A recent debate I had with Tacitus on Redstate got me thinking as to whether the roots of militant Islam lie primarily in the socio-economic conditions that exist in Islamic countries or in the religion itself. The issue is crucial because the cause of militant Islamic will dictate our strategy in response. (This view is admittedly so commonplace that it verges on the cliche’. Bear with me.)
Frequently, the issue is framed as “whether Islam should reform itself.” I think that it’s a distraction to do so. The issue is really “what motivates our enemies”.
If one takes the dim view that most people are primarily motivated by money (i.e., socio-economic conditions ultimately drives people), then money is what needs to be addressed. Islamic doctrine will be addressed by implication. The solution is greater trade and investment in Middle Eastern countries (such as the Bush Administration’s proposed Middle East Free Trade Area), support for liberal economic regimes (with fingers crossed for the regime emerging in Iraq), and, where directly threatened by the few not motivated by money, a direct and devastating military response.*
If one takes the view that Islam itself if the issue (faith ultimately drives people), however, then the strategy is different. Economic engagement, with the free flow of people and ideas that it engenders, will only grant the enemy freer access to our people and institutions. It will not help us to win because it does not address the root cause: the religion itself. The only things that will help are (a) conversion of Islamic practicioners to a “reformed” Islam (or a different religion); (b) isolation and containment of those who will not convert; and, where practical, (c) death of the committed believer.
There are those who fall into the first camp (me). There are those who fall into the second (Coultier, certain folks at LGF and like-minded sights, and perhaps Paul Cella — though, if so, he’s light-years smarter than many of the others who hold this view).
And then there are those who, I suspect, actually fall into a third category: They believe in the first approach, but often choose to phrase the debate in terms of the second. Bush falls into this third category. Tacitus may as well.
So, addressing the third camp: Things would be simpler if we would simply put our cards on the table. (Or explain what other, unknown cards we may be holding.)
(FYI — the radical leftists, pro-Palestinian hacks and apologists, and Rachel Corrie types will be addressed in a future post; despite some pseudo-similarity, they are not part of the first camp.)
von
*It may also involve containment of a few unique cases — e.g., Saudi Arabia. By the way, though I’m still confident of my position, my most-dispassionate view of things it that Tacitus got the better of me in our debate. I find some solace, however, in the fact that the experience is far from unique — indeed, it’s far from unique for me!
In support of the first view (it’s all economics), look to Turkey.
With no other motivation than to help improve his country’s economy and standing in the world (i.e., by entering the European Union), Erdogan is making amazing changes in this Muslim state:
I’ll see your Turkey and raise you an Iran.
Which motivation probably depends on which enemy. It is almost certainly both. There are some parts of the fight that will have to be fought with religious zealots AND we probably need to change the social structures which partially encourage many to become religious zealots.
I’ll see your Turkey and raise you an Iran.
Does Iran enjoy a sucessful economy where young proud Iranian men are confident of finding gainful employment?
The stats suggest otherwise:
Inflation Rate (2003E): 10%-15%
Unemployment Rate (2003E): 16%-21%
I would venture another category entirely: those who feel that Islamic cultures, Islamic countries, and therefore Islamic people and Islam, have been shamed. Shamed by military defeat, technological defeat, and cultural defeat, in the 20th century, whereas in the great days of its peak, Islam was the most technologically advanced culture in the world, as well as militarily successful, and admired by outliers, or, at least, feared.
This is hardly a new thesis, put forth as it is by everyone from Lewis to Huntington to Friedman, and it seems to jibe quite well with reality, including noting that the leaders of the 9/11 plot were not in the least poor.
Many profiled terrorists come from very well-off families, and are sent to Western schools, where they wind up feeling alienated, and seek an identity in militant Islam.
This suggests that the issue is neither poverty, nor Islamic theology, nor some combination of them.
I’ve got a little different idea on why Islam is a problem: cultural. Islam as a religion came about (in part, and, to be sure, IMVVVVHO) as a response to problems cropping up when you start cooping paranoid, xenophobic nomadic desert-dwellers in cities. With other even more xenophobic, paranoid, murderous former desert-dwellers.
It took Christianity centuries to begin to reform itself (after thirteen or fourteen centuries of existence); Islam is even younger, and with an external demand for change. I’m not expecting any miracles, anytime soon. And being almost completely full of shit on the subject (maybe I’m being generous with myself), I have no idea if there’s anything we can do to make the change early and relatively bloodless. Probably Islam is going to have similar sorts of backlash to the impetus for change that Christianity did, and that wasn’t pretty at all.
Just a note: if it wasn’t obvious, I’m not all that firmly attached to these notions; they’re just to…stimulate the conversation in a different direction. So be gentle, if you can.
I know you’re thrilled with Turkey, Edward. I would suggest a few things to consider:
Turkey got to where it is mostly because of aggressive, and yes, violent anti-Islamic secularization of its society. The means employed were not things of which you would approve. Holding it up as a Muslim success story, when that success came about as a direct result of Islam’s repression and exclusion from the public sphere, is disingenuous at best.
I use “success” as a relative term, since Turkey is hardly anywhere close to being a state or society that would equate to the norm in Europe. For example, in rural areas — which is to say, most of the country — a woman can still expect to live in some degree of danger from “honor” killings. Native Christians in Turkey — still considered Greeks — are still subject to varying degrees of informal applications of dhimmi laws, usually regarding disposal of property.
Finally, just to nitpick, I’d credit the Greeks more than the Turks with the thawing of relations between the two states: the massive Greek humanitarian response to the Turkish earthquakes a few years back was the impetus for better relations.
The problem is a version of radical Islam, which finds traction in an environment of oppression and economic suffering. But the real problem is the ideology.
How many of the Saudi 9/11 hijackers had middle class backgrounds (or Atta in Egypt)? How many destitute and oppressive countries have existed without a terrorism problem (think most of sub-Saharan Africa)?
Its bigotry to think its inherent in Islam itself, although there sure seems to be a lot of love for the jihadis at the present by those who profess to be Muslim. Other religions have had there own jihadi ideologies. (Does crusade equal jihad?) There are plenty of examples of peaceful Islamic countries.
There has been too much tolerance of the jihadis by Islamic culture, but I think that’s partly an aspect of Semitic culture generally; i.e., stand with those somewhat like you against outsiders no matter how ridiculous the behavior.
Also, a lot of the current heat is the afterglow from the resistance in Afghanistan during the 80s. After the withdrawal of the Soviets, those guys did not give up the jihad business but simply shifted focus.
I would put a high priority on targeting those who support the ideology and finding ways to bolster those who resist it. More general programs to support political and economic improvements are useful and necessary, but they are not the point of the spear. We are already dealing with an Islamic world in which huge numbers see bin Laden as a hero. Making there lives better is unlikely to blunt that.
Man. I was trolling for Tacitus, and someone else hooked him first. Life is so unfair.
I’m only half-kidding, actually.
Its bigotry to think its inherent in Islam itself….
Good God. No, it isn’t. Especially if you can document it. And especially if lots and lots of Muslims agree that it is.
Lordy. What nonsense.
Aren’t you leaving the possibility that it’s cultural and political, rather than economic or intrinsic to Islam? Or that it’s some of all of these things?
I choose “all of the above”.
1. Religion. As I understand it, Islam is a proselytizing religion that teaches that only believers are saved. (Correct me if I’m wrong, I very easily could be.) Historically, those are often the most dangerous. But Christianity is like that too; it was official church teaching for a long time and many (most? I would guess not, but don’t really know) Christians still believe it. For whatever reason, it’s no longer acceptable to coerce conversion or kill unbelievers. It once was. It once was official church teaching that it was acceptable.
2. Economic. Especially, a large group of unemployed or underemployed young men.
3. Cultural/political. Undemocratic regimes that have destroyed the legitimate opposition and made martyrs of some of the illegitimate opposition, and driven everything underground. Corrupt regimes that do not provide adequate social services and leave a void that Islamists fill. Cowardly regimes that know they cannot risk an out-and-out confrontation with Islam or Islamists, so they try to placate the population by blaming everything on Israel and the U.S. A corrupt, inaccurate, anti-American, anti-Semitic, generally disgusting state-controlled press.
I’m sure Tac takes issue with some of this, but I don’t know if there’s any fundamental difference about what the problem is, just a difference in emphasis.
The real disagreement is over what to do about it.
I think the terrorists are beyond psychological reach. We can’t scare them out of wanting to kill us. We can’t appease them out of wanting to kill us. We can only kill them, or jail them, or disrupt their communications, or otherwise take away their means to do us harm.
But there are relatively few suicidal terrorists, or we never could have gone on so long without an attack. There’s a scale:
1. willing to kill us and die in the attempt
2. Willing to kill but not to die
3. Actively working for a terrorist group but not willing to directly murder someone.
4. Providing food, shelter, money, or what have you to terrorist groups.
5. Thinking vaguely that bin Laden has the right idea, but not actually doing anything about it.
6. Hating the U.S., but finding bin Laden too extreme.
7. Hating the U.S. and bin Laden equally.
8. Preferring the U.S. to Al Qaeda, but still too distrustful or afraid to do or say anything about it.
9. Publicly defending the U.S. and/or condemning Al Qaeda.
10. Actively helping to defeat the terrorists in some fashion.
We have to figure out how to move most Muslims down the scale. I don’t know exactly how to do this, but I know that the Bush administration has utterly botched it, and that poorly targetted attacks on Islam as a whole will not work.
I see going after Islam as Islam as one of the least promising ways for non-Muslims to change things. Conversion at knife point is wrong and does not really work. You can kill or imprison terrorists and punish states and people who support them, but you have to attack them for their actions, not their beliefs. To change beliefs people have to be persuaded, and attacking Islam as a whole as opposed to the specific ideas of jihad and dhimmi is actively counterproductive.
Juan Cole’s project to translate the writings of Jefferson and Madison into Arabic is going to do so much more good than any number of righteous blog denunciations or speeches, let alone the ugliness of Boykin or LGF.
As for 2 and 3–I obviously am deeply skeptical about changing this with more-or-less unilateral invasions. (Invasions to go after direct threats are one thing; invasions to change the culture for the better are another.) Free trade would help some. I don’t think it’s any sort of cure all.
To the extent that the population has legitimate grievances, we should do our best to eliminate them. We shouldn’t try to make life better for the Palestinians to placate Al Qaeda, but we shouldn’t refuse to make life better for the Palestinians because “that’s what Al Qaeda wants”. Otherwise you let the terrorists hijack (no pun intended) legitimate concerns and drive them closer to the general population. We must have some leverage to get Saudi Arabia and Egypt to change their press and education systems and crack down on terrorist groups and funding. We must have some leverage to get Pakistan get control of its nuclear program.
We need effective public diplomacy–an effort on the scale of the Marshall Plan, not on the scale of a Superbowl ad. I don’t know exactly what form this would take, but we are botching it beyond recognition–if we can’t convince the Ireland and Canadian public of our government’s good faith, how the hell will we convince the average Muslim? We need to recognize that people will trust us more if we are more honest. “Do as I say, not as I do” will not work.
All of this sounds fuzzy and liberal, I know.
None of it is any substitute for military action when necessary, securing nuclear weapons, etc. etc. But we need our military too much for direct and yes, imminent, threats to use it to intimidate or change culture or impose democracy (or a “democracy-minded strongman”) by force. However Iraq ends up–and I will shocked if we end up having done more good than harm–it is clear that this is not as easy as the neocons thought.
Direct attacks on terrorists and their supporters might have some success in scaring people down the scale, but based on Israel’s long experience I’m not very optimistic about that. Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t attack them–incapacitation is reason enough.
“although there sure seems to be a lot of love for the jihadis at the present by those who profess to be Muslim.”
I would be very surprised to find that you had even three Muslim friends. Let alone, say, six. I strongly suspect not one.
I might, of course, be wrong.
very poor choice of the words in my second to last paragraph–of course we use the military to intimidate. But we should use it to intimidate specific terrorists and armies and countries, not for a vague and general intimidation of the entire Muslim world.
Turkey got to where it is mostly because of aggressive, and yes, violent anti-Islamic secularization of its society. The means employed were not things of which you would approve. Holding it up as a Muslim success story, when that success came about as a direct result of Islam’s repression and exclusion from the public sphere, is disingenuous at best.
Secularization yes. “Anti-Islamic secularization” is a bit of a red herring though. If the state religion is Islam, than any secularization would have to be anti the state religion.
It’s ironic though that all the years of secular rule did not do anywhere near as much as Erdogan’s more balanced approach in democratizing that Muslim nation.
“I think the terrorists are beyond psychological reach.”
Actually, Katherine, Saudi Arabia has reported, with at least some credibility, considerable success with programs for captured militants/terrorists which involve first bringing in fairly militant mullahs to sympathise with them, and reach a rapport, while not encouraging them in any way towards violence, then slowly introducing them to Islamic arguments against violence and terrorism, and so on, until, ultimately, they’ve been talked out of and convinced of the errors of their ways. There have been quite a few articles on this, some of which I’ve blogged.
That’s really interesting, Gary.
Is it safe to assume that this depends on individual capture and de-programming? Would it be accurate to say that still-at-large terrorists are beyond the U.S.’s psychological reach (except maybe indirectly through clerics who are Islamist enough for them to trust but who oppose terrorism)?
“It’s ironic though that all the years of secular rule did not do anywhere near as much as Erdogan’s more balanced approach in democratizing that Muslim nation.”
On the other hand, it’s a pretty big question, which none of know the answer to, to ask if Erdogan could exist as a “more balanced” leader without decades of militant secularization and repression. Could you have an Erdogan (on whom the jury is still ultimately out) in Turkey today without Ataturk first?
I vote for Gary’s thesis.
Muslim nations are shamed politically, shamed economically, and shamed culturally. Their culture is not ascendant, it is colonized. Their brethren (Palestinians) are being driven from their own land, armed infidels occupy bases throughout their holy land, their leaders are drunk on petroleum wealth, and every day brings another call for them to change their fundamental culture and import a different way of life, on pain of invasion.
Of course, I don’t actually believe any of that, but you can see where the well of hostility comes from.
So one component of a solution would be to give Muslims something to feel proud of in the international arena, other than successful terror attacks. Like humanitarian missions, science partnerships, cultural exchange, recognition of the strengths of peaceful Islam. Sounds facile, but it works.
Once we begin to think of radical Islam as an east vs east conflict (rather than a west vs east conflict), we have a platform to begin to understand what may be going on in the greater Islamic community.
Von, would like to revisit some failed policies of the westernization of the community, some would focus on the determination if Islam is a “gutter” religion, as if the west can resolve the situation. We can’t.
The radical Islamic groups have come out of both the secular and religious segments of their societies. The denial of power would appear to be the common thread. And Islam as a religion is multifaceted (more than just one flavor) and encompasses more than one culture (none of the three largest Islamic communities are Arab).
So what can we do? Well the first thing is supporting the incorporation of Turkey into the EU. I won’t talk about Iraq, needless to revisit my thoughts (I’m sure you are tired of them). Support institutions which are comfortable with the subordination of federal power and self determination (this will sometimes be painful). And be crystal clear with radical states and organizations, that we will have no problems in changing the post WWII rules of warfare if forced to.
Now, that wouldn’t be a bad start in the short term.
I’m confused by something. Do Muslims in the Middle East make the distinction that is the essence of this post? Do they draw a distinction between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political/social/economic system?
Katherine:
What proportion of Muslims in the Middle East fit into your scale at 4 or less? What proportion is necessary to constitute a permanent problem? What absolute number at 4 or less are sufficient to put the West in a permanent state of security alert? How long can we maintain such a state of alert without it proving corrosive to our social and political institutions?
“Is it safe to assume that this depends on individual capture and de-programming? Would it be accurate to say that still-at-large terrorists are beyond the U.S.’s psychological reach (except maybe indirectly through clerics who are Islamist enough for them to trust but who oppose terrorism)?”
Yes and yes. I wish I could remember more clearly which entry I blogged about this, but I’m not having success finding it just now, I’m afraid. (My brain is still at only about 1/20th-power, due to non-stop intense pain.)
The thing is that, regardless of the base psychological motivations which obviously have to exist to push one to go down the militant-to-terrorist route, these folks are pretty much all convinced of the justification for their belief system, and their later justifications for their actions, by texts. By specific interpretations of the Koran and Hadith. So they are susceptible, in some cases, when done correctly, to being convinced otherwise.
And, yeah, one can look at it as a form of “deprograming.”
Hmm, the piece I excerpted here touched on some of this. The full piece, well worth reading, is here. (It’s longish.)
sidereal:
So one component of a solution would be to give Muslims something to feel proud of in the international arena, other than successful terror attacks. Like humanitarian missions, science partnerships, cultural exchange, recognition of the strengths of peaceful Islam.
If we give to Muslims will it have the effect you’re looking for? Accepting even well-intentioned charity does not appear to be a formula for building self-esteem.
Sorry. The proper URL is here for the article I was referring to.
Dave:
1. I really have no idea. I suspect without much evidence that 5 and 6 are the largest categories, but 1-4 outnumber 10 by quite a lot.
2. I don’t really know what % at any given time tells you about how permanent the problem is. I think this a problem for the foreseeable future in any case.
3. It depends so much on where they are and what weapons they have that it’s hard to say. Not that I could tell you anyway.
4. I don’t know. I guess we’ll find out. We have more control over how corrosive our state of alert is than we do over how long it lasts.
Except for #1, I’m not sure how the answers to these should affect our policy.
Dave:
1. I really have no idea. I suspect without much evidence that 5 and 6 are the largest categories, but 1-4 outnumber 10 by quite a lot.
2. I don’t really know what % at any given time tells you about how permanent the problem is. I think this a problem for the foreseeable future in any case.
3. It depends so much on where they are and what weapons they have that it’s hard to say. Not that I could tell you anyway.
4. I don’t know. I guess we’ll find out. We have more control over how corrosive our state of alert is than we do over how long it lasts.
Except for #1, I’m not sure how the answers to these should affect our policy.
Katherine:
I’m not sure how the answers to these should affect our policy.
Simple. The implication of your argument is that we have a multi-generation conflict in front of us or even what Donald Sensing has referred to as a Forever War. I’d like to suggest that that approach is the most certain to result in an increasing militarization of our society, reduced freedoms, and a greater acceptance of mass violence.
Simple summary: we’re in a pickle.
“If we give to Muslims will it have the effect you’re looking for? Accepting even well-intentioned charity does not appear to be a formula for building self-esteem.”
No, I agree. Of course humanitarian aid is important anywhere people are suffering, and will be appreciated as such, but that isn’t the foundation of building relationships on esteem. Do welfare receipients here love the government any more for it?
I’m talking about providing opportunity, not charity. And about acknowledging the existence of cultural defensiveness and humiliation as a root cause, and recognizing when policies may exacerbate that problem.
Its bigotry to think its inherent in Islam itself….
I think categorical statements like both of the above tend to be nonsense. People can make a case either way. One could make a case that the American economy is racist – provide documentation and Americans who agree – but it would still be a simplistic case. And one saying that case is anti-American would be taking a simplistic position. I think von has more right in this argument than Tac (with Gary ahead of both) but complex systems are resistant to reduction to single eigenvectors.
Gary Farber —
I would venture another category entirely: those who feel that Islamic cultures, Islamic countries, and therefore Islamic people and Islam, have been shamed.
I personally would put “shame” in the same category of socio-economic causation — not because it’s an identical phenomenon, but because the response seems similar.
There’s much more I need to respond to but, unfortunately, I’m under the gun. Back this evening. (Anyone wanna write a couple motions for me? Take your pick: international RICO conspiracies or the medical applications of small intestinal submucosa. Double points if you can find a way to combine the two.)
Motion to suppress both, on grounds of Thursdayness.
On the topic of shame and pride, I have high hopes for the Iraqi soccer team at the Olympics, and hope fellow Americans exhibit such when the time comes. I also really hope we don’t play each other.
sidereal:
I’m talking about providing opportunity, not charity. And about acknowledging the existence of cultural defensiveness and humiliation as a root cause, and recognizing when policies may exacerbate that problem.
That’s pretty much the argument made by Steven den Beste in his Strategic Overview. His conclusion is that you can’t do what you’re suggesting with the current regimes in place and they’re not going to go away by themselves.
I’m confused by something. Do Muslims in the Middle East make the distinction that is the essence of this post? Do they draw a distinction between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political/social/economic system?
I suspect not, but neither did Christianity (at a practical level) for a millenium or so. Islam is, though, more totalist to my eye and therefore this will likely be harder to change, and if Christianity’s history is any guide the change will likely be… turbulent. That said, having gone through this change ourselves, the West might be able to help smooth the transition to some degree, and that’s where the whole notion of “shame”, “socio-economic weaknesses” and the like comes into play.
“His conclusion is that you can’t do what you’re suggesting with the current regimes in place and they’re not going to go away by themselves.”
I agree with both of those. I’m fairly sure nearly everyone does.
I’m confused by something. Do Muslims in the Middle East make the distinction that is the essence of this post? Do they draw a distinction between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political/social/economic system?
Depends strongly on which Muslim one asks, doesn’t it? I thought technically Islam is a complete guide to life & govt but practically YMMV – a big part of the reason we favored group A over group B in country C. (Aside, does anyone else find it weird to read all the time about Prince Bandar drinking alcohol at the WH?)
Well, I won’t claim to be ANY sort of expert, especially with my limited knowledge on the subject, but The Bookseller of Kabul opened my eyes to what I believe is the single largest problem for ME society. Control, or, more specifically, the lack of control.
From my reading I find that ME society is highly stratified, with the eldest son basically being lord over the entire family, even his father (once he ages) and brothers; and especially his sisters, until they are married off.
This produces in many ME people frustration at a lack of control in their own lives, and, while women are beaten down by tradition, it is the younger men (in a society that worships men) in the family who are the most frustrated by their lack of position in society.
I’d love to know where in their family tree most terrorists and even Imams reside. Was not Bin Laden a middle son, a son with little control over his own life, what business to be in, who to marry etc. (until he broke off to join militant jihad) despite his wealth?
Its my belief that this lack of control over their own lives has led the non-eldest sons to desire continued control of the women they remain above in the social strata in order to maintain their standing. I can think of nothing as terrifying to men, who even in a secular society can expect no changes to the level of control of their lives, as the possibility that, through an open society, those below them on the current social scale might make even minimal advances. Therefore, the social strata must be maintained at all cost. What better way to do so than to write laws restricting women’s attendance of school etc.? And what better way to do that than to say it is the will of Allah? Thence, those that oppose this, us, are easily cast as the enemy of Allah. Britany Spears is less an example of a debauched culture hated by Allah than an example of one where a woman can become much more wildly successful than men.
Extend this desire for control to a religious group and you have Iran’s theocracy, extend it to a huge royal family and you have Saudi Arabia, extend it to a political party and you have Syria and, at one time, Iraq. Eliminate it and you have Western-style democracies of many types.
The question I would put to the group is, how did Turkey get to a point where not only did opportunities became available to those in lower social strata (not measured by wealth, but by familial position) but the very fact of that was accepted as proper? What mindset has changed in Turkey that allows Erdogan to reform?
Tacitus:
Good God. No, it isn’t. Especially if you can document it. And especially if lots and lots of Muslims agree that it is.
Lordy. What nonsense.
So you do believe that Islam by its very nature is a terrorist’s religion. When do we start shutting down the mosques then, since you seem to believe they are inherently all terrorist training camps?
Gary Farber:
I would be very surprised to find that you had even three Muslim friends. Let alone, say, six. I strongly suspect not one.
I might, of course, be wrong.
You are wrong, but you seem to assume that I think every Muslim, or even a majority, think this way. My only point is that there seems to be a lot of support for jihadis by a lot of Muslims around the world. Best example is prevalence of bin Laden posters throughout Islamic world.
I’m confused by something. Do Muslims in the Middle East make the distinction that is the essence of this post? Do they draw a distinction between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political/social/economic system?
I always thought no, since Christiantiy had the “benefit” of Roman laws, roads, etc. as it grew, while Islam did have to be religion and government. I though Taheri wrote something about that but I can’t find it now.
sidereal:
I agree with both of those. I’m fairly sure nearly everyone does.
Now I’m really confused. What are you suggesting? Your first suggestion was that we should be “providing opportunity, not charity. And about acknowledging the existence of cultural defensiveness and humiliation as a root cause, and recognizing when policies may exacerbate that problem.” But the statement I quote at the top of this comment appears to be that you don’t believe such efforts can work until we remove the current regimes presumeably by force. Why try such measures, then?
Please don’t take this as a criticism. I have an enormous amount of respect for your ideas, sidereal. I’m just trying to gain understanding.
I always thought no, since Christiantiy had the “benefit” of Roman laws, roads, etc. as it grew, while Islam did have to be religion and government.
That’s an odd contention, since the nascent Islam took over the Sassanid Empire wholesale, and the Sassanids were among the most advanced people in the world at that time. What we think of as “Islamic” art, for example, is almost directly stolen from the Sassanid style — there was a wonderful exhibition at the British Museum about three years ago on the Sassanids, and it’s eerily almost-Muslim — and I’d be surprised if they didn’t utilize chunks of the Sassanid legal system, at a practical level at least.
It makes more sense once you consider the spread of Islam to previously “uncivilized” places, I suppose, e.g. Central Asia, but I’d need to hear the full thesis to find it particularly plausible.
Added in proof: Although, I suppose what that might mean is that the Sassanid legal code was adopted into Islam directly, whereas the Roman code was sort of adopted at one step remove. Still, I’d need to hear more; give us a heads-up when you find that reference, would you?
I always thought no, since Christiantiy had the “benefit” of Roman laws, roads, etc. as it grew, while Islam did have to be religion and government. I though Taheri wrote something about that but I can’t find it now.
Now my follow-up question: how do you split the baby? If there is no distinction between Islam the religion and Islam the social/political/economic system, the premise of this post would appear to be moot.
So you do believe that Islam by its very nature is a terrorist’s religion.
Nah. Plenty of Muslims aren’t terrorists. But does jihad and dhimmi inevitably produce violence such as the terror waves we see today? Of course.
When do we start shutting down the mosques then, since you seem to believe they are inherently all terrorist training camps?
See, dishonest hyperbolic restatement of your interlocutor’s position doesn’t earn you many points as someone worth, well, interlocuting with.
Nah. Plenty of Muslims aren’t terrorists. But does jihad and dhimmi inevitably produce violence such as the terror waves we see today? Of course.
Why?
Or, more accurately: How do you know?
Tacitus: “I use “success” as a relative term, since Turkey is hardly anywhere close to being a state or society that would equate to the norm in Europe.”
LOL. You do realize that the USA does not ‘equate to the norm in Europe’ either, do you? Though I am mystified why that would bother you.
The last honor killing I know about happened to a Dutch girl and her father got sentenced to 30 years in Turkey prison a few weeks ago. And the Greeks are very anti-Turkey, I don’t think the fact that they did the human thing after a natural disaster changes that.
I think that the issue is much more complex than presented here. When you (Von) are referring to militant islam, are you referring to the terrorist organisations and the people that support them? Are those very different than for instance the IRA in Ireland? Shouldn’t you look in general at why people take these kind of horrendous actions? Why do people become fundamentalists in any religion? Look at the extreme christians in the USA; why do people joint those groups?
Education and free information are very important factors I think. Part of the spread of religion has always been through schools, often the only means to provide your kids with a free education and quite a lot of religious schools offer food to the kids too. Wahibi’s do that all over the world, and my mother is a Catholic because the Catholic church did it in the Netherlands right after the war…
Attacking people, either physically or verbally, tends to make them very defensive. They are not open for your POV at all anymore. If I tell you you are a [insert bad thing] because you are a Christian you are not very likey to take my arguments seriously let alone do some self research. And you can replace christian in that sentence with any label that identifies a group (American, Cubs fan, etc.).
I doubt wether things can improve in the Middle East without adressing the Israel-Palestina issue.
“But the statement I quote at the top of this comment appears to be that you don’t believe such efforts can work until we remove the current regimes presumeably by force.”
Don’t take ‘presumably by force’ for granted. If doing so by force requires that you exacerbate the problem, it isn’t constructive and isn’t worth turning your sons and daughters into killers. I’d point to the allocation of rebuilding contracts to American corporations rather than local Iraqis as an example of an invasion being too tempting an opportunity for a land grab and resulting in our doing exactly the wrong thing.
Second, there are a number of already friendly Islamic states. If you really want to start rolling back the antagonistic perception of the West among Muslims, you could start in. . say. . Turkey or Jordan.
This is another case where the conflation of the War on Iraq and the War on Terror is counterproductive. Invading Iraq was sold on immediate defense grounds, and if the evidence were true, it was a compelling case. But in the absence of the evidence, war supporters now slip into defending it on cultural transformation grounds. But Iraq is not a fertile place to start that (except probably among the Kurds). Especially not a decade after Bush’s father abandoned half the country to Saddam’s vengeance.
“I’m just trying to gain understanding.”
Aren’t we all.
If you really want to start rolling back the antagonistic perception of the West among Muslims, you could start in. . say. . Turkey or Jordan.
I think Jordan would be (have been?) best place to start. Queen Noor’s enormously friendly to the US, the country’s lurching towards modernity and I think with a few strategically placed nudges we could convert (have converted?) it into a constitutional monarchy a la Britain or the Netherlands. It has the advantages of being small (therefore less aggregate effort would be needed), non-threatening, generally well-liked in the Arab Nations IIRC, and well-situated strategically (adjacent to Egypt, Saudia Arabia and Iraq) if one’s strategy is to provide a socio-economic cultural spur to the region.
I still think it would have been something of a long shot, but it’s one that I could definitely support (have supported?) had “cultural revolution” been the real aim of the game.
Anarch,
Here Taheri discusses Islam and democracy’s incompatibility with regard to equality.
I can’t find where I read about the theory that Christianity had Rome to “lean” on. Sorry.
If you really want to start rolling back the antagonistic perception of the West among Muslims, you could start in. . say. . Turkey or Jordan.
That’s all I’m saying…Focus more attention (and money) on those countries that set an example the others can follow. There are Muslim countries in Central Asia worthy of this as well…
Crionna, your link gives me a not found page.
Edward:
Here’s the corrected link.
[Beware non-absolute links, crionna; blogspot et al. really really don’t like’em…]
Ah, sorry. I have the same problem elsewhere. I write in Word and copy/paste here. The ” look odd to some blog sites I think.
Thanks for the link Anarch.
Reads like a defeatist manifesto to me.
There’s no word in English specifically for colorblind, genderblind, sexualorientationblind, and disabilityblind equality either.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for it.
Wow, that Taheri article really doesn’t start off well at all. This paragraph in particular sets off all kinds of warning bells:
Yeah, “democrasi” is significantly different from “democracy”!
Josh,
I read it that way the first time too. But couldn’t believe that I had understood correctly so went back over it a few times.
I think the author means to say that the word was accepted wholesale as Greek into the language because no Persian, Arabic, or Turkish equivalent existed.
Of course, Amir Taheri may just want to have a chat with Francis Fukuyama. They seem to disagree on a key point or two.
I read it that way the first time too. But couldn’t believe that I had understood correctly so went back over it a few times.
I think the author means to say that the word was accepted wholesale as Greek into the language because no Persian, Arabic, or Turkish equivalent existed.
Well, for one thing, he specifically says that language *shapes* a civilization. It’s Sapir-Whorf all over again.
But even read your way, it’s still stupid. For example, English has “beef”, which comes directly from French, even though cattle existed in England before the Norman conquest. All languages import words from other languages.
By the way, what’s a ‘Muslim language’?
Since there are a good dozen laughable assertions in the excerpted bit, I’ll refrain from reading the whole thing.
Personally, I doubt that the solution is economic. All the free trade in the world isn’t going to suddenly overcome cultural and religious barriers that are held on to in desperation.
The main problem that I see in this matter is that in general Islam is considered the be all end all in ME countries. It dictates how you live, act, eat, and govern. Questioning religious doctrine, something that is acceptable in the States, can earn you imprisonment or death. Converting to another religion or becoming atheist is even worse.
And to quote from earlier:
Shamed by military defeat, technological defeat, and cultural defeat, in the 20th century, whereas in the great days of its peak, Islam was the most technologically advanced culture in the world, as well as militarily successful, and admired by outliers, or, at least, feared.
That is something I have always noticed. The accomplishments of Islam are always talked about in past tense. But until reforms are put in place, they are going to be stuck reliving past glories and blaming everyone else for their own problems.
“The main problem that I see in this matter is that in general Islam is considered the be all end all in ME countries.”
I’d just like to point out that there are 57 countries in the Conference of Islamic Organization, and obviously most are not in the Middle East, not to mention the size of the Muslim population in various countries not members, such as the U.S., the U.K., Canada, France, Germany, China, Russia, and so on.
The conflation of “Islam” and “the Middle East” is a huge error. Specifically, if you want to believe that “Islamic terror” is a “Middle East” problem, tell it to folks in Bali, in the Phillipines, in Tajikistan, in Chechnya, in Spain, in Singapore, and on and on. How many of the 9/11 actors came from Germany?
Well Josh, I’m probably getting in over my head here, but I’d guess your point about the words beef and cow might make sense to me if there were another word in Muslim languages* prior to 1890 that denoted the concept of equality. Taheri is stating that there was not. So, not to elicit a groan, but, Where’s the beef, er cow?, where cow = equality in Islam, prior to contact with “The West”? My reading of Taheri is that there wasn’t one, because the concept didn’t (and still doesn’t, in some places) exist.
Look, do I agree that Islam heart equality will never work? No. In essence equality and Islam must work, or at least get to a point where those who don’t want it to work stop killing those who do. And Edward, I think we do have a word for colorblind, genderblind etc., a phrase even “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….” I know you and I believe it. We’ll just have to keep reminding others of it (especially that all part), but at least the concept exists.
*Persian and Arabic, as he mentions later in the article.
I don’t what camp that you would put me in, but to me there are two root causes: the lack of freedom in the Muslim world and the presence of heretical Wahabism and similar sects. We can bring democracy to Iraq but that will only get us so far. The radical ideologies need to be scrubbed out. We at not just at war with al Qaeda but with Wahabi ideology, and Wahabism needs to go the way of Soviet communism into the ash heap of history. But Wahabism cannot be truly defeated until Muslim society embraces freedom. So to me it’s a two-fold thing. The ‘shame’ angle Gary put forth is an interesting one, but it seems like prosperity and self-determination can go a long ways toward addressing that.
Well Josh, I’m probably getting in over my head here, but I’d guess your point about the words beef and cow might make sense to me if there were another word in Muslim languages* prior to 1890 that denoted the concept of equality. Taheri is stating that there was not.
He was also stating that there was something special about the fact that the word “democracy” came into the language unaltered. My point is that even for concepts that people already recognize (like beef for someone who already knows what a cow is), words can enter the language unaltered.
So, not to elicit a groan, but, Where’s the beef, er cow?, where cow = equality in Islam, prior to contact with “The West”? My reading of Taheri is that there wasn’t one, because the concept didn’t (and still doesn’t, in some places) exist.
Does the concept of taking pleasure from other people’s pain or misfortune exist in English? If so, why do we use a German word for it?
I’ll have a fuller response later…
Though I do not agree with *all* he writes, I find this a fascinating piece of reading about the root causes of terrorism – religious or otherwise.
Two other interesting sites are Nielsens psychology of religion and religious tolerance.
Here is a great deal that is relevant (more here. )
There’s much more, of course.
If this was crucial, Muslims would be unable to fly airplanes, work with electron microscopes, or construct atomic bombs.
Yet, strangely, millions seem to manage to pass through medical schools, drive cars, repair internal combustion engines, do the above, and many actually understand “freedom.”
So I wouldn’t put all that much stock in this language insight.
Decades ago no one had words for “DNA.” Yet genetic engineering is coming along nicely.
I don’t what camp that you would put me in, but to me there are two root causes: the lack of freedom in the Muslim world and the presence of heretical Wahabism and similar sects.
I agree, Bird Dog. There will only be exceptions — and Wahabism (and similar sects) are included. (Elsewhere, I’ve suggested that, regardles of any “writ large” policy of economic engagement, we need to disengage from “the moral nightmare that is Saudi Arabia”. Your formulation is more precise.)
crionna, you’re going to want to abandon this argument. Taheri is an atrocious linguist and sociologist.
“*Persian and Arabic, as he mentions later in the article.”
I know what he thinks he was talking about. My point was that it’s nonsensical to call these ‘Muslim languages’. They both existed thousands of years before Islam. Further, by that argument Zoroastrianism and Sufism must also be incompatible with ‘equality’ because their practitionars primarily speak Persian and Arabic. Further, it’s absurd to say that there was no native concept of ‘equality’ in Arabic. Do you think this was untranslatable: 2 + 2 = 4? Further further, I speak only a smattering of Arabic and almost no Hebrew, but I’m pretty sure anything you can say about traditional Arabic vocabulary you can say about Hebrew, and Jews seem to be able to manage democracy.
It’s just a baseless point all around. The Sapir-Worf hypothesis (props to Josh) is for all intents and purposes bunk. If you’re particularly interested in the topic, Pinker’s The Language Instinct is very approachable.
It may be that Muslims are simply incapable of democracy (something I doubt highly), but you don’t look for evidence in the lexicon.
BD,
“…and the presence of heretical Wahabism and similar sects.”
I think that’s one level too simplistic. We want to know why Wahabism is attractive to Muslims. Neo-nazism is a presence in the United States, but it’s not a significant problem and has few adherents. Why?
Specifically, if you want to believe that “Islamic terror” is a “Middle East” problem,
No, I do not *want* to believe it. However, it is a major source and I was under the impression that the Middle East was being focused on in this thread. I am quite aware that Islamic Terror is found in other countries.
And I stand by my statement: Islam is long overdue for a reformation from the inside.
Neo-nazism is a presence in the United States, but it’s not a significant problem and has few adherents. Why?
Because in the US, we treat adherents of Neo Nazism as criminals and a disgrace to humanity whereas the Wahabbists are treated as holy soldiers of God in their countries perhaps?
“Because in the US, we treat adherents of Neo Nazism as criminals and a disgrace to humanity whereas the Wahabbists are treated as holy soldiers of God in their countries perhaps?”
I agree. Why?
First off, allow me a moment to apologize if my previous post came off as a touch snarky. I plead caffeine deprivation, which is a bad thing when you work nights.
As for the follow up “why?”, I can only offer this:
1. Cultural: We have a far more diverse range of viewpoints, cultures and customs in our country compared to areas where Whabbism flourishes.
2. We have a lot of people in this country that were fleeing that kind of zealotry and they take a dim view of it happening here.
3. Religion is not as prevalent in our country. Therefore, using “God tells me to” as a reason for committing murder tends to get you arrested or killed instead of having money paid out to your family.
The terrorists seem to come mainly from the Wahabbis, who are a relatively new group (18th century) within Islam. AFAIK they are not just ani-Western culture, they believe that most of their fellow muslims are infidels too for not following the proper religion. They sprout from Saoudi-Arabia and use the wealth there to finance Mosques and schools around the world.
Grouping all these Islamic streams together and attacking the whole religion is very counterproductive. If you say “having money paid out to your family” it is confusing the issue even more, since that reference is by most people a reference to money given to the family of Palestinian suicidebombers. That is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with worldwide terrorist threats: it should be seen in its local context.
That is why, as I stated earlier, it is important to define *what* you want to discuss in advance.
My newspaper this morning had an interesting article about Indonesian muslim terrorism. It referred to a speech by former Indonesian PM Wahid about how to stop muslim extremism. What he brings up is that there actually are quite a number of well educated muslim terrorists, so it cannot be just socio-economics that brings them to their actions. But if you take better look, you see that there are a number of terrorists that have technical backgrounds. A lot of them have actually been sent to Western countries to get this education. But the people who choose those factually based studies tent to use that same approach of factual simplistic moddeling to their daily life and religion, and are prone to become fundamentalists. He advises a.o. to make sure the noble art of nuance gets more emphasis in all educational tracks.
Kumar Ramakrishna, an Assistant Professor at the Singapore Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, puts it in a nice perspective in this piece
This POV is in line with my believe, as stated in an earlier discussion, that some people just are more likely to be attracted to authoritorean groups and it depends more on the environment they grow up in which ideology or religion they choose.
What’s the matter with the Middle East?
Obsidian Wings asks the question. In this post, Von says that the issue of why terrorists become terrorists is crucial, and that everybody agr
Josh and sidereal, thanks for the info. I wish I were smarter most days, but alas, I’m not. TTFN!
Further, it’s absurd to say that there was no native concept of ‘equality’ in Arabic. Do you think this was untranslatable: 2 + 2 = 4?
Yeah, sidereal, that was the example that jumped out at me, too. Given the contributions of the Muslim world to mathematics, saying there’s no concept for “equal” in Arabic seems a little off…
Neat, you can use Trackbacks to break another site’s formatting. Noted for future reference/use.
crionna, no worries. I was using you as a proxy to whack on Taheri.