Originally posted by SMUsax
This one’s been beaten to death but I don’t think there’s any country that’ll have you shot simply for professing to be a non-muslim. Are there people in those countries who might do that? Sure, just as there’s people in the the U.S. of A. who’ll shoot you for being gay/different race/fan of a different sports team/etc…
gobear, point noted, quite correct.
No, and it would come as a great surprise to my Xtian Arab amigos as well.
Subjected to boring conversion spiels, yes. But then I get that in Texas too, on the unfortunate occasions I have had to go there (sorry mg).
In re etymologies:
Aslama, fourth form of the SLM w/overall meaning to be peaceful: to surrender o.s. Post-Islaam (the verbal noun of the form), to surrender o.s. to God.
Advice, if you don’t speak the bloody language, don’t pretend to to etymologies in it.
I certainly wasn’t attempting to do anything like that. In fact, I acknowledged that the fundamentalist strands of Islam are subject to a lot of legitimate criticism. My point about the broad paintbrush was exactly the same as yours–that Islam is a big tent, and one cannot legitimately ascribe collective guilt to all Muslims for the hateful, idiotic comments of any one adherent, no matter which mosque he represents.
Collounsbury: Just tell those Texas Baptists you’re Methodist. That way, they still think you’re going to hell, but they can’t find any polite way of continuing the witnessing session. 
The idea that one cannot affect whether or not others join Islam is quite obviously not one that has enjoyed great support in the history of Islam.
gobear:
I never claimed that it doesn’t mean peace. I’m just saying that it doesn’t mean peace in the way that Angua implied.
Collounsbury
I’m not quite sure what you were trying to say here, but it probably doesn’t matter, since it looks like just another personal attack rather than discussion of the issues.
But I get this urge to respond to the question, “Have you found Jesus?” along the lines of “No, is he lost?”
Well that Washington Times article is factually incorrect in at least one respect. Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al Sudays isn’t the ‘highest-ranking cleric’ in Saudi Arabia. If anybody that would be the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Sheikh, who has condemned both suicide bombings and hijacking, much to the disdain of Palestinian radicals. The top Islamic judicial official of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Saleh ibn Muhammed al-Ludaiden might rank higher as well and there may be others. Though given the lack of formal hiearchies, this is all rather amorphous.
At any rate, other posters have already commented on the other inaccuracies that have been mentioned such as…
…Which are clearly false as general statements.
But I just wanted to add another plug for the book Jihad:The Trail of Political Islam by Gilles Kepel ( English translation 2002 by Anthony F. Roberts, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press - original edition 2000 as Jihad:Expansion et Declin de L’Islamisme ), which not only is an excellent history of political Islam in 20th century, but also makes the case that Islamic fundamentalism is a declining force in the Muslim world today and this latest paroxysm of violence ( including 9/11 ) are probably the death throes of a dieing philosophy. Buy it for the history and make your own judgements as to his central thesis. Regardless it is very interesting reading.
Discussion of the issue, what issue, you not knowing Arabic? Or your incorrect gloss of the verb Aslama?
What I was trying to say was quite clear, if you don’t bloody speak the language, don’t try to make comments on the meanings of its words. Clear enough?
Historically/presently Muslims accept and seek out converts, but Islam deals with your struggle and ultimate submission not in the struggles of others, they have to deal with their own faith. You can’t make one submit, only they can submit to Allah.
I appologize if I came off as a bigot. While I am definitly not pursuaded by the Muslim faith, I am not in favor of all-out warfare.
I would like to know what makes them tick, though.
When I say that they see things differently from us (I guess me) I meant that they see walking into a cafe (or onto a bus) loaded with civilians and blowing themselves up with explosives as an acceptable means of advancing their religious views. I don’t. I find it hard to respect a group which does. Do they lack any respect for human life?
If you can explain away the types of comments made in the OP by the imam, please do. I don’t accept that they are just some sort of view only held by him, though…it just doesn’t seem likely.
My point was muslims, as a rule, put a lot of credence in what their religious leaders say. This man is the Islamic equivalent of the Pope. (Please don’t drag out some incendiary statements made by Popes in ancient history…I’m referring to current events). It seems to me the insanity is coming from Mecca, not Main Street.
As pointed out by SMUSax, drawing comparisons between a totalitarian regime and a free western democracy is like comparing a harsh desert to a lush forest. True, both are topographical regions of the planet, but that’s where the similarities end. One chokes off and kills the other allows for growth.
Calling for the destruction of the infidels seems like a legitimate criticism to me, maybe I’m just thin skinned. If I had cited more of the recent anti-western quotes attributed to fundamentalists the odds are you’d comeback with something like “Oh, that’s only 20 radicals of the 1 billion people that make up the muslim population.
Pointing out comments made this radical, evil leader is in no way fear-mongering. Nowhere in my post did I call for violence. Labeling me as a bigot is both unfair and knee-jerk. Unfortunately, the term bigot has been thrown around so much in this country, it’s lost most of its’ effectiveness.
I’d love to hear just one muslim religious leader denounce abd-al-rahman al-sudays war-mongering statements. Alright, maybe it isn’t fair to equate an imam of the mosque of mecca with the Pope. The article described him as a top religious leader and from what I can tell; this isn’t just some nut on a soapbox screaming about the 13th tribe. My guess is the reason media hasn’t quote any clerics refuting al-suday’s call to arms is because no one has. A small aside: Have you ever seen one of Arafat’s statements condemning terrorism and calling for an end of violence against civilians? Sure we all have. But doesn’t it bother you that he always carefully selects the category civilian? It bothers me, Israel doesn’t have all that many civilians due to the fact every adult is required to join the military so that their small nation can be defended against aggression.
Predictable, and foreshadowed in my OP. I never claimed all muslims are fundamentalists and I’m not here to defend fundamentalist Christians, some who pray for peace or others who incite their followers toward violence. Extreme orthodoxy is dangerous when coming from any sect, the difference is I don’t see Billy Graham calling on his sleeper cell doves to come blow up my city and kill scores of innocent infidels.
I’ve always been under the impression nationals in the Muslim world more closely follow their religious leaders than they do their political figures, whether they be royalty or dictator. I may be wrong. But if that is the case, I highly doubt imams are appointed by the bureaucracy.
Yes, it is a generalization. But how many more attacks are were to persevere in the name of islam before we acknowledge it’s much too prevalent?
Thank you for the cite. My only hope is the Ismailis will one day be more than “little known” and become the overwhelming majority that can drown out the haters. Maybe some day there can be hope for all mankind.
SMUsax: Well we have a couple of ifferent issues here.
1.) First as to suicide bombings - As has been pointed out, this is largely a recent phenomena and remains quite controversial in the Muslim world. It’s origins for the most part only reach back to the 80’s and seem to have originated in Iran when Khomeini and other senior clerics drew the wrong lessons from the successful campaign to expel Iraq from Iranian territory. They came to the conclusion that mass, lightly-armed infantry, if inspired with sufficient zeal, could overcome any foe. Rather a parallel to the pre-WW I French concept of elan. They were wrong of course, but the damage they did by giving a tortured religious reasoning for “mass suicide attacks” persisted and was soon exported first to Lebanon and the Shi’ite militia Hezbollah ( strongly influenced by Iran of course, though their highest religious leader was very uneasy about the whole concept ) and then to radical Palestinian groups such as Islamic Jihad.
But ultimately, despite the religious rhetoric, these are not religious tactics ( i.e. these are not meant to “advance their religious view” ) but political ones. No different in kind than the remote bombings by Palestinian terrorists in the 1970’s, just with a veneer of Islamic fundamentalist thought painted on them.
And they are not universally accepted tactics. Not even in the Arab world, let alone the wider Muslim world ( which dwarfs the Arab world who only represent about 20% of Muslims ). Indeed not even all Muslim fundamentalists accept the concept, though there is a rather narrowly hypocritical apologist tone taken by some towards the Palestinian situation vs. other applications.
It is the tactic of a minority.
2.) Explaining away the comments of the Imam cited above - No reason to. I’m sure they are indeed indicative of his intense bigotry. However what must be kept in mind is that this man is a folower of an extreme ultra-fundamentalist sect of Islam that almost surely has less than 20 million adherents worldwide ( probably less ). Out of over a billion. His medieval thinking comes as no surprise to me.
Now - How common is religious bigotry in the Muslim world? Too common. But then it is too common in the Christian, Hindu, etc, world as well. It is not universal and it if one were to take a universal poll I suspect one would find, not only an enormous amount of variation, but also a lot of self-contradicting views. And it is impossible to tease out just how much of that is theology and how much is simple ignorance in a world, in which, largely, western-style ideals and modernization are only slowly ( but surely ) beginning to take hold.
The central idea one should take away is not that Islam is a flawless exemplar of a peaceful tolerant religion. It is not. But rather that it is not a monolith and inherently evil. There are as many if not more strains of Islam as there are of Christianity and knowing only that someone is a Muslim tells you next to nothing of their political, social, cultural, and even to some extent ( barring the obvious ), their religious views.
Not even close. Not even REMOTELY close. He is a senior cleric of a tiny minority sect in Islam. That he happens to sit in Mecca means diddly.
As to refuting al-Suday’s specific comments, I have no idea. For one thing I don’t read Arabic and only have reference to western materials.
But there are indeed Muslim clerics that decry this sort of bigotry. Perhaps not enough and certainly not vocally enough ( there is a sad phenomena of “closing the ranks” from what I’ve seen, even when there is sharp disagreement ). Liberal muslims find this a disappointment as well. But dig and you’ll find some. Along with plenty of disagreement generally in the theological Muslim community. Heck some in the ( fairly liberal ) Naqshbandi Sufi order considered the founder of the Wahabi sect ( which the Imam of Mecca belongs to ) to have been the anti-Christ - I came across a pretty polemical site to that effect anyway.
To reiterate, tar with narrow strokes, not broad.
Again there is not a single Muslim mindset. Some do. My understanding is that most do not. However I don’t know if either of us can come up with a definitive cite for this.
In this case, they are. The Saudi government okays all clerical appointements that hold an “official” status. however these appointments ( at least at higher levels ) are generally for life, so conflicts can develop between the government and the clerics after appointment.
Sweeping generalizations are injurious to your arguments. IMHO. Indeed they invalidate some of them completely.
Well I’ll acknowledge it right now. It IS much too prevalent. One instance would be too prevalent. But that doesn’t excuse overgeneralizations. Again IMHO.
But once again, many of these attacks ( I’m thinking of the Palestinian ones in particular ) may be “made in the name of Islam” as a matter of propaganda. But they are not. They are at base politically motivated attacks.
Interesting to note that the Is’mailis, specifically the Nizaris who make up the majority of Is’mailis today, were the most radical and militant sect of Islam in the Middle Ages. The term “assassin” derives from a name they were labeled with. Today they are a peaceful, largely apolitical group ( and they aren’t the only ones ). Being a Muslim does not necessarily equal a specific political ideology. Which is the big lesson to take home from this discussion.
Oh, I think not. You took the incendiary, ignorant, bigoted remarks of a single Muslim leader and used them to condemn wholesale a billion or more individual Muslims, the vast majority of whom do not ascribe to the speaker’s radical form of Islam and cannot reasonably be assumed to support the speaker’s remarks. The only two explanations I can think of for such a rididulous leap of logic (and I use the term loosely there) are ignorance and bigotry. It’s as if you condemned black people on the basis of Louis Farrakhan. It’s disgusting, frankly.
Great post Tamerlane. You have confirmed what I’ve said for years - namely that unbiased knowledge and informed understanding are the keys to co-existence and peace.
Perhaps this is true in theory, but from what I can tell of Islam in practice, there is a great interest among Muslims regarding the spiritual status of other people.
Let’s rephrase the question:
Accepted that Islam is a diverse religion with as many interpretations as, say, Christianity has. Accepted that some segments of Islam are “fundamentalist” and that some of these factions are populated by bigoted and extremely anti-Western, anti-secular, and antisemitic leaders and followers who advocate an interpretation of Islam that supports their hateful views.
Why are these segments seemingly growing in power and popularity? Why are they apparently supported by governmental organizations that include alleged freinds of the West? What should “the West” do in response to the growing influence of these elements?
Personally, I think that some of their growth is due to a feeling of desperation - the secular world is closing in on the traditional culture fast. Meanwhile there is little equity within many Arab countries. The Arab world can hold up Israel as a straw man, but the mistreatment of the Arab man on the street by those in power in Arab countries is dramatic. Those in power play a dangerous game … fundamentalism slows down secular reforms that might eventually erode their power, but can cut against them as well.
The West is in a bind. Fundamentalism is best fought by secular reform, but pressuring the governments may drive them further away. And support the arguments of the fundamentalists. It needs these governments. It would be catestrophic for the West for the fundamentalists to have more control. So what to do?
Islam does not mean ‘peace’ in the sense of ‘we are peaceful people’. You can also translate it as ‘submission’, but that isn’t accurate either.
Here’s the best translation I’ve managed to come up with.
Islam: “Inner peace achieved through submission to the will of Allah.”
This definition is of no use in characterizing the actions of Muslims. Certainly, saying that the religion’s name embodies the concept of peaceful behaviour is wrong. If the will of Allah were determined to be that every infidel should die, then Muslims would have to find ‘peace’ through war, in a truly Orwellian fashion. On the other hand, if you interpret the will of Allah to demand peaceful relations with one’s neighbors, then great.
In short, the translation of Islam could be read as, “Do what God says.” In that sense, it’s no different than any other theist religion.
No doubt Collounsbury will ‘correct’ me with a stream of invective if he thinks I got it wrong.
As for tarring Muslims with one brush, I have to agree with Collounsbury and Minty here - the vast majority of Muslims are hard working, honest people who want to live in peace and raise babies, just like we are. Turkey has been a member of NATO for decades, and is a strong ally. Indonesia has a gigantic Muslim population, and a relatively healthy economy and reasonable levels of social tolerance.
However, there IS a strain of fanatical Islam, promoted primarily by the Saudis and propped up with huge gobs of oil money. This sick branch of the religion has been infiltrating other Muslim countries and even western countries. It has a very strong hold on the Arab world. al-Quaida and the Taliban are direct offshoots of this strain. Unfortunately, due to the conflation of church and state in the Arab world, Wahabbism has a tremendous influence on young people, because it has become state doctrine in schools, mosques, and the airwaves. So this problem is getting worse, and not better.
There is a larger, but still very much minority subset of the population in the Arab world that gives tacit support to the more extreme elements for the simple reason that they happen to agree with some of their goals, if not their methods or ideology. And there is a large amount of resentment and anger at the U.S. throughout the Arab world, and the radical nutbars are bloodying the noses of the Americans and Israelis, so more moderate people look the other way.
As soon as moderate Muslims realize that these radicals are a threat to the Muslim world as well as the west, I think you’ll see support for them drop dramatically. You can see that in Palestine today - after Israel rained destruction on Jenin and Ramallah, Arafat’s popularity plummeted. But before that, his popularity was sky-high.
If you want to look for one of the major roots of the problem, you have plenty of clues in the OP. A Saudi cleric is allowed to broadcast hatred through the official Saudi media. Wahabbism originates in Saudi Arabia. Most of the hijackers on Sept 11 were Saudi. The Taliban and al-Qaida have a huge percentage of Saudis among them. Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi national. Saudi money has financed many terrorist attacks.
Saudi Arabia is a problem. It is the cultural home of Islam, and the keeper of the holiest sites. And its culture is sick, and its oil money is allowing its sick culture to propagate throughout the Arab world, and the world in general. At some point, this problem has to be solved.
Gilles Kepel argues that they are not :). In his view political Islam as a modern philosophy peaked in 1989 with the Soviet withdrawal in Afghanistan and has been contracting ever since. The increasing trend towards violent action is in part born out of desperation and Islamists recognize their decline and inability to gain power through mass popular support.
*Contrary to the expectations of some and the fears of others, the final decade of the century did not fulfill the promise of the 1980’s. Wildly extremist groups like the Armed Islamist Group in Algeria, the Taliban, and al Qaeda led by bin Laden took center stage. From Paris to New York, spectacular attacks were carried out by militants claiming to belong to the Islamist movement. As an amalgam of different social groups held together by a shared religious belief, the movement began to unravel, and the violence hastened its decline. Indeed, the decade was noteworthy mainly for terrorism and disintegration within the ranks of the Islamist movement.
The detonator for this collapse was the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein’s army in August 1990…*
and
*At the dawn of the millenium, the intiative was with those regimes that had emerged victorious from confrontation with the Islamist movement, whether they did so by armed voiolence or by peaceful co-option…
For the pious middle class and the intellectuals closest to them, shifting from Islamism to the search for a common ground with secular groups and democratic ideologues was rather easy. But the failure of the Islamist utopia as an ideology has not had the same consequences for the young urban poor and the radicalized thinkers and actvists, and the challenge has been much harder. The young urban poor had nothing to gain from any kind of alliance between the devout and secular middle classes. They could not identify with them, and did not care for their language and political and economic agendas. On the road to prosperity, their former allies passed them by without so much as a backward glance. Within this disenchanted mass, volatile feelings could quickly catch fire if ignited by the right spark.
Among the jihadists-salafists, isolated as they were in the seclusion of their secret organizations and terrorist cells, from London to Afghanistan, any idea of compromise with “Westernized” groups was loathsome. The mental world they inhabited was closed, though they were perfectly aware of the tremendous possibilities for action that new technologies provied, and many activists actually boasted training or a degree in applied sciences such as engineering or information technology. The devout middle class considered these radicals the culprits responsible for the decline of Islamism, and rejected them as firebrands of violence who had finally scared everyone away from the movement and played into the hands of its enemies.*
From Kepel, cited earlier in the thread.
Well the actual situation is that these governments stroke with one hand and beat with the other. It’s an another variant of playing both sides against the middle, while attempting to co-opt/stifle any direct internal threat. Kepel argues that one way or another these governments are succeeding ( however bloodily in some cases ).
Encourage political liberalism and economic reform. Specifics? Some other time ;). Though perhaps Collounsbury has some thoughts on the matter.
I agree.
I believe subtle pressure ( including a much more active and intelligent self-promotion in the area ) can be exerted without causing a collapse. I do think it will take some time. Rebuilding societies generally does.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
Not sure I agree entirely. Saudi Arabia’s involvement as a government and even a center of fundamentalism has been rather more peripheral IMO. Not that they don’t deserve blame. Just I don’t think they deserve all or even most of it. The Egyptian Algerian, and ( despite some Saudi money ) Palestinian strains have a somewhat different genesis.
Ehhhh…Partly, yes. But al-Qaeda is heavily internationalized and the Taliban has a lot of very local influences that preceeded the importation of Wahabism.
I disagree with the single caveat of the Afghan/Pakistan border region which is the only place I know of that Wahabism has been semi-successfully exported ( and it is still not the doctrine of the majority in that region, though extreme conservatism and Islamic fundamentalism of a more local, tribal sort is ).
I think there is probably some truth to this. How much is debatable of course.
Kepel thinks it has already happened ( I’m going to see how many times I can bring up his name in this thread 
).
Both sides against the middle. Prince Abdullah also recently asked his senior clerics to tone it down. But these figures do have some (circumscribed ) independance.
Yes and yes.
Incorrect. The membership of al-Qaeda is international with Saudis being a minority. My understanding is that much of the terrorist expertise originated in Algeria and Egypt.
The Taliban leadership ( who are Wahabis of a sort, unlike a majoity of their former troops ) is home-grown Pushtun. No Saudis at all.
Yes and yes with qualifications. Though the SA government likely has some indirect blood on their hands vis-a-vis the Palestinian situation, they are for the most part not state sponsors of terrorism. To the contrary they attempt to stifle domestic groups that are that militant. The Saudi money and support involved, like bin Laden’s, is mostly private not government.
SA is a cultural problem of sorts and I’m not a fan. But I don’t think they are necessarily central to the issue. Their connections to the very visible al-Qaeda and the Taliban gives that illusion, but frankly al-Qaeda and the Taliban are only part of the equation.
And the Saudi government, whatever else you can say about it, IS friendly in the sense that they have very compelling common interests with the West. Including not getting their royalist asses tossed out by Islamists that despise them.
Actually, I think you have that precisely backwards. Support for Arafat had been remarkably low–way less popular than Hamas–until Israel invaded thhe West Bank. As soon as that happened, his popularity shot right back up, where it remains today (and Arafat is currently surrounded in his compound once again).
I’m no fan of Wahabbism or the Saudi government, but al Qaeda has plenty of members from across the Arab world. (The Taliban are, of course, home-grown Afghanis, but I’ll chalk that up as a brain fart on your part.) There appear to be almost as many Egyptian al Qaeda members as Saudis. The guy named by the U.S. yesterday as the planner of 9/11 is Kuwaiti (though they deny he’s a citizen), and there are certainly plenty of Pakistanis, Yemenis, Chechens, and Palestinians in the group also. Focusing narrowly on Saudi Arabia misses an awful lot of al Qaeda’s financial and popular support, which extend well beyond the Arabian Peninsula.
Also, the Saudis aren’t really all that wealthy on oil these days, except by comparison to the seriously dumpy countries of the region–too few dollars for too many people. The CIA World Factbook (at cia.org, of course) shows per capita GDP at slightly more than 25% of America’s, roughly comparable to such economic powerhouses as Mexico and Argetina.
Other than those two points, I basically agree with the broad contours of your post.