What makes a Muslim radical?

**astralis** · 08 Dec 06,, 18:44

very interesting; however, only confirms multiple studies done in the past- especially regarding the connection between poverty, education, and terrorism. much like the vaunted middle-class revolutions that powered much of the democratic transitions, again, it is the better-educated and more well-off that have the time, energy, and capability to care about politics.

from another perspective, the article points to a very general desire in both the moderates and the radicals to "respect islam", while also showing a surprising number of radicals admiring "liberty/democracy/freedom of speech". the problem is that the radical interpretation of islam is a very tribal interpretation, and such tribalism is antiethical to the values of liberty, democracy, and freedom of speech. which leads me to question how deeply these radicals understand these concepts, seeing as how quite a few americans would be hard put to it in detailing these very concepts.

Comments and questions welcome!

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...id=3637&page=0

**Bluesman** · 08 Dec 06,, 19:22

What makes a Muslim radical? A Thirteenth Century mindset, listening to bloody-minded religious figures, a belief in his moral superiority, a belief in the inferiority of infidels and women, and a chauvanism and bigotry that is supported by NOTHING except a literal, uncritical reading of his holy book.

**Bluesman** · 08 Dec 06,, 19:25

It's not where they come from; it's what they're taught to believe.

It's an ancient text that was written in a time that the world has managed to move past (thank Allah). But if one reads it today, and abides by the literal letter of the supposedly unchangeable and perfect word of their god...mayhem, NOT the perfect world that it promises.

The KORAN. THAT is the wellspring of radical Islam.

**astralis** · 08 Dec 06,, 19:32

bluesman,

the old testament was pretty darn bloody-minded as well, but somehow the jews got around it.

instead of the koran, my belief is that radicalism is more closely connected to the tribalism inherent in extreme shia sects and wahhabism- the "desert mentality" of dictatorship, ultraconservatism, and superstition, which the likes of irshad manji points out.

we see this with the question of the niqab/burqa, and in africa with the question of female genital mutilation (which was an african tribal custom pre-dating islam).

**Bluesman** · 08 Dec 06,, 20:28

Originally Posted by astralis

bluesman,

the old testament was pretty darn bloody-minded as well, but somehow the jews got around it.

instead of the koran, my belief is that radicalism is more closely connected to the tribalism inherent in extreme shia sects and wahhabism- the "desert mentality" of dictatorship, ultraconservatism, and superstition, which the likes of irshad manji points out.

we see this with the question of the niqab/burqa, and in africa with the question of female genital mutilation (which was an african tribal custom pre-dating islam).

Well, it sure explains the Navajo being the blood-soaked civilization that THEY were, too.

Wait...no, that doesn't work.

As for the Old Testament, it kind of recedes as an inspiration to mayhem when one combines it with REASON, and CRITICAL THINKING, two things allowed in modern times, but NOT in ancient times, and perfectly explanatory as to why the Old Testament does not now inspire many crimes against humanity.

Hmmm...yeah, I'm sticking with the Koran, literal reading thereof. If a Muslim follows ALL of the book as written, he's going to end up shreiking 'ALLAHU AKBAR!', while committing something that's going to make the news somewhere, and it probably won't be for making a scientific discovery or for the composition of a great literary work.

Islamists generally confine themselves to one realm of excellence. It's not an area most Westerners find all that laudatory.

THIS is Islam:

**astralis** · 08 Dec 06,, 21:50

bluesman,

Well, it sure explains the Navajo being the blood-soaked civilization that THEY were, too.

Wait...no, that doesn't work.

actually, the navajo had a history of bloody raiding and getting into continual wars with the utes and the hopis- this reached a spectacular level, especially after the spaniards came. there are still hopi and navajo disputes to this very day. the reason why we don't remember it as being particularly blood-thirsty is because the southwest simply does not have the level of resources for a large population and technology base needed for truly massive bloodletting, like what the aztecs and mayans could pull.

As for the Old Testament, it kind of recedes as an inspiration to mayhem when one combines it with REASON, and CRITICAL THINKING, two things allowed in modern times, but NOT in ancient times, and perfectly explanatory as to why the Old Testament does not now inspire many crimes against humanity.

well, certainly, and the reason why we have reason and critical thinking involved is because we've gone beyond tribalism.

heck, we had reason and critical thinking by the 20th century, and in the middle of europe, where the enlightenment first took hold, we had barbarities of every sort, far surpassing the crap the islamists have pulled to date. if france had lost WWI, i would bet you good money that the french would have pulled their own holocaust- peaceful New Testament or not. a society under stress reverts to tribalistic thinking.

Hmmm...yeah, I'm sticking with the Koran, literal reading thereof. If a Muslim follows ALL of the book as written, he's going to end up shreiking 'ALLAHU AKBAR!', while committing something that's going to make the news somewhere, and it probably won't be for making a scientific discovery or for the composition of a great literary work.

see, this is what puzzles me. i do agree with you that a literal reading of the koran will give bloody results; then again, a literal reading of the old testament would give bloody results as well. so why are you not arguing that the "truly good" jews should be violent, a la native Old Testament style?

also, how does this jive with your- again correct, in my opinion- belief that to win this war on terror, we need to win over the moderate muslims to our side? it seems a bit funny that you are letting osama bin ladin, and other extremists, give the definition of what a "good muslim" entails- that to be on OUR side, the side of democracy/freedom/enlightenment thought, one needs to be a "bad muslim". talk about bad PR.

**glyn** · 09 Dec 06,, 12:42

[QUOTE=astralis;307239]bluesman,

see, this is what puzzles me. i do agree with you that a literal reading of the koran will give bloody results; then again, a literal reading of the old testament would give bloody results as well. so why are you not arguing that the "truly good" jews should be violent, a la native Old Testament style?

For the simple reason that the Rabbis do not exhort their congregation to kill but the Immams and other clerics of the moslem faith (not known for their sophistication or wisdom) do, repeatedly and loudly. To put it in its simplest form 'brainwashing' , although looking at the followers all that was needed was the briefest of rinses.

**~~northface~~** · 09 Dec 06,, 12:51

This is what a Pentagon thinktank makes of your question..

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/pr...TICLE_ID=52184

**jaan_pune** · 09 Dec 06,, 13:08

That bloody book is making our life miserable.

**Trooth** · 09 Dec 06,, 13:41

I agree that tribalism is one of the causes. We are a very trible breed, us humans, and we do rally well to the "them or us" call.

I think Islam suffers from two instituional problems. One being a lack of a central institution to give proclamations. As i understand it there is no equivilant of the Church of England Synod, or the Vatican that can give primacy to interpretation. This in itself fuels almost competition between muslim groups to be the best muslims, perhaps unknowingly trying to fill this vacuum. This rivalry can then head down the most literal and if abused radical path.

**Swift Sword** · 09 Dec 06,, 14:49

Originally Posted by Bluesman

What makes a Muslim radical? A Thirteenth Century mindset, listening to bloody-minded religious figures, a belief in his moral superiority, a belief in the inferiority of infidels and women, and a chauvanism and bigotry that is supported by NOTHING except a literal, uncritical reading of his holy book.

What makes an Anti Muslim radical? An Eighteenth Century mindset, listenting to bloody-minded political figures, a beleif in his moral superiority, a belief in the inferiority of non-Christians, their women, their very culture and a chauvansim and bigotry that is supported by NOTHING except and uncritical reading of his holy book which absolves him of all the sins attendent to the White Man's Burden.

"Onward Christian soldiers
off to foreign lands
prayer books in your pockets
rifles in your hands"

Seriously, though, this idea of two radical, apocalyptic, millenerian forces fighting over the same bone is going to get somebody hurt if the plug is not pulled.

As to plug pulling, either their radicals have to disengage, our radicals have to disengage or one of the squabbling radical camps is going to have to force the other to disengage.

Their radicals disengaging: not likely at this time. They are riding the Global trend of Anti-Americanism and our current strategy is making them stronger.

Our radicals disnengaging: not likely at this time. God has blinded them to their folley.

Forcing the other guy to disengage: not probable as the enemy has chosen to fight in the realm of ideas and we have not chosen to join battle there in any meaningful way.

Point three brings us to the rub of making a radical Pan Islamic critter: we validate the enemy's propaganda and are not attempting to counter it by word or deed in any meaningful way.

The enemy says that the Americans are Imperialist flunky lackey pigs who are set on conquering Muslim lands and backing corrupt regimes.

What do the Americans do? Invade Muslim lands and back corrupt regimes in others. We are the "liars" and "infidel invaders" and the Pan Islamisists are clearly telling the "truth" to a susceptible audience, even more suscptible when American war planes are overhead.

So getting back to the question: what makes and Islamic radical?

Answer: American failure.

More specifically an American failure to understand the underpinnings of the menace and devise a strategy accordingly. Attempting to fight an anti-Imperial, anti-Colonial ideology with "Pax Americana" was a really bad idea.

We can blame their own failings if we like but that what that would be a disingenious bit of projection for it is not al Qaeda that is creating new enemies, it is we.

Pan Islamic agitators supply the uncommitted with the case on the cheap (audio cassetes) and the United States supplies the facts to support the case on the expensive ($11,000,000 a day and counting). Clearly, we have a problem.

Islam is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but we are more likely to successfully battle the proliferation of their radicals by ironing out our own imperfections then we will by beating our heads against theirs.

I have heard it said that we should tend to the beam stuck in our own eye before we tend to the mote in someone elses. This concept is of huge importance to our cause and a healthy dose of introspection is in order in our continued pursuit of victory.

Hope your recovery continues quickly and smoothly,

William

**Swift Sword** · 09 Dec 06,, 14:57

Originally Posted by jaan_pune

That bloody book is making our life miserable.

I must be slacking.

I've read the thing three times and have not blown anybody up yet.

**Swift Sword** · 09 Dec 06,, 15:08

Originally Posted by northface

This is what a Pentagon thinktank makes of your question..

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/pr...TICLE_ID=52184

If al Qaeda had finished the Pentagon that September morning, the war would be over by now and we would have one it.

It was a "slam dunk" case in Iraq and now it is a "slam dunk" case against the Koran. Whatever.

One might conclude that the Pentagon's credibility on Middle Eastern and related topics is suspect if they keep this stuff up.

NEWS FLASH: Pentagon says Islamic suicide bombers read the Koran!

Wow! What an insightful tidbit.

Geeze, thanks, but...uh...I knew that in the 1980s and I have never even set foot in the Pentagon.

Its no wonder we are having problems.

William

**astralis** · 09 Dec 06,, 18:06

glyn,

For the simple reason that the Rabbis do not exhort their congregation to kill but the Immams and other clerics of the moslem faith (not known for their sophistication or wisdom) do, repeatedly and loudly. To put it in its simplest form 'brainwashing' , although looking at the followers all that was needed was the briefest of rinses.

yet the control shown by these mullahs have not existed all throughout islamic history. i daresay the middle east was islamic back in the 1950s, but during that time, girls rollerblading in short-skirts a la american style were the rage in restaurants from baghdad to lebanon. even the pan-arab (and prior to that, nationalist) philosophies of nasser et al were not exactly very friendly to "islamic values"- the original founder of the modern jihad movement, qutb, was flung into egyptian jail to rot.

and back then the pan-nationalists were very popular indeed. even today, nationalism will still trump religion.

bluesman says that radical islam is a natural outgrowth of the koran. i say that radical islam is an outgrowth from a twisted INTERPRETATION of the koran, as taught by religious leaders whose values are tribal ones.

by the way, the worldnetdaily article misunderstands one of the basic definitions in international relations, that of the rational actor.

making them, as strange as it sounds to the West, "rational actors" on the Islamic stage."

that's not strange at all. sacrificing oneself for a perceived greater good is nothing new, and certainly not limited to the "islamic stage".

**astralis** · 09 Dec 06,, 18:07

trooth,

I think Islam suffers from two instituional problems. One being a lack of a central institution to give proclamations. As i understand it there is no equivilant of the Church of England Synod, or the Vatican that can give primacy to interpretation. This in itself fuels almost competition between muslim groups to be the best muslims, perhaps unknowingly trying to fill this vacuum. This rivalry can then head down the most literal and if abused radical path.

excellent point!