The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[The Human Q-Tip]

OK. Islam is currently taught in mosques and schools in ways I've described. I've been to schools, masjid, madrasas, etc... in multiple countries and have seen nothing but peace and love. I assure you that if you went, you'd experience the same.

I have no doubt that has been your experience, and that lots of such mosques, masjids, and madrassas exist. But it is also equally clear that others exist that do not follow the same tolerant, peaceful interpretations.

Well the first that came to mind was Iran. But the second thought I had was: what part of Bosnia? Travnik, Cazin, Sarajevo, Mostar...? Having familiarity with the region and knowing how different the regions are, the mind state and likelihood of cooperation are completely different. Depending on internal politics, past conflicts, family tradition... all can give credence to a certain type of answer. And that's just Bosnia. Pardon my skepticism that a report based on 38,000 interviews worldwide is not a fair representation of attitude.

38,000 is a lot more representative than your single, anecdotal experience. And again, the Pew survey is just part of the picture, which also includes reasonable inferences from so many Muslim-majority nations having such laws, articles and books written by people who have had their own experiences and exposures, etc..

Anyway, I've never claimed that such veiws were universal. I've simply said they were "mainstream", not fringe, and you agreed.

 

[gourimoko]

Well, I guess we'll see about that in a bit here....

Time to go to the "the tape":

The percentage of Muslims who say they want sharia to be “the official law of the land” varies widely around the world, from fewer than one-in-ten in Azerbaijan (8%) to near unanimity in Afghanistan (99%). But solid majorities in most of the countries surveyed across the Middle East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia favor the establishment of sharia, including 71% of Muslims in Nigeria, 72% in Indonesia, 74% in Egypt and 89% in the Palestinian territories.

Why stop the quote there? Did you not read report?

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable. The survey involved a total of more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages. It covered Muslims in 39 countries, which are divided into six regions in this report – Southern and Eastern Europe (Russia and the Balkans), Central Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa

You posting a graphic regarding the adoption of Sharia doesn't mean much. It certainly doesn't imply these folks are extremists.

Not trying to be a dick, but I wasn't the one misrepresenting the facts on this. And if you want me to post the Pew results specific to the questions of apostasy, blasphemy, etc., I can do that as well.

You weren't? Odd.... I thought saying that "folks support Sharia" equates to extremist views is a bit of a misrepresentation to begin with...

Anyway, concerning what others including myself have said about regional, political influences playing a larger role than religious influences.

Regional Differences

Attitudes toward Islamic law vary significantly by region. Support for making sharia the law of the land is highest in South Asia (median of 84%). Medians of at least six-in-ten Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa (64%), the Middle EastNorth Africa region (74%) and Southeast Asia (77%) also favor enshrining sharia as official law.

But in two regions, far fewer Muslims say Islamic law should be endorsed by their governments: Southern and Eastern Europe (18%) and Central Asia (12%). Within regions, support for enshrining sharia as official law is particularly high in some countries with predominantly Muslim populations, such as Afghanistan and Iraq.1

But support for sharia is not limited to countries where Muslims make up a majority of the population. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, Muslims constitute less than a fifth of the population in Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Mozambique and Uganda; yet in each of these countries, at least half of Muslims (52%-74%) say they want sharia to be the official law of the land.

Conversely, in some countries where Muslims make up more than 90% of the population, relatively few want their government to codify Islamic law; this is the case in Tajikistan (27%), Turkey (12%) and Azerbaijan (8%).

How radical is it to support Sharia being codified as the law of the land?

Well, however widespread the support is, it obviously isn't inherently an Islamic trait.

Q-Tip, at this point I'm at a loss to understand what your point is exactly. Are you still blaming Islam for radical extremism?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I would be fine if the President criticized prohibitions against apostasy, blasphemy, and proselytization even without pointing the finger solely at Islam. Just present it as a "shoe fits" statement:

"To the extent any religion believes that adults should not be free to abandon or change their religious beliefs, or that blasphemy or insult against a religion should be barred, or that people should not be able to freely proselytize their religion to others -- who are of course free to listen or not -- that religion is fostering intolerance. It is susceptible to being hijacked by extremists who try to force others into compliance, and elevates one religion over others. It is not consistent with freedom of conscience or freedom of expression, and is incompatible with peaceful coexistence in the modern world."

I think a resulting chorus of widespread agreement from Muslim majority nations, and Muslims more generally, would help in isolating those fringe radicals in ISIS and AQ.

Or at the least, it might ignite an interesting debate.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Why stop the quote there?

Because I was refuting a very specific, unqualified statement you made about the Pew report, that was false. I went off the words you actually used. Here again is your specific statement to which I was directly responding, with the underlining and bolding being yours:

In nations that have predominantly Muslim populations, the majority of citizens do not want to codify Sharia. This is again, evidenced by Pew Research:

And again, here is the direct quote from the Pew Survey (my bolding):

But solid majorities in most of the countries surveyed across the Middle East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia favor the establishment of sharia, including 71% of Muslims in Nigeria, 72% in Indonesia, 74% in Egypt and 89% in the Palestinian territories.

Had you limited your initial statement to something like "citzens do not want to codify all aspects of Sharia", then I wouldn't have said anything. But given that the broad words you did use directly contradicted the exact statement from the Survey you were citing, that needed to be corrected.

Attitudes toward Islamic law vary significantly by region. Support for making sharia the law of the land is highest in South Asia (median of 84%). Medians of at least six-in-ten Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa (64%), the Middle East, North Africa region (74%) and Southeast Asia (77%) also favor enshrining sharia as official law.

And according to Pew, the nations listed in those regions include 865 million Muslims.

But in two regions, far fewer Muslims say Islamic law should be endorsed by their governments: Southern and Eastern Europe (18%) and Central Asia (12%). Within regions, support for enshrining sharia as official law is particularly high in some countries with predominantly Muslim populations, such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those listed nations include approximately 120 million Muslims. Pretty easy to see which view predominates.

Well, however widespread the support is, it obviously isn't inherently an Islamic trait.

Agreed. I don't believe there is an inherent trait of Islam, period. I've said repeatedly that I think religions must be defined as they are currently practiced, taking into account the prevalence of any particular belief in defining what that religion "is". Obviously, religions can change over time.

Q-Tip, at this point I'm at a loss to understand what your point is exactly. Are you still blaming Islam for radical extremism?

"Radical extremism" in general? Of course not. I don't blame Islam for Timothey McVeigh, the Unabomber, or ANSWER.

Do I think there are aspects of mainstream Islam that foster intolerance and radical Islamic extremism? Yes.

More specifically,

1) the belief that apostasy, blasphemy, and the proselytization of Muslims should be banned is at minimum a "mainstream" (likely a majority) belief of modern Islam;

2) this belief is damaging/dangerous even if a majority of Muslims do not believe the punishment should be death, and;

3) taken together, these beliefs constitute a failure to recognize that religious belief should be purely a matter of individual conscience, and that increases the likelihood that Islam will serve as a motivation force for some violent extremists.

And I don't believe your statement that you're "at a loss to understand exactly what my point is." I have been banging a very specific drum, focusing on these three issues, for a long time. What is obvious to me is that you want to discuss anything but that.

 

[Jordan]

Agreed. I don't believe there is an inherent trait of Islam, period. I've said repeatedly that I think religions must be defined as they are currently practiced, taking into account the prevalence of any particular belief in defining what that religion "is". Obviously, religions can change over time.



"Radical extremism" in general? Of course not. I don't blame Islam for Timothey McVeigh, the Unabomber, or ANSWER.

Do I think there are aspects of mainstream Islam that foster intolerance and radical Islamic extremism? Yes.

More specifically,

1) the belief that apostasy, blasphemy, and the proselytization of Muslims should be banned is at minimum a "mainstream" (likely a majority) belief of modern Islam;

2) this belief is damaging/dangerous even if a majority of Muslims do not believe the punishment should be death, and;

3) taken together, these beliefs constitute a failure to recognize that religious belief should be purely a matter of individual conscience, and that increases the likelihood that Islam will serve as a motivation force for some violent extremists.

And I don't believe your statement that you're "at a loss to understand exactly what my point is." I have been banging a very specific drum, focusing on these three issues, for a long time. What is obvious to me is that you want to discuss anything but that.

I think where people are getting confused is if you believe Islam is the causal factor in these beliefs? If the answer is yes then that does not explain why in certain Muslim majority countries (Turkey, etc.) or Eastern European countries with many Muslims do not feel nearly the same way about Sharia.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I think where people are getting confused is if you believe Islam is the causal factor in these beliefs?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the causal factor". It would be like asking "Is Christianity the causal factor in the content of the Nicene Creed?"

As I've said, I think a religion must be defined as how it is currently taught and practiced. A lot of factors other than the mere content of the founding texts will affect the development of any religion, not just Islam. I'm much more familiar with the politics behind the development of Christianity, and there's no question that politics/nationalism played some role in its development. But explaining why or how modern Christianity -- or any particular denomination -- developed the way it did doesn't change what it is today.

So, you can't draw an unimpeded straight line from the original texts to current practices, and say "A caused B". But just because beliefs about sharia vary between nations doesn't mean that the concept of Sharia itself isn't Islamic. It just helps explain why they are what they are, and I don't think that matters. At least, it doesn't matter to me. It might matter to someone who argues that Islam is "inherently" intolerant/bad, which I don't.

I said this before, but the reaction to this kind of surprises me a bit. I honestly thought I'd get general agreement that "yeah, these are not good things, and Islam should work to change that."

If the answer is yes then that does not explain why in certain Muslim majority countries (Turkey, etc.) or Eastern European countries with many Muslims do not feel nearly the same way about Sharia.

Again, I don't think it matters, but as for the explanations in those two situations....

Turkey had the rather militantly secular Kemal who actively suppressed religious influence over government, including specifically rejecting of the concept of a Caliphate blending religious and secular authority. The Balkan nations had a history of so much religious infighting and changes of authority that trying to force sharia on non-Muslims would have generated another bloodbath.

 

[Jordan]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the causal factor"..

As I've said, I think a religion must be defined as how it is currently taught and practiced. A lot of factors other than the mere content of the founding texts will affect the development of any religion, not just Islam. I'm much more familiar with the politics behind the development of Christianity, and there's no question that politics/nationalism played some role in its development. But explaining why modern Christianity -- or any particular denomination -- developed the way it did doesnt' change what it is today.

So, you can't draw an unimpeded straight line from the original texts to current practices, and say "A caused B". But that doesn't mean that they aren't religious beliefs. It just helps explain why they are what they are, and I don't think that matters. At least, it doesn't matter to me. It might matter to someone who argues that Islam is "inherently" intolerant/bad, which I don't.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how those beliefs became mainstream. What matters is that they are a mainstream part of modern Islam, codified into law in many Islamic countries, and I think that needs to change.

I said this before, but the reaction to this kind of surprises me a bit. I honestly thought I'd get general agreement that "yeah, these are not good things, and Islam should work to change that."

This is the only part where I emphatically disagree with you. Because by isolating how these views became mainstream, whether it was caused by Islam itself, institutional factors, structural factors, or some combination of the three, society can work to help deproblematize the beliefs.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is the only part where I emphatically disagree with you. Because by isolating how these views became mainstream, whether it was caused by Islam itself, institutional factors, structural factors, or some combination of the three, society can work to help deproblematize the beliefs.

Can you be more specific? Because the way I see it, no matter who those beliefs came to be the way they are, any approach is going to have to be two-pronged. First, the nations involved would have to repeal any laws enforcing those aspects of Sharia. And second, you'd want to have a conversation within Islam about those beliefs so that the religious leaders are no longer pushing those beliefs either.

Anyway, the permutations of how exactly how Islam (or Christianity) came to be in the exact form it is in each country would be almost impossible to unwind. Things like personal charisma of leaders, and all sorts of non-quantifiable factors for which they might be no records at all would be huge.

But obviously, the very first step would be to recognize that those doctrines are problematic in the first place. I'm not sure that's happened even in this thread.

 

[Jordan]

Can you be more specific? Because the way I see it, no matter who those beliefs came to be the way they are, any approach is going to have to be two-pronged. First, the nations involved would have to repeal any laws enforcing those aspects of Sharia. And second, you'd want to have a conversation within Islam about those beliefs so that the religious leaders are no longer pushing those beliefs either.

Anyway, the permutations of how exactly how Islam (or Christianity) came to be in the exact form it is in each country would be almost impossible to unwind. Things like personal charisma to leaders, and all sorts of non-quantifiable factors for which they might be no records at all would be huge.

But obviously, the very first step would be to recognize that those doctrines are problematic in the first place. I'm not sure that's happened even in this thread.

I think the thing, which if I am correct the Pew poll states, is that most Muslims support following Sharia in their homes (correct me if I am wrong here). So I think repealing Sharia, which is a large part of Islam, would be the equivalent of overturning any social conservative policies in the United States (gay marriage, stem cells, abortion, etc.). Not that it should not be done but is fairly unrealistic.

This gets to my larger point: If, as is my opinion, radical Islam or Islamism is, in many situations, caused by institutional and/or structural factors then that is what needs to be addressed. So if authoritarian regimes that subvert lower classes and are corrupt to protect their own while at the same time banning certain freedoms (this is pretty much the case in most authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, hence the Arab Spring) I think it is the job of the United States and western world to support the opposite, or in this case, democratically elected leaders. It is why I wished the U.S. would have called the military's coup of Morsi a coup, and not just a "coup-like event." It's time America, who claims to defend Democracy, actually defend it. Even if the Democracy is illiberal, if it will reduce Islamism, which I believe it will, then it needs to be supported.

I think a lot of Islamism is caused by Washington's "stability blinders" where the concern for the "peaceful status quo" outweighs long-term negative externalities.

 

[gourimoko]

I think the thing, which if I am correct the Pew poll states, is that most Muslims support following Sharia in their homes (correct me if I am wrong here). So I think repealing Sharia, which is a large part of Islam, would be the equivalent of overturning any social conservative policies in the United States (gay marriage, stem cells, abortion, etc.). Not that it should not be done but is fairly unrealistic.

This gets to my larger point: If, as is my opinion, radical Islam or Islamism is, in many situations, caused by institutional and/or structural factors then that is what needs to be addressed. So if authoritarian regimes that subvert lower classes and are corrupt to protect their own while at the same time banning certain freedoms (this is pretty much the case in most authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, hence the Arab Spring) I think it is the job of the United States and western world to support the opposite, or in this case, democratically elected leaders. It is why I wished the U.S. would have called the military's coup of Morsi a coup, and not just a "coup-like event." It's time America, who claims to defend Democracy, actually defend it. Even if the Democracy is illiberal, if it will reduce Islamism, which I believe it will, then it needs to be supported.

I think a lot of Islamism is caused by Washington's "stability blinders" where the concern for the "peaceful status quo" outweighs long-term negative externalities.

Exactly this... Islam is not the cause of radicalism, and Sharia is being conflated with radicalism.

 

[Sebastian]

Meanwhile, in Mosul, 3,000 year old Assyrian and Akkadian artifacts are being put to the hammer:

"Footage has emerged of Islamic State group extremists taking sledgehammers and pickaxes to ancient Assyrian artifacts at the Mosul Museum in Iraq. In the video, dated February 2015 and published online by the Islamist group, militants can be seen knocking over statues dating back to the Assyrian Empire, which thrived in the region between 2500 B.C. and 605 B.C. Some of the artifacts were 3,000 years old.

The terrorist group formerly known as either ISIL or ISIS has occupied the museum since last summer and previously threatened to destroy its artifacts, which it indicated are inconsistent with Islam. "These ruins that are behind me, they are idols and statues that people in the past used to worship instead of Allah," one Islamic State group militant says in the video. "The Prophet Muhammed took down idols with his bare hands when he went into Mecca. We were ordered by our prophet to take down idols and destroy them, and the companions of the prophet did this after this time, when they conquered countries."

At least one Mosul source said the Islamic State group began burning the museum's priceless collection of rare books and manuscripts this month, according to the Independent. More than 100,000 documents reportedly went up in flames. The collection also included works from the Ottoman Empire period, some of which were registered with Unesco."

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-destroys-3000-year-old-mosul-museum-artifacts-sledgehammer-pickaxes-video-1829270

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I think the thing, which if I am correct the Pew poll states, is that most Muslims support following Sharia in their homes (correct me if I am wrong here). So I think repealing Sharia, which is a large part of Islam, would be the equivalent of overturning any social conservative policies in the United States (gay marriage, stem cells, abortion, etc.). Not that it should not be done but is fairly unrealistic.

Again, I am not talking about every aspect of sharia. I am talking about the specific beliefs/policies regarding apostasy, blasphemy, and proselytization. Probably in order of importance. Repealing those laws, and arguing that Islamic beliefs regarding those things should be changed.

Everything that follows is fun to discuss, but not directly relevant to that point to the point I was making about reform. And I happen to agree with you that many aspects of sharia are really no different in principle than civil laws in other nations.

So if authoritarian regimes that subvert lower classes and are corrupt to protect their own while at the same time banning certain freedoms (this is pretty much the case in most authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, hence the Arab Spring) I think it is the job of the United States and western world to support the opposite, or in this case, democratically elected leaders.

I don't see any real evidence that getting rid of dictators is a reliable path to less radical Islamism. Iraq has more Islamic radicalism since Saddam got the boot. Libya has more Islamism after Gaddhafi got the boot. Iran had more Islamism after the Shah got the boot. I'm not saying that supporting dictators was right (although we were opponents of Gaddhafi rather than supporters), but I don't see that connection being born out in the real world.

It has to be remembered that the entire Middle East was under the control of the Ottoman Caliphate -- which expressly blended secular and religious rule -- for hundreds of years prior to any major western presence. Islam as a core component of the state long pre-existed that western involvement, so blaming its existence on western interference makes no sense.

And it's odd that you mentioned Turkey as a secular example, because it only became a secular nation because of Mustafa Kemal -- Ataturk -- who was a one-party dictator who jammed secularism down the throats of a lot of people.

There is Islamism is a whole shitload of countries where the U.S. has never had significant involvement, and/or where the U.S. involvement predated the existence of Islamism.

It is why I wished the U.S. would have called the military's coup of Morsi a coup, and not just a "coup-like event." It's time America, who claims to defend Democracy, actually defend it. Even if the Democracy is illiberal, if it will reduce Islamism, which I believe it will, then it needs to be supported.

Rather than argue about this, I'll just ask a question. Do you recognize the possibility that a secular-inclined dictator can actually be the instrument of suppressing radical Islam beliefs/practices, and that a democratically-elected government may be more Islamist if the people happen to be more Islamist than the dictator?

 

[gourimoko]

Wait.. hang on a second...

@The Human Q-Tip , is your argument about "Islamism" and Islamists, or about Islam and Muslims?

No one here yet, not myself, @kosis, @jking948 , or others have defended "Islamism" which is the forcing of Islam onto others. No one here supports that I think.

Your original argument was about Islam, and now in this post you seem to, once again, move the goalpost without telling anyone.

First it was Islam, then it was Sharia, now it's Islamism?

You seem to be moving the goalpost more towards extremism; yet your own argument, time and again, has referenced the "mainstream of Islam." Islamism is not a mainstream philosophy, not remotely.

Lastly, the Pew Research poll you seem to keep citing does not show substantial support for Islamism at all.

Concisely, are we talking about Islam the faith or Islamism the political philosophy?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Wait.. hang on a second... is your argument about "Islamism" and Islamists, or about Islam and Muslims?

My argument actually is focused on apostasy, blasphemy, and proselytization. I've described ad nauseum my position on those, and responded to jking's questions on how they relate to Islam. You have conveniently and consistently refused to address those points.

There was a second, tangential discussion that jking just started relating to "Islamism" -- a word he used -- and I was using it in the same sense he used it.

 

[Jordan]

Again, I am not talking about every aspect of sharia. I am talking about the specific beliefs/policies regarding apostasy, blasphemy, and proselytization. Probably in order of importance. Repealing those laws, and arguing that Islamic beliefs regarding those things should be changed.

Everything that follows is fun to discuss, but not directly relevant to that point to the point I was making about reform. And I happen to agree with you that many aspects of sharia are really no different in principle than civil laws in other nations.



I don't see any real evidence that getting rid of dictators is a reliable path to less radical Islamism. Iraq has more Islamic radicalism since Saddam got the boot. Libya has more Islamism after Gaddhafi got the boot. Iran had more Islamism after the Shah got the boot. I'm not saying that supporting dictators was right (although we were opponents of Gaddhafi rather than supporters), but I don't see that connection being born out in the real world.

It has to be remembered that the entire Middle East was under the control of the Ottoman Caliphate -- which expressly blended secular and religious rule -- for hundreds of years prior to any major western presence. Islam as a core component of the state long pre-existed that western involvement, so blaming its existence on western interference makes no sense.

And it's odd that you mentioned Turkey as a secular example, because it only became a secular nation because of Mustafa Kemal -- Ataturk -- who was a one-party dictator who jammed secularism down the throats of a lot of people.

There is Islamism is a whole shitload of countries where the U.S. has never had significant involvement, and/or where the U.S. involvement predated the existence of Islamism.



Rather than argue about this, I'll just ask a question. Do you recognize the possibility that a secular-inclined dictator can actually be the instrument of suppressing radical Islam beliefs/practices, and that a democratically-elected government may be more Islamist if the people happen to be more Islamist than the dictator?

I'm going to begin by seconding @gourimoko completely in regards to the amount of Muslims who practice Islamism. As a definition, Islamist are people who view the fusion of means and ends in Islam and politics. Therefore, someone like Morsi, is a pragmatic Islamist where he supported democracy. The "founder" of the movement, Said Qutb, did not believe in such fusion.

Anyways, I am more than cognizant of the fact that authoritarianism can suppress radical Islam, in fact, Shadi Hamid's recently published Temptations of Power makes that exact argument in the case of Egypt and Jordan.

Nonetheless, your examples I think are flawed. We replaced Saddam with Maliki who is pretty much a dictator who punishes lower classes. Libya has no government and the Islamism was already there during Gaddhafi but, terrorists seek out failed states, and that is what we are seeing in Libya. Hence it's not a lack of dictatorships but a lack of successful states. Do you really think the Iranian clerics are not dictators?

Turkey is a democracy but because AKP is, literally, the only legitimate party that is why you see so much conservative Islam, although I think calling it Islamism in the Qutb definition is a stretch. Also, I find it funny you mention Turkey, who had an extremely low percentage of Muslims who want Sharia in your often cited Pew poll.

Even if you don't agree with any of those points, can you really state you believe those countries are even close to as anti-authoritarian as those in Eastern Europe?