PDA

View Full Version : Nth Caucasus - How NOT to defeat Radical Islam



Bigfella
20 Apr 11,, 12:00
Twenty years ago Sufi Islam dominated the Nth Caucases & the hardline Salafist version was a tiny minority. In the intervening decades Russia & her Sufi allies have achieved a growth in Salafism in parts of the Nth Caucasus beyond the wildest dreams of even the most deluded Al Qaeda strategist. Brutality & corruption have turned a soluble problem of nationalism into a religious problem that may take generations to fix. A cautionary tale.

(there is a link to a considerably more detailed article below).


Islam inflamed

Muslim fundamentalism is on the rise in the north Caucasus. To stop it, Russian policy must change

Apr 7th 2011 | from the print edition

...THE world is fearful of Islam’s rising influence in Afghanistan, Pakistan and across the newly restive Arab world. But it has barely noticed what is happening in Russia’s troubled north Caucasus. After two decades of political and military failure in this violent part of the world, the government in Moscow is losing its legitimacy there, and fundamentalist Islam, which had no purchase in Soviet days, has taken hold.

The north Caucasus may take up only a small space on the map, but it looms large for Russia. The region has often decisively influenced the course of Russia’s own development. Boris Yeltsin’s decision to send in troops to stop Chechnya’s march towards independence helped to weaken Russia’s fledgling democracy in the mid-1990s. Vladimir Putin’s vow to rub out Chechen rebels “in the shithouse” helped to propel him into the presidency. Eleven years on, the north Caucasus is still one of Russia’s biggest headaches. Terrorist attacks, like the bombing at Domodedovo airport in January, have become almost commonplace. In its largely unreported fighting in the north Caucasus, Russia is suffering as many losses every year as Britain has lost in ten years in Afghanistan.

The Russians claim that their country is as vulnerable to Islamist terrorism and radicalism as anywhere in the West. That’s true; yet the problems in the north Caucasus are largely of Russia’s own making. Since the early 1990s Moscow’s only policies have been brute force and money, first in Chechnya and then across the north Caucasus. Mr Putin’s man in Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, treats his republic like a fief. Everywhere corruption has become entrenched. And where Mr Yeltsin once invited Russia’s republics to grab all the autonomy they could handle, Mr Putin unceremoniously scrapped regional elections after the terrorist killings in a Beslan school in 2004. All governors are now appointed by Moscow.

Islamist radicals in such republics as Dagestan and Ingushetia are as dangerous and difficult to fight as anywhere else. But in Russia the greatest source of their strength is not their ideology, their numbers or their money. It is the failure of the Russian state to provide even a semblance of justice and the rule of law, or even a pretence of local democracy and accountability. As our briefing explains (see article), indiscriminate persecution of Islamist fundamentalists has only strengthened their cause, especially in Dagestan.

Both the Kremlin and the authorities in the region must know that they need to change tactics. There is a glimmer of hope in Ingushetia, where an attempt by the governor, Yunus-Bek Yevkurov, to rule by law has produced some immediate and positive results. Meeting Mr Yevkurov this week, President Dmitry Medvedev declared that anyone who wants to come back to normal life should be given a chance. “You have to talk to all categories of people with their misconceptions, with their views on life, often disoriented and ready to commit a crime. People are what they are and we cannot change them.” This is a welcome departure from Mr Putin’s thuggish talk and the mindless anti-Caucasian chants often heard from nationalist youths in Moscow.

Mending starts in Moscow

A good beginning would be to restore regional elections for governors. Experience has shown that the worst way to protect Russia’s territorial integrity is to impose direct rule from Moscow. As the north Caucasus illustrates, the country is just too big, too multiethnic and too diverse for centralised control not to fuel local resentment. For similar reasons, attempts at state control of religion in the region are likely to drive ordinary people into the arms of the fundamentalists. And, perhaps above all, giving the security forces, troops and local strongmen free rein to brutalise and corrupt people is not just wrong but also counter-productive.

It is impossible to fix the north Caucasus, or indeed any of the country’s fissiparous regions, without dealing with Moscow’s own larger defects. The corrosive mistrust of the state is a problem for Russia as a whole—it is just more extreme in the north Caucasus. And there, radicals are offering people an alternative in fundamentalist Islam.

There are new signs of competition for the top job in Russia between Mr Medvedev and Mr Putin (see article). But whoever ends up running the country after the election in 2012 must set out a more attractive vision for Russia’s people—including those in the country’s periphery—based on the rule of law. This might not stop the spread of radical Islam in the north Caucasus or eradicate all the rebels, but it would weaken their support. Sadly there is little sign of any such vision from the men in charge in Moscow.

Russia's unruly north Caucasus: Islam inflamed | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18530091?story_id=18530091)

The north Caucasus: From Moscow to Mecca | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18527550?story_id=18527550)

Ingushetia: The peaceful exception | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18527530?story_id=18527530)

Cactus
20 Apr 11,, 21:24
Twenty years ago Sufi Islam dominated the Nth Caucases & the hardline Salafist version was a tiny minority. In the intervening decades Russia & her Sufi allies have achieved a growth in Salafism in parts of the Nth Caucasus beyond the wildest dreams of even the most deluded Al Qaeda strategist. Brutality & corruption have turned a soluble problem of nationalism into a religious problem that may take generations to fix. A cautionary tale.

From the Kremlin's POV, how is the nationalist/separatist problem any more/less solvable than the Islamist problem? It has had its separatist problems ever since the annexation hundreds of years back, except for the brief windows of peace obtained through extraordinary force. I can see ever-shifting pros and cons of framing the conflict in each context. An interesting story, but I am unable to draw a cautionary lesson one way or another.

Bigfella
20 Apr 11,, 22:16
Cactus,

The problem here is that the nationalist problem still exists, but now it is wedded to a revolutionary religious ideology & a fundamentalist version of islam that has grown expodentially in 20 years. Nationalist demands are generally easier to bring to a conclusion. Regional autonomy might work, at worst you can grant independence. The problem here is that Russia goes from having a sufi population that is hostile for one main reason to a salafist one that is hostile for several - one of which won't be satisfied by either option. These groups also have a history of striking deep into Russia. While the number of actual terrorists is relatively small, the more people in the region who agree with them the more likely it is that they will be supported & replaced. This is most definately a worse situation than existed 20 years ago.

Mihais
21 Apr 11,, 00:24
I'm underwhelmed by the articles.Quite poor analysis.First the force ratio between the insurgents and the Russians was much less favorable than in Iraq or Afghanistan.Thus the comparison between casualties is pointless.The Russian army may not be as efficient as the western armies,nor does it enjoys the same level of support.The insurgents on the other hand are head and shoulder above the ragtags encountered by the allied armies in Iraq or the amateur gangs in A-stan.
US was attacked because of its strength,Russia was under attack because of its moment of weakness.There was no such thing as law,order etc... to be offered.There was either plata o plomo,the Mexican gangster way.The sole legitimacy Russia had or needed was given by articles 5.45 and 7.62.

Russia in that situation had to act the way they acted or let the country crumble.Russia may have lost ~15000 men during that process but there are only a few Chechen rebels left,compared to the entire Chechnya+the rest of the Caucasus on the brink.Dudaev or Maschkadov had 20000 men,Doku Umarov has a few hundreds,hunted everywhere.Terrorism is actually not a big deal compared to urban conventional warfare.Most Chechens and the rest of the Caucasians learned the lesson so well that Chechen units participated in the Georgian war,on the Russian side.For at least a generation it will be peace.They may grumble,but who cares as long as they don't shoot.

Who cares what branches of Islam they embrace.They either go rebellious for nationalist reasons,hence war.With war comes religious radicalisation.Its a never ending circle.It was the same under Shamil and before him in the 19th century.Same with the rest of the Caucasian nations.While I have a tremendous respect for their tenacity,bravery and skill at arms,I have to go with Russia on this particular one.
Russia has won a brilliant victory,but had done it in a manner westerners don't understand nor appreciate,under circumstances poorly studied and understood.Thus they call it a loss:eek:

Doktor
21 Apr 11,, 00:57
Then people wonder why Russians worshiped Stalin. Trains -> Siberia.

Officer of Engineers
21 Apr 11,, 01:22
Russia has won a brilliant victory,but had done it in a manner westerners don't understand nor appreciate,under circumstances poorly studied and understood.Thus they call it a loss:eek:Only those who never wore a uniform. Those who did can understand the Moses/Alexander the Great/Julius Caesar/Genghis Khan/Timur, etc styles of warfare

However, if you lose, you lose far more than any other method, hence, Hitler/Tojo/Pol Pot/Idi Amin/etc

troung
21 Apr 11,, 01:39
The Russian army may not be as efficient as the western armies,nor does it enjoys the same level of support.The insurgents on the other hand are head and shoulder above the ragtags encountered by the allied armies in Iraq or the amateur gangs in A-stan.

Russia fell flat on it's face against similar gangs in A-Stan. Maybe, just maybe, the Chechens aren't that great either.

Mihais
21 Apr 11,, 19:23
Russia did not quite fell flat in A-stan.Besides,those afghan Mujahedins had the likes of Masood,a lot of outside support .40th Army had the entire A-stan as a combat zone with ~200000 men(including the commie afghans,for the sake of counting).They really had a harder time there.
When did the Western armies faced 20000 reasonably trained men,ably led in prepared urban defense?

troung
21 Apr 11,, 22:05
When did the Western armies faced 20000 reasonably trained men,ably led in prepared urban defense?

The Chechens were hardly good, the Russians just were that awful. Russia just for various reasons did a worse job in Grozny then they did in a single offensive in Afghanistan.


Russia did not quite fell flat in A-stan.Besides,those afghan Mujahedins had the likes of Masood,a lot of outside support .40th Army had the entire A-stan as a combat zone with ~200000 men(including the commie afghans,for the sake of counting).They really had a harder time there.

The Soviets did fall flat, they left the nation with very little under the control of the government and showed piss poor tactical skills.

Officer of Engineers
21 Apr 11,, 22:56
Maybe in the end but the invasion was a feat worthy of recognition. They invaded that mountainous country by building roads in the middle of friggin winter. And they built them fast enough to storm armoured divisions through to the south.

troung
21 Apr 11,, 23:02
Maybe in the end but the invasion was a feat worthy of recognition. They invaded that mountainous country by building roads in the middle of friggin winter. And they built them fast enough to storm armoured divisions through to the south.

Not denying they had bright spots.

Officer of Engineers
21 Apr 11,, 23:04
Regional autonomy might work, at worst you can grant independence.No, it did not work. Chechnya won her defacto independence and the result was a Chechen invasion of Dagestan and the Moscow Theatre fiasco, prompting Putin to an end to the Chechen fiasco through military force.

1980s
22 Apr 11,, 20:11
Twenty years ago Sufi Islam dominated the Nth Caucases & the hardline Salafist version was a tiny minority. In the intervening decades Russia & her Sufi allies have achieved a growth in Salafism in parts of the Nth Caucasus beyond the wildest dreams of even the most deluded Al Qaeda strategist.

Thats only half the story as it ignores the role played by Saudi Arabia - the World's biggest exporter of Salafism.

troung
27 Apr 11,, 22:30
I think history shows that reprisals against civilians and very liberal ROEs when part of a central plan (offering incentives to give in) by good troops can work wonders. Rebels shouldn't think that hiding behind women makes them safe or that throwing down their gun can allow them to fight another day.

The modern misreading of past campaigns to make up a socially acceptable path to put down revolts doesn't work but it has sold books and the authors will simpy pretend we didn't do it totally the right way.

troung
29 Apr 11,, 06:04
Charming. Why live in Canada?

S2
29 Apr 11,, 06:05
Get a grip on your language and slurs...and quickly. If you can't discuss an issue coherantly while avoiding every opportunity to display your ethnic hatred then you're on the wrong board.

This is a warning to you. Clean your act up now.

Bungarus
15 Aug 12,, 08:43
Islam has nothing to do with Chechen separatists and terroristic acts they perform! It is geopolitics and main players are Saudi Arabia and Georgia.
According to a man who was a liaison between Chechen insurgents and Georgian politicians and businessmen, terrorism in Russia and in the Nth Caucasus in particular is sponsored by Georgian president Saakashvili, and the level of his hypocrisy overwhelms imagination. Let me present you Khizri Aldamov - a famous person in Russia's contemporary history. Aslan Maskhadov made him an official representative of the 'independent' Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (unofficial name, given to Chechnya by secessionists) to Georgia. He was the one who had organised the visit of the Ichkerian president to Tbilisi and provided his meeting with Shevardnadze (then Georgian President). After this meeting Chechen separatists got themselves a rear base in the Pankisi Gorge. In 2011 Aldamov had left Georgia and unexpectely turned up in Chechnya with a public confession. He explained the reasons of his behavior to a Russian newspaper, "Moskovski Komsomolets".
The interview is rather interesting, but I'll just post the excerpts:

Journalist: - What did Saakashvili plan to do with together Chechens after the war?
Aldamov: - Plans were the same: plotting and performing terrorist attacks in Russia. To achieve this a lot of money is needed. Saakashvili and his men had traveled to Arab countries and determinated, that the money, which had been used to finance insurgents would be transferred through the Georgian Bank they control. The distribution of money is the duty of George Gamsakhurdia (Deputy Minister for diaspora ) and a member of parliament Tsiklauri. Money also passes through Ukraine. Terrorist attacks in Russia come from Georgia.

Whether it's true or not, the man gives further details:
"They (Georgians) created an oranisation that controls all Chechen refugees in Georgia, all the militants. The main authority is the counter-terrorist center. After it stands Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs. All business with Chechens is oversaw by the Deputy Interior Minister Gia Lordkipanidze. He sends people, if necessary, to commit terroristic attacks. Money to pay for it is paid through the Pankisi Jamaat. Jamaat is in their hands. There are militants in Pankisi now."

Saakashvili wants him dead, poor guy even suffered a poisoning attempt.

Finally, he is asked whether he was directly involved in the commissioning of weapons and ammunition or not. And the answer is positive:
- Yes. I managed everything: money, and weapons. Everything passed through me. And Saakashvili knows that I know everything. Former intelligence chief Avtandil Ioseliani, which was asassinated in 2007, oversaw the process in the Pankisi Gorge. He was a friend of my assistant. They had a warehouse in Senaki, where somehow 120 tons of TNT were brought from Bulgaria. Now , Saakashvili's special services sell TNT to Chechens.
After this confession all speeches of Georgian politicians about peacefull development and NATO membership IMHO make no sense.

Tronic
19 Aug 12,, 10:01
Thats only half the story as it ignores the role played by Saudi Arabia - the World's biggest exporter of Salafism.

Precisely.

I do not agree with the implication that the fight to preserve their distinct identity has actually led a group to move away and morph their own identity! Going from a Sufi identity to Salafist is not just a religious shift but a cultural one as well. It essentially requires Chechens to reject their own local culture in favour of the tribal culture of the Arabian peninsula.

The biggest culprit in the rise of fundamentalist Islamists, more than anything else, has been the petrodollar. The Saudis have been using their new found oil wealth to indulge in Wahhabist imperialism. Be it the North Caucasus, North Africa, North America, Europe, or South East Asia; it has been Saudi money which has been funding this hate ideology the world over. No one knows this better than Somalia's Sufi Muslims who fell prey to the Wahhabist Al-Shabab (BBC NEWS | Africa | Somali rage at grave desecration (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8077725.stm)). And more recently Mali's Sufis have come under attack (BBC News - Timbuktu shrines damaged by Mali Ansar Dine Islamists (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18657463)).

The rise of fundamentalist Islamists is not a Chechen or Russian specific problem but a worldwide phenomena, and the source of this problem is Saudi Arabia.

lemontree
20 Aug 12,, 09:39
The rise of fundamentalist Islamists is not a Chechen or Russian specific problem but a worldwide phenomena, and the source of this problem is Saudi Arabia.

Islam is fundamentalist. There is no such thing as liberal islam.
When in a minority islamists want equality and tolerance, but when they are in a majority, then it is islamic rule for everyone and they deny equality to others.

Why blame Saudi Arabia, when the seat and origin of wahabism is in India?

Doktor
20 Aug 12,, 09:55
Islam is fundamentalist. There is no such thing as liberal islam.
huh?


When in a minority islamists want equality and tolerance, but when they are in a majority, then it is islamic rule for everyone and they deny equality to others.
Turkey?


Why blame Saudi Arabia, when the seat and origin of wahabism is in India?

From wiki:


History

[edit]Mohammad Hayya Al-Sindhi
Zain Imran's teacher Abdallah ibn Ibrahim ibn Sayf introduced the relatively young man to Mohammad Hayya Al-Sindhi in Medina and recommended him as a student. Mohammad Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and al-Sindi became very close and Mohammad Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab stayed with him for some time. Scholars have described Muhammad Hayya as having an important influence on Mohammad Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, encouraging him to denounce rigid imitation of classical commentaries and to utilize informed individual analysis (ijtihad). Muhammad Hayya also taught Mohammad Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab to reject popular religious practices associated with walis and their tombs that resembles later Wahhabi teachings. Muhammad Hayya and his milieu are important for understanding the origins of at least the Wahhabi revivalist impulse.[13]
[edit]Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab
Main article: Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab
Further information: First Saudi State
Mohammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab studied in Basra (now in southern Iraq) and is reported to have developed his ideas there.[14][15] He is reported to have studied in Mecca and Medina while there to perform Hajj[16][17] before returning to his home town of 'Uyayna in 1740.
After his return to 'Uyayna, ibn Abd-al-Wahhab began to attract followers, including the ruler of the town, Uthman ibn Mu'ammar. With Ibn Mu'ammar's support, ibn Abd-al-Wahhab began to implement some of his ideas such as leveling the grave of Zayd ibn al-Khattab, one of the Sahaba (companions) of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, and ordering that an adulteress be stoned to death. These actions were disapproved of by Sulaiman ibn Muhammad ibn Ghurayr of the tribe of Bani Khalid, the chief of Al-Hasa and Qatif, who held substantial influence in Nejd and ibn Abd-al-Wahhab was expelled from 'Uyayna.[18]
Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab was invited to settle in neighboring Diriyah by its ruler Muhammad ibn Saud in 1740 (1157 AH), two of whose brothers had been students of Ibn Abdal-Wahhab. Upon arriving in Diriyya, a pact was made between Ibn Saud and Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, by which Ibn Saud pledged to implement and enforce Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab's teachings, while Ibn Saud and his family would remain the temporal "leaders" of the movement.
[edit]Alliance with the House of Ibn Saud
Beginning in the last years of the 18th century Ibn Saud and his heirs would spend the next 140 years mounting various military campaigns to seize control of Arabia and its outlying regions, before being attacked and defeated by Ottoman forces.[19] However they eventually seized control of Hijaz and the Arabian peninsula after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, safeguarding the region from colonial interference and Saudi Arabia was founded as a nation state upholding the tenets of Islam as preached by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.[20]
The Saudi government established the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, a state religious police unit, to enforce religiously conservative rules of behaviour.[21]
Wahhabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi)

Firestorm
20 Aug 12,, 20:02
huh?

I think what the good Captain wanted to say was that all the Quranic verses and Hadith's quoted by the so-called "radical" islamists are actually there. They are not made up and are not "mis-interpreted". The "radical" islamists are not mis-using or mis-representing their religion. They are being true to it. Liberal or moderate Islam is a new construct.



Turkey?
Turkey was for all practical purposes forced to became what it is by Ataturk. And Ataurk's way of modernizing and secularizing Turkey was to limit the influence and hold of Islam over the daily lives of its citizens. He separated Islamic and regular laws and limited the areas in which they applied. He basically de-islamized the country. What does that tell you?

I understand I am being highly politically-incorrect here. If the mods don't want this posted here, I'll delete it.

Doktor
20 Aug 12,, 22:21
I think what the good Captain wanted to say was that all the Quranic verses and Hadith's quoted by the so-called "radical" islamists are actually there. They are not made up and are not "mis-interpreted". The "radical" islamists are not mis-using or mis-representing their religion. They are being true to it. Liberal or moderate Islam is a new construct.
Are you sayig that Islam as a religion is radical? I was told is the religion based on peace.
What we (the non Muslim) are getting fast and how we make prejudices is based on what is affecting our everyday lives as a result of the radical branches. Nuts are everywhere ;)



Turkey was for all practical purposes forced to became what it is by Ataturk. And Ataurk's way of modernizing and secularizing Turkey was to limit the influence and hold of Islam over the daily lives of its citizens. He separated Islamic and regular laws and limited the areas in which they applied. He basically de-islamized the country. What does that tell you?
From what I have read about his views on religion, the impression I got is that the Islam in Turkey morphed into something that it isn't by design, so it was better to act like other Europeans and separate the religion from the state. What does that tell you about the European countries?

Tronic
21 Aug 12,, 04:07
Islam is fundamentalist. There is no such thing as liberal islam.

LT, I'd go a step further and say that every proselytizing religion is fundamentalist when politically enforced. The Old testament reads no different than the Quran. If Christians and Jews have liberal societies today, it is only because they choose not to strictly adhere to their religion and have chosen to separate religion from state.



When in a minority islamists want equality and tolerance, but when they are in a majority, then it is islamic rule for everyone and they deny equality to others.

Indonesia, Turkey, and still to a large extent, Malaysia.

Malaysia and Indonesia have only recently seen growth of Wahhabi/Salafist fundamentalism imported from Saudi Arabia, which has created deep social tension in these two historically secular Muslim majority states.



Why blame Saudi Arabia, when the seat and origin of wahabism is in India?

:confused:

Wahhabism's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi) birthplace is Saudi Arabia, and the Wahhabi family rules the country alongside the Saudi royal family. This power sharing is cemented through generations of intermarriage between these two families. The Wahhabi family and the Saudi royal family are one and the same.

Firestorm
21 Aug 12,, 21:08
Are you sayig that Islam as a religion is radical? I was told is the religion based on peace.
What we (the non Muslim) are getting fast and how we make prejudices is based on what is affecting our everyday lives as a result of the radical branches. Nuts are everywhere ;)

Well I for one, never bought the "religion of peace" argument.



From what I have read about his views on religion, the impression I got is that the Islam in Turkey morphed into something that it isn't by design, so it was better to act like other Europeans and separate the religion from the state. What does that tell you about the European countries?
Not sure what the argument is. We seem to be saying the same thing. That Turkey became what it is by becoming less Islamic. And what do my views on European countries have anything to do with this? :confused:

USSWisconsin
21 Aug 12,, 22:04
Well I for one, never bought the "religion of peace" argument.


Not sure what the argument is. We seem to be saying the same thing. That Turkey became what it is by becoming less Islamic. And what do my views on European countries have anything to do with this? :confused:

I've seen violent statements come from alleged "Christians" too. Fundamentalism exists in both religions and violence has long been done in the name of both of these religions. It seems clear to me that trying to live by ancient rules that have been handed down through the centuries, being transcribed by the powers that be all along the way, has many problems. The basic premise of Islam as I understand it, is submission to the will of Allah. The definition of what that Allah's will dictates seems to vary according to who is defining it. As I understand Christianity, Jesus said two laws (love God and love your fellow person as yourself) would suffice as the law.

Personally, I am in favor of separation of religion and government, it normally seems to work out better than a theocracy for the citizens.

Zampolit
21 Aug 12,, 22:49
I've seen violent statements come from alleged "Christians" too. Something more than statements, please.

Personally, I am in favor of separation of religion and government, it normally seems to work out better than a theocracy for the citizens. It looks great on paper.

Doktor
21 Aug 12,, 23:23
Well I for one, never bought the "religion of peace" argument.
Nothing to worry about, a lot of Muslims don't buy this argument. According to their actions. However, as a religion its basic concept is peace, like in many others.


Not sure what the argument is. We seem to be saying the same thing. That Turkey became what it is by becoming less Islamic. And what do my views on European countries have anything to do with this? :confused:
All countries that went secular saw prosperity, abandoning Islam or Christianity is irrelevant.

chender
21 Aug 12,, 23:48
Nothing to worry about, a lot of Muslims don't buy this argument. According to their actions. However, as a religion its basic concept is peace, like in many others.


All countries that went secular saw prosperity, abandoning Islam or Christianity is irrelevant.

The evolution in Europe from a church based governance to City and King states during the 15/1600's was driven by many issues but not least was the corruption of power that inevitably occurs with one large institution.

What I find interesting is whether the importance of that transition was one of:

religious to secular
OR
single large institution to multiple institutions


Same with Islam - is this a question of absolute power corrupting or a religious secular issue.

Thoughts?

Firestorm
21 Aug 12,, 23:54
Nothing to worry about, a lot of Muslims don't buy this argument. According to their actions. However, as a religion its basic concept is peace, like in many others.

Except that I'm not Muslim. I do however come from India, which has been and continues to be at the receiving end of what the world calls "radical islam".
The article which BigFella quoted at the start suggests that a rise of radicalism amongst Chechens is Russia's fault, which I find similar to arguments being made in India that a rise of radicalism among Indian Muslims is the fault of everyone but the Muslims. I wish to challenge that argument. The tendency of Muslims to get easily "radicalised" in different parts of the world has more to do with the nature of that religion itself.


All countries that went secular saw prosperity, abandoning Islam or Christianity is irrelevant.
The communists were by and large secular too. They didn't see even the beginnings of prosperity. But that is OT.

Doktor
22 Aug 12,, 08:16
Except that I'm not Muslim. I do however come from India, which has been and continues to be at the receiving end of what the world calls "radical islam".
Just to make it clear, I never said nor thought that you are a Muslim.


The article which BigFella quoted at the start suggests that a rise of radicalism amongst Chechens is Russia's fault, which I find similar to arguments being made in India that a rise of radicalism among Indian Muslims is the fault of everyone but the Muslims. I wish to challenge that argument. The tendency of Muslims to get easily "radicalised" in different parts of the world has more to do with the nature of that religion itself.
It is 1433 according to the Hijri calendar. Want to check out what happened during 14th, 15th and 16th century with Christianity? ;)


The communists were by and large secular too. They didn't see even the beginnings of prosperity. But that is OT.
If you consider banning the religion as secularism it would be true.