Well, when some of those ‘contemporary individuals’ you’re talking about preach hatred, intolerance, and advocate jihad against non-believers on prominent street corners in London (and elsewhere), not to mention press for the right to self-govern through Sharia law, it’s pretty easy to explain their behavior with reference to those things.
Yes, “some of those ‘contemporary individuals’” did so, but it’s too easy–and wrong–“to explain their behavior with reference to those things”.
With reference to the terror plot in Canada, 82% of Candian Muslims felt no sympathy whatsoever with the plotters. 53% would like to see Islamic Sharia law adopted for divorce and other family disputes. It’s impossible, without more information, to breakdown the numbers properly, but obviously there’s a large number of people who both support the use of some aspects of Sharia law (it falls far, far short of self-government) and utterly reject terror tactics. So, you can’t simply point to support for Sharia and assume a causal relationship with support of terrorism, the preaching of hatred, intolerance, or jihad. Do you see what I mean? Do you–if not agree–appreciate the point?
I never supposed/assumed/said this. I don’t think we are discussing the same point anymore.
Europe today is where Canada will be in five to ten years.
I feel sorry for Europe, but thank goodness they are learning this lesson first so we can learn from them. If we didn’t have London to learn from, we’d be headed down the road to Sharia hell.
In the case of those who support the imposition of Sharia by whatever means necessary, yes absolutely we can draw a causal relationship. You are apparently the only one here who thinks this is unreasonable.
In the case of those who want Sharia but do not support bringing it about violently -and therefore oppose Islamic terrorism- then there is no causal relationship (obviously). But I think those kinds of people account for the Muslim masses who listen to imams preach jihad week after week in Canadian, British, American, and European mosques and say nothing about it. The rare individual who alerts the authorities or brings a camera or recorder to let the world know what is going on (as with the mosque in Birmingham that has been discussed in a different thread), these people, are the exceptions to the general silence and complicity of Muslims. In fact they need not even be supporters of Sharia themselves. They only have to refuse to turn in a fellow believer, which I suspect is the main reason for their inaction.
Jaboney, you’ve already proven you’ve got the guts to stick out your position alone, so don’t take offense at the following.
Does anybody on here support Jaboney’s general line of reasoning? Care to join the debate?
Oh, I don’t mind being left out, hanging on my own. I respect sincere disagreement, and consider carefully such opinions. Typically, better arguments against my positions get more attention, but–not being as confident as Einstein “Why one hundred scientists against Einstein? If I were wrong, one would be enough.” in my conclusions–there’s something to be said for the sheer weight of mass opinion.
No offense taken.
In the case of those who support the imposition of Sharia by whatever means necessary, yes absolutely we can draw a causal relationship. You are apparently the only one here who thinks this is unreasonable.[/quote] Eh… I’m not so sure. Probably, yes, the assumption will tend to be correct. But the generalization isn’t on entirely firm grounds. I’ll get back to this in a bit.
edit: Ok, back. And less sure of the causal relationship. Or rather, more sure that when it can be established, it’ll often be a muddied, indirect species of causation. I suspect that all of the above are consequences/ derivatives of other, causal motives. I’m sure that those motives will not be the same for all who come to support the same ends and means.
Roughly, it seems reasonable to expect that those who are born and raised in societies that are governed by Sharia Law, preach intolerance and hatred, and practice jihad, to pursue the same because the tradition is familiar. None causes any of the others, rather each individually takes root. Violence may be part and parcel of the environment, or a reactionary impulse to threats.
Those born and raised elsewhere, who–for whatever reason–seek a return to something unfamiliar but assumed to be more pure, are motivated by traditionalism, which is not the same thing as tradition. (The one is reliant on myths, the other on memory.) For those investing in traditionalism, violence is less likely to be habitual, less likely to be ‘legitimately defensive’, and more likely to be undertaken aggressively—though justified as a defense of identity–as an assertion of the newfound, too often fragile and rigid identity. (Converts usually make the best zealots, and many of these terrorists come from the ranks of the ‘veiled again’ in secular societies.)
So, in this second case, there’s a more direct relationship between support for particular positions and the resort to violence, but the ultimate causes are not the same.
Besides, no doubt there will be those who sign up because ‘the struggle’ appeals to their foolishly romantic sensibilities. If not jihad, revolution might do as well.
Then there are those who are given to bandwagon behaviour. When enough of their fellows join up, they will too.
This is what is meant by disaggregation of results. Assuming a causal relationship–and in fairness, dismissing one–out of hand is likely to only take our arguments in circles. Hard data about individual decisions is needed; too bad it’s seldom available; in the absence of such, our conclusions are iffy. Nonetheless, there’s reason enough to be more than wary of assuming that one cause/motive is behind all of these acts of violence.
Like you have a choice?
Then, consider this… THIS…
Good. You are wrong. I am right. The mass opinion says so.
Why is Einstein relevant to your being wrong as usual?
Pity. It was intended. See you in two weeks. 
You can keep trying, fred, but it’s not working. The venom’s grown dull and tiresome. Why not put up an honest argument (honest, meaning taking others seriously for a change) and shut away the insults for a while?
Going away for a couple of weeks? Come back with good intentions and honest arguments, and you’ll likely do a far better job of getting under my skin. Take miltownkid’s arguments in the universal health care thread for example. He’s open to opposing views, honest, generally respectful, and pissing me off far more than you ever have. Come on… if you’re nasty and abusive, I’ll just ignore you. Play nice, throw out a few honestly held but nonetheless repellent positions (god knows you have them in spades), and you’ll drive me bug shit. Won’t that be fun? 
Not that Jaboney needs my support, but I’ll say I think his approach is not one that should be dismissed, and in fact may be more useful to the point of determining how Western societies can woo those traditional Muslims who don’t advocate violence into visibly supporting said societies. The only criticism I have of Jaboney’s approach here is that the type of data he is looking for can be difficult to generate, and doesn’t necessarily lead to simple conclusions. But then again, that’s hardly a criticism.
This statement seems to encapsulate your argument here. In essence you believe there are more reasons why somebody might enlist in a jihad other than religious belief. No doubt you’re correct. Adherence to tradition and a hatred of foreign influence, bandwagon behavior, wanting to impress that cute girl who loves the mujahideen, etc. But so what? In the end they are fighting for the same thing. And clearly religion is a major driving force behind the movement. From my studies of Islam and jihadism, it is their primary motivation. It inspires even wealthy men to leave behind their wife and children and fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, or blow up a school bus in Jerusalem, etc. I am not disagreeing plenty of jihadists have other motivations besides religious fervor, but I have seen no evidence or analysis offered by yourself or the multitude of commentators in the news media to convince me there is any other major factor that we can somehow eliminate to stop jihadism. We can’t stop young Muslim men from romanticizing jihad or trying to impress girls, but we can shut down fundamentalist mosques, imprison jihad-preaching imams, and kill committed jihadists.
You have offered a great deal of in-depth analysis on this subject, but so far you have not explained how your analysis translates to public policy. What are your solutions?
This statement seems to encapsulate your argument here. In essence you believe there are more reasons why somebody might enlist in a jihad other than religious belief. No doubt you’re correct. Adherence to tradition and a hatred of foreign influence, bandwagon behavior, wanting to impress that cute girl who loves the mujahideen, etc. But so what? In the end they are fighting for the same thing. [/quote]
No, they’re not fighting for the same thing, they’re merely fighting on the same side. Big difference. You would–I assume–distinguish between a Blackwater mercenary in Iraq, a marine who goes where and does what he’s told, and someone like Lt. Ehren Watada who refused to serve in Iraq because he believed that the war was illegal but was willing to serve in Afghanistan. Certainly, if you were facing off against three such men, all of whom were firing at you, whose bullet struck you wouldn’t much matter. One the other hand, if you were trying to come up with a strategy to get these men to quit trying to kill you, their particular individual motives-- greed vs. unblinking patriotism vs. patriotism bound by law–might be crucially important.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]And clearly religion is a major driving force behind the movement.[/quote]Clearly it is a major driving force, or a place holder for major driving forces.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]From my studies of Islam and jihadism, it is their primary motivation.[/quote]Stop for a second and think about that.
Try thinking about it through this analogy: before shifting gears, I did three years of biology (plant physiology and microbio). If I looked at monkeys eating bananas, and explained the monkeys’ ravenous consumption with reference to qualities of the bananas, that might seem to be a reasonable explanation. It isn’t.
Thinking about it further, and consciously drawing on my background in plant physiology, I might design an experiment involving a pile of cucumbers, and another of bananas. After observing that the monkeys eat many more bananas than cukes, I might well explain the why the monkeys eat bananas and not cucumbers as a preference (due to taste, or vitamin content and deficiency, or–thinking somewhat outside of my field–to habit), and be satisfied with that.
But I wouldn’t be any closer to understanding why the monkeys were gorging themselves in the first place. My error would be understandable, given that nothing in my education encouraged me to ask the proper questions, but nonetheless, I wouldn’t be any closer to understanding the bio-chemical mechanism responsible for general hunger in monkeys, nor the reason(s) for their eating so much. I might have a good idea why they ate what they did, but not why they ate.
Your studies of Islam and jihadism–undertaken to better understand the religion and counter fundamentalist justifications for jihadism–encourage you to focus exclusively on preference expression (surface behaviour; bananas, not cucumbers), but fails to inform our understanding of the more basic mechanisms (motives) responsible for the behaviour. To get to that, we’d have to understand what these jihadist are really fighting for–consider again the difference between fighting on the same side, and fighting for the same thing–which may not be apparent, even to the jihadis.
Consider Sharia Law, as a symbol and series of practices rather than a body of law or codified prejudices.
Symbolically, what is it? Perhaps a rejection of liberalism – sometimes confused with multiculturalism – which leaves you free to forge our own identity (or alone and confused, with none). Perhaps a monument to a time and culture (even if entirely mythical) in which these peoples – now backwards – were leaders in science, philosophy, literature and law. So, Sharia as security blanket or heirloom; motives: escape from insecurity, or an improved self-image in the light of reflected glory.
As a series of attitudes and practices? Austere discipline; purification; communial identification; collective responsibility. Admirable qualities, properly practiced. Certainly admirable enough to encourage their adoption, and later, defense. (Also dangerous. Collective responsibility is great when it means helping your friend through a difficult time; it’s less admirable when married to the demand for purity and applied to the all-to-evident faults of others.) Motives for adoption: self-image, empowerment, identity, purpose.
Now, would any of us go to war for a series of regulations? No. That’s nonsense. And why would anyone else? Would any of us go to war for what those regulations stand for, say the principle that there should be no taxation without representation? Well, yeah. For the attitudes and practices seen to be protected and promoted by those regulations, freedom from compulsion, individualism, security of one’s person and property? Hell yeah. So, where’s the motivation coming from: the set of regulations themselves, or the values and practices ascribed to them? Same goes on the other side; is it the regulations, or the values: sense of security, self-image, empowerment, identity, purpose. Now, aren’t those regulations open to interpretation? According the fundamentalists, no; such is their interpretation.
*Salmon Rushdie wrote of the fatal results of religions willing to erect totems, and our willingness to kill for them. I suggest he got it wrong. Religions don’t erect totems, people do. They do so for specific reasons, which are dressed up in religious garb, which sets up positive feedback loops.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]It inspires even wealthy men to leave behind their wife and children and fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, or blow up a school bus in Jerusalem, etc. I am not disagreeing plenty of jihadists have other motivations besides religious fervor, but I have seen no evidence or analysis offered by yourself or the multitude of commentators in the news media to convince me there is any other major factor that we can somehow eliminate to stop jihadism. We can’t stop young Muslim men from romanticizing jihad or trying to impress girls, but we can shut down fundamentalist mosques, imprison jihad-preaching imams, and kill committed jihadists.[/quote]Take a typical mosque with 100 attendees. Of these, perhaps a dozen are young men (more likely to behave badly). Of these, perhaps 3 are likely to take violent action. Your proposed solution, shutting down the mosque, is going to royally piss off and politicize 97 others, of which, perhaps 6 will react violently. Now you’ve got 9 potentially violent foes. Wow… you’ve been a great job of recruiting for the enemy (much as Israel did with Hezbollah last year). These 9, they’re fighting on the same side, but not for the same reasons. Still, there’s only nine. Send in the riot squad. Oops. One of them got his head cracked with a baton, and if he doesn’t die, he’ll never again quite be right. How many of the remain 91 worshippers–already angry–are going to step up in defense of these boys they’ve known for years? What are your chances of containing the incident, or ensuring that it does spillover and politicize other mosques? Other churches wary of state interference in matters religious? How many people are you facing now? Are they all fighting for the same things? Are you closer to a solution?
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]You have offered a great deal of in-depth analysis on this subject, but so far you have not explained how your analysis translates to public policy. What are your solutions?[/quote]I can barely offer the outlines of a strategy, and next to nothing of tactics, and see no reason to apologize for that: action taken in ignorance is next to useless and likely dangerous.
Start by trying to understand what the real motivations are, and the dynamics that are pulling and holding these groups together. Do some comparative studies. What are the differences, and reasons for differences, between Pakistani and Indian Muslims? Between Muslim immigrants in France (strict policy of assimilation, but utterly ineffectual) and those in the Netherlands and UK (more multicultural); between those in Canada (multicultural) and the US (effective assimiliation); between Europe and North America (mixed cases both)?
Then, better informed, start peeling off those who sign up for more easily addressed reasons. Israel/ Palestine gets trotted out a lot, and is an issue, but frustrations with unrepresentative, repressive gov’ts strikes me as a better target for action. Economic reform would help with much of the insecurity. What else? 
You’ll never eliminate all of the radicals, but soon enough, if you shrink their numbers enough, you’ll deny them easy recruitment (bandwagoning). You’ll also cut down on the number of those signing up to avenge others who signed up and were knocked off (“Honoring the sacrifice of the fallen.”) Don’t set out to annihilate the problem; start be shrinking it. When you’ve done that, then you can consider the costs and benefits of trying to stamp it out entirely.
On this one particular issue, say I’m a moderate Muslim, loyal to both my country and my faith. My young cousin is a bit of a hot-head, and I worry about some of the people he’s been associating with- followers of a radical preacher. I think he might be getting pulled into something serious.
I’m more likely to turn him in if
a) I know he’ll have the full protection of the laws- the right to a lawyer, the right see the evidence against him, the right to decent treatment, above all the right of habeas corpus.
b) he’ll be subject to indefinite detention at the mercy of the Executive- possibly years- with no right to a trial, no right to confront his accusers or challenge the evidence, subject to inhumane treatment and possibly renditioned to another country to be subjected to torture for months on what may be, and have in the past turned out to be, totally specious charges.
Winston Churchill
[quote=“MikeN”]
On this one particular issue, say I’m a moderate Muslim, loyal to both my country and my faith. My young cousin is a bit of a hot-head, and I worry about some of the people he’s been associating with- followers of a radical preacher. I think he might be getting pulled into something serious.[/quote]
You’ll probably buy him a ticket to Pakistan for training and then after the returns and blows himself up (along with 50 or 60 people in a restaurant) get on TV and claim you can’t understand why he did it.
Some people aren’t going to be happy until they’ve turned neighbor against neighbor everywhere on earth like they’ve managed to do in the neighborhoods of Baghdad with Operation Sectarian Bloodbath.
Work is picking up, so not as much time to respond. A few points:
The first clause is correct, the second is not. Religion isn’t a “place holder”, whatever the hell that means. Religion is the primary motivator. I think I have done a good job of demonstrating that in these debates. You have provided only suggestions of the possibility there might be other possibilities. Nothing concrete. Nothing convincing.
There are no more “basic” mechanisms relevant to us. If there are, give us some.
They believe that liberalism is corrupting the souls of their young ones and therefore condemning them to hell. Under Sharia law –that being God’s law in their eyes- people will lead tough lives, as they fully recognize, but will experience eternal bliss as a result. It’s not a security blanket; it’s an insurance policy. If you have a way to convince them this religious belief is incorrect, I’m all ears.
[quote]As a series of attitudes and practices? Austere discipline; purification; communial identification; collective responsibility. Admirable qualities, properly practiced. Certainly admirable enough to encourage their adoption, and later, defense. (Also dangerous. Collective responsibility is great when it means helping your friend through a difficult time; it’s less admirable when married to the demand for purity and applied to the all-to-evident faults of others.) Motives for adoption: self-image, empowerment, identity, purpose.
Now, would any of us go to war for a series of regulations? No. That’s nonsense. And why would anyone else? Would any of us go to war for what those regulations stand for, say the principle that there should be no taxation without representation? Well, yeah. For the attitudes and practices seen to be protected and promoted by those regulations, freedom from compulsion, individualism, security of one’s person and property? Hell yeah. So, where’s the motivation coming from: the set of regulations themselves, or the values and practices ascribed to them? Same goes on the other side; is it the regulations, or the values: sense of security, self-image, empowerment, identity, purpose. Now, aren’t those regulations open to interpretation? According the fundamentalists, no; such is their interpretation.[/quote]
More abstract analysis that lacks any conductivity to solutions.
Feel free to remain frozen. It’s time for action.
Back on topic folks.
How should Europe respond to Lewis’ dire assessment? Here’s some thoughts:
-
Shut down all mosques built and funded by the Wahhabis/Salafis, or any other hardcore Islamic groups.
-
Offer financial assistance to non-fundamentalist mosques to prevent their having to accept financial assistance from Saudi Arabia, etc.
-
Imprison or deport any Muslims calling for jihad and/or Sharia law.
-
Enact assimilation policies. Embrace Muslims who accept European values and law, but limit Muslim immigration for the foreseeable future until the radical preachers/community leaders can be routed out.
The first clause is correct, the second is not. Religion isn’t a “place holder”, whatever the hell that means. Religion is the primary motivator. I think I have done a good job of demonstrating that in these debates. You have provided only suggestions of the possibility there might be other possibilities. Nothing concrete. Nothing convincing.[/quote]
“No it isn’t… whatever that thing you said means.” Is that your argument? Really? A place holder is a stand in. It takes the place of something else, and may be mistaken for it.
Religion isn’t a mechanism, it’s an institution…sometimes social, sometimes centralized. And far too complex and diverse an institution to uniformly act upon and motivate diverse individuals.
A mechanism is an if a then sometimes b phenomenon, and often come in opposing pairs (fight or flight), or triplets (fight, flight or freeze).
Here’s a few:
Sour grapes versus wishful thinking;
Spillover, compensation, and crowding out;
Contrast effect versus endowment effect.
Do these help explain anything? To a large degree, it’s common sense and folk psychology, but applying the concepts–if not producing new insights–makes you aware of what’s under your nose.
Sour grapes: you can’t have what you want, so you decide that it’s not worth having. Possibly relevant given the relative success rates of immigrants attempting to integrate.
Wishful thinking: believing the world is as you wish it were. Myths of the glorious past are a nice fit; as are various military related delusions.
Spillover: X in p leads to X in q. Inflexibility in religious interpretation produces inflexibility in social relations.
Compensation: impotence and humiliation on the international stage leads to machismo at home.
Crowding out: if X in p, not in q. Clan identity. Extensive personal networks within crowd out relations beyond clan boundaries… making social capital and necessary trust difficult to establish for any sort of national gov’t.
Those are a very few basic mechanisms, and if they don’t provide a road map (and they don’t) they provide much higher resolution imagery for what’s going on than the paint-by-numbers broad stroke account you offer. Provided you can identify which are at play, and in whom. Come on, that’s a terribly short list, is spartan explanations, but even that should be enough to let you see some of the particular facets of religion, and if you can breakdown the monolithic institution, even a little, you’ll have a far better chance of applying force discretely.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]More abstract analysis that lacks any conductivity to solutions.[/quote]More wishful thinking on your part; sorry, but the world isn’t that simple. You took up your studies because these texts were important to fundamentalists and now–gasp–you’re stuck in the same frame, if on the other side of the wall, apparently believing–as they do–that these texts–interpreted thus–are the be all and end all of both the tradition and the behavior of its adherents.
Sorry, but is a basic point of Logic 101 that a real negation of fundamental point A is not fundamental point not-A. Break out of their frame work and have another look around.
Well I have said all I have to say to you on this issue, Jaboney. I just don’t understand your position. You acknowledge the threat of jihadism and yet criticize those who are taking action against it. You present no concrete solutions of your own, nor do you champion anybody else’s. I respect you for blazing your own path, but I remain uncertain as to where it is taking you. I leave you to it.
And to Mer, redandy, and those who have PM’ed me about this issue, I thank you all for the kind words. I have spent a lot of time researching these matters, and it is really good to know my efforts are appreciated. We are not alone my friends. More and more people in the West are refusing to buy into the politically correct, cowardly expositions of the mainstream media, and are beginning to ask tough questions. We can take some comfort in the fact the truth will always find its way to the top, no matter how hard some try to keep it down.
This morning I was given three projects that all must be completed within a month, at which time I am told I will receive a more important assignment than I have ever been given. I will not have much time to post on here for the next couple of months at least. Thanks to Jaboney, fred smith, and all the rest for the lively discussion. I do welcome this new work, but I look forward to getting some more free time so I can come back here and stir up trouble again. 
Cheers all,
Gao
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Well I have said all I have to say to you on this issue, Jaboney. I just don’t understand your position. You acknowledge the threat of jihadism and yet criticize those who are taking action against it. [/quote]Ok.
When you have time, if you’re still interested in understanding my position, reconsider it against this background:
I’m not afraid, not reacting out of fear; jihadism is a threat posed by a relatively small subset of individuals, and fearsome though that may seem, the threat of harm posed by overreaction, misunderstanding and otherwise getting it wrong is far greater; I do not simply criticize those who act, I criticize those who react unthinkingly, out of fear, for they’re likely to make things worse. I don’t demand perfect solutions, only genuine opportunities to improve the situation.
Oh yes, and books don’t kill people, people do.