Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Stemming the Radicalization of Islam in the West

  1. #1
    Persona Oblongata OrionzRevenge's Avatar
    Type
    INtP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Shambala Road
    Posts
    3,274

    Stemming the Radicalization of Islam in the West

    The thread was inspired by this exchange:

    Quote Originally Posted by Zephyrus View Post
    Islam is not a religion of peace. Even it's own prophet waged wars of conquest to unify the Arabian Peninsula, and his immediate successors launched an unprovoked invasion of both the Sassanian and Roman empires.
    Quote Originally Posted by C.J.Woolf View Post
    Here's someone who agrees with you.
    http://atheism.about.com/od/islamice.../daralharb.htm
    Islam considers itself a religion of peace within the Islamic world (Dar al-Islam, the "House of Submission"). In the "not yet Islamic" world (Dar al-Harb, the "House of War"), not so much.
    From CJ's link:

    A crucial distinction made in Islamic theology is that between dar al-harb and dar al-islam. To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign.


    The distinction is not quite as simple as it may at first appear. For one thing, the division is regarded as legal rather than theological. Dar al-harb is not separated from dar al-islam by things like the popularity of Islam or divine grace; rather, it is separated by the nature of the governments which have control over a territory. A Muslim-majority nation not ruled by Islamic law is still dar al-harb, while a Muslim-minority nation ruled by Islamic law could qualify as being part of dar al-islam.


    Wherever Muslims are in charge and enforce Islamic law, there is also dar al-islam. It doesn't matter so much what people believe or have faith in, what matters is how people behave.
    Wiki:

    The Arabic singular form dar (دار), translated literally, may mean "house", "abode", "structure", "place", "land", or "country". In Islamic jurisprudence it often refers to a part of the world.


    The idea of geographical divisions along religious lines i.e. the dur is not mentioned in the Quran.


    The notions of "houses" or "divisions" of the world in Islam such as Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb does not appear in the Quran or the Hadith. Early Islamic jurists devised these terms to denote legal rulings for ongoing Muslim conquests almost a century after Muhammad. The first use of the terms was in Iraq by Abu Hanifa and his disciples Abu Yusuf and Al-Shaybani. Among those in the Levant, Al-Awza'i was leading in this discipline and later Shafi'i.

    ...

    Dar al-Islam

    Dar al-Islam (Arabic: دار الإسلام‎ literally house/abode of Islam; or Dar as-Salam, house/abode of Peace; or Dar al-Tawhid, house/abode of monotheism) is a term used by Muslim scholars to refer to those countries where Muslims can practice their religion as the ruling sect and where certain religions (Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Sabianism) are to be tolerated. It's the area of the world under the rule of Islam, literally, "the home of Islam." [1] These are usually Islamic cultures wherein Muslims represent the majority of the population, and so the government promises them a privileged status. Most Dar al-Islam areas are surrounded by other Islamic societies to ensure public protection.
    Some modern Muslim scholars believe that the labeling of a country or place as being a part of Dar al-Islam revolves around the question of religious security. This means that if a Muslim practices Islam freely in his place of abode, even though that place happens to be secular or un-Islamic, then he will be considered as living in the Dar al-Islam. Yet, the majority opinion, which relies on tradition, claims that only countries ruled by Sharia can be considered true "abodes of peace."
    Dar al-Islam is also known and referred to as Dar al-Salam, or house/abode of Peace. The term appears in the Quran in 10.25 and 6.127 as a name of Paradise.[2]
    According to Abu Hanifa, considered to be the originator of the concept, the requirements for a country to be part of Dar al-Islam are:[3][4]

    1. Muslims must be able to enjoy peace and security with and within this country.
    2. be ruled by a Muslim government[5]
    3. It has common frontiers with some Muslim countries.

    Dar al-Harab

    Dar al-Harab (Arabic: دار الحرب "house of war"; also referred to as Dar al-Garb "house of the West" in later Ottoman sources; a person from "Dar al-Harab" is a "harabi" (Arabic:حربي). Dar al-Harab is a term classically referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force, in the matter of worship and the protection of the faithful and dhimmis.[6] It is unclean by definition, and will not become clean until annexed to the House of Peace. Its denizens are either to be converted, killed[7] or, if people of the book, tolerated as long as they pay the jizya.

    Dar al Kufr

    This is the Realm of the Infidel, and the realm to which jihadists seek to bring about the control, influence of, over-powering of, by the power (enforcement) of Islamic law (sharia).[8]

    Self-identifying as an atheist since my mid-teens, I loathed having to learn so much about Christian scripture in order to stand up for myself here in the Bible Belt. Thus it is not without a good deal of anguish that I find it now important to know how to converse intelligently about Islamic scripture.

    But it is necessary to do so I think. Because, like Fundamental Christianity, we must as a free society be able to discuss, advocate, and write about infringements we will not tolerate. Such as:

    You have to respect the separation of Church & State and acknowledge that your religious freedoms end where they abut another person's rights.
    You can't oppress homosexuals
    You can't obstruct Woman's Suffrage and define a women's role in our society
    You can't bar co-mingling of the Races
    You can't act upon your conviction that Abortion is Murder
    You can't obstruct the teaching of Science that conflicts with your view of religious doctrine.

    We have done a fairly good job of getting Fundamental Christianity to tow the line in this regard and it will become increasingly important that we melt Muslims into the stew.

    As ferrus pointed out elsewhere, The Syrian Civil War was sparked by a server drought that is probably one of the early hallmarks of Global Warming. Studies indicate the Irony that the Middle-East will, in the decades to come, become uninhabitable due to heat and drought.

    Diaspora is unavoidable irrespective of how we feel about that.

    We must openly be able to converse about the idea that the Non-Quran teachings about Dar Al-Harab are unacceptable in a free & diverse society while at the same time promoting the idea that Dar Al-Islam can be a part of our diversity:

    Muslims must be able to enjoy peace and security with and within this country.

    It seems a profound challenge and my ignorance on the subject matter is monumental.

    How can we achieve this assimilation?
    Creativity is the residue of time wasted. ~ Albert Einstein

  2. #2
    Amen P-O's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    664
    Assimilation is only possible if the parties in question are willing to assimilate. Honestly I have no idea what's on the mind of the majority of muslims, but I think there's an ancient cultural divide between them and western thought. I'm not sure how easily such things can change. It may be quite difficult.


    Freedom of thought/speech implies the freedom to think that we shouldn't have freedom of thought/speech. If assimilation is difficult, it's conceivable that those who don't believe in freedom of speech could one day outnumber those who do, and since we live in a democracy, that would mark the end of western values in the US.

    If we want to protect western values, and assimilation is slow, it's necessary to limit immigration based on what people believe. This may run somewhat counter to the idea of a free society, but I don't see another way around it. I think a strict and intelligent immigration policy is the only remedy.

    I think we've only gotten the fundamentalist Christians to tow the line by showing them that they're a small percent of the population. Where if they were the majority, we'd be living in a theocracy. Still I'm quite sure i'd prefer a fundamentalist christian theocracy to a fundamentalist muslim theocracy.


    I'm pretty pessimistic on the issue. Like I said, this is an ancient cultural divide and I don't think it's going away any time soon, and it's something that we in the west should not take lightly.
    Violence is never the right answer, unless used against heathens and monsters.

  3. #3
    Member Thoth's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    AHJ 2006
    Posts
    717
    It occurs to me the answer is no more profound than to say: grow up.

    Adhering to religious tenants that only serve to legitimize a self proclaimed holy figure's A) right to wealth, and B) right to determine social and political policy (...designed to obstruct other's rights to the same wealth and prosperity), is something most other modern religions have given up, even if by force. Christianity was no different at one time, and while no theologian, I would hazard to guess many other popular faiths have endured and evolved with the growing pains that come with modernity. Islam has not. The ugly, inconvenient key is right there in front of everyone, and the greatest threat to medieval minded Islam, secularism. It's quite obviously why it's such an ugly word in all radical diatribes. Unravelling Church and State strips self proclaimed holy men of their right to wealth and power, giving it instead to the people adhering to the moral tenants of the faith.

    Until Islam grows up and learns secularism, it cannot coexist in a modern society.

  4. #4
    Member Viktor's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Urban suburbia.
    Posts
    98
    I think it is not so much secularization, as it is a willingness to co-exist in a non-violent manner and not force beliefs upon others. I believe that a person can hold traditional, religious, non-secular beliefs and successfully live alongside or within a secular society. They may have to self-limit some of their interaction or opportunities, but I believe it could be done non-violently and without interfering with people pursing a secular life. Believing strongly about something that is non-secular is one thing. Killing or hurting others because of that belief is another. Unfortunately a lot of the latter is occuring.

    I agree with P-O that freedom of speech can rapidly become a thing of the past through the very exercise of itself, when those free to speak out against freedom of speech become the majority and quash it. Cultural "conquest", where one culture slowly (or quickly) supplants another through a majority population, will impose the majority's viewpoint on the other irrespective of it being fair, better, or tolerant. Europeans did it to the North and South American natives, Seculars are now doing it to the Christians here in the USA, and perhaps one day Islam or another group will eclipse the Seculars. I don't have an answer for that, except perhaps to go back to the homogeneous cultures of centuries past, which runs counter to the American value of diversity. Quite a few non-Western nations still believe in that however. Hypothetical question: How would the Secular Progressives who seem to be the majority in the US react to fundamental Islam becoming the majority, and the cultural rules changing dramatically? Would it be right to fight against that? If so, do the Christians, Puritans, Native Americans, etc. have a right to fight against the cultures that supplanted them?

    I've studied Christianity rather extensively, and some of the other religions not so extensively. If we accept that the Bible is the final word on Christian doctrine, then a Christian should not use his/her beliefs as a right to wealth or to determine social and political policy. They can vote, campaign or pursue public policy in accordance with their beliefs. If their beliefs are in the majority, as they were in ancient Israel (non-Christian theocracy example) and other past countries, it becomes the majority public policy. If their minority-held beliefs are imposed upon a majority without consensus, then it is a dictatorship. The "old" Christian doctrine is compatible living alongside or within a secular society. Christian doctrine even contains specific rules to obey the leaders appointed over you, as long as their laws and edicts do not mandate worship of another God or to do something unbiblical. It's pretty clear, in the Bible, that a Christian is obligated to pay taxes, and that it's on the government whether they use that money in a godly manner or not. I don't know other religious doctrines well enough to draw any corollaries between the above and Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

    History however, is a different manner. You'll find plenty of examples of individuals and groups using Christianity and other religions exactly as Thoth states above: for right to wealth and right to determine social and political policy while in a minority status. From what I've studied, people claiming to be Christians who did the above diverged from Christian doctrine and rolled their own. I cannot speak to other religions doing so, as I don't know enough about their respective doctrines specific to that.

    Secularism is a belief, albeit founded on more scientific and progressive principles than a purely faith-based religion. What will happen if secularism becomes the minority to a purely faith-based belief? This begs the question whether new immigrants want to assimilate, or change, the nation. If they want to change it, then sheer numbers will be very effective.

  5. #5
    TJ TeresaJ's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    mosquito-infested hell
    Posts
    2,365
    It would be good to know what groups of refugees/immigrants actually do support the creation of an Islamic state in place of a secular state, and of those who do support it, do they support it actively or passively?

    So that's one question. That would give you three rough divisions - moderates who may or may not be religious, passive fundamentalists ("yeah in theory an Islamic state would be a good idea but I'm not going to do anything about it"), and active fundamentalists ("I am actively going to work toward the creation of an Islamic state").

    My hunch is that moderates are currently the majority, if not the vast majority, of Muslims. As with Jews and Christians, it's really not a huge mental leap to say "Yeah those rules applied in that situation, but times are different now." You can even take it a step farther and say that Islam at its creation was the most socially progressive monotheistic religion of its day and project that forward to say that it should be even *more* socially progressive today, a living religion, not fossilized.

    For fundamentalists... You would need rational arguments parsing the Islamic state into what is and is not acceptable to humanist, pluralist society. You would also need to unravel the emotional motivations. ...Hearts and minds, basically.

    Which is to say that it's a complicated question with a complicated answer, and what works best for one group in one situation won't work best elsewhere.

  6. #6
    Minister of Love Roger Mexico's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    New World
    Posts
    3,240
    INTPx Award Winner
    Well, I'd recommend reading some academic essays such as this one on the scriptural/theological side of things.

    Effective inter-cultural dialogue can't happen without a good-faith effort on both sides to understand the core ideas of one another's belief systems, in all their internal complexity.

    That piece deconstructs the meaning of sharia, and how the term is currently being used (by both radical Islamists and most westerners) to refer to what would arguably be more properly referred to as fiqh (the traditional role of scriptural scholars as judges and attorneys, and the "science" of applying divine guidance to questions of secular law). Sharia itself can (and in the author's view, should) be understood as a more esoteric concept--vaguely analogous, perhaps, to the concept of the "Noble Eightfold Path" in Buddhism. (The practices that will keep one "clean", avoid "abominations", and maintain a proper focus on spirituality in day-to-day life.)

    As I think I said in response to the exchange quoted in the OP, useful analogies could likely be drawn from the history of Jewish assimilation in Europe. (Both in the "what to do" and, obviously, "what not to do" categories.) In a historical sense, Judaism and Islam are very similar, closely related belief systems, that both derive from the legal systems of ancient civilizations as much as from the more esoteric sense of "religion" now commonly associated with Christianity, and are both tied to a sense of identification with a community rather than merely a personalized "relationship with God."

    A bilateral process in which European Christians came to accept that the presence of non-Christian communities within their polities didn't undermine their own cultural solidarity, while Jews came to accept that rabbinical law could be re-construed in a more esoteric sense--and thus survive as one of the unifying elements of a Jewish culture that retained its "Jewishness" even in societies that weren't directly governed by Mosaic law in the traditional Pharisaic sense--eventually obviated the "Jewish Question" and thus allowed for acceptance of a more cosmopolitan view of the social role of religious identity on both sides.

    The central issue regarding the contemporary "Muslim Question" strikes me as a similar one--resolution will have to involve mutual acceptance of a view that Islam-qua-Islam (both the belief system and the cultural community that identifies with it) doesn't have to be driven to extinction by a re-assessment of its role in a cosmopolitan, pluralist social order.

    The West is sort of ahead of the game on this front--certainly compared to the cultural conditions in Europe when the Jewish diaspora first arrived there--so in that sense it shouldn't be terribly difficult for us to adjust our understanding. On the Islamic side, there's the complicating factor of what must strike many Muslims as a still viable alternative to living as a diaspora, in the form of various "Islamic states" that nominally represent the old Hanbali concept of a legal system that incorporates Sharia directly into the management of community life.

    However, I think the authoritarian conditions and resulting socioeconomic problems in those societies, as well as the perpetual conflict with outsiders they seem to represent, provide plenty of rhetorical ammunition for the argument that such governments are not really an optimal response to modernity even for Muslims themselves--as long as Westerners are savvy about making this argument in a form that doesn't treat "Islam" or "Sharia" as the problem but rather emphasizes the downsides of authoritarianism in any form along with the idea that our traditions of religious freedom mean exactly that, i.e. that there's no reason Muslims have to stop being Muslims in order to embrace the benefits of living in cosmopolitan open societies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ptah View Post
    No history, no exposition, no anecdote or argument changes the invariant: we are all human beings, and some humans are idiots.

  7. #7
    Persona Oblongata OrionzRevenge's Avatar
    Type
    INtP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Shambala Road
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by TeresaJ View Post
    It would be good to know what groups of refugees/immigrants actually do support the creation of an Islamic state in place of a secular state, and of those who do support it, do they support it actively or passively?
    The Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies just conducted this poll:
    The Military Campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant: Arab Public Opinion

    A 22 page PDF report chocked full of graphs like these:

    Responses to the question "In general, do you support or oppose the military airstrikes by the US-led international coalition against Islamic militant groups including ISIL and other groups in Iraq and Syria?”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondents' answers to the question "In general, do you have a positive or negative view of ISIL?"
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    “All in all, how would you evaluate the foreign policy of the United States towards the Arab region? Is it Positive, Positive to some extent, Negative to some extent, or Negative?”
    Creativity is the residue of time wasted. ~ Albert Einstein

  8. #8
    Member Zephyrus's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    336
    To be fair, religions tend to be reinterpreted and sometimes they even become more tolerant over time. This was true of Sunni Islam as far back as the 1950s, but then the British Empire and later the U.S. supported House Saud. House Saud has pushed for Wahhabism throughout the Sunni world, which has by now largely replaced the more tolerant and secular interpretation of Sunni Islam that existed previously. And all these problems the West has been having with radical Islam is an indirect consequence of House Saud's Wahhabist propaganda over the decades.

    Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed, Sunnis are responsible for most terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks Shias are responsible for are generally traced back to the Iranian government.

    Personally, I think the solution is a simple political one: remove House Saud from power.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,432
    I disagree with the idea that we've succeeded in getting Fundamentalist Christians to tow the line. They're barely tolerating things and constantly pushing legislation to roll back progress (and starting to succeed). The only reason they haven't fomented outright rebellion is because we still have a middle class. There's also these right wing radicals we have committing domestic terrorism (think the 2011 Tuscon shooting, the Charleston church shooting, and now the Planned Parenthood shooting) that in some cases overlap with the Christians, and we have an extreme problem waiting to happen as soon as the political or economic climate becomes more unstable.

  10. #10
    Persona Oblongata OrionzRevenge's Avatar
    Type
    INtP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Shambala Road
    Posts
    3,274
    The San Bernardino thing is rather depressing.

    The Farook dude was a well educated American-born Muslim with a good job and new family.

    Superficially looking in, he's not the type of angry young man/fish out of water you'd expect to buy into the Dar al-Harab leanings of the apocalyptic Caliphate.

    Brook of Brook & Shields (PBS Newshour) tonight attributed it to ISIS having charisma that we should urgently attempt to tarnish with unpleasant setbacks.
    Creativity is the residue of time wasted. ~ Albert Einstein

Similar Threads

  1. Ebola: Running wild in West Africa AND Comming to Atlanta???
    By OrionzRevenge in forum News, Culture & History
    Replies: 220
    Last Post: 05-09-2015, 04:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •