Extremist Islam: the cause?

[athon]

The debate over religious extremist's most deadly rages continuously on this forum. I've tried giving over my opinion every now and then, but unfortunately it always comes down to pure viewpoints. Unlike the objective aims of science, politics more often reduces down to emotional sentiments, and I know I flounder in any pi**ing contest with somebody who can arrange words better than I.

But it doesn't stop me from thinking. Take a random lottery of extremist acts that have resulted in the death of another or in violence within the past decade, and you would probably have a higher chance of picking a person of Islamic faith than of any other. I don't think there's a lot of room for debate here.

Why is this the case, though?

I regularly read the opinion that Islam preaches either hate, killing of infidel or of perpetuation of a historical glory age (anti-progress). But Islam has no central church, no central figures within any of its denominations. I don't disagree that there are a number of Islamic scholars who do promote such insane views, however I have also read a few scholar's work that translates the Koran in a light that is accepting, anti-violent and merciful.

I can't read Arabic sufficiently to be able to read the Koran. I also lack enough historical or cultural education to make a valid judgement of any translation in terms of accuracy. But of the three commentaries I have read - and I will admit bias on the basis that the student whose books I was borrowing belonged to a family who followed only one Syrian scholar - only one came close to insinuating any form of sacrifice towards infidel, then it seemed more figurative than actual. And even that was an alternative translation on some obscure passage on martyrdom.

So where does Islam twist from being a religion of one viewpoint, to being one of almost the opposite? Is it in only certain nations, ones that have the political environment dominated by theocracy? Or is it the other way around, the fact that Islam is more often found in these countries which enforce the faith through law? Given enough of a history of theocratic faith enforcement, could a Christian nation have inspired similar violent acts of faith?

Is it socio-economic? If a major, post-industrial nation had have been Islamic, would it offer a progressive perspective of the faith? I could argue that Jordan is an example of such a state.

I think we miss out on understanding a lot of the world's problems by labelling the whole lot as 'Islamic Extremism', as if simply having Muslim faith means you have one foot on the road to becoming a terrorist. Surely the recipe is more complicated, involving social pressures, politics, culture as well as religion.

Interested in thoughts.

Athon

 

[CBL4]

I think that the problem is that Arabs have been oppresessed and impoversihed and so far nothing has really changed the oppression. Colonialism, socialism and communism have not worked prevented tyranny. Western liberal democracies have been or aided the oppressors, so it does not seem a viable choice.

That leaves religion. In a tyranny, pacifism (religious or otherwise) does not work. So now the only choice than many of the people see is violent religion. Clearly this will not work to prevent tyranny but people like Bin Laden are seen as less corrupt and with more potential than the alternatives. This is very sad but, IMO, true.

BTW, the current book club book, "Imperial Hubris" by Sheuer, goes into how the west helps Bin Laden recruit.

CBL

 

[merphie]

I think all of their problems come from what they are taught at young ages. They seem to teach the hatred + religion early in childhood.

Since most of them don't have a free government I think the government also plays a role by only showing what they want the poeple to know.

From what I have heard of Islam it is close to christians. It preaches peace and love. Which the extremist have violated several "laws".

 

[CapelDodger]

But it doesn't stop me from thinking. Take a random lottery of extremist acts that have resulted in the death of another or in violence within the past decade, and you would probably have a higher chance of picking a person of Islamic faith than of any other. I don't think there's a lot of room for debate here.

True enough, but what's special about that particular decade (apart from it being the one we've experienced most recently)? Other religions have been used to justify violence by extremists, in fact it's one of the inevitable outcomes of any kind of absolutist creed. That violence has usually been decried by the mainstream religion and is usually justified by a perversion of it. Given how ... elliptic gods seem to be in presenting their messages, and how little most people know about their own religions, it isn't hard. What it needs is an audience.

There's a born-again Islam in Western countries which comes, not from the home environment, but from the mosques. That's where young people get led astray, just as White Supremacists can be led astray by the argument that Christian values are White values. Western mosques, and the teaching of Islam in the West, have become dominated by Wahabbists because they have the funds behind them (from Saudi Arabia, of course). Wahabbism was the backbone of ibn Saud's conflict with the establishment Husseini family, but now the Sauds have a tiger by the tail. They must appease it, but as the new Establishment they become targets. That's the way it goes when you recruit religion (or nationalism) to your personal cause.

The same effect applies in Iraq, Syria and Egypt, which have attempted to be secular states. Wahabbism can dominate by sheer weight of funds. So that explains some of the mechanics.

The audience is created mostly by the abject failure of the Islamic world to cope with modernity. It's got to hurt to be born into a long line of losers. The only nominally-Muslim country making a fist of it is Malaysia, about as far from the Arab homeland as you can get. (The Malaysians are doing fine, and attracting a lot of investment from oil-money, which is something worth watching.) Pakistan is a mess, Iran is Shi'a - the terrorism of recent times is Sunni - and Arabia, well, look at it. Even North Africa's doing better than them. The explanation used to be that Islam was the problem, not the solution, and from that came Ba'athism and buzz-words such as "Revolutionary", "Republican", "Socialist", "Popular". That all failed, and with the Iranian Revolution putting Sunnis even lower on the scale than Shia a new generation turned to not enough Islam as the problem. That's the phase we're in now. We have to last it out until a new generation decides that Islam is un-cool again.

 

[davefoc]

I think this is an interesting question and I don't know the answer.

I was wondering what some JREF participants from an Islamic culture might have to say about this. I wonder if we have any American JREF participants from an Islamic culture.

One thought is that countries where religious leaders have significant political power are also countries where there will be high rates of sectarian violence.

Taken to its extreme, one could even see how the current apparent emphasis on religion in American politics could lead to sectarian violence. There are a lot of people walking around with some highly non-compatible views and it wouldn't take too much more incitement by politicians and commentators to imagine that the US could experience a spate of religiously oriented violence.

 

[epepke]

I'm not sure about the answer, but I suspect it has something to do with isolation.

When Spain had the Auto de Fé, they were relatively isolated from the rest of the Catholic Church and its inquisition. Calvin's Theocracy was willfully isolated from the rest of society. Salem and other New World colonies were isolated not only culturally but geographically.

Most Islamic nations or nations with predominantly Muslim populations are quite isolated from the rest of the world. The big exception, of course, is Turkey, but they seem to be doing pretty well, political prisoners notwithstanding. When you're isolated, you don't get direct experience, but rather third- and fourth-hand stories about it. These present a usually idealized and always oversimplified picture of a culture.

It goes both ways, of course. It promotes not only horrible actions by Islamists but also horrible actions against Islamists.

 

[RandFan]

I can't read Arabic sufficiently to be able to read the Koran.

There is an English version or is it that you think that the Arabic version is diffrent from the English version?

 

[Bikewer]

Listened to an interview with this guy:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...6/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-8445205-2939034

on Talk of the Nation a couple of weeks ago.

He's talking specifically about suicide bombers, folks who, in his words, "killed themselves, themselves." (In other words, they suceeded in blowing themselves up, and were not killed by military/police action or whatever)

According to Pape, this is hardly confined to Islamic terrorists, and the most frequent instance is among the Tamil Tigers, who are Marxists.
The primary motive for such bombings is to expell agressors/occupiers from the home country.

Of course, as we see in Iraq, the "collaborators" with the occupiers are targeted as well.
They listed links to the guy's research- he's a historian, I believe.

 

[Cleon]

Re: Re: Extremist Islam: the cause?

There is an English version or is it that you think that the Arabic version is diffrent from the English version?

There are several translations widely used by non-Arabic-speaking Muslims. The most widely is by Abdullah Yusuf-Ali. Several of them can be found at Islamicity.com. Here's a direct link to the Yusuf-Ali translation.

To actually (try to) answer your question--Arabic is a lot different from English. A lot. Translations don't always get meaning--I know, it sounds funny and is probably sig material, but others who are multi-lingual know what I mean.

I read the Quran in Arabic, because I was studying the language and always meant to read the damn thing anyway. Seemed to go well together. It's very different--it's not like the Bible. The Bible reads like it's part storybook, part rulebook. The Quran has a lot more mysticism. It's really very interesting--worth a read, in whatever language.

 

[Kiless]

Re: Re: Re: Extremist Islam: the cause?

I read the Quran in Arabic, because I was studying the language and always meant to read the damn thing anyway. Seemed to go well together. It's very different--it's not like the Bible. The Bible reads like it's part storybook, part rulebook. The Quran has a lot more mysticism. It's really very interesting--worth a read, in whatever language.

My copy is from Penguin Press; picked it up when I was at the Islamic College. I'd probably suggest this one, Athon, if you were after a relatively easy to find copy but can't say much on it's translation value.

 

[athon]

Re: Re: Re: Extremist Islam: the cause?

There are several translations widely used by non-Arabic-speaking Muslims. The most widely is by Abdullah Yusuf-Ali. Several of them can be found at Islamicity.com. Here's a direct link to the Yusuf-Ali translation.

To actually (try to) answer your question--Arabic is a lot different from English. A lot. Translations don't always get meaning--I know, it sounds funny and is probably sig material, but others who are multi-lingual know what I mean.

I read the Quran in Arabic, because I was studying the language and always meant to read the damn thing anyway. Seemed to go well together. It's very different--it's not like the Bible. The Bible reads like it's part storybook, part rulebook. The Quran has a lot more mysticism. It's really very interesting--worth a read, in whatever language.

To respond to both yours and Randfan's posts, this is the problem I was getting at. I have read quite a bit of the Koran, but reading a translated version, of course, means you are reading the translations of somebody who interpreted it. And since the religion decries any translation it makes the only way to understand what the scriptures are saying is through the beliefs of another.

It's therefore impossible to say 'Islamic scripture teaches...' based on just another scholar's belief.

Athon

 

[athon]

Re: Re: Extremist Islam: the cause?

True enough, but what's special about that particular decade (apart from it being the one we've experienced most recently)? Other religions have been used to justify violence by extremists, in fact it's one of the inevitable outcomes of any kind of absolutist creed. That violence has usually been decried by the mainstream religion and is usually justified by a perversion of it. Given how ... elliptic gods seem to be in presenting their messages, and how little most people know about their own religions, it isn't hard. What it needs is an audience...*snip*

No argument here. In fact, this is more or less my point. Religion makes for a good justification, and teachings within it can justify the aims of the devout, but the social changes leading to the violent aspects are significant, and in my opinion, all too overlooked.

Christianity is not the KKK, but the KKK refer to themselves as new age crusaders of the faith. The social influences that led to the estsablishment of the KKK are, IMO, more signficant than the religion behind it.

Athon

 

[Flo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Extremist Islam: the cause?

To respond to both yours and Randfan's posts, this is the problem I was getting at. I have read quite a bit of the Koran, but reading a translated version, of course, means you are reading the translations of somebody who interpreted it. And since the religion decries any translation it makes the only way to understand what the scriptures are saying is through the beliefs of another.

It's therefore impossible to say 'Islamic scripture teaches...' based on just another scholar's belief.

Athon

You also have to take into account the fact that in the majority of muslim countries, the majority of the population doesn't speak or read Arabic (including Iran, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, most of Africa, some part of the Maghreb even, etc.), and of course have no access to a translation. The text of the Koran is therefore learnt by heart but not understood, meaning that the people are taught whatever the local preacher wants them to learn.

 

[athon]

I think all of their problems come from what they are taught at young ages. They seem to teach the hatred + religion early in childhood.

Since most of them don't have a free government I think the government also plays a role by only showing what they want the poeple to know.

From what I have heard of Islam it is close to christians. It preaches peace and love. Which the extremist have violated several "laws".

This is the oversimplification that causes the arguments, though. 'They'? Who is 'they'? All Muslims? Arabs? Some middle eastern cultures? Some families? Islam is not a badge-wearing fan club.

In general, Islamic preachings have some distinct similarities to Christianity, but rely more on particular rules most Christian denominations have long since abandoned or reduced.

Athon

 

[davefoc]

1. Is Islam fundamentally different than Christianity in its propensity to forment violence.

2. Are the current versions of Islam more violence prone than the current versions of Christianity?

3. Is the religion the cause of the violence or a symptom of the conditions that create the violence?

My thoughts on these questions:.
I know very little about Islam, but both Christianity and Islam seem to have served as a basis for massive violence. The bible is filled with stories that can be seen as justification for violence.

The nature of Christianity at any given time has more to do with the way the religious leaders choose to interpret the bible than what the bible actually says. My suspicion is that Islam is basically the same in this. So reading the Koran as a basis for determining the nature of Islam may not be as useful as it seems. Certainly reading the bible would provide very little insight into the nature of the practice of Christianity.

The answer to question 3 seems to be so complicated as to have no straightorward answer. There seems to be a synergistic relationship between religious violence and other justifications for violence. Religion seems to serve as a mechanism whereby leaders can induce people to commit vioence in the pursuit of a cause. But maybe the people sought out violence prone religious leaders because they are disastisfied with aspects of their life and look to justify their desire for vengence.

 

[CapelDodger]

Since most of them don't have a free government I think the government also plays a role by only showing what they want the poeple to know.

Egypt, Syria and Iraq (until recently) have distrusted Islam and have tried to keep the subject out of schools, so the sources of religious indoctrination are the home environment and the mosques. After a few generations of nominal Islamism the home environment has nothing to counter a Wahabbist tone from the mosques. So a generation returning to Islam (for whatever reasons) is tending towards Wahabbist primitivism. The same sort of thing is happening in Western post-Imperial Muslim communities, where the early generations were not particularly observant.

The situation in Saudi Arabia is more complicated, but hasn't included official promotion of anti-Western sentiment. The Saudi government has lost much of its influence because it has lost its legitimacy (to the extent it ever had any).

 

[CapelDodger]

But maybe the people sought out violence prone religious leaders because they are disastisfied with aspects of their life and look to justify their desire for vengence.

I think it much more likely that the religious leaders - like all cultists - were always there lurking at the bus-station, so to speak, in wait for young people in search of something. There is certainly dissatisfaction with life amongst Muslim youth, and in lots of other people's lives. New-Ageism and all the other cults are evidence of that, but thankfully not all are violent. Crystals don't kill people, it's the people who believe in them that crack you up

I think a lot of impressionable young Muslims (and quite a few non-Muslim converts) have been snared by particularly nasty pimps. The same could be said for the Aryan Nations types.

 

[merphie]

Egypt, Syria and Iraq (until recently) have distrusted Islam and have tried to keep the subject out of schools, so the sources of religious indoctrination are the home environment and the mosques. After a few generations of nominal Islamism the home environment has nothing to counter a Wahabbist tone from the mosques. So a generation returning to Islam (for whatever reasons) is tending towards Wahabbist primitivism. The same sort of thing is happening in Western post-Imperial Muslim communities, where the early generations were not particularly observant.

The situation in Saudi Arabia is more complicated, but hasn't included official promotion of anti-Western sentiment. The Saudi government has lost much of its influence because it has lost its legitimacy (to the extent it ever had any).

I will take your word for it. I don't know a lot of detail on the politics of those countries.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think that the problem is that Arabs have been oppresessed and impoversihed and so far nothing has really changed the oppression.

Suicide bombers do not come from the poorest of the poor, and sub-Saharan Africa experiences less suicide bombing than the middle east. Suicide bombers are typically middle-class (at least by local standards) or better. Most of the leadership of terrorist organizations are relatively well-educated too. The problem isn't poverty, and terrorists and their Islamists sympathisers have no real interest in economic betterment or prosperity (in fact, often the reverse, seeing prosperity for the masses as leading to decadence and corruption).

 

[CapelDodger]

Suicide bombers do not come from the poorest of the poor, and sub-Saharan Africa experiences less suicide bombing than the middle east. Suicide bombers are typically middle-class (at least by local standards) or better.

I'm not sure the suicide bombers in Iraq are typically middle-class, and they must form the vast majority of suicide bombers (Tamil Tigers included). Those who are have identified with their chosen community (the Sunni Islamic world mostly), which has indeed been screwed over for a good long while. By Turks, then by Westerners. Perhaps the Chinese will be next.