The problem of Islamic radicalism

[derspiess]

There's no such thing as "Islamic radicalism", just ask Obama.

ISIS is not Islamic.

[mongers]

The film Four Lions summed it up perfectly (and hilariously) for me. Many (and let's not pretend that there is a one size fits all explanation) of these guys are, as Malthus says, looking for a way to belong, to be a hero and to vent their aggression (we used to have a really bad problem with football hooliganism for the same motivations). They aren't necessarily well-versed in theology. But if they look in the Koran they can easily find justification for their actions.

Yes it's an excellent film, both entertaining and darkly true. As to be expected for something from Chris Morris, I urge our Americans cousins to watch it.

[Admiral Yi]

So, no comments on Zizek? And after I read through it and bolded parts. 

I skimmed it and gave up when he started to wander off into Marxist nonsense.

[KRonn]

Again, just because a problem happens for reasons other than some particular reason, is not a justification to not worry about said specific reason. Just because people die in car crashes because they are texting is no reason to dismiss the problem of drunk driving. And noting that lots of people die because of drunk driving is NOT an argument that nobody dies from texting while driving.
I keep saying this, and then having to say it again, so I suspect that the problem is on my end, I cannot seem to communicate this idea for some reason. 

Another part of this is we see people/pundits talk of how Islamic extremism is no worse than other types of violence and ideology. They seem to try and find justification or parallels. Someone will invariably mention Tim McVeigh and the Oklahoma bombing as a parallel and similar occurrence. But he wasn't part of a wide spread radical ideology, nothing close to the scale and scope of the methods and goals of Islamic extremist ideology. Same for when someone will say that today's Catholics or Christians are just as bad as the extremists of ISIS. Again wrong and off the mark. There's no comparison to Islamic extremism's actions, goals and methods.

[Martinus]

So, no comments on Zizek? And after I read through it and bolded parts. 

I thought it was pretty interesting, but he kind of went on and on.

Yes, I do realize the irony there.

Everything cast in the framework of "class struggle" made it a bit hard to take too seriously though.

I think it's kinda useful to see that you can be sensible and (extreme) leftist at the same time.

Zizek is the European equivalent of Chomsky.

[Razgovory]

There's no such thing as "Islamic radicalism", just ask Obama.

ISIS is not Islamic.

And the Confederate flag is not about racism.

[dps]

One thing I've been trying to elucidate (poorly, I realize) is that I am concerned at the idea that seems to pervade discussion on the topic that Islamic radicalism/Jihadism/etc. is not really a religious problem - that reason people engage in these behaviors is not REALLY religious, despite their vehement, consistent, and clear claims that they are doing what they are doing because they absolutely believe that it will result in some reward or moral validation that their particular religious beliefs promise them.

There was a lot of discussion about this, but I think the point I failed to make is specifically why I see this as such a serious issue.

If we are not willing to name the problem, to recognize it for what it is (for reason that I feel are basically political and social, not rational), then we won't support and push for the right kinds of solutions. If people do not blow themselves up, or shoot up concerts, or fly planes into buildings for religious reasons, then there is no reason at all to support reformation of the religions in question. After all, if you insist that this violence is not truly religious in nature, then there is no reason whatsoever to reform that religion, or support more moderate interpretations of it, as it is not a religious issue.

Frankly, I think that their motivation is largely beside the point.

People like those who carry out attacks like the ones in Paris or the ones on 9-11 and their supporters need to be put in 6-foot holes, and we need to keep digging those holes until there are no more terrorists or supporters of terrorism.  Islamic, Marxist, nationalist, whatever, it doesn't matter.

As far as Islamic terrorism in particular goes, it's a cancer within Islam.  You don't argue or debate or negotiate with a cancer--you destroy it if you can, before it destroys the patient.

[viper37]

I wanted to comment on an ongoing discussion from the Paris debate thread, but that has become really diffuse, so I wanted to try to re-focus the discussion a little bit.

One thing I've been trying to elucidate (poorly, I realize) is that I am concerned at the idea that seems to pervade discussion on the topic that Islamic radicalism/Jihadism/etc. is not really a religious problem - that reason people engage in these behaviors is not REALLY religious, despite their vehement, consistent, and clear claims that they are doing what they are doing because they absolutely believe that it will result in some reward or moral validation that their particular religious beliefs promise them.

There was a lot of discussion about this, but I think the point I failed to make is specifically why I see this as such a serious issue.

If we are not willing to name the problem, to recognize it for what it is (for reason that I feel are basically political and social, not rational), then we won't support and push for the right kinds of solutions. If people do not blow themselves up, or shoot up concerts, or fly planes into buildings for religious reasons, then there is no reason at all to support reformation of the religions in question. After all, if you insist that this violence is not truly religious in nature, then there is no reason whatsoever to reform that religion, or support more moderate interpretations of it, as it is not a religious issue.

As LaCroix claims, for example, this is a problem of Western Imperialism. If those men walked into that Paris concert and lined up and executed 100+ people, then while the target of their anger is likely misplaced, the validity of it is perfectly reasonable. According to this view, it can be argued that those Parisians are simply reaping what their parents (or their parents parent's, etc., etc.) sowed.

But more importantly, it also means that not only is it the fault of the West that those men committed those acts, it is also the fault of the West when someone in Indonesia kills their daughter for refusing to marry who they wish. When some Afghani Taliban village finds a women who ran off with her boyfriend, drags her back home, digs a hole where only her head and shoulders stick out, put her in it, then smash her head in with rocks as an expression of their religious beliefs...to the extent that we accept that this is not a good thing, it is not a flaw of the religious beliefs, it is just more fallout from some ambiguous sin of the West, even though there was no Westerner involved, and even though the strictures that demand such action were written long before whatever sin the imperialists engaged in was written.

This is ridiculous on the face of it - certainly so when we look at actual acts of terrorism, but even more so when we look at the wealth of equally reprehensible behaviors engaged in in the name of this particular religion as practiced by large numbers if its more radical followers. And these are not, no matter what is claimed, some small minority. Large numbers of people in the Muslim world think death is in fact the proper punishment for adultery, as one example.

But more importantly, if we are unwilling to accept that those men and women murdered the "adulterer" for religious reasons, then there is no reason at all to expect that this will be resolved by reformation of that religion, and hence no particular reason to support moderate Muslim who are attempting to do exactly that. This is the key point - my position is not an attack on Islam in general, but rather one where I deplore our unwillingness to support those very moderate Muslims that people insist are actually the true face of the religion.

It is, at the end of the day, this bizarre combination of narcissm and helplessness. It is our own fault, and there is nothing that can be done, since "imperialism" happened long ago. Other than self-flagellation for our sins, we are helpless to do anything for the future women doomed to be stoned for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.

most of these things are rooted in cultural traditions that predates the conversion of these people to Islam.
Islam, and other religions, have mixed themselves with local traditions to better convert people.
And then you have scholars writing other texts that become semi-religious to further reconcile those traditions.

Islam is no more violent than Christianity, lots of things we blame on Islam happen in other non islamic cultures.  Gentical mutilations, for example, is practiced by Christians as well.  Honor crimes can be done by Christians or Jews in the middle east, or by Hindu practioners.

The problem arise in trying to define radical islamism as one thing, as one religious thing.  The problem with religion, especially Islam, is that there is not one Religion, that are many religion.  I'm Catholic by birth, even though I don't practice, I know the rites, the prayers, the scriptures.  A Catholic from Spain would have different traditions, probably slightly different scriptures and different prayers he learnt as a kid.  A Catholic mass in the US is very different from a Catholic mass in Quebec.

With Islam, you got a religion that insists on your personal fight to find the truth.  There are certain rules you must respect, but outside of that, the way you chose to become a good muslim is yours to pick. 
Some believe in violence, some believe in peace.  Doesn't matter what one things of the other, both see themselves as right.  As such, it serves nothing to dismiss one or another as not religious, they feel they are right and that's the end of it.

Unto the issue at hand, trying to force a religion to change and hoping it will, that will never work.  Christianity replaced paganism by expanding itself with sword and fire, that's how it convinced pagans to ultimately change their ways, and it then enforced orthodoxy for the next thousand years in the same way.  And when Protestantism appeared to reform religion, it erupted in bloody wars, with cruelties on both sides.  And with the French Revolution pushing back religion where it belong, far from power, it went screaming and kicking.  In Quebec, with the Quiet Revolution, the Church went to near extinction because a new generation of people just started saying "fuck you" to the Church and its rules.  Then, the Church started to change, in a less heartless, milder form of religion.  There aren't many priests today in Quebec to argue that more religion in government is a necessity.  They exists, but they are a dying race.

The Protestants have a ton of sects, some willing to commit mass suicides, most only intent on stealing your money.  Scam artists like the Scientology guys pose as anti-religion while replicating the same behaviour.  Doesn't matter if you or I consider them a religion, they will not reform because of us.  And it is the same with Islam, practionner of the religion will not listen to anyone outside their Faith calling for the reformation of their Faith.  Those that do not support terrorism do not see the point as the terrorists are not of their Faith.  That's like asking the head of the Anglican Church to apoligize for pedophile Catholic Priests.
Those that believe are acting for God will not listen to moderates of their religion as they don't even recognize them as their equals.  Salafist preachers have explicitely stated it was ok to enslave non salafists, while the Coran forbids slavery of muslim.  So everyone comes with their own interpretation of the religious rules, and that becomes mixed with the local culture.

Sunnis will encase Salafism in a little box saying the problem is these people speaking in the name of Islam.  Shiites will point Sunnis saying they created the monsters by their teachings.  Salafists will say they are the true Islam and quote you texts from the middle ages to prove it.

For my part, what I have seen of Islam, is that it became dangerous when it mixed with politics.  The hard left merged itself with the extreme versions of Islam and it gave birth to an hybrid child that has an easier time to accept the atrocities committed agains the occident and non followers, because that's basically what the left does.  A good beating will always remind one of how to make to good choices when choosing where to work and which union to subscribe to.  Money will losen politician tongues and make them defend absurb rules in the name of "public security" and "fighting against inequalities".  And the radical islam has adopted this, and integrated it into their teachings.  They hate the Western values of Freedom and tolerance but will never hesitate to use them to achieve their objectives, and they can count on the support of myriad of leftists identifiying themselves with their objectives as well as millions of muslims seduced by this simple ideology: whatever shit they find themselves into, it s not their fault.

Israel has been an excuse for terrorism for a while.  Leftist will always be quick to point that, how it is humiliating for the Arabs to live in a colonized country.  What we have here is thinly disguised anti-semitism.  Palestinians don't hate Israel because they were forced out of their home, Palestinians don't fight to have a Palestinian territory they call home, they fight for the end of a Jewish state.  That is the insult they feel, that there would be something else than an arab/muslim state in the Middle East.  Short of exterminating 90% of the Jews of Israel and creating a Palestinian State on the entire territory, there is no way to solve this problem in a manner that will satisfy a majority of Arabs, muslims and leftists of the world.  A significant minority would be pleased by a viable two state solution, but that's not happenning anymore, no one wants it.

Then, there was the excuse of Saudi Arabia.  Here, it is twofold.  One, by sending troops over there, the Americans defiled the sanctified sacred grounds and gave rise to Al-Queida.  By supporting Saudi Arabia and Koweit we apparently alienated secular muslims by siding with religious extremists.  By not eliminating Saddam in 1990, we sent the message we were willing to compromise with dictatorships despite our calls for democracy.  No matter what we (the West) do, the hard left and the muslim extremists will use that as propaganda against us.

Of course, we ain't perfect, we make mistakes, we make dumb moves.  Eliminating democratic government to replace them with our kinds of son of bitches during the Cold War was totally dumb, in retrospect.  Democratic governments can be reasoned with.  Dictators and religious leaders can not.

The Irak war of 2003 was a mistake, not in that the country was invaded, but in that the US had no plans for the aftermath, except to pray that things go well.  When you create a power vacuum, anarchy ensues, and out of anarchy rise extremism.  It is no wonder that Al Queida first sought refuge in war thorn Somalia than Afghanistan, than firmly established itself in Irak 6 months after the invasion.

The US and its allies failed Afghanistan in the 1990s by packing and leaving, instead of negotiating a truce between the factions, one of which had lost its Soviet support.  The US (and everyone) could have helped rebuild the country, but instead, we let them organize themselves.  And the US&Britain redid the same with Irak in 2003, not having any plan, improvising on the go, and just when things were starting to go in the right direction, pack&leave instead of pressuring the government in adopting a tolerant policy toward sunnis.  France left Tunisia to herself, and radical religious rapidly gained grounds.  Libya was bombed and everyone went away as soon as Ghadafi was killed, instead of helping the country make a transition to democracy.

Yes, the left will call this colonialism.  But we should not listen to the morons insisting we repeat history ad nauseam.  We cannot reform Islam, it can only do it itself, and right now, Islam is mixed with extreme leftist ideology pushing them to refuse modernity instead of embracing it.

We can not "leave them alone", because we need to buy their products.  Any commerical interaction will be seen as imperialism by the newborn commies and their newfound allies.  And they an insane amount of useful idiots willing to give them credance.  Globalization has helped reduced poverty in the world, but it's a slow process and we have a lot of local resistance to free market change.  In the mean time, there is not much to do else than killing terrorists.  And we won't be liked for it.

[viper37]

As far as Islamic terrorism in particular goes, it's a cancer within Islam.  You don't argue or debate or negotiate with a cancer--you destroy it if you can, before it destroys the patient.

chemiotherapy kills a lot of goodcells too in the process.
And in this case, the cancer always grows back, so we do have to find way to stopped its spreading.  We can not succeed 100%, but we can certainly marginalize the hard left and the ultra religious.

[LaCroix]

I read it the same way Berkut did.

You said the original idea of violence only arises in broken/culturally backward lands.  What makes countries culturally backward?  Imperialism.

i never said/meant to say violence only arises in broken/culturally backward lands. i think you've got the gist of what i was saying, but i wanted to correct this in the event you roll with it later on...

imperialism really helped stifle the opportunity for progress in islamic countries. partially as a result, lots of islamic countries are pretty backward places. lots of people in those places see their lands/people as under besiege by the west. some people form violent groups. those violent groups get a following.

that's not the same as imperialism pulled a gun out and killed the 100+ people in france. the french deserved it because they were accomplices. that's taking my point and twisting it to an extreme level.

[Valmy]

imperialism really helped stifle the opportunity for progress in islamic countries.

Yeah the Ottoman Empire was pretty corrupt and decadent in its last few centuries.

Anyway Imperialism is the thing that people have always pretended to despise but in fact dearly love for thousands of years. I would like to think that the European Nations taking it a bit too far soured everybody on it but hey what does Daesh dream of doing? Building an empire. What do the Chinese claim? Their natural imperial right to dominate Asia that the West disrupted. We never learn.

[LaCroix]

So yeah, I get that you are all offended

i wasn't really offended. i was more "." you seem more offended than me because you appear to be taking this discussion really personally. i mean, you've gone on a rant, mocked me in a few posts in the prior thread, taken my point past a thread and into two other threads, etc. i wouldn't minimize your actions here. they've been pretty funny

[Admiral Yi]

i never said/meant to say violence only arises in broken/culturally backward lands. i think you've got the gist of what i was saying, but i wanted to correct this in the event you roll with it later on...

imperialism really helped stifle the opportunity for progress in islamic countries. partially as a result, lots of islamic countries are pretty backward places. lots of people in those places see their lands/people as under besiege by the west. some people form violent groups. those violent groups get a following.

that's not the same as imperialism pulled a gun out and killed the 100+ people in france. the french deserved it because they were accomplices. that's taking my point and twisting it to an extreme level.

This is all nicely qualified and everything, but IIRC the starting point for your sermon about the ills of imperialism was my rhetorical question about the role of religion in causing societal backwardness.  So it seems that there are factors which in your view are more and less acceptable as contributing factors to the backwardness of certain cultures, and hence ultimately root causes of violence.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

this (http://www.doorbraak.be/nl/nieuws/de-islam-geweld-hervorming) was an interesting text (it's in Dutch, translated from original German, apparently from the Neue Zürcher Zeitung: http://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/der-islam-gewalt-oder-reform-1.18647391)

De islam heeft als religie gefaald. En dat al van in het jaar 622 in Mekka. Mohammed kon de inwoners van Mekka niet overtuigen van zijn deels mystieke openbaringen, en moest zich in Medina terugtrekken. Daar vervelde hij tot krijgsheer en werd zijn boodschap een machtsideologie. Hij en zijn volgelingen begonnen er nu mee, naar het heet in naam van Allah de wereld te veroveren en de tegenstanders te vernietigen. Dat hebben zij met veel succes gedaan, en hun ideologie was lange tijd aan de winnende hand. Wat IS doet, verschilt in principe niet veel van wat de machthebbers van Saudi-Arabië of Iran doen: zij gebruiken de koran als wapen. De koran is het rokende pistool

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. What IS does, is no different from what the Saudis or Iran does: they use the Quran as a weapon. The quran is the smoking gun.

She then goes on to state that the muslims themselves need to free their faith from the political ideology, followed by some things that muslims themselves could do to help this along, as well as things Europe can and should do until the faith has been tamed.

Interesting, but pigs might fly sooner.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.