Islam - the religion of peace

[Stavros]

I think a subset of Afrikaaners during the Boer War(s) might also fit this definition, though I in no way claim to be very knowledgeable about the combatants of that war.

I do sit amazed by the success of the people behind the IS. They seem to be hated by every modern Middle Eastern state that surrounds them, and yet they thrive. These are big states with advanced militaries.

I'm trying to piece together what an analogous situation would look like in North America. Hypothetically, let's say Canada, USA and Mexico all shared a border, all being nominally Christian, albeit with a Catholic flavor in Mexico, a Northern European protestant flavor in Canada, and an Evangelical Christian bent here in the USA. Now imagine a splitoff faction of militarized zealots who reject all 3 "normal" flavors of Christianity, brutally overtakes an overlapping area of all 3 countries and not only survives but steadily increases their territory as the 3 large states flounder around helplessly, engaging them in battle sometimes but not really having any real effect to destroy this new menace.

It seems preposterous. It doesn't seem like CanMexUSA would need any International outside help to squash such a movement like a bug.

That's why despite my more militaristic side thinking the World should get together and wipe these radicals out, I can't help to side with those who believe this is a native problem for the surrounding Arab/Muslim states to resolve.

If the issue is taking over the state and providing an alternative system of government, I am not sure the US offers comparisons. In the USA, movements have tended to be opposed to federal government and thus to hark back to the original European settlers whose values of self-reliance and independence meant an instinctive hostility to taxation, military conscription, and anything broader than local government. This to me explains why there have been movements on the political right which have attacked 'the Feds' -the bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995 is one example; or movements whose primary aim seems to be autonomy from the 'American state'. This ranges from the Black Apartheid movements such as the original Lost-Found Nation of Islam and its alleged successor (or later alternative) the Nation of Islam -both of which exploited Black alienation from white society rather than attempt to convert Americans to Islam, assuming either movement to be Islamic (open to dispute); the MOVE movement which was largely destroyed by military means in Philadelphia in 1985, and smaller groups such as the Branch Davidians who were eliminated in Texas in 1993.

The South African War -sometimes known as the Second South African War or the Boer War was an early example of asymmetric warfare of the kind that became common in Vietnam and other places since. What was supposed to be a short sharp -and relatively cheap- military elimination of the Boer 'threat' to British imperial hegemony in South Africa became a war that dragged on for two and half years, involved in the end more than 500, 000 troops at a cost in those days of over £200 million and which, while it ended with a British victory, established an enduring hatred for the English which also failed to deal with the underlying theories of race which became fundamental to the Boer governments which eventually succeeded British imperial rule and imposed the apartheid system that lasted until the 1990s, though many of its ideas are still rampant in South Africa. Against half a million British troops there were never more than 80,000 odd Boers, but they were convinced that part of Africa belonged to them, and them alone, and ultimately they were victorious, even if the state of their desire turned out to be a disaster. State power, as IS is discovering, is not as easy to maintain once it has been achieved, unless some form of dictatorship is preferred to democracy, but as that has been the root cause of the crisis of the modern state in the Middle East, IS seems to me to be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, albeit in a substantially more bloody manner.

[natina]

'The politically incorrect truth about Islam, the "Religion of Peace" (and terror).'


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[Stavros]

Quoted from the website linked below
'The Religion of peace website is created in order to show that Islam is the antithesis of the websites handle. The website claims to hold “the politically incorrect truth about Islam”. The editor, Glen Roberts, claims that the website as a non-partisan website that does not promote any religion, but they put forth the idea that Islam is a religion that is “dreadfully unique”. They assert that this uniqueness comes about with the use of Islamic violence and that Muslims and their religion are intolerant individuals who seek the domination of the world. The website also acts as an archive of Islam related violence, but they only include news that support their thesis that Islam is purely a violent religion. "
http://islamophobia132.weebly.com/th...lam-watch.html

[Odelay]

A long read...http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...-wants/384980/

... a medium length reply to it...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/02...y-really-want/

... and a short reply to it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/a...g-pr-for-isis/


All good reads that really illuminate some of the ideology behind ISIS. This really reinforces my idea that this is an Arab/Muslim problem that needs an Arab/Muslim solution. Jeb Bush's speech today about the need to "take them out", doesn't sound too wise.

Why am I not surprised how closely the visions of Apocalyptic Christians match with Apocalyptic Muslims, right down to a war between Jews and Muslims in Israel before Jesus returns to "win" the day. Seriously, I'm not sure I read anything in the ISIS end days thinking that is anymore surprising or violent than what you hear from garden variety Rapture believing Christians.

[Stavros]

A long read...http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...-wants/384980/

... a medium length reply to it...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/02...y-really-want/

... and a short reply to it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/a...g-pr-for-isis/


All good reads that really illuminate some of the ideology behind ISIS. This really reinforces my idea that this is an Arab/Muslim problem that needs an Arab/Muslim solution. Jeb Bush's speech today about the need to "take them out", doesn't sound too wise.

Why am I not surprised how closely the visions of Apocalyptic Christians match with Apocalyptic Muslims, right down to a war between Jews and Muslims in Israel before Jesus returns to "win" the day. Seriously, I'm not sure I read anything in the ISIS end days thinking that is anymore surprising or violent than what you hear from garden variety Rapture believing Christians.

Thank you for the links, which I have read. I am more persuaded by Silverman's crtique of Wood, largely because I think Wood makes numerous errors. I think it is wrong to refer to this contemporary movement as 'medieval' as this is a western European concept of chronology that means nothing in the context of 7th century Arabia where one might as well use the term 'late Roman empire' given Muhammad's fascination with the Romans -something that might also require a rethinking of 'Rome' as used in the propaganda of IS.

The two biggest problems with Wood that I have, is that he overplays the 'end of days' element of ideology, and underplays the crucial portal though which all of this has passed: the modern state in the Middle East. That is because I see these Islamic movements as attempting to replace the apparatus of the modern state with an idealized re-constitution of what they believe was the 'first Islamic state' in Medina by Muhammad. The problem is that they have to decide if Muhammad's 'Community of the faithful' is in fact a state, because it seems to me that what Muhammad was interested in was not state power as such but a network of social relations between the tribes of Arabia based on common values and beliefs, and thus a peaceful co-existence among the people, rather than fractious wars and squabbles over property -livestock for example- which were typical of the day.

It also begs the question of non-Muslims in that community, because in the 'Constitution of Medina' which Muhammad drafted there is an accommodation of the Jewish tribes which were common in Medina and also present-day Jeddah, whereas the contemporary hostility to Israel seems to me to have exposed a weakness which may even be fatal -because all of these contemporary Muslims who claim as Wood suggests, to be reviving in Islam what has always been there, are doomed to re-interpret their founding texts, an activity which is supposed to be forbidden. They are bound to do simply because they have to work out what a 7th century text means in an age of the internet, running water and electricity, just as contemporary Jews and Christians are forever debating the meaning for the present day of something in the Bible.

It is further complicated by the fact that much of what passes as Islamic practice is not in the Quran or even in early hadith but is part of the very accretion of late practice which presumably the most diehard Salafi would dismiss -there is no prohibition on the consumption of alcohol in the Quran, for example, just as there is no requirement for women to cover their faces, these are cultural practices and regulations that came long after the death of Muhammad.

We have also been here before anyway -the Mahdi who appeared in the Sudan in 1881; the resurgent Saudi family laying siege to Mecca in 1925 and overthrowing the Hashemite family to establish their own supremacy on the basis that their version of Islam was the only one Muslims should recongise; the siege of Mecca in 1979 when a group of fanatics declared that the Mahdi had returned and was with them -well, for at least as long as the siege lasted. Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan, when that movement believed it had won a victory in 1996 declared himself Caliph and appeared on a rooftop in Kandahar to address the multitudes having draped himself in what is believed to be a surviving cloak worn by Muhammad. All believed they were the living embodiment of prophecies, anointed to lead the Islamic world into a new era....

I think Silverman's belief that IS will implode through the relentless pursuit of ideological purity coupled with practical problems of survival is closest to the mark. IS seems to me to be repeating all the mistakes in governance that it criticises in the corrupt Arab state, so that while it appears to offer an alternative, in fact that enduring problem of what a modern state should look like, if it is to exist at all, is unresolved, as are the practical problems of a place like Raqqa, where the IS fighters -most of them from abroad- have access to better housing, better food and better medical care than their so-called brothers and sisters in the community who have lived in Raqqa for centuries. In Iraq, I have read, even this famous Caliph Ibrahim now receives people wearing a mask, because his face is too precious, possibly divine, to be looked upon by anyone outside his family or trusted lieutenants.

But I agree that even if this group is militarily trashed, it will not resolve the deeper problem of what good governance might be. A lot will depend on the next US government, as it appears Obama's cautious attitude may be replaced by something more explicit.

[Odelay]

Stavros, I agree with you that Silverman's response to Wood is probably the best of the 3 articles. But he prescribes some pretty tough medicine, especially an immediate 2 state solution to defuse the Israel-Palestine issue. I'm guessing a large majority of Israelis are in denial about the connection between the Islamic State and their own issue with Palestinians.

Silverman's concludiing paragraph:

The problem set that we face with ISIS has several components. Among the biggest is that this is a problem internal to Islam. As a result Muslims have to resolve it for themselves. In many ways what we are watching in real time is the Islamic equivalent of the Reformation, counter-Reformation, and then the splintering within the Reformation that led to hundreds of years of struggle, conflict, and warfare in Europe. A lot of it had to do with which version of Christian theology and dogma was supposed to be correct and followed, but a lot of it used that as a motivating factor so elites and notables could control resources. Ultimately they became so intertwined, that even into the 1990s in Northern Ireland or the Balkans they could not be easily teased apart. The other big one for me is that America and its Western allies cannot really resolve this problem set. Even if we were to go in with overwhelming force and just decimate ISIS it would not resolve this dispute, which is multifaceted and internal to Islam. An appropriate response would be containing ISIS at the theater level within the Levant. To do this we should be empowering allies, clients, and friends within the region, including helping to forge new alliances. This includes engaging with the Iranians as appropriate in order to both reduce ISIS’s capacity and to allow the people that actually live in the Middle East to determine how they want to structure their own societies, economies, and polities. We should be assisting with Foreign Internal Defense and the building up and reform of the security sectors of these states as appropriate. We should also be working out ways to increase trade and opportunities between the states in the region. Moreover, we should basically make it clear to both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but especially the Israelis as they hold the power in that relationship, that a two state solution needs to happen immediately as the ongoing dispute is complicating the overall situation in the Levant. Finally, in Iraq we should be working to peel the tribes away from ISIS, organize them, and get them fighting against ISIS. Once ISIS is gone, then we can help mediate Iraq’s own internal crisis into an amicable divorce. It is no longer a coherent state and we should neither insist that it be one or force it to try to become one again.

[broncofan]

I'm guessing a large majority of Israelis are in denial about the connection between the Islamic State and their own issue with Palestinians.

I read the article and this was the only part that I couldn't understand. I hope Israelis would be amenable to understanding how their interactions with Palestinians are effecting Palestinians. I think it would be a tough sell to tell them there is some causal relationship between the occupation of the West Bank and Muslim extremists in Syria burning alive people of all backgrounds in metal cages. I think you'd be almost as reluctant to admit your role in the meth trade in Sydney Australia.

My understanding of cause and effect has never been that whatever a person attributes their actions to is a cause. Otherwise, Judges would have to take a man's word for it when he says that he drove drunk because his wife was nagging him. I don't doubt that Al Qaeda and Isis have said their actions are motivated by a variety of factors, but it's called false attribution. The things they point to aren't anything like sufficient causes. A thousand people can look at the same situation or experience the same stimuli and not every one would decide that they are compelled to respond by cutting someone's head off with a dull knife or by throwing a homosexual off of a building.

[fred41]

Thank you for those links to excellent articles Odelay...
maybe it's the hangover that I'm suffering right now, but I have to admit that I find the Israeli/Palestinian issue mentioned as a bit odd in this case...almost out of place. It seems to me that IS is at war with (for want of a better term at the moment)who they consider "infidel"...they haven't, as far as anything I've seen or read, at the moment, specifically targeted Israel...or the Jews as other middle easterners have in the past. Resolving the Israeli/Palestinian problem will not make IS go away...and it isn't going to happen anytime soon anyway.
It seems all of western civilization and who they deem apostates are the problem to be solved in their eyes.

[Stavros]

Stavros, I agree with you that Silverman's response to Wood is probably the best of the 3 articles. But he prescribes some pretty tough medicine, especially an immediate 2 state solution to defuse the Israel-Palestine issue. I'm guessing a large majority of Israelis are in denial about the connection between the Islamic State and their own issue with Palestinians.

Although I preferred Silverman, I am not sure about this quote, part of which you highlighted-
"The problem set that we face with ISIS has several components. Among the biggest is that this is a problem internal to Islam. As a result Muslims have to resolve it for themselves. In many ways what we are watching in real time is the Islamic equivalent of the Reformation, counter-Reformation, and then the splintering within the Reformation that led to hundreds of years of struggle, conflict, and warfare in Europe"

This views Islamic debates using the framework of European intellectual history and it doesn't apply to the Middle East where the process of modernization took place at a different time, and for different reasons.
It also absolves the non-Islamic world of any responsibility, as if modern capitalism had not had as traumatic an effect on the Middle East as it has had everywhere else. After all, a lot of the militants who are making IS work are not even from the Middle East, and their Islamic heritage comes form South Asia or North Africa. To understand the objection, imagine someone saying that only Italian Americans can sort out the problem of the Mafia, or only Black Americans can deal with the Black Panthers or the 'Nation of Islam' -the Black American experience is one in which Black Americans have felt at best marginalized, at worst excluded from the 'American dream' but it means that the anti-State violence of the Panthers or the Apartheid solutions of Elijah Mohammed and Louis Farrakhan are themselves part of the broader question of who the American state is for and cannot therefore be seen in isolation as solely 'Black' issues or 'problems'.

It presents is with an unsolvable problem, because most religions are based on ancient texts that contain values and principles which can be extracted without too much collision with modern life, but rules and regulations -especially those relating to diet and dress- which do. It means on the one hand that the modern state is as much a part of the IS problem as it is for Islam in general, but that in their attempt to create a Caliphate based on a pure concept of Islam, IS is no more guaranteed a success than Muhammad at Medina, not least because of the problems he faced in attempting to create his 'Community of the faithful' and the salient fact that not long after he died, it fell apart. Barely a generation after Muhammad's death, the central power structure of Islam had removed from Medina to Damascus, and an internal rift was beginning to open up over who was best qualified to be Caliph, an issue that has never been and probably never will be resolved, although the Saudi Arabians think otherwise.

The modern state has been just as problematical for Israel, where the biblical claims made by some -Likud for example- begs the question of what the political geography of Ancient Israel looked like compared to modern day Israel, with Likudniks blithely assuming all the land between the Mediterranean Sea and across the River Jordan is the 'Land of Israel' when a more precise reading of the Bible as a source says something else, and that is before one gets into the torturous debate about what, exactly, a 'Jewish state' should be, a matter on which even Ben-Gurion and the Rabbi's could not agree. The exploitation of the Palestine issue by radical Muslims has been as chronic and facile as it was by Arab nationalists and Arab Marxists and revolutionaries decades ago. But this isn't the thread for a debate on the 'two-state solution'.

In sum, how can the modern world accommodate religious practice that was first described thousands of years ago? It is as pertinent today to violent Islam as it is to Hindu violence in India, Buddhist violence in Sri Lanka, Christian violence in too many other places. But is this a problem inherent in religion, or is it 'merely' politics?

[broncofan]

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world...ogue-1.2112780

For every Muslim extremist there are thousands of decent Muslims. It's only fair that I include this for some perspective. It actually makes the problem more complicated when you realize how marginal the violent extremists are and that in percentage terms they don't have much support.

I will point out though, that extreme beliefs exist on a sliding scale, so that there may be many Muslims who think the violence against cartoonists is unacceptable but who think homosexuality is or should be a capital offense. Or that it is permissible to punish apostasy by death, even if they would not carry out the punishment themselves. I am curious about how prevalent those particular views are and whether we think they are just internal issues to be worked out in certain Middle Eastern countries.

For instance, if a gay American traveled to Iran and was charged with engaging in prohibited sex, is it our position that he should have followed the rules of the country he's in and that a pending execution is an acceptable punishment for not understanding the mores of that society?