Rory 7 on how to stop Homegrown Islamic Extremists

[Akshay]

No its not. Its exactly the same.

I know you do get these kinds of Christians. Especially in America. But they are in a tiny minority. Even in the US, and even among evangelicals, I think there is a little more of a sense that you have to read between the lines. So I think the difference is, what is a tiny, extreme fringe in Christianity is the mainstream in Islam - in the sense of literal interpretation, I mean.

Hmm. I guess I'm not entirely clear on the exact meaning of 'literal interpretation'. For example the priest at the Baptist church I frequented didn't take Genesis to mean the world was created in 7 days because God didn't mean it to be a scientific description of the process of creation. But we were always told the Bible was the word of God and 100% true, and that any doubts or questions about the faith should be answered by reading and quoting the Bible.

I don't know really to what extent the majority of Muslims take the Quran literally.

 

[Adebesi]

Thanks for your considered thoughts.

There are about 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. ISIS is estimated to have around 100000 recruits in Syria and also world wide. That means ISIS is 0.00000625% of Muslims worldwide!!!

What that tells me is that Muslims are already living within a transformed set of laws. Some Muslim countries like Turkey and Malaysia have taken those concepts of reform into national law and implemented into modern day culture. Country's like Pakistan and Iran used to until covert CIA influence sent both countries into extreme adoptions of Sharia Law.

My point is simply that people who follow Islam don't practice the Qu'ran to the letter anyway and the vast vast vast vast majority are not misinterpreting a verse that supposedly legalizes the suicidal killing of non Muslims civilians. Islam has evolved just like every other culture in the world. The word of the Qu'ran may be sacrosanct but it's not being followed to the letter by most.

Unfortunately 0.00000625% of Muslims need to be either eradicated or re-educated. And the reasons people choose to join such organisations need to be resolved, starting with Palestine. A formal and theoritetical exercise of Islamic navel gazing via some great transformation is not going to deter them. Just as the Chistian reformation did not stop the Klu Klux Klan and war mongers like Bush and Blair.

That's the ball game. Nothing else

But this is the rub. As you say, only a tiny, tiny minority of people are radicalised. The vast majority find a way to make two incompatible things (Islam and modern Western life) coexist. For most it is no problem. BUT unless the dosctine itself is publicly questioned and there is a debate about it, out in the open, it is available as a tool to be used for radicalisation - and it is quite efficient for that purpose - under the right circumstances.

 

[Adebesi]

Hmm. I guess I'm not entirely clear on the exact meaning of 'literal interpretation'. For example the priest at the Baptist church I frequented didn't take Genesis to mean the world was created in 7 days because God didn't mean it to be a scientific description of the process of creation. But we were always told the Bible was the word of God and 100% true, and that any doubts or questions about the faith should be answered by reading and quoting the Bible.

I don't know really to what extent the majority of Muslims take the Quran literally.

Classic Christian explanation for why something is both true and not true. This is exactly the kind of intellectual somersault you need to be able to make in order to believe in religion but square it with modern life and science.

I understand Muslims are, on the whole, more literal in their reading of their holy texts - even if they are not 100% perfect in the way they live their lives. But I have to admit, like you, I dont really know. Its not first hand experience, its what Ive read and heard - including from posters in here, today.

 

[2cents]

I don't know really to what extent the majority of Muslims take the Quran literally.

It's not just about the Qur'an or even the Hadith. There are four madhahib (Sunni schools of jurisprudence), each differing over various matters but with an overall emphasis in terms of the texts. The Maliki (dominant in North and West Africa) and especially the Hanbali (dominant in Arabian peninsula) schools are regarded as more literalist, with the Shafi'i (parts of the Middle East, Egypt, Yemen and S/E Asia) and especially the Hanafi (Balkans, Turkey, Middle East, Central Asia, and Indian subcontinent) schools offering a greater degree of flexibility in regards to interpretation. This is not to say, however, that Muslims live their lives in the light of the different schools' rulings, since there are other trends and emphases, especially relating to Sufism, through which Muslims may find meaning in their faith.

Of course, the Salafis reject all four madhahib and argue that Muslims need to go directly to the Qur'an and Hadith and interpret them in a purely literal way.

 

[rcoobc]

Thanks for your considered thoughts.

There are about 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. ISIS is estimated to have around 100000 recruits in Syria and also world wide. That means ISIS is 0.00000625% of Muslims worldwide!!!

Not that it matters, but I don't believe your maths is correct.

1 hundred thousands divided by 1.6 billion is 0.0000625

As a percentage that's 0.00625%.

That means 99.99375% of muslims aren't a member of ISIS.

 

[JPRouve]

True. But all belief systems can and should be challenged. Christianity had its reformation. Islam currently has this crazy strand pervading it through ISIS. Surely mainstream Islam needs to strengthen its resolve to integrate with Western values even more if this ISIS stuff is gaining a foothold. As Hollande put (I think) we need a more "Enlighted Islam". It might not stop attacks immediately but a serious bit of reform in the faith could move things on, even a little bit?

More than what? The "enlighted Islam" represents 99% of the muslims.

You know what, I will give you the real problem. In the Middle East, Islam is a tool for power, some men are using it to create little armies in Syria, Irak and Nigeria(I know it's not in the M-E). They don't care about Islam, they don't care about France or the Quran, they care about living like Sultans and Islam is the most efficient way to unite people in these areas.

 

[Ducklegs]

Introduce ID cards. I dont understand why so many kicked up a fuss about them in the first place. It was fueled by a political and media agenda at the time.

Because they offer no benefit what so ever despite their huge cost to introduce and administer.

France have I.D cards.
Spain have I.D cards.

so yeah, lets forget about that idea.

 

[Rory 7]

More than what? The "enlighted Islam" represents 99% of the muslims.

You know what, I will give you the real problem. In the Middle East, Islam is a tool for power, some men are using it to create little armies in Syria, Irak and Nigeria(I know it's not in the M-E). They don't care about Islam, they don't care about France or the Quran, they care about living like Sultans and Islam is the most efficient way to unite people in these areas.

That is a bigger problem for sure. Does "enlightened Islam" not mean the populations of these countries no longer allowing these men to use religion as that tool? It wasn't my phrase but there is something in this idea of reform of the religion and its relationship with the political/secular world.

 

[Akshay]

It's not just about the Qur'an or even the Hadith. There are four madhahib (Sunni schools of jurisprudence), each differing over various matters but with an overall emphasis in terms of the texts. The Maliki (dominant in North and West Africa) and especially the Hanbali (dominant in Arabian peninsula) schools are regarded as more literalist, with the Shafi'i (parts of the Middle East, Egypt, Yemen and S/E Asia) and especially the Hanafi (Balkans, Turkey, Middle East, Central Asia, and Indian subcontinent) schools offering a greater degree of flexibility in regards to interpretation. This is not to say, however, that Muslims live their lives in the light of the different schools' rulings, since their are other trends and emphases, especially relating to Sufism, through which Muslims may find meaning in their faith.

Of course, the Salafis reject all four madhahib and argue that Muslims need to go directly to the Qur'an and Hadith and interpret them in a purely literal way.

Hmm, so there are different sects / schools of thought with varying levels of literal interpretation just like other religions. Also interesting that different schools emphasize importance and value of different Hadith. And Sufism is very different to them all as it seems more personal and ascetic?

 

[sammsky1]

Not that it matters, but I don't believe your maths is correct.

1 hundred thousands divided by 1.6 billion is 0.0000625

As a percentage that's 0.00625%.

That means 99.99375% of muslims aren't a member of ISIS.

What's a couple of decimal points amongst friends?!

What's the actual Answer? I always get the no of zeros in billions wrong!

Edit: just saw white text!

 

[rcoobc]

What's a couple of decimal points amongst friends?!

What's the actual Answer? I always get the no of zeros in billions wrong!

Nothing at all

 

[2cents]

Hmm, so there are different sects / schools of thought with varying levels of literal interpretation just like other religions. Also interesting that different schools emphasize importance and value of different Hadith. And Sufism is very different to them all as it seems more personal and ascetic?

Sufism isn't necessarily to be considered completely separate. Many scholars of the madhahib are/were also Sufis. But the various forms of Sufism also have varying degrees of engagement with the shari'a, and some of the most influential Sufi tendencies considered Muhammad's prophecy and the shari'a to be a lower level of understanding of the Truth (God) than their own higher level. They drew on Muslim philosophy, itself based in part on Greek philosophy, to argue that the shari'a was designed for the ignorant masses, while the more developed intellects could achieve a more fulfilling understanding of God by not only rejecting the shari'a but consciously contradicting it by drinking wine, listening and dancing to music, etc.

In history, these tendencies weren't confined to a minority on the periphery of Muslim society - it has actually been argued that they were more typical of mainstream Muslim life for centuries than the literalist, shari'a approach to Islam. But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, the impact of the West changed all this.

 

[Kaos]

I've said this everytime something like this happens, the problem is Wahabism. It needs to be treated and stigmatised like Nazism, pretty much every radicalised attacker can be linked to some Wahabist doctrine corrupting their mind.

If Western governments are serious about containing it they need to to cut off its heart in Saudi Arabia where they're pretty much running the show and using as a base to fund schools all over the world. It won't happen though since the West loves their cheap oil.

 

[2cents]

I've said this everytime something like this happens, the problem is Wahabism. It needs to be treated and stigmatised like Nazism, pretty much every radicalised attacker can be linked to some Wahabist doctrine corrupting their mind.

If Western governments are serious about containing it they need to to cut off its heart in Saudi Arabia where they're pretty much running the show and using as a base to fund schools all over the world. It won't happen though since the West loves their cheap oil.

I would argue it's a combination of Wahhabi/Salafi religious conservatism and Ikhwani-style political ideology with its emphasis on the Islamic State. They came together in the 60s when the Muslim Brotherhood members persecuted by Nasser fled to Saudi Arabia (for example Muhammad Qutb, Sayuid Qutb's brother, who taught bin Ladin and dozens of other young jihadi stars in Medina).

 

[JPRouve]

That is a bigger problem for sure. Does "enlightened Islam" not mean the populations of these countries no longer allowing these men to use religion as that tool? It wasn't my phrase but there is something in this idea of reform of the religion and its relationship with the political/secular world.

The population of these countries are victims of these men and their acolytes, remember that thousands of men and women from around the world are fighting for ISIS. The population of these countries are the ones dying every day, they are the daily victims.

Also people don't like that point but by getting rid of Saddam the way we did it, we created a huge hole in a place that doesn't needed one at all, we kind of created that mess because we gave the opportunity to some men to put their hands on resources that we needed and bought them resources, we financed their follies and created the opportunity.
In 2003, I was still a kid and I remember telling myself "one bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", at the time I asked myself "what is going to replace the Power in that huge country filled with riches?". Now I know.

 

[sammsky1]

I've said this everytime something like this happens, the problem is Wahabism. It needs to be treated and stigmatised like Nazism, pretty much every radicalised attacker can be linked to some Wahabist doctrine corrupting their mind.

If Western governments are serious about containing it they need to to cut off its heart in Saudi Arabia where they're pretty much running the show and using as a base to fund schools all over the world. It won't happen though since the West loves their cheap oil.

Bingo. Emotional sentiment caused by Palestinian woe is exploited by Wahabists. There are so few involved in this operation but they cheap Arabian oil to seduce the West with.

No matter how many times this is explained, it never be understood by Western civil society. I don't know why, it's seems brindingly obvious to me.

 

[Rory 7]

The population of these countries are victims of these men and their acolytes, remember that thousands of men and women from around the world are fighting for ISIS. The population of these countries are the ones dying every day, they are the daily victims.

Also people don't like that point but by getting rid of Saddam the way we did it, we created a huge hole in a place that doesn't needed one at all, we kind of created that mess because we gave the opportunity to some men to put their hands on resources that we needed and bought them resources, we financed their follies and created the opportunity.
In 2003, I was still a kid and I remember telling myself "one bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", at the time I asked myself "what is going to replace the Power in that huge country filled with riches?". Now I know.

I agree. This is a legacy of the west's meddling in the Middle East but that doesn't absolve people of faith from fighting against these extremists.

 

[Kentonio]

Most of the EU have ID cards. What are ID cards meant to do? I wish we had them, because they can use them in the EU instead of passports.

Doesn't seem a lot of point in us bothering now then..

 

[JPRouve]

I agree. This is a legacy of the west's meddling in the Middle East but that doesn't absolve people of faith from fighting against these extremists.

You are right it doesn't absolve anyone and I'm not trying to absolve anyone. I'm just pointing out that our "local" terrorists are led and sometimes organized by men that we kind of "created" by giving them the means to be where they are today.

 

[rcoobc]

Great video from the BBC, when Tommy met Mo



There was a caf thread possibly started by Mockney at the time, although I can't find it. Maybe it was part of another thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/please-stop-staying-the-nice-attacks-arent-about-islam/
Incedentally, Maajid Nawaz talking about the attacks

 

[Rory 7]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/please-stop-staying-the-nice-attacks-arent-about-islam/
Incedentally, Maajid Nawaz talking about the attacks

Have to say I agree with every word he wrote. That is the kind of leadership I was talking about this morning.

 

[Dante]

Let me just put this in here from the other thread if this is where its being discussed.

It's EXTREMELY optimistic to believe an Islamic Reformation will result in a liberalisation of the Muslim world.

Reformations don't happen in vacuums. They happen in response to oppression/persecution. In Europe, that meant rebelling against the powers that be - namely, The Church. For modern day Muslims, that mean rebelling against the West and its proxy allies. ISIS are the Islamic Reformation. They're an attempt to root out corruption and give the people a louder voice. You can't look at one example and assume the other will go the same way.

If it's an Enlightenment you're after, those tend to happen when civilisations are in the ascendency and have enough wealth to fund arts and sciences. That's where Ancient Greece was 2400 years ago, The Middle East was 1000 years ago, Europe was 500 years ago and China is about to be soon. Again, you can't force it or manipulate it into happening. Muslims aren't so stupid they can't see how the rest of the world is trying to change them. Even if it's for the ultimate Good, there's going to be resistance.

People just don't like to be manipulated by outside forces, so most discussion like this are moot, unfortunately.

 

[2cents]

It's EXTREMELY optimistic to believe an Islamic Reformation will result in a liberalisation of the Muslim world.

Reformations don't happen in vacuums. They happen in response to oppression/persecution. In Europe, that meant rebelling against the powers that be - namely, The Church. For modern day Muslims, that mean rebelling against the West and its proxy allies. ISIS are the Islamic Reformation. They're an attempt to root out corruption and give the people a louder voice. You can't look at one example and assume the other will go the same way.

If it's an Enlightenment you're after, those tend to happen when civilisations are in the ascendency and have enough wealth to fund arts and sciences. That's where Ancient Greece was 2400 years ago, The Middle East was 1000 years ago, Europe was 500 years ago and China is about to be soon. Again, you can't force it.

Yeah people tend to forget just how bloody the impact of the Christian Reformation was, and the type of Christianity Martin Luther espoused. I think you're correct, when people say that Islam needs a Reformation what they really mean is an Enlightenment.

Of course, there's absolutely no reason why Islam should follow the same historical trajectory as Christianity, given the two are nothing alike.

 

[Adebesi]

It's EXTREMELY optimistic to believe an Islamic Reformation will result in a liberalisation of the Muslim world.

Reformations don't happen in vacuums. They happen in response to oppression/persecution. In Europe, that meant rebelling against the powers that be - namely, The Church. For modern day Muslims, that mean rebelling against the West and its proxy allies. ISIS are the Islamic Reformation. They're an attempt to root out corruption and give the people a louder voice. You can't look at one example and assume the other will go the same way.

If it's an Enlightenment you're after, those tend to happen when civilisations are in the ascendency and have enough wealth to fund arts and sciences. That's where Ancient Greece was 2400 years ago, The Middle East was 1000 years ago, Europe was 500 years ago and China is about to be soon. Again, you can't force it or manipulate it into happening. Muslims aren't so stupid they can't see how the rest of the world is trying to change them. Even if it's for the ultimate Good, there's going to be resistance.

People just don't like to be manipulated by outside forces, so most discussion like this are moot, unfortunately.

That all makes sense. Tho I'm not suggesting it might liberalise the Islamic world - tho that'd be nice, and I'd certainly hope that happened. It's more that we might see less terrorism.

 

[Rory 7]

It's EXTREMELY optimistic to believe an Islamic Reformation will result in a liberalisation of the Muslim world.

Reformations don't happen in vacuums. They happen in response to oppression/persecution. In Europe, that meant rebelling against the powers that be - namely, The Church. For modern day Muslims, that mean rebelling against the West and its proxy allies. ISIS are the Islamic Reformation. They're an attempt to root out corruption and give the people a louder voice. You can't look at one example and assume the other will go the same way.

If it's an Enlightenment you're after, those tend to happen when civilisations are in the ascendency and have enough wealth to fund arts and sciences. That's where Ancient Greece was 2400 years ago, The Middle East was 1000 years ago, Europe was 500 years ago and China is about to be soon. Again, you can't force it or manipulate it into happening. Muslims aren't so stupid they can't see how the rest of the world is trying to change them. Even if it's for the ultimate Good, there's going to be resistance.

People just don't like to be manipulated by outside forces, so most discussion like this are moot, unfortunately.

Is that not a bit of a cop-out though? In an age of mass-communication surely there has been no more opportune time in human history to try and reform religions, including Islam. If the printing press brought about the reformation of Christianity then I would argue the internet could bring about reform of Islam. Instead we see extremists using this technology to progress their agenda. Again, as I said this morning, this is a failure Muslim leaders.

 

[2cents]

Is that not a bit of a cop-out though? In an age of mass-communication surely there has been no more opportune time in human history to try and reform religions, including Islam. If the printing press brought about the reformation of Christianity then I would argue the internet could bring about reform of Islam. Instead we see extremists using this technology to progress their agenda. Again, as I said this morning, this is a failure Muslim leaders.

During the Reformation, various Christian sects did use the printing-press to spread extremist doctrines. The Reformation was an awful, bloody time in European history, witch-burning reached a peak, there was mass repression of the various sects which grew out of it, the 30 years war led to millions of deaths. There is actually nothing in Islamic history to compare to how awful that time was.

And by the way, the expansion of print and literacy in the Muslim world has already had a major effect in driving change in the Islamic world, in fact it's largely responsible for the relatively new emphasis (past 200 years or so) on scriptural literalism which has driven the Salafi movement. At the same time though, it also liberated Muslims from the conservative hold of the 'ulama, and so helped drive what is known as Islamic Modernism (if you're interested, you should read up on guys like Sir Sayid Ahmad Khan and Muhammad 'Abduh). People need to consider that, in Islamic terms, we are actually going through something of a reformation right now, only it has lasted at least a century and a half, and has been totally skewed by the impact of the West (I don't necessarily mean military impact, but the spread of Western technology and ideals).

But like I said above, there is absolutely no reason for Islam to follow Christianity's historical trajectory.

 

[adexkola]

Is that not a bit of a cop-out though? In an age of mass-communication surely there has been no more opportune time in human history to try and reform religions, including Islam. If the printing press brought about the reformation of Christianity then I would argue the internet could bring about reform of Islam. Instead we see extremists using this technology to progress their agenda. Again, as I said this morning, this is a failure Muslim leaders.

It's not a copout.

The Enlightenment in Europe was the product of several factors.

- Increase in prosperity following the Reformation, Renaissance and increased trade with the orient/new world
- Strong central governments emerging from past sectarian conflicts in Europe (30 years war for example)
- Peace of Westphalia establishing absolute state sovereignty and limited freedom of religion, clipping the wings of the Church

Every one of those factors is not represented in the Islamic world. Per capita levels are among the lowest in the world. The income inequality is nauseating. And Islam is the dominant force in the Muslim world, perpetuated by failed states, or strong oil-fueled countries that pump money into maintaining the status quo.

Also note that there have been attempts at secularization in this sphere. Egypt and Algeria flirted with the idea for a while post-independence, yet the movements got repulsed by successful organic grassroots campaigns aimed to make these countries Islamic republics. Turkey is held up as the archetype of a secular Islamic state, however that secularism is straining against the force of several elements in the country trying to reverse the tide.

 

[Dante]

Is that not a bit of a cop-out though? In an age of mass-communication surely there has been no more opportune time in human history to try and reform religions, including Islam. If the printing press brought about the reformation of Christianity then I would argue the internet could bring about reform of Islam. Instead we see extremists using this technology to progress their agenda. Again, as I said this morning, this is a failure Muslim leaders.

That strain of thinking is as simplistic as believing that Democracy will lead to freedom. In Iraq it led to a Shiite pseudo-Theocracy. You're comparing apples with oranges.

The facile arguments you're making are akin to posters on a Middle Eastern forum discussing how they can fix the West. It will never work when it looks like an outside force meddling. The best way to defeat extremism is to let it fail. That way Muslims will rise up against it. If we try to defeat it, we give the likes of ISIS a boogeyman to rally behind and strengthen.

Muslim leadership is very much anti-extremist. I don't know how you can suggest otherwise. The problem is that the extremists look like the cool guys right now. They're the Rebels against The Empire and every time a Muslim country is invaded, it makes Western leaders look more and more like Darth Vader. No Muslim leader can compete against that, especially when every conspiracy theory Islamists come out with feels increasingly true.

 

[2cents]

I've read that now. The jist of it is basically, there is no such thing as a unified Islam, never was and to suggest there should be is disingenuous. Am I right?

I think its interesting that the author suggests the idea of Islamic unity is anti-policital. Surely if politics is the art of the possible then the greater the division within Islam the more difficult it will ever be for real political engagement and, ultimately, political progress? I'm not sure his argument is strong enough. He's basically saying attempts at greater unity have failed so lets not try at all. Again this is a very defensive starting position to take.

My take is that he's arguing that the urge/impulse for political unity within the Islamic world, and by extension the automatic identification with pan-Islamic causes felt by many Muslims, represents an attempt to leave behind the mundane, everyday politics of the modern state in favour of the pursuit of what is a mirage of unity, BUT that in fact the only type of political unity that can be achieved within Islam is the coercive but superficial type represented in this article by the Saudis overseeing of the haj. The conclusion is that Muslims would be better off celebrating their differences and getting on with contributing to politics within the political framework they find themselves in. As he says, "The nation-state is inescapable when it comes to matters of establishing and governing matters within and between religious communities."

I think he's come to this conclusion because despite the urge for political unity represented by the movement to restore the caliphate, no group (apart from a couple of exceptions which prove the rule) has articulated a realistic political proposal to make it happen, or outlined how it will work. The exceptions are of course the Hizb ut-Tahrir, whose manifesto is not only illiberal (even fascist) but farcically amateur, and ISIS about whom we need say no more. Beyond these two, there are a range of groups who claim to have to restoration of the caliphate as a central principle, but shy away from drawing any immediate political conclusions from it.

Finally, he argues that in fact, Islam was at its strongest when it accepted political and theological diversity - "the internal schisms and conflicts of Muslim societies demonstrated a sense of confidence and comfort with disagreement as a political necessity". This is something I've argued here - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/attempted-coup-dé·tat-in-turkey.371970/page-28#post-19515026

When you speak of 'unity', do you mean political, theological, or what? And if you mean political untiy, why do you think that would necessarily help lead to the type of reform you want to see?

 

[Rory 7]

My take is that he's arguing that the urge/impulse for political unity within the Islamic world, and by extension the automatic identification with pan-Islamic causes felt by many Muslims, represents an attempt to leave behind the mundane, everyday politics of the modern state in favour of the pursuit of what is a mirage of unity, BUT that in fact the only type of political unity that can be achieved within Islam is the coercive but superficial type represented in this article by the Saudis overseeing of the haj. The conclusion is that Muslims would be better off celebrating their differences and getting on with contributing to politics within the political framework they find themselves in. As he says, "The nation-state is inescapable when it comes to matters of establishing and governing matters within and between religious communities."

I think he's come to this conclusion because despite the urge for political unity represented by the movement to restore the caliphate, no group (apart from a couple of exceptions which prove the rule) has articulated a realistic political proposal to make it happen, or outlined how it will work. The exceptions are of course the Hizb ut-Tahrir, whose manifesto is not only illiberal (even fascist) but farcically amateur, and ISIS about whom we need say no more. Beyond these two, there are a range of groups who claim to have to restoration of the caliphate as a central principle, but shy away from drawing any immediate political conclusions from it.

Finally, he argues that in fact, Islam was at its strongest when it accepted political and theological diversity - "the internal schisms and conflicts of Muslim societies demonstrated a sense of confidence and comfort with disagreement as a political necessity". This is something I've argued here - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/attempted-coup-dé·tat-in-turkey.371970/page-28#post-19515026

When you speak of 'unity', do you mean political, theological, or what? And if you mean political untiy, why do you think that would necessarily help lead to the type of reform you want to see?

I guess my thought was around theological unity or certainly greater theological unity, particularly with respect to interpretations around use of violence. And that this in turn would lead to a greater degree of understanding, co-operation and assimilation in a Western context. I know you are going to tell me that already happens but clearly I would argue it doesn't happen on a pan-national scale and that the various schisms within Islam are what causes extremism.

 

[2cents]

I guess my thought was around theological unity of certainly greater theological unity, particularly with respect to interpretations around use of violence. And that this in turn would lead to a greater degree of understanding, co-operation and assimilation in a Western context. I know you are going to tell me that already happens but clearly I would argue it doesn't happen on a pan-national scale and that the various schisms within Islam are what causes extremism.

Ok, so this would essentially require an Islamic equivalent of the 'church' or pope, or at least some kind of ecumenical council, in order to determine the 'correct' approach to the question of legitimate violence and then impose it as 'orthodoxy'. Putting aside the problem that no such authority exists or can exist to regulate Islamic law in that manner (e.g. while you've correctly anticipated that, yes, numerous fatwas have been published by respected bodies of scholars across the Islamic world condemning terrorism, ultimately a fatwa is no more than an unbinding opinion offered by an individual whose level of authority is subjective), to what degree do modern day Catholics follow the church's rulings on, say, contraception? Why would it be different for Muslims?

In pre-modern times, the ulama, backed by the ruling dynasty, were able to impose a certain degree of legal orthodoxy (where legalism could be imposed, i.e. in the urban centers) to regulate the shari'ah through the four schools of jurisprudence. But the introduction of print and spread of literacy had the effect of diluting the ulama's traditional authority, as the formative texts became available to anyone who could read with the result that, as one historian put it, "any Ahmad, Muhammad or Mahmud" could interpret Islam as he wished. That genie is out of the bottle, and there's no going back.

At the same time, the prestige associated with the written word encouraged a tendency for these independent interpretations to be more scriptural with an emphasis on the law, which has led many modern day Muslims to neglect or forget that part of their heritage which lay outside the law but was still a major factor in shaping how they viewed themselves as Muslims (the Sufi/exploratory/reflective/rational heritage).

A rediscovery of that heritage and a concomitant process of de-emphasization (but not necessarily replacement) of the primacy of scripture would go a long way to easing the tensions currently ripping Islam apart (and would have the added bonus of being authentic in terms of Islamic tradition) and unity of the sects wouldn't be necessary for this to happen, but would actually probably hinder it. But it is difficult to see this happen IMO as long as Muslim states remain largely poor, weak, over-populated, autocratic fodder for the prey of greater powers.

 

[adexkola]

I've said this everytime something like this happens, the problem is Wahabism. It needs to be treated and stigmatised like Nazism, pretty much every radicalised attacker can be linked to some Wahabist doctrine corrupting their mind.

If Western governments are serious about containing it they need to to cut off its heart in Saudi Arabia where they're pretty much running the show and using as a base to fund schools all over the world. It won't happen though since the West loves their cheap oil.

They teach this poison to kids and young adults in many countries across Africa and Asia, neglecting a more standard curriculum. Ensuring that graduates of these schools are incompatible with the modern world, and useless for nothing other than being heralds of fundamentalist Islam, and potential pawns for the likes of ISIS.

 

[Rory 7]

Ok, so this would essentially require an Islamic equivalent of the 'church' or pope, or at least some kind of ecumenical council, in order to determine the 'correct' approach to the question of legitimate violence and then impose it as 'orthodoxy'. Putting aside the problem that no such authority exists or can exist to regulate Islamic law in that manner (e.g. while you've correctly anticipated that, yes, numerous fatwas have been published by respected bodies of scholars across the Islamic world condemning terrorism, ultimately a fatwa is no more than an unbinding opinion offered by an individual whose level of authority is subjective), to what degree do modern day Catholics follow the church's rulings on, say, contraception? Why would it be different for Muslims?

In pre-modern times, the ulama, backed by the ruling dynasty, were able to impose a certain degree of legal orthodoxy (where legalism could be imposed, i.e. in the urban centers) to regulate the shari'ah through the four schools of jurisprudence. But the introduction of print and spread of literacy had the effect of diluting the ulama's traditional authority, as the formative texts became available to anyone who could read with the result that, as one historian put it, "any Ahmad, Muhammad or Mahmud" could interpret Islam as he wished. That genie is out of the bottle, and there's no going back.

At the same time, the prestige associated with the written word encouraged a tendency for these independent interpretations to be more scriptural with an emphasis on the law, which has led many modern day Muslims to neglect or forget that part of their heritage which lay outside the law but was still a major factor in shaping how they viewed themselves as Muslims (the Sufi/exploratory/reflective/rational heritage).

A rediscovery of that heritage and a concomitant process of de-emphasization (but not necessarily replacement) of the primacy of scripture would go a long way to easing the tensions currently ripping Islam apart (and would have the added bonus of being authentic in terms of Islamic tradition) and unity of the sects wouldn't be necessary for this to happen, but would actually probably hinder it. But it is difficult to see this happen IMO as long as Muslim states remain largely poor, weak, over-populated, autocratic fodder for the prey of greater powers.

This is really interesting. So the kind of theological unity I am talking about is actually dependant upon the political power of Muslim states? Catch 22. Again I'm no expert but I would have thought if there was a will there would be a way on the part of Islamic theologians.

 

[Kaos]

They teach this poison to kids and young adults in many countries across Africa and Asia, neglecting a more standard curriculum. Ensuring that graduates of these schools are incompatible with the modern world, and useless for nothing other than being heralds of fundamentalist Islam, and potential pawns for the likes of ISIS.

Yep, got it in one.

 

[2cents]

This is really interesting. So the kind of theological unity I am talking about is actually dependant upon the political power of Muslim states? Catch 22. Again I'm no expert but I would have thought if there was a will there would be a way on the part of Islamic theologians.

No what I'm saying is that the type of unity you're talking about is impossible and in any case undesirable and unnecessary, and that what is perhaps needed is a re-engagement by Muslims of a deeper or higher level of understanding of Islam, one not solely based on doctrine but rather on the common quest for the 'unseen', which helped shaped Muslim life for centuries in the past and which would relegate the significance of doctrinal difference and the existence of various sects to a matter of secondary importance.

 

[Red Dreams]

I see Identity cards with chips as becoming necessary.

Brave new world eh?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

This thread is probably as good as any to post a link to this article.

A lot of calls for moderate muslims to be be more outspoken in their condemnation of ISIS. Well here's a parade dedicated to exactly that. Which allegedly was ignored by the "mainstream media". A complaint which does fall slightly hollow having just found out about it by reading, well, the mainstream media...

 

[2cents]

This thread is probably as good as any to post a link to this article.

A lot of calls for moderate muslims to be be more outspoken in their condemnation of ISIS. Well here's a parade dedicated to exactly that. Which allegedly was ignored by the "mainstream media". A complaint which does fall slightly hollow having just found out about it by reading, well, the mainstream media...

Might have got more coverage if it had attracted more than 'hundreds' - the article says 'hundreds flooded the streets...' , which is another way of saying it wasn't a very big rally. Which is not really surprising given it was arranged by a specifically Shi'i organization.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Might have got more coverage if it had attracted more than 'hundreds' - the article says 'hundreds flooded the streets...' , which is another way of saying it wasn't a very big rally. Which is not really surprising given it was arranged by a specifically Shi'i organization.

Good point. Credit to them for at least trying, though. I can't help but think a "not in my name" protest in much larger numbers would do a lot of good. It would certainly help undermine some of the malicious rumours being spread by the extreme right.

 

[Fearless]

Good point. Credit to them for at least trying, though. I can't help but think a "not in my name" protest in much larger numbers would do a lot of good. It would certainly help undermine some of the malicious rumours being spread by the extreme right.

Yeah. I've often wondered why these huge marches don't really happen. Maybe there's not enough Muslims in the world to take part in them.