Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The question that is not addressed in this diary is 'What drives Islamic Fundamentalism?'. It does not come out of nowhere, and it certainly isn't part of the religion.

The Crusades - The Jihads. Are they mirrors, or is the latter a time-lagged reaction to the former?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Jun 17th, 2007 at 11:47:18 AM EST
I agree that Islamic Fundamentalism did not appear out of thin air. However I would want to be specific. There is nothing wrong with Islamic Fundamentalism or fundamantalist principles in any religion. The following of a religion based on a very orthodox tenets is acceptable and should not interfere with the rights of other people.

This perverse form of Islam that we all connect with "terror" crosses beyond religious boundaries and into political power. It has been called fascism derived out of religion (Islam) or just a radical form of Islam.

I would agree that the growth of this movement began in the early 20th century and not in 2001.

I have not studied the Crusades in quite some time but it would be a worthwhile study in comparisons, although I would imagine it would upset certain groups.

But what drives it? There are underlying issues that have been there for many decades and were, and still are not, addressed.

To be blunt, we (Europe and the US) took Arabs for granted for too many years. We supported whomever were their leaders primarily for reason of oil. But we never sought to develop that part of the world and bring greater prosperity and opportunity to its people as we did in other parts of the world. In the absence of alternatives, these people turned to these local radical mosques who promised them basic necessities, provide them with people to blame (USA, Europe and Jews), and taught their children this radical form of Islam.

The solution to this requires more than bullets, spies, border security, and prisons. The full answer is much more complex and I have yet to hear any of the candidates articulate it.

by Private on Tue Jun 19th, 2007 at 08:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is nothing wrong with Islamic Fundamentalism or fundamantalist principles in any religion.

I disagree. Implicit in such fundamentalism is the dismissal of law and natural moral.

It has been called fascism derived out of religion (Islam)

Called by whom?

I would agree that the growth of this movement began in the early 20th century and not in 2001.

Do you still mean the Muslim Brotherhood as single origin of a monolythic movement? By that logic, you could go back to the first Wahhabites, or even the first Salafists.

took Arabs for granted

What about non-Arab Muslims? Khomeinist Shi'a fundamentalism and Pakistani-origin Sunni fundamentalism aren't Arab-based, nor is Ferghana valley fundamentalism or the tribal madness of Afghan fundies.

we never sought to develop that part of the world

'Develop that part of the world'? We? What about their democratic will and self-control? So who wants to rule it all?

bring greater prosperity and opportunity to its people as we did in other parts of the world

Your logic fails. Our oil money already brought great prosperity into the parts where there is oil, there is misery in the Muslim world where there is no oil, plus Iraq where the US invaded with claims of bringing freedom. As for greater prosperity and opportunity brought to other parts of the world, list them... (And today anyway, it's the rest of the world that brings prosperity to the US, by feeding its credit binge.)

In the absence of alternatives

...including alternatives destroyed with the active help of the CIA,

The solution to this requires more than bullets, spies, border security, and prisons.

It requires none of those, or at least not in the way currently applied.

I have yet to hear any of the candidates articulate it.

What about the incumbent?

And why do you think your country has a mandate to 'solve' these questions, especially with its present record of success at solving other people's problems?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Implicit in such fundamentalism is the dismissal of law and natural moral." - fundamentalism is a strict adherence to religious practices. I am not sure what you mean by "dismissal of law and natural moral?" Please explain.

"fascist form of religion." - there have been many political commentators who have used this term. It depends on whose definition of fascism you use.

"you could go back to the first Wahhabites, or even the first Salafists." - you could but these modern movements took their inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood after the creation of Israel and the presence of western oil interests in the region.

'Develop that part of the world'? -  economic development and investment.

"Our oil money already brought great prosperity into the parts where there is oil." - great prosperity for who exactly?

"What about the incumbent?" - Bush is not going to be President in 2009 and I would not expect coherent insight on this matter from him other than "it's hard work."

"solving other people's problems?" - no but they became our problem on 9/11/01 and the root cause of that needs to be addressed.

by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 11:20:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"you could go back to the first Wahhabites, or even the first Salafists." - you could but these modern movements took their inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood after the creation of Israel and the presence of western oil interests in the region.

Wahhabism, goes back to the eighteenth century. Although Wahhabites usually call themselves Salafists, modern salafism started at the beginning of the twentieth century, before the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood by Hassan al-Banna, who called himself a salafist and a soufi. And long before the creation of Israel.

You should do some research and reading before posting...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

by Melanchthon on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 07:50:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are not reading what I wrote.
by Private on Wed Jun 20th, 2007 at 09:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I see I missed this, and despite your announcement to go and my good-bye, I answer.

I am not sure what you mean by "dismissal of law and natural moral?" Please explain.

Strict adherence to religious practices means you follow them above all, i.e. if there is conflict with law, you prefer the religious rules. By natural moral I basically mean the Goldden Rule and basic human compassion: strict adherence to religious law overrules that, too. (See Abraham on the mountain.)

there have been many political commentators who have used this term

Yes, there have been. That doesn't establish why you feel justified to use it, anonymous reference doesn't establish authoritative use. Almost everyone in the world has been called fascist by someone.

these modern movements took their inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood after the creation of Israel and the presence of western oil interests in the region.

Neither Wahhabism nor Salafism is modern. If you mean that modern followers of Wahhabism and Salafism have been cross-pollinated by Muslim Brotherhood thinking, that's a rather weaker point than your original, and one could say just as well that the cross-pollination went both ways (and many other ways).

economic development and investment

Do you think specifying that makes the intrusiveness of your policy different?

great prosperity for who exactly?

Saudis, Kuweitis, Bahrainis, Kataris, citizens of the UAE, Oman, and to some extent even Lybia. You seem to lack any knowledge about standards of living there.

I would not expect coherent insight on this matter from him other than "it's hard work."

You have praised him before for being on the ball where Clinton wasn't. Coherence seems to lack here.

they became our problem on 9/11/01 and the root cause of that needs to be addressed.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, not even with what you suppose to be its root cause, there was no Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in Iraq before 9/11. There is now, and it is on a scale never seen before in other countries. And part of them are the death squads of US allies in government.

And on a theoretical level, no, it didn't became 'your problem' on 9/11, it became when the US took over the Middle East from the British Empire, and no, your problem still doesn't justify attempts to rule people instead of letting them self-rule.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 21st, 2007 at 11:16:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series