The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[gourimoko]

So roughly 160-170 Million people of Islamic faith believe in stoning for adultery in Pakistan alone.

That's 160,000,000 with seven zeroes, right? That's only one country, right? Just making sure I'm not full of shit here. If I'm wrong, correct me. Here's the link:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

That's a problem to say the least...

Yes you're math is off, but the point is the same, a majority of Pakistanis have what we would consider radical views regarding capital punishment.

But the problem with your conclusion is that you're not explaining why these views are persistent in Pakistan and not say Tunisia or Turkey?

Why the radical differences between various Muslim nations in their interpretation of Sharia?

 

[JSS2306]

Yes you're math is off, but the point is the same, a majority of Pakistanis have what we would consider radical views regarding capital punishment.

But the problem with your conclusion is that you're not explaining why these views are persistent in Pakistan and not say Tunisia or Turkey?

Why the radical differences between various Muslim nations in their interpretation of Sharia?

Whoa there buddy...

Let's back up for a moment.

Are you saying that 160 PLUS MILLION people of Islamic faith in one country believe in stoning, capital punishment, for adultery?

You're saying that my math is off? That's fine. What is your math on the situation?

 

[JSS2306]

I missed gour's previous post to my response.

He's only saying 124 million people in Pakistan believe in stoning for adultery.

Good shit. Hey gour, how many Americans believe in stoning for adultery brah?

 

[gourimoko]

I missed gour's previous post to my response.

He's only saying 124 million people in Pakistan believe in stoning for adultery.

Good shit. Hey gour, how many Americans believe in stoning for adultery brah?

That's actually not what I said. I think trying to make these types of exact figure computations are absurd.

I am willing to say that, yes, a majority of Pakistan likely believes in capital punishment for adultery. But simultaneously a majority of Pakistan supported a moratorium and complete suspension of all capital punishment, and such a moratorium was put into effect in 2008 and lasted until just a few months ago.

In all of this, I think we're making some pretty ridiculous conclusions:

1) That the number of people who think that Sharia calls for the stoning of adulterers is as or more important as the majority of people who supported an end of capital punishment for all offenses.

2) That Pakistan, again, a nation in tumult is in anyway representative of Islam.

3) Why we keep focusing on backwards nations or nations with very large tribal communities rather than modern nations like Turkey?

Again, I think its time we get back to talking about ISIS and not Islam.

 

[Sebastian]

I wonder if we should have an "Islam is bad, M'kay" thread since the Daesh conflict hasn't figured into any of the last 30 posts or so....

 

[DJTJ]

It's not a gour post unless he spins it out of control to his liking.

Honestly, I find your posts entertaining. You use the race card almost every single time. I don't care if you're a Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, ect. ect...

I treat everyone the same but that doesn't mean I don't respect people as a fellow human being no matter religion, race, or creed.

I rest peacefully at night, gour. Don't get your panties in a twist because I feel like anyone who believe's in any religion and forces their political views on any situation are complete morons (1). That's the way I feel about it and that just so happens to include you. My favorite basketball player of all time is a Muslim and I harbor no ill will toward anybody unless it deals with them promoting violence and setting humanity back in some way shape or form (2).

You're an idiot with your wits. I can appreciate that.

So what is your explanation of the Pew polls?

First, where the one is? You do that. Second, where the two is? That's like saying I can say the n word because I have black friends. Stop.

Quit Americanizing the world. Our morals and our laws are not global laws, and forcing them on other countries just shows how insensitive you actually are.

 

[Jordan]

So I think we have some really interesting takes in this thread. As a M.A. Student in Middle East and Islamic Studies I tend to agree with @gourimoko. I think the reason you see so many more "moderate" Muslims (I hate that phrase but it will work here) in Central Asia has to do with the political-economy of the region. Because this is the ISIS thread, let's talk about Syria: Between 2009-2011 the government raised fuel prices 163%; inflation fell 7.7% between 2008-2009 due to significant and strategic government spending cuts; between 2008-2009 Syria's FDI increased 70% but actually decreased by 5% in the three main Industrial cities; and Government released data during the second quarter 2010 that show civil servants are the highest paid sector while agricultural sector is lowest. 25% of people working in services earn SYP 15,000 per month or more while 30% of those working in agriculture earn SYP 5,000 or less. This is important because all of these policies drastically hurt the majority of the population while ensuring Assad's political group defended his back. What you saw, though, is places that were heavily agricultural and dependent on subsidies as well as purely industrial cities are where ISIS has gained the most power. I posit that this has nothing to do with Islam, but rather, due to the fact that ISIS is successful militarily and these people want to defeat the regime so they can attempt to feed their families. For any Political Scientist it is the standard J-Curve.

If anyone is interested in the evidence, I can't share the documents because that would be illegal, but it is all sourced from the Economist Intelligence Unit and The Syria Report.

 

[JSS2306]

First, where the one is? You do that. Second, where the two is? That's like saying I can say the n word because I have black friends. Stop.

Quit Americanizing the world. Our morals and our laws are not global laws, and forcing them on other countries just shows how insensitive you actually are.

I'm not one for sensitivity when people are getting their heads cut off for the world to see.

I apologize to gour for calling him an idiot. I know he gives no shits, but that was wrong of me and also a weak jab.

I am one for solutions. It seems that a lot (not necessarily most for you politically correct folks) of the Middle East uses Islam as a vehicle for their rather barbaric laws and culture. It's a huge step back for the modern world in that these views are practiced in ways that essentially wipe out all ideals of basic human freedom. There's a problem and it's not the fault of America that these ideals exists.

It's not "Americanizing" the world when there are many countries where the idea that freedom and empathy for the human condition is taken into consideration. This goes for people that are gay, people who cheat, steal, and lie.

These are offenses that are of human nature, however, are punishable by death in many parts of the Arabic world.

It's not Islam itself as much as it is the relationship between the religion and the basic principles practiced by people for thousands of years. There's a deep connection there and, while "blaming Islam" isn't politically correct, it is relevant as well as a considerably important fabric woven into the culture of the ME.

There's obviously other factors such as infrastructure, poverty, and lack of basic direction that we here in America take for granted. We enjoy a system that, no matter how flawed, ends in some semblance of unity through democracy.

 

[Jordan]

I'm not one for sensitivity when people are getting their heads cut off for the world to see.

I am one for solutions. It seems that a lot (not necessarily most for you politically correct folks) of the Middle East uses Islam as a vehicle for their rather barbaric laws and culture. It's a huge step back for the modern world in that these views are practiced in ways that essentially wipe out all ideals of basic human freedom. There's a problem and it's not the fault of America that these ideals exists.

These are offenses that are of human nature, however, are punishable by death in many parts of the Arabic world.

It's not Islam itself as much as it's the relationship between the religion and the basic principles practiced by people for thousands of years. There's a deep connection there and, while "blaming Islam" isn't politically correct, it is relevant as well as a considerably important fabric woven into the culture of the ME.

There's obviously other factors such as infrastructure, poverty, and lack of basic direction that we here in America take for granted. We enjoy a system that, no matter how flawed, ends in some semblance of unity through democracy.

So I deleted parts of your post because either: A) not relevant to my response; or B) I agree with them. The latter is mainly with your point regarding Moral Relativism which I categorically affirm.

The last part I bolded because I think it is an important trend in your posts and I am going to flip it on its head, a bit anyways

I think the point I made in my Syria post (if you have not read it please stop reading this and glance at it. Will make the rest more clear.) and will further develop here deals with that paragraph.

First, in the study of Islam and Politics, which I am greatly familiar with, there are three main, broad theories that deal with the explanation of radicalism. The first is, as I feel you and many others agree with, ideational. This, in a Political Science perspective, does not always have to be religious. Although, generally, in discussions of the Middle East it is focused on religion.

The second is an Institutional explanation. While my studies and research has veered away from this I feel it is important to mention. This type of explanation basically argues that the institutions in the Middle East and Islamic world are what is to blame for radicalization. Shadi Hamid, who is quite the scholar of Islamist groups, wrote a book last year called "Temptations of Power" where he looked at Islamists groups post-Arab Spring in Egypt, Jordan, and Tunisia, His explanation is that when institutions are authoritarian this actually results in less-radical Islamists. Jillian Schwedler, on the other hand, is the original writer of this institutional -> radical argument and crafted what she called the "inclusion-moderation hypothesis", which Hamid is attempting to refute, where she argues that inclusion in political systems for Islamist groups leads them to moderate.

The final is a structural, or a political-economic, explanation. This is where the crux of my research focuses and the basic contention is certain structural factors in the Middle East lead to radicalization. The Syria post from prior is part of my much larger research, but points this direction.

Now, all three of these probably play a role.

So why am I bringing this up? Because your last paragraph implies that we are lucky in America to have a liberal Democracy where we enjoy freedom of speech, etc. That suggests, though, it is not Islam that causes radicalism; but rather, institutions. I believe response will be "I believe both have a role to share." This leads to my broad argument turn:

Let's take a look at the Middle East: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel-Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, UAE, Oman, and Yemen. If I'm correct those are the region's countries but I may have missed a few.

Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE all use religion in their rule as a way to solidify control of the population. The population does not complain, not because they necessarily support these laws, but because everyone but ethnic minorities (and sometimes they are included) gain rent from oil. Thus they don't need to worry about paying for school, healthcare, job, etc. This is partially the reason why during the 1979 Siege of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Shi'a supported the government (there is a much more complicated sectarian reason that I don't feel like typing in this post).

Egypt, Syria, Kuwait, and Turkey all to a certain extent have transformed into secular countries. In Egypt and Syria, for awhile, showing radical deference to religion was outlawed, and that is what is happening in Egypt more now.

To be honest, my familiarity with the rest of the countries is limited, but my point, is each country needs to be viewed on a case-by-case basis. When you do, in my opinion, you find many more institutional and structural explanation for radicalism than religious. But, a lot of this is from my perch on an ivory tower. I don't mean to be condescending and truly love debates like these so I am interested in your response.

 

[JSS2306]

So why am I bringing this up? Because your last paragraph implies that we are lucky in America to have a liberal Democracy where we enjoy freedom of speech, etc. That suggests, though, it is not Islam that causes radicalism; but rather, institutions. I believe response will be "I believe both have a role to share." This leads to my broad argument turn:

Let's take a look at the Middle East: Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel-Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, UAE, Oman, and Yemen. If I'm correct those are the region's countries but I may have missed a few.

Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE all use religion in their rule as a way to solidify control of the population. The population does not complain, not because they necessarily support these laws, but because everyone but ethnic minorities (and sometimes they are included) gain rent from oil. Thus they don't need to worry about paying for school, healthcare, job, etc. This is partially the reason why during the 1979 Siege of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Shi'a supported the government (there is a much more complicated sectarian reason that I don't feel like typing in this post).

Egypt, Syria, Kuwait, and Turkey all to a certain extent have transformed into secular countries. In Egypt and Syria, for awhile, showing radical deference to religion was outlawed, and that is what is happening in Egypt more now.

To be honest, my familiarity with the rest of the countries is limited, but my point, is each country needs to be viewed on a case-by-case basis. When you do, in my opinion, you find many more institutional and structural explanation for radicalism than religious. But, a lot of this is from my perch on an ivory tower. I don't mean to be condescending and truly love debates like these so I am interested in your response.

Great information and well put together.

I'm sure the institutional aspect most certainly plays a part. However, your examples that use oil countries as some sort of point that Islamic ideals are more lax because of prosperity is confusing. Certainly you would agree that Saudi Arabia is one of the richest nations in the world, let alone a rich Muslim nation.

On the one hand, Saudi Arabia is the richest nation in the ME and also happens to be one of America's biggest allies from an oil based business aspect. On the the other hand, they are still beheading, stoning, and outright implementing forms of barbaric laws passed down from many generations that, at their roots, deal with a form of Islamic belief or culture. We really don't know much about Saudi Arabia because of our close ties but believe me when I tell you there are many, many recent underground video's that are hard to fathom given their concurrent success for so many decades. Why is Saudi Arabia still one of the most barbaric in implementing capital punishment when they clearly have the means to instate a democracy while continuing their prosperous ways? It's a complex question with probably even more complex answers... but from the outside looking in... it looks like they enjoy things the way they are from a cultural standpoint and have no intentions of considering a more humane society.

It's cliche to say but it's worth reminding that 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudi and the ringleader himself was apart of one of the richest oligarchs in human history.

It's hard to discount the fact that a man with so much power and money would want to lead an entire sect of Islamist's to kill Americans.

Bin Laden's messages were scattered with political events but he most certainly used religion first and foremost in almost all of his video's.

You can't deny this.

 

[Sebastian]

The failure of Pan-Arabism removed an alternative to Qutbist fundamentalism and also undermined "inclusive" authoritarianism supported by (the notional) broad appeal of nationalism.

 

[Jordan]

Great information and well put together.

I'm sure the institutional aspect most certainly plays a part. However, your examples that use oil countries as some sort of point that Islamic ideals are more lax because of prosperity is confusing. Certainly you would agree that Saudi Arabia is one of the richest nations in the world, let alone a rich Muslim nation.

On the one hand, Saudi Arabia is the richest nation in the ME and also happens to be one of America's biggest allies from an oil based business aspect. On the the other hand, they are still beheading, stoning, and outright implementing forms of barbaric laws passed down from many generations that, at their roots, deal with a form of Islamic belief or culture. We really don't know much about Saudi Arabia because of our close ties but believe me when I tell you there are many, many recent underground video's that are hard to fathom given their concurrent success for so many decades. Why is Saudi Arabia still one of the most barbaric in implementing capital punishment when they clearly have the means to instate a democracy while continuing their prosperous ways? It's a complex question with probably even more complex answers... but from the outside looking in... it looks like they enjoy things the way they are from a cultural standpoint and have no intentions of considering a more humane society.

It's cliche to say but it's worth reminding that 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudi and the ringleader himself was apart of one of the richest oligarchs in human history.

It's hard to discount the fact that a man with so much power and money would want to lead an entire sect of Islamist's to kill Americans.

Bin Laden's messages were scattered with political events but he most certainly used religion first and foremost in almost all of his video's.

You can't deny this.

Good response and let me clarify something: I think Saudi Arabia's government should not gather near the blind support it does from Washington. Moreover, I think the same statement holds true for both Israel and Egypt.

My point is that rentier states can pacify people who otherwise would be frustrated with the society's rules. States with oil are better able to stabilize themselves with money and buying goods from other states. Thus every aspect of the state is based around solidifying total control. So in Saudi Arabia, the original deal with the Wahhabis dealt with gaining political control over the region's (at this point there was no real Saudi state) Sunni tribes.

These rentier states also engage in what scholar Nazih Ayubi calls "bonanza modernization." Essentially this results in the distribution of goods to mobilized social groups via state employment, public works construction, and welfare services. This is part of the reason, as I've stated before, why the marginalized Shi'a in Saudi Arabia don't attempt to revolutionize or even really help their brethren in Bahrain. In fact, to the latter point, the Saudi government effectively gave many of these Saudi Shi'a a sort of "rentier kickback" to not support the Bahraini uprisings.

My point is not that Wahhabis, like those on 9/11, do not exist. But I think their existence is more predicated in the Saudi state's massive publishing of Wahhabi religious texts throughout the country. I.E., the state benefits from Wahhabis - except when it doesn't like during the Siege on Mecca's mosque -- because they support the royal family. In turn, the royal family gives them freedom to espouse their religion both within and outside of the Saudi state.

Finally, and this is in relation to my previous points, what necessity does the Royal Family have for instituting a democracy? They would lose power, rights, and wealth. Moreover, your average Saudi also probably has something to fear, at least economically, if the Family is overthrown. I.E., if this "bonanza modernization" that supplies many Saudis with healthcare, money, jobs, education, etc. disappears because of new leadership than everyone is worse off.

 

[JSS2306]

Good response and let me clarify something: I think Saudi Arabia's government should not gather near the blind support it does from Washington. Moreover, I think the same statement holds true for both Israel and Egypt.

My point is that rentier states can pacify people who otherwise would be frustrated with the society's rules. States with oil are better able to stabilize themselves with money and buying goods from other states. Thus every aspect of the state is based around solidifying total control. So in Saudi Arabia, the original deal with the Wahhabis dealt with gaining political control over the region's (at this point there was no real Saudi state) Sunni tribes.

These rentier states also engage in what scholar Nazih Ayubi calls "bonanza modernization." Essentially this results in the distribution of goods to mobilized social groups via state employment, public works construction, and welfare services. This is part of the reason, as I've stated before, why the marginalized Shi'a in Saudi Arabia don't attempt to revolutionize or even really help their brethren in Bahrain. In fact, to the latter point, the Saudi government effectively gave many of these Saudi Shi'a a sort of "rentier kickback" to not support the Bahraini uprisings.

My point is not that Wahhabis, like those on 9/11, do not exist. But I think their existence is more predicated in the Saudi state's massive publishing of Wahhabi religious texts throughout the country. I.E., the state benefits from Wahhabis - except when it doesn't like during the Siege on Mecca's mosque -- because they support the royal family. In turn, the royal family gives them freedom to espouse their religion both within and outside of the Saudi state.

Finally, and this is in relation to my previous points, what necessity does the Royal Family have for instituting a democracy? They would lose power, rights, and wealth. Moreover, your average Saudi also probably has something to fear, at least economically, if the Family is overthrown. I.E., if this "bonanza modernization" that supplies many Saudis with healthcare, money, jobs, education, etc. disappears because of new leadership than everyone is worse off.

Again, great post and a very informative view.

Even with the intricacies of prospering oil states such as Saudi Arabia and the stronghold the Royal family has in relation to necessities which leads to a political monopoly of their people... what does that have to do with cutting off heads?

What does that have to do with stoning people for adultery, and mostly women, in particular? I can see the financial ramifications of a democracy... I can't see the inhumane treatment of people who commit a crime. It's not like the Saudi Royals are filming these acts of betrayal and committing horrible murders to place the people in fear. The people are taking it upon themselves to see these punishments through without the consent of a judge or jury.

It's this self policing that really confuses me. Where do these beliefs come from? Where do these punishments come from? You're going to tell me that hundreds and thousands of years of practice doesn't have anything to do with Islam?

On the opposite spectrum of prosperity, we have over a hundred million Muslim's that believe stoning for adultery is a viable punishment in Pakistan.

We can tip toe around Islam and point to any number of geopolitical reasons for these types of behaviors to happen, but it doesn't make sense that the richest and the very poorest populations in the ME are practicing the same forms of capital punishment with impunity.

There's a specific belief system in the ME that many practice. Cutting heads off for stealing and adultery. If it's not Islam, what is it?


Where do these ideas stem from?

 

[Jordan]

Again, great post and a very informative view.

Even with the intricacies of prospering oil states such as Saudi Arabia and the stronghold the Royal family has in relation to necessities which leads to a political monopoly of their people... what does that have to do with cutting off heads?

What does that have to do with stoning people for adultery, and mostly women, in particular? I can see the financial ramifications of a democracy... I can't see the inhumane treatment of people who commit a crime. It's not like the Saudi Royals are filming these acts and committing horrible murders to place the people in fear. The people are taking it upon themselves to see these punishments through without the consent of a judge or jury.

It's this self policing that really confuses me. Where do these beliefs come from? Where do these punishments come from? You're going to tell me that hundreds and thousands of years of practice doesn't have anything to do with Islam?

On the opposite spectrum of prosperity, we have over a hundred million Muslim's that believe stoning for adultery is a viable punishment in Pakistan.

We can tip toe around Islam and point to any number of geopolitical reasons for these types of behaviors to happen, but it doesn't make sense that the most rich and the very poorest populations in the ME are practicing the same forms of capital punishment without impunity.

There's a specific belief system in the ME that many practice. Cutting heads off for stealing and adultery. If it's not Islam, what is it?


Where do these ideas stem from?

I'm really enjoying this discussion. These are points that are not frequently brought up in the far away land of academia, and I think that is a shame. So I really do appreciate it.

I'll address Saudi Arabia in a second but I'm going to create some argumentative offense for myself. Both of these points are related to my structural interpretation of radicalism. First, you see the exact same radicalism in the Central African Republic that you see with ISIS. For example, read this link - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/15/yes-there-are-christian-terrorists.html . My argument is that when people have no economic room for growth, when they are stuck in the same messed up place with no way of feeding their families, I think that is when religion devolves into radicalism. For example, Syria in the 1980s absolutely crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in the Hama uprisings. Now, what's really funny is that many of the Muslim religious leaders and the government struck deals that were mutually beneficial and survived together peacefully for decades. When the Arab Uprising in Syria broke out, however, these Imams were not all supporting or opposing the regime. Those who did oppose it, though, were those in the most economically deprived regions of the country. For example, Deir ez-Zor, which is one of the four largest industrial cities. Those in the country who were involved in industry, however, suffered for years prior to the uprisings. Now the city is an ISIS stronghold.

Now let's talk about Saudi Arabia. In my opinion, there is a kinship/religion symbiosis. I.E., governments in the Gulf are tribal and thus hereditary and patriarchal (sans Kuwait and Bahrain who have women that work in the government). In Saudi Arabia, the Royal Family is aligned with the Wahhabi movement. Therefore, for fear of losing their biggest pluralistic support group, they stand by the religious doctrine. When they didn't the neb-wahhabis revolted against the family in 1979, creating quite the political controversy. This leads to what some conservative scholars -- whom I disagree with on a lot of other issues -- call petro-Jihadism. Or, more specifically, the usage of oil wealth to finance wahhabism. Giles Kepel traces this entire process back to the 1950s and 1960s where the government began funding Wahhabi textbooks and spreading them throughout the region... Including many Madrassas in Pakistan.

So why do so many Saudis not revolt/argue against these religious policies? Well that's because if they did they would lose so many benefits that they gain from the RF and rentier economy. It's not that the Saudi populous, from what I gather anyways, supports these rules. It's that they fear the worst will happen. This is one of the issues with all of the Pew surveys. They are interviewing people asking questions if they support the status quo. No right minded person would dare risk saying they don't support the regime.

I think the idea that "so many" in the Middle East practice stoning and cutting off heads is a wee bit of a generalization. Daniel Pipes, no friend of Muslims and oftentimes fear-mongerer, has estimated that no more than 10% of Muslims are Islamists. My bet is the number is significantly lower than that. To be honest, even if it was 1%, that's still a really high number. But to claim that the 1% represents all Muslims is like claiming people who bomb abortion clinics are representative of Christianity or Jewish terrorists are representative of Judaism.

Also, if this is about Islam, and not institutional or structural causes, why do we see so few Muslim communities in the U.S. practicing Wahhabi interpretations? Why Azerbaijan, or any South-Eastern European or Central Asian country that Pew polled the percentage supporting a radical interpretation of Shariah so much lower than in the Middle East?

Finally, I at what point had a religion professor in graduate school who told the class that Sharia Law and the U.S. constitution are 90% compatible. Now, religion is by no means my expertise, but he was brilliant. My question to any Muslim members of RCF following this thread, could you elaborate and or disagree with that statement? A lot of what I understand from my coursework would support this claim. From what I understand, Sharia law involves a democratic electoral procedure, and the bastardization you see ISIS use, as well as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is solely a bastardization and not really Sharia. Now, here is an area where I am admittedly unfamiliar and would love to hear from some other, more experienced voices.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Finally, I at what point had a religion professor in graduate school who told the class that Sharia Law and the U.S. constitution are 90% compatible. Now, religion is by no means my expertise, but he was brilliant. My question to any Muslim members of RCF following this thread, could you elaborate and or disagree with that statement?

I'm less concerned about the 90% than about that missing 10%.

Did that professor happen to specify the 10% in which they are not compatible?