Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: The narrative of victimization and Islamist extremism

  1. #1

    Default The narrative of victimization and Islamist extremism

    I know I might get in trouble for this post, but I think it needs to be said. After every major terror attack against a Western target, my social media feeds fill up with the usual mix of responses. The overwhelming majority are fairly apolitical expressions of shock and mourning. Then there’s the ‘viral’ responses – altered profile images, trendy links to send around (look at the other attacks we should also care about!), etc. Generally from the largely uninformed. Finally, there are the political responses – either those pushing their particular agenda (Hate immigrants! Love immigrants! Hate Muslims! Love Muslims! Hate Zionists! Love Zionists! Hate guns! Love guns!) or the (few) who are well informed, politically inclined, but not demagogues.

    In the wake of particularly heinous attacks carried out by Islamists, there’s a unique variant of the above dynamic that I’ve noticed. In addition to the normal Islamophobia, there are those who demand – demand! – that Muslims condemn the attacks as heinous and beyond the pale. And plenty of Muslims do. But then other (Muslim and otherwise) say, “hey, why do Muslims need to specifically condemn this? You’re assuming that Muslims somehow ‘own’ the actions of a misguided few.” And indeed it is a fairly well-worn trope that Muslims are (as a group) somehow expected to have a special responsibility for these attacks while others vehemently argue that the perpetrators are entirely divorced from the ‘religion of peace’ and it’s racist to even argue that Muslims need to apologize for the actions of nutjobs. A response I frequently see is something along the lines of this: “The cause of extremism is not Islam, but rather poverty, hopelessness, dysfunctional governments, etc. Don’t blame Islam for it.” A somewhat more pernicious version is to blame external factors as having actually caused the violence (e.g. Israeli occupation, American intervention, etc.) and completely absolve the perpetrators and their community from responsibility.

    I don’t really want to debate this issue directly – I agree with many commentators that the automatic requirement for Muslims everywhere to loudly and unequivocally condemn every act of Islamist terror has tinges of racism. And I also think that given the realities of the situation, it probably behooves the large proportion of Muslims who reject political and religious violence – especially those living in the West – to affirm their views and solidarity with victims of terror in order to help combat said racism.

    What bothers me every time I see this debate, however, is a question of responsibility. Were I a Muslim, I think I would be deeply troubled about my religious community. Ignore the question of interacting with the rest of the world – if a large proportion of international terrorism is being perpetrated by people professing to share my faith, there is clearly something wrong. It’s not just a few isolated nutjobs – it’s a supporting cast of radical (and popular) interpretations of Islam – e.g. Salafism, or Iranian-driven hardline Shia ideologies, and others. It’s opinion polling showing that in parts of the Muslim world silent majorities favor political violence of some sorts, and substantial minorities favor even pretty heinous extensions of this violence. It’s the widespread intolerance to heterodox religious views that permeates the Muslim world. Were I a Muslim, I would be deeply concerned about these issues, and I’d have to look at myself in the mirror and ask, “Am I and my faith community somehow responsible for this violence? Even if I’m personally blameless, does my quiet acceptance of the deep problems in the Muslim world – and distressingly violent rhetoric – enable these Islamists to thrive?” Like it or not, I think it’s a question that would come up time and time again. I would be uncomfortable that much of the world views Muslims with suspicion – not just because of the implied racism, but also because maybe they should be suspicious.

    I’m sure that this response happens, but the responses I see are rather different. I tend to see responses that place Islamist political violence in the context of victimization. Yes, the actions of these terrorists are wrong, of course, but they have nothing to do with the religion of peace. You see, these terrorists are the inevitable byproduct of a century of colonialism and its aftereffects. Muslims are victims here – victims of Western imperialism, and capitalism, and corruption, and (Western supported) dictatorships, and more. When a small proportion of these victims turn violent, it is not an indictment of Islam, but rather of the circumstances that led them to extremism. Let’s fix those problems, and Islamist terrorism will disappear.

    I am deeply troubled with this line of thinking. It’s not that this is necessarily incorrect – indeed, a long term solution for extremism is often to make it such that recruiting extremists is increasingly more challenging, and part of that involves looking at the political and economic climate in which extremists live. And it would be dishonest of any Westerners to argue that we had no hand in making the Middle East the mess that it is today. Yet this narrative of victimization precludes alternative explanations – notably, it precludes a sense of personal or community responsibility for preventing Islamic extremism from flourishing. If the causes of terrorism are entirely divorced from Islam – and the result of far-off factors we have no control over – then we have no responsibility for self-doubt or introspection. In fact, the inevitable political and rhetorical backlash against Islam and Islamists after an attack further reinforces the worldview of victimization. Why should we confront the vicious incitement inside our faith when we could just blame others? Why should we take responsibility for decades of political dysfunction in most of the Muslim world when we can just blame it on a legacy of colonialism?

    When left wing (non-Muslim) thinkers use this kind of thinking, I have always found that it smacked of a certain ‘bigotry of low expectations’. Those savages in the Muslim world can’t be expected to think for themselves, it’s obvious that Western imperialism and a long legacy of clumsy interventions is to blame. I’ve thought this infantilizes the Muslim world in a most distressing way, and is counterproductive to boot. Yet when Muslims do it to themselves I am truly flabbergasted. Muslims are not powerless pawns. They have agency and responsibility, and should act accordingly.


    I don’t mean to say that the Western world should wash its hands of the problem and blame it on problems inside Islam. That’s obviously untrue. But after religiously motivated violence perpetrated by other communities, I often see a great deal of hand-wringing and deep introspection. Just look at the Israeli debate that ensued after the fatal firebombing of a Palestinian home by (probably) a right wing Jewish extremist – or the murder of Abu Khdeir. The Israeli (and Jewish) public was shocked and wasted no time asking themselves hard questions – how could one of our own have done something like this? Do we need to confront incitement in our own ranks more assiduously? How can we prevent something like this happening again? Etc. It’s not uniquely a Jewish phenomenon, either – Christian motivated political violence in many parts of the world elicits a similar responses. I don’t know enough about other religious-inspired political violence to know if the pattern holds (for example, I don’t know enough about the communal response to e.g. Hindu political violence in India or Buddhist political violence in Myanmar), but at least what I’ve seen in the Muslim response is troubling.

    This doctrine of victimization is not about placing Islamist political violence in ‘context’ or about coming up with policy to prevent such violence in the future. It’s about passing the buck, and eliminating the need for thinking hard about our own responsibility for a problem. And, at the end of the day, it makes problems worse. Most people will stop at rhetoric, but a small minority will go much further – this narrative allows them to blame others for their lot in life, and paints a big fat target on the architects of this victimization. Islamist terrorism is fed by the Muslim world being unable to confront itself directly for its failings.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    ‘bigotry of low expectations’
    This is one of the main tenants of liberalism. The idea that people cannot possibly know their best interests and that the state must look out for them because people are essentially stupid. You will get this response from muddy eyed liberals all the time in foreign policy but also at home.

    'It isn't their fault they have violent extremists, it is because we fucked up their world in the past.'

    'It isn't his fault that he did those violent acts, he had a rough childhood.'

    'It isn't someone fault that they are fat, it is those evil fast food franchises!'

    You put up a lot of words that essentially say that adherents of Islam need to take accountability. Who on the left really supports that? Accountability is an anathema to liberals. The people doing the hand wringing about what the West has done will NEVER be convinced.

  3. #3
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Can you start replacing liberals with Progressives? Or better yet, Regressives? At least you would be somewhat more accurate with the firehose you spray everything with.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Veldan Rath View Post
    Can you start replacing liberals with Progressives? Or better yet, Regressives? At least you would be somewhat more accurate with the firehose you spray everything with.
    I'm pretty sure everyone knows exactly what I'm talking about when I say liberals.

  5. #5
    Lewk, with how liberal you are with the term liberals, we aren't sure you know what you're talking about. Although I do find your response perfectly fitting concerning the point I got from Wiggin's post.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Lewk, with how liberal you are with the term liberals, we aren't sure you know what you're talking about. Although I do find your response perfectly fitting concerning the point I got from Wiggin's post.

    My feelings are people like Lewk ARE part of the problem. Trying to politicize and stereotype these atrocities.

    Is it his fault, no. The media and politicians do this all the time, and Lewk is a product of the constant politicizing that he was brought up in.

    We have a saying in the south for people like this.... we say "Bless You Heart". So Lewk, Bless Your Heart.

    But I do have empathy for Lewk also. I understand fear, I understand how a lot of conservatives use fear to move people to their point of view. For instance, I listen to Talk Radio daily.... specifically Sean Hannity on AM Radio here in Atlanta. The past couple of days he (Sean) has been talking about how Syrian refugees are going to be bringing Terrorist to our doorstep. All it takes is one terrorist to slip by he keeps chatting.

    And all I can think of how unlikely it would be, i mean, for starters we have two unsecured borders, why would a terrorist come across as a refugee where they stand a much better chance of being identified, rather than simply coming across the border of Mexico with a Coyote. These are simply human beings who's homes have been destroyed by war looking to take care of their families. Going back in time, Ted Cruz, the darling of the Tea Party was preaching that Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet, that he wants to control the internet... and I'm like you dumbass.. if Obama wanted to control the internet, he wouldn't have relinquished control of ICANN. Many of the far right use fear to change people to their POV. It happens with Terrorism, it happens with Net Neutrality, it happens with 401k.... Far right wing Republicans are why I left the party. They fear change.

    So here's Lewk, listening to the rants of the Party leaders he holds dear, and I can't think of a better term then he has been brainwashed.

    So Why is Lewk the problem? Because there are MANY like him. Many who believe what they hear on the radio, what they read in print, without checking on what spin has been added. If they were all to check fact checking what is being said, imagine how many more moderates we would have? The same goes for the Democrats. (They use Fear to say the Republicans will take away your Medicare, your social security).

    Fuck our Politicians, Fuck Terrorist, and Fuck those who try to politicize this mess.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It's not okay to shoot an innocent bank clerk but shooting a felon to death is commendable and do you should receive a reward rather than a punishment

  7. #7
    Christian motivated political violence in many parts of the world elicits a similar responses
    Funny, I don't see Lutherans in northern Sweden or Roman Catholics in Chile wondering how this could happen in their own community because of the Christian religious violence in Nigeria. I don't think it's wise to compare the global religions to Judaism in this way, they are obviously not the same.

    You say "Were I a Muslim, I think I would be deeply troubled about my religious community" - Islam is not *a* religious community, it's a bunch of different religious communities often violently inimical to each other. The primary victim of Islamically motivated violence is other muslims after all. In light of that, it's actually pretty bizarre to ask why the Muslim world doesn't do more to combat radical Islam; what exactly do you think is happening in Syria and Iraq, or eastern Africa? It's a bit like asking Europeans to condemn the crimes of the their fellow Europeans, the Nazis, in about 1943.

    But I think what you're really talking about is Muslim communities living in the west; and I think there you're much more on point there, when referring specifically to attacks against western targets by home grown terrorists. I also think the lefts tendency to try and explain the actions of groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS in terms of responses to western extremism is a manifestation of an unfortunate tendency of leftists to view the motivations of non-western groups as primarily responses to the west itself, thus denying non-western cultures any narrative or identity of their own beyond that of being victims of the west. Sadly, this narrative, all pervasive as the only alternative to the official one that terrorists are bad people who need a jolly good bombing leaves ISIS, boko harem et al with way more legitimacy than they deserve in the eyes of young Muslims who are alienated and unhappy with their lives in the west and looking for an alternative.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Funny, I don't see Lutherans in northern Sweden or Roman Catholics in Chile wondering how this could happen in their own community because of the Christian religious violence in Nigeria. I don't think it's wise to compare the global religions to Judaism in this way, they are obviously not the same.
    I think the real difference is that most cases of religious violence are local communal strife that is related to a whole number of issues, religion among them. International terrorism inspired by fundamentalist religion is fairly rare.

    Furthermore, I think the Muslim community in the West (which, realistically, is the only window I have into this world) is relatively small and new, and still have substantial familial and cultural connections to their (Muslim majority) countries of extraction. The same couldn't be said of Lutherans in Sweden.

    You say "Were I a Muslim, I think I would be deeply troubled about my religious community" - Islam is not *a* religious community, it's a bunch of different religious communities often violently inimical to each other. The primary victim of Islamically motivated violence is other muslims after all. In light of that, it's actually pretty bizarre to ask why the Muslim world doesn't do more to combat radical Islam; what exactly do you think is happening in Syria and Iraq, or eastern Africa? It's a bit like asking Europeans to condemn the crimes of the their fellow Europeans, the Nazis, in about 1943.
    Both Sunni and Shia Muslim groups are responsible for some pretty awful stuff - Sunni groups such as AQ and IS and Hamas are supplemented by Shia groups such as Hezbollah. Realistically these are the two largest groups in Islam by far, and the pan-Islamic concept of the Ummah is pretty deeply ingrained. Yes, there is strife over doctrinal and political differences, but there's also a great deal of supranational solidarity in both rhetoric and deed.

    I'm not asking why the Muslim world doesn't do more to combat radical Islam - nor am I demanding that Muslims condemn the crimes of Islamist terrorists. Rather, I'm singling out the narrative of victimization that abounds as unhelpful and counterproductive.

    But I think what you're really talking about is Muslim communities living in the west; and I think there you're much more on point there, when referring specifically to attacks against western targets by home grown terrorists. I also think the lefts tendency to try and explain the actions of groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS in terms of responses to western extremism is a manifestation of an unfortunate tendency of leftists to view the motivations of non-western groups as primarily responses to the west itself, thus denying non-western cultures any narrative or identity of their own beyond that of being victims of the west. Sadly, this narrative, all pervasive as the only alternative to the official one that terrorists are bad people who need a jolly good bombing leaves ISIS, boko harem et al with way more legitimacy than they deserve in the eyes of young Muslims who are alienated and unhappy with their lives in the west and looking for an alternative.
    As mentioned above, I am mostly talking about Western Muslims (just because I don't know enough about other narratives outside Palestinians, Turks, and Egyptians), but not just about home grown terrorists. I'm also talking about the rhetoric that accompanies major global Islamist terrorist attacks even if the terrorists originated from, say, the AfPak region or the Levant. The rhetoric only serves to justify a narrative of powerlessness and most certainly feeds young (local!) recruits into said global jihadist organizations.


    I have more to say on this but I have to run. It's not purely a problem in the West, and there's some nuance here, but I'll elaborate later.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    It won't stop untill the closing of the muslim mind is undone for more than just the odd individual. And given how long the closed mind mentality has persisted and what a wonderful tool it was in the hands of autocrats I don't think we're going to see a significant change in my life time. Do people even realise that the big internal warfare in islam is about nothing more than the question of succession of Mohammed in his role of worldly leader? It's that trivial; nothing like a schism about the nature of God, or the concept of priesthood or free will. It's just about bloody worldly power. And the whole time theological thinking has been put on hold.
    Congratulations America

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ImAnOgre View Post
    My feelings are people like Lewk ARE part of the problem. Trying to politicize and stereotype these atrocities.

    Is it his fault, no. The media and politicians do this all the time, and Lewk is a product of the constant politicizing that he was brought up in.

    We have a saying in the south for people like this.... we say "Bless You Heart". So Lewk, Bless Your Heart.

    But I do have empathy for Lewk also. I understand fear, I understand how a lot of conservatives use fear to move people to their point of view. For instance, I listen to Talk Radio daily.... specifically Sean Hannity on AM Radio here in Atlanta. The past couple of days he (Sean) has been talking about how Syrian refugees are going to be bringing Terrorist to our doorstep. All it takes is one terrorist to slip by he keeps chatting.

    And all I can think of how unlikely it would be, i mean, for starters we have two unsecured borders, why would a terrorist come across as a refugee where they stand a much better chance of being identified, rather than simply coming across the border of Mexico with a Coyote. These are simply human beings who's homes have been destroyed by war looking to take care of their families. Going back in time, Ted Cruz, the darling of the Tea Party was preaching that Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet, that he wants to control the internet... and I'm like you dumbass.. if Obama wanted to control the internet, he wouldn't have relinquished control of ICANN. Many of the far right use fear to change people to their POV. It happens with Terrorism, it happens with Net Neutrality, it happens with 401k.... Far right wing Republicans are why I left the party. They fear change.

    So here's Lewk, listening to the rants of the Party leaders he holds dear, and I can't think of a better term then he has been brainwashed.

    So Why is Lewk the problem? Because there are MANY like him. Many who believe what they hear on the radio, what they read in print, without checking on what spin has been added. If they were all to check fact checking what is being said, imagine how many more moderates we would have? The same goes for the Democrats. (They use Fear to say the Republicans will take away your Medicare, your social security).

    Fuck our Politicians, Fuck Terrorist, and Fuck those who try to politicize this mess.
    I see you completely missed the point of what I'm trying to say. Liberals will NEVER allow blame to be assigned outside of capitalism and the West. You just simply rarely here "Yeah Iran is completely fucked up. They are even worst than Republicans when it comes to persecuting homosexuals, fuck them. I don't want anything to do with that horrible regime."

    Your rambling about Syrian refugees has nothing to do with what I posted.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I see you completely missed the point of what I'm trying to say. Liberals will NEVER allow blame to be assigned outside of capitalism and the West. You just simply rarely here "Yeah Iran is completely fucked up. They are even worst than Republicans when it comes to persecuting homosexuals, fuck them. I don't want anything to do with that horrible regime."

    Your rambling about Syrian refugees has nothing to do with what I posted.

    Like I said Lewk, you are part of the problem. You are trying to politicize this. It's sad you don't see it, but you are part of the problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It's not okay to shoot an innocent bank clerk but shooting a felon to death is commendable and do you should receive a reward rather than a punishment

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by ImAnOgre View Post
    Like I said Lewk, you are part of the problem. You are trying to politicize this. It's sad you don't see it, but you are part of the problem.
    I guess you'll have to explain what exactly you think the problem is. Are you referring to the terrorist actions? Are you referring to liberals and their inability to understand accountability?

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post


    I don’t really want to debate this issue directly....

    What bothers me every time I see this debate, however, is a question of responsibility....

    Why should we take responsibility for decades of political dysfunction in most of the Muslim world when we can just blame it on a legacy of colonialism?

    I’ve thought this infantilizes the Muslim world in a most distressing way, and is counterproductive to boot. Yet when Muslims do it to themselves I am truly flabbergasted. Muslims are not powerless pawns. They have agency and responsibility, and should act accordingly.
    I edited your post to highlight some important parts. "Infantalizing" is a powerful word with many implications, and could just as easily be applied to any minority group, including Jews. Blaming all Muslims for the spate of "Islamic" terrorism in the modern world would be like what....blaming Jews for Hitler/Nazism?


    I don’t mean to say that the Western world should wash its hands of the problem and blame it on problems inside Islam. That’s obviously untrue. But after religiously motivated violence perpetrated by other communities, I often see a great deal of hand-wringing and deep introspection. Just look at the Israeli debate that ensued after the fatal firebombing of a Palestinian home by (probably) a right wing Jewish extremist – or the murder of Abu Khdeir. The Israeli (and Jewish) public was shocked and wasted no time asking themselves hard questions – how could one of our own have done something like this? Do we need to confront incitement in our own ranks more assiduously? How can we prevent something like this happening again? Etc. It’s not uniquely a Jewish phenomenon, either – Christian motivated political violence in many parts of the world elicits a similar responses. I don’t know enough about other religious-inspired political violence to know if the pattern holds (for example, I don’t know enough about the communal response to e.g. Hindu political violence in India or Buddhist political violence in Myanmar), but at least what I’ve seen in the Muslim response is troubling.
    Well, Israel became a "Jewish Nation", recognized by the UN and western powers after WWII....but not necessarily because of its Jewry (religious beliefs).

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin
    When left wing (non-Muslim) thinkers use this kind of thinking, I have always found that it smacked of a certain ‘bigotry of low expectations’. Those savages in the Muslim world can’t be expected to think for themselves, it’s obvious that Western imperialism and a long legacy of clumsy interventions is to blame. I’ve thought this infantilizes the Muslim world in a most distressing way, and is counterproductive to boot. Yet when Muslims do it to themselves I am truly flabbergasted. Muslims are not powerless pawns. They have agency and responsibility, and should act accordingly.
    I think this is really the core thing here. The number of people basically saying "Yes, this is horrible but France drew the borders of Syria so yeah". Basically, talking to people these days is like talking to some kind of bizarro proponents of the butterfly effect; everything is connected to everything, and individual issues can't be sussed-out and discussed in any kind of moral context that doesn't point the finger back at YOU.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    It won't stop untill the closing of the muslim mind is undone for more than just the odd individual. And given how long the closed mind mentality has persisted and what a wonderful tool it was in the hands of autocrats I don't think we're going to see a significant change in my life time. Do people even realise that the big internal warfare in islam is about nothing more than the question of succession of Mohammed in his role of worldly leader? It's that trivial; nothing like a schism about the nature of God, or the concept of priesthood or free will. It's just about bloody worldly power. And the whole time theological thinking has been put on hold.
    Hazir, I'm curious: Do you honestly think that your average (religiously affiliated) Muslim cares all that much about such matters? I assume most of them want to get on with their lives and couldn't care less about e.g. Sunni vs. Shia.

    How do you think the Islamic 'closed mind' that you identify can be opened? I'm genuinely interested to hear your views on this, I suspect you have a better understanding of this issue that most others here.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I edited your post to highlight some important parts. "Infantalizing" is a powerful word with many implications, and could just as easily be applied to any minority group, including Jews. Blaming all Muslims for the spate of "Islamic" terrorism in the modern world would be like what....blaming Jews for Hitler/Nazism?

    Well, Israel became a "Jewish Nation", recognized by the UN and western powers after WWII....but not necessarily because of its Jewry (religious beliefs).
    I... can't even.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I think this is really the core thing here. The number of people basically saying "Yes, this is horrible but France drew the borders of Syria so yeah". Basically, talking to people these days is like talking to some kind of bizarro proponents of the butterfly effect; everything is connected to everything, and individual issues can't be sussed-out and discussed in any kind of moral context that doesn't point the finger back at YOU.
    What's frustrating to me isn't that they're necessarily wrong - certainly the roots of sectarian strife in many modern Middle Eastern nations are tied to the rather clumsy drawing of borders by (predominantly) France and Britain, not to mention a legacy of support for autocratic governments run by minority ethnic groups by a variety of powers during the Cold War. But blaming poverty or bad governance or anything else that stems from this sectarian strife for the emergence of global Islamist terrorism is missing the point. Many countries around the world suffer from a post-colonial legacy of poverty, corrupt governments, and sectarian conflict. Yet by and large these conflicts have not been internationalized in a virulent campaign of terrorism outside the Muslim world - for example, outside of Islamist groups we don't see nations in sub-Saharan Africa being the source of political violence on the international stage. The communal violence still exists - just look at Rwanda in the early 90s, or Kenya after the previous election, or any number of other ethnic/religious conflicts that arose from colonial mistakes and have no included Muslims to a substantial degree.

    Muslims should rightly believe that global Islamist terror campaigns are fundamentally a fringe phenomenon, involving at most a few million Muslims. But they should still be asking themselves hard questions about why and how it has flourished in so many incarnations when other groups with a postcolonial legacy have not gone down the same path.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  16. #16
    Personally, I blame Enver Pasha. What a penis.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Hazir, I'm curious: Do you honestly think that your average (religiously affiliated) Muslim cares all that much about such matters? I assume most of them want to get on with their lives and couldn't care less about e.g. Sunni vs. Shia.

    How do you think the Islamic 'closed mind' that you identify can be opened? I'm genuinely interested to hear your views on this, I suspect you have a better understanding of this issue that most others here.<snip>
    Those are interesting question; as for the sunni/shia divide; The strange thing there is that I think people do care about it, but not in a way that gives them any meaningful understanding as to why they see people as 'the other'. That does not mean though they're just living together as if the whole difference doesn't matter to them. They may, if things are quiet, consider eachother muslims, albeit mutually of a somewhat distasteful kind, but they would consider their children intermarrying in general unacceptable.

    As for opening the minds? I don't have any clear-cut idea of how you'd do that, but a first and necessary step to me seems to separate religious and secular authority to an extent that an open debate about islamic theology becomes possible. So that at least nobody can abuse state power to force his ideas on all others, while declaring the discussion closed for now and forever.
    Congratulations America

  18. #18
    Okay, I'll try again. You said you didn't want to debate things directly. But there were so many parts in your OP that make it hard to discuss anything, even indirectly, that I focused on a few highlights with more snipping:


    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post

    It’s the widespread intolerance to heterodox religious views that permeates the Muslim world...

    I tend to see responses that place Islamist political violence in the context of victimization...

    They (Muslims) have agency and responsibility, and should act accordingly...

    I don’t know enough about other religious-inspired political violence to know if the pattern holds (for example, I don’t know enough about the communal response to e.g. Hindu political violence in India or Buddhist political violence in Myanmar), but at least what I’ve seen in the Muslim response is troubling...

    This doctrine of victimization is not about placing Islamist political violence in ‘context’ or about coming up with policy to prevent such violence in the future. It’s about passing the buck, and eliminating the need for thinking hard about our own responsibility for a problem. And, at the end of the day, it makes problems worse. Most people will stop at rhetoric, but a small minority will go much further – this narrative allows them to blame others for their lot in life, and paints a big fat target on the architects of this victimization. Islamist terrorism is fed by the Muslim world being unable to confront itself directly for its failings.
    It's even harder to discuss things when you use terms like "the Muslim world". Well, you give a slight nod to other religious-inspired political violence/terrorism....but stop short at calling on "those" religious leaders/followers to act accordingly, with agency and responsibility. Why is that?



    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I think the real difference is that most cases of religious violence are local communal strife that is related to a whole number of issues, religion among them. International terrorism inspired by fundamentalist religion is fairly rare.
    Historically, there's always been a connection between religion, politics, power, and violence. We like to think it's different in the modern era....with democracy and secular governments in the west....but we've had terrorist events for decades that had international impact (from Munich Olympics to Lockerbie bombing, etc.)



    Furthermore, I think the Muslim community in the West (which, realistically, is the only window I have into this world) is relatively small and new, and still have substantial familial and cultural connections to their (Muslim majority) countries of extraction. The same couldn't be said of Lutherans in Sweden.
    Then it might be helpful to differentiate the Muslim west from "the Muslim world". For that matter, it'd help if we could ALL distinguish our religious cultural roots from religious dogma. (PS, don't tell Lutherans in Minnesota they don't have connections to their Swedish relatives )

    Both Sunni and Shia Muslim groups are responsible for some pretty awful stuff - Sunni groups such as AQ and IS and Hamas are supplemented by Shia groups such as Hezbollah. Realistically these are the two largest groups in Islam by far, and the pan-Islamic concept of the Ummah is pretty deeply ingrained. Yes, there is strife over doctrinal and political differences, but there's also a great deal of supranational solidarity in both rhetoric and deed.

    I'm not asking why the Muslim world doesn't do more to combat radical Islam - nor am I demanding that Muslims condemn the crimes of Islamist terrorists. Rather, I'm singling out the narrative of victimization that abounds as unhelpful and counterproductive.
    Again with "the Muslim world"? 1.5 billion Muslims probably DO feel like they're victims of a few thousand radical extremists....AND the political structures of a few nations which make international rules. Sounds to me like 'victim' is a rational response.



    As mentioned above, I am mostly talking about Western Muslims (just because I don't know enough about other narratives outside Palestinians, Turks, and Egyptians), but not just about home grown terrorists. I'm also talking about the rhetoric that accompanies major global Islamist terrorist attacks even if the terrorists originated from, say, the AfPak region or the Levant. The rhetoric only serves to justify a narrative of powerlessness and most certainly feeds young (local!) recruits into said global jihadist organizations.

    I have more to say on this but I have to run. It's not purely a problem in the West, and there's some nuance here, but I'll elaborate later.
    The US is worried more about "home grown terrorists", regardless of their religion, than anything else (partly due to our lax gun laws). Europe is worried about everyone, especially immigrant communities that haven't been fully accepted or assimilated.....



    Also, if you want to talk about "informed and educated" opinions in the Sunni vs Shiite religious debate.....then you'll have to go a long way back in history to explain why the US decided to ally politically with the Saudi Kingdom.

  19. #19
    A lot has happened since you started this thread, wiggin.

    Now we're seeing political extremism rise in Europe and the US -- from France's National Front Party growth, to Trump's proposed "ban" on Muslims entering the US -- that doesn't do a damn thing for problem-solving, but probably makes matters even worse!

    I happened to see a great discussion about Islam and Terrorism on C-Span just today: it was a lecture recorded last Friday. In a departure from the US tendency to ask/interview non-Muslims for their opinions about Islam....these guests were actually Muslims!

    I recognized Irshad Manji, she's been active in the news for a long time, as part of the NYU "Moral Courage Project". She was debating with Mohammed Dajani (a Washington Institute scholar) about what it means to be a 'moderate' or 'reformist' Muslim in the west, and how to fight Islamist extremism, without demonizing ALL Muslims in the process. I should have taken notes, it was that good.

    Contrary to your "personal impressions", wiggin....I don't think Islam (the religion) is at the root of our problems with Global Terrorism. Even if Sunnis and Shiites had a come-to-Jesus moment (sorry for the pun), the middle east would still be in turmoil, fighting for territory, and power over territory.

  20. #20
    There have actually been remarkably few wars over territory in the modern Middle East. Unless I'm forgetting something, Iraq invading Iran and Kuwait are the only examples since the '70s...Most territorial wars are in the rest of Asia.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    There have actually been remarkably few wars over territory in the modern Middle East. Unless I'm forgetting something, Iraq invading Iran and Kuwait are the only examples since the '70s...Most territorial wars are in the rest of Asia.
    But one of ISIS' goal is to be a regional caliphate....by taking and holding territory. They even impose taxes on its "citizens" to fund their "mission". When people can't get food, water, medicine, or electricity from their despotic leader...they're prone to any agency that can, even if they're terrorists.



    And don't forget that energy assets can be wielded as political tools, or "strategy". See Crimea.

  22. #22
    ISIS' goals aren't territorial. Physically controlling territory might be important, but ISIS doesn't want to demarcate borders from other countries.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    ISIS' goals aren't territorial. Physically controlling territory might be important, but ISIS doesn't want to demarcate borders from other countries.
    Then why is the rest of the world so worried when ISIS takes control of territory?

  24. #24
    Um, because they're blowing shit up in areas outside of their control?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Um, because they're blowing shit up in areas outside of their control?
    So is Boko Haram.

    Now, getting back to alliances, will anyone answer my question about Saudi Arabia? Especially since they just conducted a mass execution, including a Shia Muslim cleric whose crime was "criticizing the Kingdom"?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •