The growth of radical Islam

[Rudey]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
I believe that radical Islamic fundamentalism is growing, and I believe the growth sped up as a result of the American Christian Fundamentalists like Bush and Ashcroft using the federal government to attack areas of the world concentrated with Muslims.

Ashcroft attacked other areas of the world?

-Rudey

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by TheEpitome1920
My mom's Ph.D is in Islamic studies. I will ask her and report back. I'm not really not sure what you mean by 'radical' Islam.

Jihadists. People who believe that all women should wear burkas, and that "infidels" should be at least oppressed, if not killed.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
I believe that radical Islamic fundamentalism is growing, and I believe the growth sped up as a result of the American Christian Fundamentalists like Bush and Ashcroft using the federal government to attack areas of the world concentrated with Muslims.

(Which goes back to my stance that there would be a hell of a lot less war and violence in the past and present if Abraham had just kept it in his pants)

The growth in radical fundamentalist Islam has NOTHING to do with anything that has happened in the US.

It predates the first Republican coalition with the religious right in 1980.

[swissmiss04]

I think religious fundamentalism in general has been on the rise since the 1970s. This movement is certainly not exclusive to Islam.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by swissmiss04
I think religious fundamentalism in general has been on the rise since the 1970s. This movement is certainly not exclusive to Islam.

Yup, and the rise of radical Islam in the 1970s was definitely not driven by John Ashcroft in the last four years.

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
Jihadists. People who believe that all women should wear burkas, and that "infidels" should be at least oppressed, if not killed.

You mean Wahabbists?

[RACooper]

Or my favourite media-ism: "Islamists".... come on what the hell is that supposed to mean?

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by RACooper
Or my favourite media-ism: "Islamists".... come on what the hell is that supposed to mean?

A term created by those who want to simply everything. In another word, a lazy word.

[_Opi_]

I think that you've been duped by the media, rudey. Radical Islam didn't grow, because there is no such thing. The situation with Alqieda and other terrorist groups are rather complicated, and have a very long history. In this case, I would suggest in reading up on the Muslim brotherhood (Egypt 1928), Middle-eastern conflicts since the fall of the ottoman empire, the hanbali sect of Islam that Saudis practice (especially the wahhabi movement). There is just too much history for the media's short-attention span to put together for the public. So they resort to name-shortening like Islamists, "Jihadist", Islamics, fundamentalism (not even in its original form) and sensationalising the heck out of it. In restrospect, this is not about Islam but rather politics and a strong dislike for western policies and the oil trade.

So back to the original question, is "Radical Islam" on the rise? It depends, do you think that these terrorist orgs can find recruits in the middle-east whom they can easy turn towards their cause (anti-western)? Heck yeah, you can find a large base in Iraq post-war, and Afghanistan post-war. You have alot of angry displaced guys who might view american soldiers as colonizers. And trust me, these guys are doing it for nationalistic purposes than for God. However, we can speculate all day long whether its growing or not, but the truth of the matter is, these al-qieda and the like have been barking for over 3 decades, and we've only decided to hear them now. and only after they attacked american soil. So its not really a defunct sect of Islam growing, its peoples's resentment for the wars and the willingness to fight a false-jihad.

The problem with these discussions are that people don't really know a inkling about Islam, and therefore talk about the regular stereotypes of Islam (ie burkas, which are worn in generally in Afghan) and the term "infidels" (generally used by arab-speaking folks). What most people don't seem to understand is that there are variety of denominations of Islam, much like Christianity. Also, like moe.ron stated, Islam encompasses alot of countries, ie South east Asia, Africa, N. America, S America. Not all these muslims say words like "infidel" in their regular vocab like the media portrays us to be, and not all of us speak Arabic.

[enlightenment06]

Originally posted by _Opi_
I think that you've been duped by the media, rudey. Radical Islam didn't grow, because there is no such thing. The situation with Alqieda and other terrorist groups are rather complicated, and have a very long history. In this case, I would suggest in reading up on the Muslim brotherhood (Egypt 1928), Middle-eastern conflicts since the fall of the ottoman empire, the hanbali sect of Islam that Saudis practice (especially the wahhabi movement). There is just too much history for the media's short-attention span to put together for the public. So they resort to name-shortening like Islamists, "Jihadist", Islamics, fundamentalism (not even in its original form) and sensationalising the heck out of it. In restrospect, this is not about Islam but rather politics and a strong dislike for western policies and the oil trade.

So back to the original question, is "Radical Islam" on the rise? It depends, do you think that these terrorist orgs can find recruits in the middle-east whom they can easy turn towards their cause (anti-western)? Heck yeah, you can find a large base in Iraq post-war, and Afghanistan post-war. You have alot of angry displaced guys who might view american soldiers as colonizers. And trust me, these guys are doing it for nationalistic purposes than for God. However, we can speculate all day long whether its growing or not, but the truth of the matter is, these al-qieda and the like have been barking for over 3 decades, and we've only decided to hear them now. and only after they attacked american soil. So its not really a defunct sect of Islam growing, its peoples's resentment for the wars and the willingness to fight a false-jihad.

The problem with these discussions are that people don't really know a inkling about Islam, and therefore talk about the regular stereotypes of Islam (ie burkas, which are worn in generally in Afghan) and the term "infidels" (generally used by arab-speaking folks). What most people don't seem to understand is that there are variety of denominations of Islam, much like Christianity. Also, like moe.ron stated, Islam encompasses alot of countries, ie South east Asia, Africa, N. America, S America. Not all these muslims say words like "infidel" in their regular vocab like the media portrays us to be, and not all of us speak Arabic.

As an American, a Muslim, and a human being I agree 100%

[Rudey]

Originally posted by swissmiss04
I think religious fundamentalism in general has been on the rise since the 1970s. This movement is certainly not exclusive to Islam.

Well I'm sure we can create a thread on other fundamentalist movements but I'd like to concentrate on Islam for the sole reason that it will become too difficult to read this thread.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

What are you talking about? What did I say that shows I've "been duped by the media"?? What media is it that you think I subcribe to that has "duped" me? Perhaps you're confused. Who knows.

So now you are saying "radical islam didn't grow" in your first paragraph but in the second paragraph it all of a sudden becomes "it depends".

And in your last paragraph you seem to try and say there are many varieties of Islam. Nobody said there weren't. Again, in fact, the thread was discussing radical islamic movements and sects. What was your point here?

Again, I point to the Western world and the Arab world and I lay out two points for you: Saudi financing of Islamic education and research and the spread of madrasas and mosques based on these types of teachings as well as the European effort (led by France currently) to take control of such fundamentalist efforts and weaken them through the banning of religious items.

-Rudey

Originally posted by _Opi_
I think that you've been duped by the media, rudey. Radical Islam didn't grow, because there is no such thing. The situation with Alqieda and other terrorist groups are rather complicated, and have a very long history. In this case, I would suggest in reading up on the Muslim brotherhood (Egypt 1928), Middle-eastern conflicts since the fall of the ottoman empire, the hanbali sect of Islam that Saudis practice (especially the wahhabi movement). There is just too much history for the media's short-attention span to put together for the public. So they resort to name-shortening like Islamists, "Jihadist", Islamics, fundamentalism (not even in its original form) and sensationalising the heck out of it. In restrospect, this is not about Islam but rather politics and a strong dislike for western policies and the oil trade.

So back to the original question, is "Radical Islam" on the rise? It depends, do you think that these terrorist orgs can find recruits in the middle-east whom they can easy turn towards their cause (anti-western)? Heck yeah, you can find a large base in Iraq post-war, and Afghanistan post-war. You have alot of angry displaced guys who might view american soldiers as colonizers. And trust me, these guys are doing it for nationalistic purposes than for God. However, we can speculate all day long whether its growing or not, but the truth of the matter is, these al-qieda and the like have been barking for over 3 decades, and we've only decided to hear them now. and only after they attacked american soil. So its not really a defunct sect of Islam growing, its peoples's resentment for the wars and the willingness to fight a false-jihad.

The problem with these discussions are that people don't really know a inkling about Islam, and therefore talk about the regular stereotypes of Islam (ie burkas, which are worn in generally in Afghan) and the term "infidels" (generally used by arab-speaking folks). What most people don't seem to understand is that there are variety of denominations of Islam, much like Christianity. Also, like moe.ron stated, Islam encompasses alot of countries, ie South east Asia, Africa, N. America, S America. Not all these muslims say words like "infidel" in their regular vocab like the media portrays us to be, and not all of us speak Arabic.

[_Opi_]

Originally posted by Rudey

So now you are saying "radical islam didn't grow" in your first paragraph but in the second paragraph it all of a sudden becomes "it depends".

And in your last paragraph you seem to try and say there are many varieties of Islam. Nobody said there weren't. Again, in fact, the thread was discussing radical islamic movements and sects. What was your point here?

I'm using your chosen terminology. That's why they are in quotes.

Again, I point to the Western world and the Arab world and I lay out two points for you: Saudi financing of Islamic education and research and the spread of madrasas and mosques based on these types of teachings as well as the European effort (led by France currently) to take control of such fundamentalist efforts and weaken them through the banning of religious items.

-Rudey

Suadi funding efforts and France's ban are two different subject, and I hardly doubt they are related.

Suadi Arabia finances many different types of Islamic education. In the mecca/Medina area, One of the best universities that produces alot of scholars are located there. These schools (madrassas in arabic) produces many scholars with different ideologies and theological beliefs. They also have the regular education system, as well as some british schools. When you talk about madrassas, do you mean those established solely for the purpose of breeding terrorists, bootcamp-like schools? You need to be more specific.

As with the saudi royals and the bin laden family, there is no doubt that some of them might be funding alqieda efforts, for their own gains. However, it is to my understanding that alqeida is against the monarchy as a whole, bacause of their relations with America. Isn't that the reason for those terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia lately?

How can you call what France is doing an "effort". By banning headscarves and other religious items, they are not weakening terrorism at all. The only thing they've acheived was taking away people's right of choice to wear religious symbols in public places. France's only effort was to protect its own fletching heritage and wants everyone to conform to their own values and views, taking away the right of choice practice own's religion. I fail to see how that weakens terrorism in the west, though. Care to explain further, Rudey?

[Rudey]

Can Moe.ron come back on? I liked talking with Moe.ron. You can explain all your questions to him and I can answer them to him because you simply make little to no sense.

-Rudey

Originally posted by _Opi_
I'm using your chosen terminology. That's why they are in quotes.





Suadi funding efforts and France's ban are two different subject, and I hardly doubt they are related.

Suadi Arabia finances many different types of Islamic education. In the mecca/Medina area, One of the best universities that produces alot of scholars are located there. These schools (madrassas in arabic) produces many scholars with different ideologies and theological beliefs. They also have the regular education system, as well as some british schools. When you talk about madrassas, do you mean those established solely for the purpose of breeding terrorists, bootcamp-like schools? You need to be more specific.

As with the saudi royals and the bin laden family, there is no doubt that some of them might be funding alqieda efforts, for their own gains. However, it is to my understanding that alqeida is against the monarchy as a whole, bacause of their relations with America. Isn't that the reason for those terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia lately?

How can you call what France is doing an "effort". By banning headscarves and other religious items, they are not weakening terrorism at all. The only thing they've acheived was taking away people's right of choice to wear religious symbols in public places. France's only effort was to protect its own fletching heritage and wants everyone to conform to their own values and views, taking away the right of choice practice own's religion. I fail to see how that weakens terrorism in the west, though. Care to explain further, Rudey?

[Rudey]

It's sad that only after the Russian school children massacre this finally came out. First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people my friends.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/in...rint&position=

September 8, 2004
School Siege in Russia Sparks Self-Criticism in Arab World
By JOHN KIFNER

BEIRUT, Sept 8 — The brutal school siege in Russia, with hundreds of children dead and wounded, has sparked an unusual round of self-criticism and introspection in the Muslim and Arab world.

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims," Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the widely watched Al-Arabiya satellite television station wrote in one of the most striking of these commentaries.

Writing in the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, Mr. Rashed said it was "shameful and degrading" that not only were the Beslan hijackers Muslims, but also the murderers of Nepalese workers in Iraq, the attackers of residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar, Saudi Arabia, the women believed to have blown up two Russian airplanes last week and Osama bin Laden himself.

"The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim," he wrote. "What a pathetic record. What an abominable `achievement.' Does this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?"

Mr. Rashed, like several other commentators, singled out Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a senior Egyptian cleric living in Qatar who broadcasts an influential program on Al Jazeera television and who has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, calling for the killing of American and foreign "occupiers" in Iraq, military and civilian.

"Let us contemplate the incident of this religious Sheikh allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians," he wrote. "How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?"

Mr. Rashed recalled that in the past, leftists and nationalists in the Arab world were considered a "menace" for their adoption of violence, and the mosque was a "haven" of "peace and reconciliation" by contrast.

"Then came the Neo-Muslims," he said. "An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry."

A columnist for the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyassa, Faisal al-Qina'I, also took aim at Sheikh Qaradawi. "It is saddening," he wrote, "to read and hear from those who are supposed to be Muslim clerics, like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others of his kind, that instead of defending true Islam they encourage these cruel actions and permit decapitation, hostage-taking and murder."

In Jordan, a group of Muslim religious figures, meeting with the religious affairs minister, Ahmed Heleil, issued a statement today saying the seizing of the school and subsequent massacre was dedicated to distorting the pure image of Islam.

"This terrorist act contradicts the principles of our true Muslim religion and its noble values," the statement said.

Writing in the Jordanian daily Al-Dustour, a columnist, Bater Wardam, noted a propensity in the Arab world to "place responsibility for the crimes of Arabic and Muslim terrorist organizations on the Mossad, the Zionists and the American intelligence, but we all know that this is not the case."

"They came from our midst," he wrote of those who had kidnapped and murdered civilians in Iraq, blown up commuter trains in Spain, turned airliners into bombs and shot the children in Ossetia.

"They are Arabs and Muslims who pray, fast, grow beards, demand the wearing of veils and call for the defense of Islamic causes. Therefore we must all raise our voices, disown them and oppose all these crimes."

In Egypt, the semi-official newspaper Al-Ahram called the events "an ugly crime against humanity."

In Saudi Arabia, newspapers tightly controlled by the government — which finds itself under attack from Islamic fundamentalists — were even more scathing.

Under the headline "Butchers in the Name of Allah," a columnist in the government daily Okaz, Khaled Hamed al-Suleiman, wrote that "the propagandists of Jihad succeeded in the span of a few years in distorting the image of Islam.

"They turned today's Islam into something having to do with decapitations, the slashing of throats, abducting innocent civilians and exploding people. They have fixed the image of Muslims in the eyes of the world as barbarians and savages who are not good for anything except slaughtering people," he wrote, adding:

"The time has come for Muslims to be the first to come out against those interested in abducting Islam in the same way they abducted innocent children. This is the true Jihad these days and this is our obligation, as believing Muslims, towards our monotheistic religion."

The rest of the article is found at the link above.

-Rudey