In the early 1900s, most of the Arab world was under the rule of two empires. The Ottoman Empire and the British Crown. The common Persian and Arab suffered greatly under this rule. The Arab world was fractured. It consisted of tribal monarchies and warlords. As a result of the Great War (WW I), the Arabs were organized to fight the Turks. They enthusiastically joined in that fight, thinking and being promised self-rule. After the war ended the "promise" was not kept. After long negotiations, some warlords and the Arab monarchy were granted lands. However, These warlords and monarchies were tyrannical toward their own people. This manifested itself as a deep festering of distrust and hate. The west needing oil placated to these tyrants, causing hate among the people for anything western. Religious Islamic fundamentalist (that had been marginalized by the tyrants) seized an opportunity to gain the trust and loyalty of the Arab people (who were devoutly religious). For decades these common people have seen more and more oppression by the monarchies and tyrants and the also what they perceived as encroachment by the west. This idea was heightened by religious propaganda.
Now what exists is disenfranchised people being motivated and driven by decades of oppression, Islamaphobia, religious propaganda. This gave rise to terrorist groups that seek power, not justice. Ironically it also gave rise to populace nationalism. Basically Fascism.
The cure is respecting the basic Arab/Persian not buying into populace nationalist propaganda.
We must understand that this terrorism isn't Islamic based at all. Also vilifying a whole religion and people is nothing more that Fascism. All it could serve is creating more terrorist.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Agreed John. There are deep chasms that have been around for centuries.
I go even further: Terrorism is popular because it works. To have the most powerful countries in the world "fight a war on terror" is so Orwellian it makes me blush. For Muslims to be really different than everyone else they would have to NOT participate in it; but sadly, like everyone else, they do.
Fear is the most widely used tactic we use as humans. Think of every time as a kid your parents counted to three, or said something to the effect of "don't make me come over there". Fear is a universal thing. Everyone from schools to department stores uses it. Do I think it'll change? No. Should it? Definitely. Unfortunately, fear is so popular because, as you said, it works. And the best part is, most people don't even realize they're falling for it. Fear and faith are the two greatest tactics any business person has, whether they're selling you shoes like Al Bundy, or selling you a religion like L. Ron Hubbard. They're the greatest tools because business people know that their clientele don't think rationally.
To a degree. The IRA proved it's effectiveness and also it's drawbacks. It is only good for driving powerful people to negotiation. Gorilla warfare is far more effective as it doesn't usually involve civilians and therefore can get civilian aid and abetting for their cause. The Cuban revolution is a prime example as well as the American revolution. Terrorism is a war on the innocent, soft targets, but that usually just enrages people and doesn't lend itself to anyone volunteering to help you.
I laugh when Muslims say that ISIS is not practicing true Islam. I also laugh when people say the WBC is not true Christianity. The Islam of the extremist is the terrorists Islam. It might not be the Islam of Louis Farrakhan or the Islam of Sadiq Khan but it is a form of Islam. The Christianity of the WBC might not be the Christianity of Thomas Merton or Martin Luther King but it is a form of Christianity.
So laugh because ISIL is not about religion at all. It's about power and control. It is made up of former Iraqi generals that lost the gulf war and the war with Iraq. the leaders of ISIL are no more religious than you are I. They use religion as a recruiting tool just like republicans try to hijack "patriotism." Conservatives vilify a group and then appeal to the sense of "patriotism" to justify this demonizing.
So what you are saying is that for the leadership it is about the power, but for the rank and file ISIS members, it is about religion?
I think the reality is that most people don't give a damn about any of their favorite religions. They simply go along to get along. All of the controversy is created by big-mouthed con men who want to be somebody so they use religion as one tool to do it. That's what has led to all of the different sects in all of the religions. The problem child in Islam is primarily the Sunni muslims, specifically the Wahhabis. As long as they are around the problems will continue.
I see some definite dysfunction in Islam right now. It seems pretty obvious. But I imagine we're nothing more than a plague, a famine and a couple of bad popes away from having a conversation about how christians take the bible too literally.
There are various religions and all abide by their respective tenets. All of it is a bunch of nonsense but that's what humans contrive when ignorance is their guide. It will be eons before all of it is spun off by intellect.
One thing most have in common is a claim of belief in one god, a common god, and are divisible by it alone. Or, are they?
If two men attend the same house of worship to praise the same god, do they both have the same god manifesting itself in their distinct psyches? No, they do not. Without a common revelation, this will be true in each and every man, woman and child who portend to praise the same god.
The religious meme complex gives us a method of metabolizing a common god within a finite doctrine of ascriptions and laws, and reinforces it by continued worship on weekly or daily schedules (be there or be square). But, which god is being worshiped?
What we have is subliminal polytheism at work in the minds of all apologists, and the weakness at the very core of theism. To nail every individual down to a moment's description of his or her god is to ask them all to name the capitol city of Belize, the latter being the easier task I'd wager. From the Pope on down, polytheism would be the picture painted.
Now, knowing one man does not truly trust another as far as he can throw a bull by its tail, can we honestly claim man has faith in his fellow man to do right by him by the god he alone imagines? It's a noble thought but the answer is resoundingly doubtful because no two men will "know god" much less be able to act on that lack of knowledge.
So, we built religions to collect polytheism and give it rules to abide by. In this manner the deception was instituted, under the various named religions, and polytheism was safely harnessed as well as hidden.
There is no true monotheism at work. There is only polytheism bursting at the seams of its respective parent religious confines and that is what we're seeing erupt violently across the face of the globe. To blame a particular religion isn't all wrong considering its tenets may be far too restrictive on the normally free psyche all mankind shares in common. Western religious doctrines do not suppress as do the eastern religions. The tenets are less restrictive in the west. If true monotheism was at work only one form of doctrine would be shared by all.
Polytheism has announced itself as the ugly truth residing in the religious doctrine of supression. The human will can only abide for so long before it rebels.
Tribalism is the problem and its often based on Islam. For instance: consider the problem of supporting the Free Syrian Army, or the "democratic forces" in Syria. People who support Al-Nusra (now Tahrir Al-Sham) or Al-Qaeda cannot accept western style democracy because they can only envisage a country based on their version of Islam. There's widespread agreement among Syrians and Iraqis that both countries should be Islamic and under Sharia Law, but try getting them to agree on one version of Islam and of Sharia. Then get them to agree on how to enforce it. The problem is they don't agree on the fundamentals of democracy or the need for checks and balances - i.e. the need for secular, modern government.
Of course politics and other cultural and ethnic issues are involved too, but the tribalism and lack of compromise is crucial. It is difficult for people to compromise on what they see as sacred and "The True" religion, even though Islam is interpreted in lots of contradictory ways.
One thing moderates and extremists seem to agree on is that blasphemy shouldn't be tolerated. I suspect even London Mayor Sadiq Khan might vote for blasphemy laws if he thought they could be made workable. These 'moderate' interpretations of Islam help give extremist propaganda plausibility among the dimwitted and dangerous who see Islam as threatened by "Western values", "Western education" or secularization.
I take the point many (including Mykcob) has made: that there are many truly moderate Muslims who may drink and who don't take Islam too seriously, but don't forget that it took until 2008 or 2010 to find a British Imam who was willing to condemn 9/11 with little equivocation. And it doesn't follow that such moderates don't want Sharia law as they envisage it, nor would they necessarily vote down a blasphemy law.
There seem to be enough quotes in the book that justify the heinous acts perpetrated by ISIL and other terrorist organisations and there are just as many quotes in the same book used by those that oppose them.
In my opinion these religious books are all the same. Vague, with ridiculous morals and maybe a few good stories here and there.
What seems strange is that everyone seems fixated on whether to call this Islamic or not. Whether to explicitly blame the religion or not. Is Islam responsible or not.
In my opinion the answer is yes and no.
Of course the book justifies all the acts and it also condemns it. but what difference does that make. Like all theists those who read it will take whatever meaning they want.
However the threat of Terrorism is a substantial threat today and it is something that I doubt america and Uk will be able to fight alone. won't the co operation of the whole world and especially the moderate muslims be required.
Now would it be wise to alienate these people by constantly telling them that their religion is inherently evil and working up a scare frenzy against them. Rather garnering support from these people to help fight the terrorists would seem a better tactic.
Constantly barraging them like the media seems to be doing is forcing the moderate muslims to become more closed knit as they too are afraid.
america has been worked into an anti muslim frenzy by politicians and the media. so much so that there are attacks on people who resemble muslims even if they might not be. Its just the result of propaganda. Do you expect that the muslims affected will be more or less likely to help ? especially after you label their identity being heinous.
My point is that I guess we need to re assess our approach in dealing with the crisis.