How Taqiyya Alters Islams Rules of War

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jumpinjarhead, Jan 7, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Rumpelstiltskin

    Rumpelstiltskin LE
  2. alib

    alib LE

    Actually if we narrow the field the sort of Takfiri that dreams of exploding knickers much of the thought that underpins their beliefs is in fact European. Outb the father of the modern movement drew heavily on on Western radical thought, his belief system has been described as Leninism in Islamist dress. Traditional state based Islam itself is actually something of an impediment to these chaps. Not least because killing fellow Muslims is haram.

    The Iranians are subtle folk who spring out an ancient Persian imperial culture that was spectacularly devious long before Islam was forced on them. Many Iraqis still suspect then of covert fire worship. Their Khomeni unlike the theologically naive engineers and doctors that are drawn to the Takfiri cause was a heavy weight Islamic scholar also drew heavily on Lenin. His government by wilayat al-faqih is still regarded as something very unorthodox in the Twelver tradition.

    Back in 02 in TERROR, ISLAM,
    Ladan Boroumand and Roya Boroumand summarized this nicely:
    And being narked with DC and the imported revolutionary philosophy all these guys agree on. Theologically and over nationalism they are at daggers drawn. This isn't a monolithic threat, the Mullahs of Qom and the Quetta Shura would happily murder each other. Both Hezbollah and Hamas tends to bump off Takfirii who stray onto their turf. We make fundamental errors in lumping these buggers into one threat let alone the fast breading 1.3 billion souls of the Umma.
  3. auscam


    Get rooted, troll.
  4. goingsupersonic

    goingsupersonic Old-Salt

    Hmm I wonder which is more trollish: your single comment of "get rooted" or the numerous posts I have contributed to this thread?...



    biography of author
  5. jumpinjarhead

    jumpinjarhead LE

    Thanks for the additional research. I feel a bit sheepish in causing that effort as I obviously did not make my point clear enough. I am not quibbling over whether a particular label is "true" or not in the case of any particular person. To me, a person, even one with whom I may strongly disagree, presumptively deserves a basic level of respect as a person with faults and flaws like anyone else. My reason for highlighting the phrase was only to make my point (I obviously failed miserably) that I do not regard such labeling (even if true) helpful.

    There is also the admittedly small point that to me the use of the use of the term "mouthpiece" especially in the context of the thread was a conscious effort to demean Mr. Ibrahim by suggesting that he had no ideas of his own and is a mere shill for the apparently not to be believed "neocons." Of course the term "neocon" much like "homophobe" is a term coined as a pejorative term for those with different views. Indeed in the first iteration of the term, Michael Harrington used it to refer to those he viewed as traitors to his world view.

    This kind of hyperbole (I very much doubt that Ibrahim is literally capable of only re-stating what other "neocons" tell him to) is, as I have said, is but another way to marginalize those with whom one disagrees too often as a way to avoid refuting his or her views through reasoned discussion and debate. I am not saying any posters on this thread have necessarily done that but again I think the personal attacks, while they may make someone "feel" better, both distract from the discussion itself and actually diminish the credibility of the person making such attacks.

    While there are certainly those who for me have forfeited that respect by their actions (such as John Kerry about whom I have previously acknowledged an abiding hatred), I do not expect you to share my views merely because I told you to and even provided you with the transcripts and video of his testimony before Congress during the Vietnam War that forms the core of my opinion about him. In the same manner, while you, WC and others have made it abundantly clear how you regard Ibrahim, and now I suppose Daniel Pipes, and no doubt many others, does it follow that I have to accede to your views without having satisfied myself as to the competing information regarding the issues and come to my own conclusions?

    I am now weary of these asides. In a good faith effort to bring this thread back to something hopefully edifying and informative, let me pose this compound question (without suggesting any personal position since I have none as yet) that is something that I think I and others less conversant in the details of Islam are asking.

    In the wake of various incidents from 9/11 on involving murder and mayhem by those who call themselves "good" Muslims and invoke Islam in one way or the other as explanation and justification for their actions, others who identify themselves as Muslims say such things like "He/She/ They is/are not "real" Muslims etc." I suppose some of this perspective is also implicit in some of the posts already on this thread in that several posts have complained quite strongly that the effect of the Ibrahim piece (and I guess all those other evil neocons) is to encourage non-Muslims to think that Islam is a faith of violence and deceit.

    If this is so, how are we to regard the fact that so many of these killers have been so deluded, misguided, mistaken, persuaded, co-opted, manipulated, "brain washed" etc. that they are willing to carry out these acts of violence, including at times killing other Muslims and/or committing suicide in the process? In other words, are there identifiable factors that we can consider that make these people apparently more vulnerable to going astray of what these Muslim observers contend is the "real way" of that faith?

    Furthermore, if there are such factors, are they sufficient to also explain why Islam seems (to take the argument of those Muslims observers who contend thew killers are not true believers etc.) to be the religion that, at least in the last 25 years or so, is "hijacked" by these killers rather than one of the other world's religions or belief systems?

    As I said before asking these questions, I have no hidden agenda in asking them and hope we can actually discuss this points in good faith as I think they are at the core of the obvious distrust and animosity that those on each "side" of these matters seem to hold for the other.
  6. goingsupersonic

    goingsupersonic Old-Salt

    I believe a feeling of impotency at the power of the West in general and the USA particular is responsible. Extremist Muslims (not the Taliban, they are extreme but I'll come to them later..) see the attempts to Westernise Arab countries as "de-Islamising" their society and as a response react strongly against it. Bin Laden was essentially radicalised by the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the Western involvement in Gulf War 1.

    Radical Islamism is often called a movement of the engineers - members of the Muslim Brotherhood are very often drawn from the engineering and medical faculties of the Al-Azhar university in Cairo.

    In veryyyyyyy broad brush strokes....

    In 1956 Nasser kicked the British out of and a belief arose of a type of Arab pan nationalism. When this failed to materialise after the spanking Arab countries received in the 6 Days and October wars many people gradually became disillusioned and turned to the grandaddy of radicalism, Sayyid Qutb.

    For the past 25 years we have seen the ascendency of the Christian West, so Christian peoples have seen little need to partake of terrorism. Jewish energy is essentially focussed within the armed forces of the state of Israel. Islam does have an undeniable history of extremist splinter groups - Kharijites and Assassins being just two.

    Regarding the Taliban - if I were to define them in sociological terms I'd describe them as ultraconservative rather than radicalist - they don't really have the same modernising tendencies implied by radicalism.

    Radicalist theology is probably best described as an attempt to reduce Islam to just its bare bones, ignoring the accumulated traditions and praxis of the past 300 years while also interpreting the Qur'an out of historical context and for inappropriate subjects.
  7. rampant

    rampant LE

    Taking the matter of faith out of it for a moment, in order to simplify what you're saying.

    1) Are there particular personalities, individuals or demographic that are likely to become terrorists/revolutionaries?

    2) Are there particular personalities, individuals or demographic that are particulary susceptible to terrorist or revolutionary ideologies or propaganda?

    3) What is particularly appealing or persuasive about these terrorist/revolutionary ideologies and propaganda?

    4) What methods do the terrorist/revolutionaries use in order to recruit there followers and accomplices?

    5) What methods are these terrorist/revolutionaries using in order to train (indoctrinate if you choose) their recruits into carrying out such acts, even against the belief systems of their upbringing?

    6) What makes a particular terrorist/revoltionary ideology more persuasive/effective than another?

    edited to add:

    GS's brief summation is quite good actually, but I would add my reason for stripping out the issue of a particular faith is so you can see the bare bones of the questions you are asking, you could equally find the necessary answers in the history of 20th Century China with its movement from Imperial squalor through nationalism to communism over from the Boxer Rebellion onwards to the Cultural Revln. Similarly you could find some of the answers in the training and making of your beloved marines (turning a raw civi into a lean mean fighting machine), or those who have become a born again Christian. You could find some of the sources in late 19th Russian History, with anarchism and communism.

    Or I should say the parameters or geography of what you are looking for, think of Islam as the language of its inhabitants.
  8. jumpinjarhead

    jumpinjarhead LE

    Thanks Rampant for helping refine the questions. I realize there are historical similarities by other groups, secular and sectarian, and understand the more generic dynamics of training and conversion of people into warriors.

    While all of that is interesting and worthy of discussion, I am concerned about the narrow issues facing us in contemporary times since one cannot deny that the majority of terroristic acts (I use the phrase in its broadest sense to encompass the insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan as well as AQ and other sub-state groups) during the last 10 years (from 9/11 on-I realize this is somewhat arbitrary but for the sake of focus I think that period is sufficiently representative) have been at least attributed to Muslims or Islam in some manner.
  9. whitecity

    whitecity LE

    Compare and contrast the number of Muslims willing to sacrifice themselves in the name of the Islamofascist cause - whilst killing others in the process - with the number of US troops willing to sacrifice themselves in the name of their cause - whilst killing others in the process. Compare how many innocent have died as a direct conseqence of Islamofascist action and US intervention policy since 9/11 - 1.

    I think you'll find the numbers of those truely following this feared Islamofascist cause is actually rather small in number and hence why they rely on the spectacular such as 9/11 for their 'credibility'.

    Moreover, I would also argue that they are the deluded few that have fallen victim to the manipualtion of an even smaller number with a political agenda.

    How to resolve the current violence? Deal with the agenda of the miniscule number of puppeteers instead of forever banging on about imagined threat from the millions who follow a faith different to one's own.
  10. rampant

    rampant LE

    Gahhh! :x Not a simple answer old boy, no simple answers to this at all. TBH, many of the answers you are seeking have their root as far back as the mid-19th century. But I'm not going to give you a potted history of that. Well at least not tonight anyway.

    A good play to place to start is the Anglo-Arab defeat of the Turks in the Great War, and the subsequent betrayal of the Arabs by the Great Powers at Versailles, which subjected them to another 40-50years of foreign Imperial rule. The Groups that emerged during the post-WW1 period until the late 60s and 70s, were on the whole secularist in nature, normally subscribing to a Pan-Arab Nationalism with Socialist/Marxist teachings, the neutering of this Seclar Natism by our good friends the Israelis, not to mention our own Anglo-American meddling in Iran (1953 for instance) amongst a myriad of other thingsbankrupted these ideologies, which themselves suffered from the taint of Westernism.

    The failure of the secularist movements saw an increase in support for the religious-nationalists, these also had there roots in the preWW2 days, but lacked the same influence amongst the middle-class and elites of Arab society of thase times. These religio movements first really statred making their mark in Israel, Lebanon, and Algeria (Algerian post war/independence history is very interesting with regards to this context, esp as their movements began to self-destruct).

    The religious movements provided a more visible, and often more effective resistence to external and internal oppression (or support for corrupt regimes) than any of the secularist movements and hence why they became more popular.

    GS has provided a good outline for now, albeit brief,and I'm on my second bottle of wine, not to mention 200miles from home and away from my notes.

    One thing I will note, is that Islamist Terrorism appears to be the most prevalent at the moment, because it is the one we are most engaged with at the moment. In Africa they could say that Christian terrorism is as growing a problem as Islamist Terrorism. Here in the UK we face both the Islamist and the Catholic-Socialist-Nationalist.
  11. Resurgam

    Resurgam War Hero

    Ibrahim chooses to take 106 as his example, and ignore 105. Note that people believing in God's revelation has historically always included Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians.[/quote]
    If Zoroastrians are OK why did the Parsees all flee Persia?
  12. rampant

    rampant LE

    All methinks not there are still an estimated 35,000-60,000 Zorastrians still remaining, compared to nearly 69,000 in India, out around an estimated 210.000 worldwide.

    Not to mention:

    around 40,000 Jews and 300,000 Christians
  13. jumpinjarhead

    jumpinjarhead LE

    Thanks-safe travels home. I think I will move on to lighter fare that trying to solve the "Islamic terrorism"riddle.
  14. whitecity

    whitecity LE

    The biggest step you could take in solving the riddle is to drop the assumption that the problem is Islamic terrorism - with or without the quote marks. There are many Muslims who have resorted to terrorist methods over the past decade or so. That fact cannot be denied. Islamic terrorism is the symptom of the problem not the illness itself. Islamic terrorism is merely one tool being used by selfish individuals with a political agenda.
  15. jumpinjarhead

    jumpinjarhead LE

    I have made no such assumption and was referring to "many Muslims who have resorted to terrorist methods over the past decade or so." That was the reason for putting it in quotes. I think it would also foster more productive discussion if you would not be so quick to make some of the assumptions apparent in your posts.

    Regrettably, this forum does not seem to be the appropriate vehicle for productive discussion on this subject so I will l not occupy any more ARRSE bandwidth in my quest.