Muslims who strongly oppose the terrorists and their methods and indeed do so on the basis of Sharia itself.

No, the problem *I* am talking about is the general problem of Islamic radicalism - terrorism is one of many symptoms of that problem.

Terrorism is the "sexy" manifestation of that problem, but the problem is about a clash of ideas, a clash of values. The shooting of people in Paris concert halls gets all the attention, and focus our attention, but I don't consider it at all as fundamentally different from some people smashing some poor women's brains in for the "sin" of being raped, or the multiple states where they will execute you for renouncing Islam.

[The Minsky Moment]

No, the problem *I* am talking about is the general problem of Islamic radicalism - terrorism is one of many symptoms of that problem.

Terrorism is the "sexy" manifestation of that problem, but the problem is about a clash of ideas, a clash of values. The shooting of people in Paris concert halls gets all the attention, and focus our attention, but I don't consider it at all as fundamentally different from some people smashing some poor women's brains in for the "sin" of being raped, or the multiple states where they will execute you for renouncing Islam.

Now that is what assuming a conclusion looks like.  You can make the argument that belief in a strict form of Islam is itself the cause of terrorism, and that terrorism is but an  manifestation of an undefined "clash of ideas".  But there has to be proof and facts to support that proof.  On this thread and the others, the contrary argument has been made supported by facts.  It's not sufficient to simply throw up your hands at our collective obliviousness and insist on the inherent obvious of our error.

[Berkut]

No, the problem *I* am talking about is the general problem of Islamic radicalism - terrorism is one of many symptoms of that problem.

Terrorism is the "sexy" manifestation of that problem, but the problem is about a clash of ideas, a clash of values. The shooting of people in Paris concert halls gets all the attention, and focus our attention, but I don't consider it at all as fundamentally different from some people smashing some poor women's brains in for the "sin" of being raped, or the multiple states where they will execute you for renouncing Islam.

Now that is what assuming a conclusion looks like.  You can make the argument that belief in a strict form of Islam is itself the cause of terrorism, and that terrorism is but an  manifestation of an undefined "clash of ideas".

I don't have to make that argument - I just have to take the people who engage in the behavior at their word when they say why they do the things that they do - they say it is because their god wants them to do so. I have heard nothing that suggests that they are lying about it. All of them.

But there has to be proof and facts to support that proof.  On this thread and the others, the contrary argument has been made supported by facts.  It's not sufficient to simply throw up your hands at our collective obliviousness and insist on the inherent obvious of our error.

No, the contrary argument has been made that there are lots of reasons for generally why people use violence, but that does not disprove that the reasons *these* particular people use violence (or engage in Sharia law practices that are abhorrent). As I've said time and again, the fact that people die driving cars for reasons other than being drunk is not evidence that drunk driving isn't an issue. And that is all the litany of trotting out a thousand reasons why we should ignore the ONE reason the people actually doing the things in question claim is their primary reason amounts to - excuses so we can pretend that this isn't about religion.

This "reason" (religion) is special. And we should ignore it as being a reason because...we don't like the idea that religion drives these kinds of behaviors.

[Jacob]

Alright Berkut, *these* particular people commit terrorist violence because their god tells them to, as you say.

What do we do with this conclusion?

[Berkut]

Alright Berkut, *these* particular people commit terrorist violence because their god tells them to, as you say.

Well no, I say they do it because they believe that their god tells them to - personally, I don't buy it. But I believe them when they say that they do...

What do we do with this conclusion?

Not sure - the "correct" response is not easy to figure out, and lots of people smarter than myself have tried, and are trying.

What I do know though is that your odds of coming up with a workable solution are greatly diminished if you insist on pretending that the motivations of the people we are trying to influence are something other than that they actually are...

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't have to make that argument - I just have to take the people who engage in the behavior at their word when they say why they do the things that they do - they say it is because their god wants them to do so. I have heard nothing that suggests that they are lying about it. All of them. 

So what? 
Baruch Goldstein said the same thing.  Yigal Amir said the same thing.  Plenty of mass murderers have invoked God to justify what they do, all sorts of evil has been done, is done and will be done in the name of God.  Deus vult is the best excuse for evil ever invented.

If someone murdered tons of people and claimed to be doing it in defense of the US Constitution, what would that prove about the US constitution?  Timothy McVey said he was defending American liberty against a tyrannical government.  He claimed to be defending the Constitution, and that his mass murder was fully justified by the Constitution and the laws of treason and sedition.  I have no reason to think he wasn't entirely sincere in that belief. 

No, the contrary argument has been made that there are lots of reasons for generally why people use violence, but that does not disprove that the reasons *these* particular people use violence (or engage in Sharia law practices that are abhorrent). As I've said time and again, the fact that people die driving cars for reasons other than being drunk is not evidence that drunk driving isn't an issue. And that is all the litany of trotting out a thousand reasons why we should ignore the ONE reason the people actually doing the things in question claim is their primary reason amounts to - excuses so we can pretend that this isn't about religion.

Again you are conflating lots of things here from "violence" (which can cover many things) to "Sharia law practices that are abhorrent" (which also could mean a lot).

Take the question of adultery.  Adultery is a crime in Iran, but that is not new to the Islamic Republic.  It was defined as a crime in the Penal Code enacted by the secularizing Reza Shah, and the Islamic Revolution actually had the effect of moderating that law by putting in place the much stiffer evidentiary requirements under Sharia and providing for reduction of punishment if mercy (remorse) is sought. Of course it is ridiculous that adultery is a criminal offense at all.  Then again, we don't spend much time expressing outrage over criminal laws against adultery in 20+ US states, or the fact that our allies in Taiwan or South Korea give prison terms to adulterers.  Criminalization of adultery was indeed the norm nearly worldwide until quite recently but now in our minds this has become a problem of "Islam"

Similarly we have had a thread here about systematic outrages against women  in non-Muslim parts of India and while it is good that we discuss these kinds of problems, it isn't usually phrased as a problem with "Hinduism" - indeed it would seem a bit silly to do so.

The issue that gave rise to this thread, however, was not Sharia, or punishments for theft and adultery, or the veil, or polygamy.  It was terrorism.  You have advanced a theory of terrorism - namely that the cause of terrorism is Islam, because Islam commands and justifies terroristic acts.  A number of us have pointed out this doesn't fit the facts: e.g., it doesn't explain why "Islamic" branded terrorism is so recent and why non-Islamic terrorism was so ubiquitous before in the same region or the fact that Islamic scholars and leaders - including hardline literalists - claim that terrorism violates Islamic tenets and laws.   And when we point these facts out, you don't respond to the point.