Mainstream Muslims Finally Take on Extremists

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I think it should be clear that a distinction ought to be made between combating ISIS or Jahbat Al-Nusra, which aims to spread its ideology through terrorism and coercive/illegitimate state-power, and attempting to deal with Islamism, which is not necessarily violent in its attempted application.

I don't think the latter is a particularly controversial claim; Islamism or more rigid variants of political Islam do not necessarily pose threats to the West, they're toxic because they affect Muslim minorities within Western states and they're toxic because they violate the rights of all who live within regimes controlled by Islamist ideologies, whether those of Iran or those of Saudi Arabia. However, there's no reason why any of this should merit warfare or rights-violations of individual Muslims. In order to grapple with Islamism, whether it is Salafism or some other variant, Europe and the US should employ different strategies, such as cutting off ties with Saudi Arabia and re-aligning with Iran or attempting to fund opposition groups in Iran. There's no particular solution here but it's quite clear that laying blame for terrorist attacks or ISIS at the feet of Islam itself is a stupid, counter-productive strategy.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

As usual, bedstuy is quick to locate behaviors and actions in a nebulous conception of culture. "Culture X is responsible for Action Y!" Has it ever been considered that authoritarian, illiberal ideologies bear little relation to culture but rather to material deprivation and the instability it generates? I realize that this isn't entirely accurate but it's a pretty parsimonious explanation for authoritarian/illiberal sentiment. Keep in mind that development economists have not found any relation between democracy or liberal freedoms and economic development but comparativist political scientists have found a very close relationship between "liberal democracy" and GDP per capita. I think this is a hand-wavy analysis but I think it's far more useful than pinning Islamism on Islam when secular Arab nationalism and Marxist movements were once the animating force in the MENA region or when religious intolerance/communal violence reigns supreme throughout the developing world.

Now, I'm not a functionalist but I think the overemphasis on culture has left out these facts. What about the Shining Path or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or Third Worldism etc? What about the oppression of women throughout the globe? What about the Nahua practices of arranged marriages in the year 2015? All of these practices and movements arose out of cultures but the cultures were situated in particular economic circumstances that produced these movements.

Note: This does not mean that I'm trying to justify anything that I've listed. I'm simply stating that understanding the causes of various atrocities or illiberal/gross mass movements requires a deeper analysis that goes beyond culture; this understanding will produce more effective prescriptions than advocating for a war of words. Because I take Islamism and other authoritarian ideologies seriously, I want to go further than a war of words. Is there any evidence that persuasion has ever worked against ideologies that have a particular promise for those who live in poverty or who feel that they are oppressed? If people feel alienated by Western ideas, how could we possible persuade them to believe in those ideas?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

As usual, bedstuy is quick to locate behaviors and actions in a nebulous conception of culture. "Culture X is responsible for Action Y!" Has it ever been considered that authoritarian, illiberal ideologies bear little relation to culture but rather to material deprivation and the instability it generates? I realize that this isn't entirely accurate but it's a pretty parsimonious explanation for authoritarian/illiberal sentiment. Keep in mind that development economists have not found any relation between democracy or liberal freedoms and economic development but comparativist political scientists have found a very close relationship between "liberal democracy" and GDP per capita. I think this is a hand-wavy analysis but I think it's far more useful than pinning Islamism on Islam when secular Arab nationalism and Marxist movements were once the animating force in the MENA region or when religious intolerance/communal violence reigns supreme throughout the developing world.

Now, I'm not a functionalist but I think the overemphasis on culture has left out these facts. What about the Shining Path or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine or Third Worldism etc? What about the oppression of women throughout the globe? What about the Nahua practices of arranged marriages in the year 2015? All of these practices and movements arose out of cultures but the cultures were situated in particular economic circumstances that produced these movements.

So, people in Somalia are devout Muslims and their branch of Islamic jurisprudence says you have to do FGM.  Guess what? 98% of women suffer FGM.  Whereas, in many other very poor non-Islamic countries, FGM is unheard of.  So...  Let's blame poverty?  Let's try to change the subject to the Shining Path or Nahua Practices of Arranged Marriage?  That's seriously your answer?

Did I ever claim that I had an answer? I'm simply claiming that you do not have an answer and that cultural explanations for "Islamism" run against the grain of recent history, in which political action throughout the MENA resided in secular Arab nationalism or Marxian social movements, not in Islam. Going beyond the MENA, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia experienced similar trends.

Again, I condemn Islamism and Salafism and the Gulf States etc. I posted a thread about why the left needs to stand against Islamism. I agree with most of your claims. I simply disagree that this is related to some immutable cultural aspects of Islam; that takes a short-sighted view of history and lacks understanding of social scientific evidence.

It's rather arrogant that you profess to hold the solution to something that's incredibly intractable. Do you think that the hot air that you've blown all over this thread is a policy solution? Frankly, it's an emotional expression that lacks substance or merit. I can't claim to fully understand Islamism and its origins but I understand enough to know that I need to read more about the MENA before I say more than it is complex and that Islamism, which is an abhorrent ideology, needs to be properly understood before it can be combated. To add to this complication, I also believe that it is rather dangerous to impute behavior to culture; a claim that cuts against "Enlightenment values", social science and history. If I abhor aspects of post-modern political philosophy, starting with Foucault, it is due to this tendency to root behavior in culture, which I think is the root of caste-based laws or logic, whether racial or religious or ethnic.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Women have been oppressed by Islam since it started. Although it was a slight improvement for some women compared to the oppression they faced before. Still, oppression by any standard. Yes, that's inherent to Islam, because it's justified by the holy book of Islam which says men and women are not equal. This has been a constant for centuries. Even when Marxism and Arab nationalism had their 30 years or so of political relevance, it was still there. It was there before and it's there after and it will probably keep being there, because it's linked to the religion.

"Women have been oppressed by Christianity since it started" - a phrase that was true as recently as the 1950s.

Come on son, the oppression of women and "patriarchy" is a worldwide phenomenon that has its origins in agricultural societies. Women have been oppressed for millenia in Mesoamerica, in Africa (again, female genital mutilation is not related to Islam!), in India etc. What, exactly, is peculiar about the Middle East in this regard?