Well, I sat on this post for a week or so but decided to go ahead with it. I was reluctant to post it since I'll undoubtedly get shit for it (and because the thread had by that point devolved into a heated discussion on the particularities of what constitutes civil war
), but I feel that there's some merit to it:
While there are unquestionably various sociocultural and economic factors which contribute to the incidence of extremism within Islamic/Arab communities, any discussion by Muslims which consists almost exclusively of
tu quoques and talks about how maligned Muslims are wherever they go has always struck me as disingenuous in a way. I mean, to hear a Muslim tell it, they (Muslims) are
always the oppressed ones, always the victims, always being buffeted by forces beyond their control. While ostensibly calling for an "even-handed approach and a fuller understanding of the situation," they'd basically have you believe that Muslims are always in the right in every regional or ethnic conflict (e.g., Chechnya, Somalia, India etc.). At the very least, they'd have you believe that
no one is in the right, and that both sides are always equally culpable; this is most assuredly nonsense, though they are assisted in their cause by a distinct (and pernicious) type of liberal mentality. There are always two sides to every story, but both of these sides are not always equally valid.
Ignoring the sociological/economic/political factors which contribute to the pathology of extremism within Muslim communities, sometimes I tend to look at things like this via analogy:
When you have a friend who is having problems with another friend of hers and she tells you all the specifics of how the other person wronged her, you listen and believe her (barring countervailing evidence), trusting in her character and judgment. However, if this same friend routinely came to you with tales of conflict between her and her other friends, you'd accordingly become less credulous, even if in every instance a plausible sounding rationale was advanced. One or two people can be wrong, but what are the chances that five of her friends were all wrong? A dozen of them? Not very likely. You'd begin to attribute her interpersonal woes to something more fundamental to her -- either her people skills, or her expectations, or whatever.
This is how I view Islam, unfortunately. Not in its entirety, of course -- I've had the pleasure of knowing many good Muslims who were just tremendous people, people whom you could respect. Not all (or even anywhere near a majority of) Muslims are a problem, obviously. Yet it seems that wherever Islam migrates, trouble follows. Discord, violence, and a seeming inability to peacefully coexist with their neighbors seem follow Muslim communities around like a dark cloud. At the very least, this suggests to me that in addition to whatever extrinsic causes may be posited for radicalism (e.g., poverty, lack of education, Machiavellian exploitation on the part of Western powers, estrangement from the national culture in the case of immigrants), we should also take a hard look at the possible elements of Islamic theology/doctrine which make it especially susceptible, among the monotheistic religions, to manipulation and abuse on the part of extremists; this in turn foments further radicalism as they cast their nefarious net among a populace already put "at risk" by the aforementioned sociopolitical factors.
Obviously, none of this is intended to suggest that externalities play no role in breeding extremism -- in fact, they likely play a considerable role. However, as the "sample size" increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to ascribe everything to
other people's actions and abuses, to
other people's faults and shortcomings. The analogy I employed is by no means a strict one, nor was it especially well thought out -- hell, it might hardly be apposite; however, I feel that there's a grain of truth in there. Essentially, I am of the mind that if people can be just in their dealings and have good relations, then so can be their aggregates (e.g., institutions, nations) provided that certain conditions obtain. Just as
realpolitik is not, in my estimation, an inevitability in world affairs (though it's currently the dominant paradigm), extremism -- at least to the extent it currently exists -- is not a foregone conclusion where religion is concerned, no matter what some people would have you believe. Things like radicalism and
realpolitik are, at base, personal pathologies writ large.
So there you have it. I figured I'd post this because it's a somewhat different take on things. I don't believe the above to be "the whole story" by any means -- like I said, I look at things in this manner
sometimes, not all the time. Analyzing the situation from a purely sociocultural/political perspective -- as I frequently do myself -- also has merit, and arguments proceeding from such bases are generally tenable. Incidentally, let it be known that I am at the very least consistent in my thoughts, since I at times attribute America's disrepute and international/domestic troubles to institutionalized pathologies which are outgrowths of internalized personal failings (e.g., greed, aggression). So don't take this as me singling out Islam; it's simply one part of a broader lens through which I occasionally look at the world. A panoptic view would of course have to incorporate many such perspectives (e.g., cultural, sociological, political, psychological, spiritual etc.), and this post is not intended as a refutation of the most commonly proffered explanations for extremism -- it's just a slightly different take on things.
(And yeah, Dark Shake, you can get your "why the HELL do you write so much !?" post out of the way now -- that's preemptive
ownage right there
)
P.S.: Before I get pounced on for the "liberal mentality" quote, allow me to state that the reason I said that is because a certain strain of liberal thought is loathe to draw lines (i.e., make firm judgments), and sometimes certain lines need to be drawn for intellectual honesty and clarity's sake (though the converse -- drawing lines too hastily -- can also be true; the happy medium is, as always, the place to be -- Aristotle was right
). So that's all I meant by that; I'm obviously not tarring all liberals with that brush.
