In the wake of the Orlando massacre (and the cop-killing in France this morning) I have — against my principles and better judgement — gotten into a couple of Facebook “debates” with people who argue that “this has nothing to do with Islam.” As always, it’s a waste of time and energy.
So, instead of arguing, I am simply recommending a fruitful opportunity to learn a great deal about modern Islamic radicalism through reading one particular book. Of course reading ONE BOOK is never enough on any subject, but in a climate where the vast majority of people are only looking as far as their social media screen, reading one book is a lot. Particularly if that book is “The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.” Lawrence Wright won the Pulitzer Prize for it, and deservedly so. I’ve listened to it twice through and read it once. It’s probably the best single volume on the rise of Islamic radicalism in the post-World War II era.
From the New York Times review:
“The Looming Tower” is not just a detailed, heart-stopping account of the events leading up to 9/11, written with style and verve, and carried along by villains and heroes that only a crime novelist could dream up. It’s an education, too — though you’d never know it — a thoughtful examination of the world that produced the men who brought us 9/11, and of their progeny who bedevil us today…
… Just as dramatic as the portraits of bin Laden and Zawahiri is Wright’s account of the roots of Islamic militancy — the intellectual, spiritual and material world from which the plotters came. Wright draws a fascinating picture of Sayyid Qutb, the font of modern Islamic fundamentalism, a frail, middle-aged writer who found himself, as a visitor to the United States and a student at Colorado State College of Education in Greeley in the 1940’s, overwhelmed by the unbridled splendor and godlessness of modern America. And by the sex: like so many others who followed him, Qutb seemed simultaneously drawn to and repelled by American women, so free and unselfconscious in their sexuality. The result is a kind of delirium:
“A girl looks at you, appearing as if she were an enchanting nymph or an escaped mermaid,” Qutb wrote, “but as she approaches, you sense only the screaming instinct inside her, and you can smell her burning body, not the scent of perfume, but flesh, only flesh. Tasty flesh, truly, but flesh nonetheless”….
…Wright shows, correctly, that at the root of Islamic militancy — its anger, its antimodernity, its justifications for murder — lies a feeling of intense humiliation. Islam plays a role in this, with its straitjacketed and all-encompassing worldview. But whether the militant hails from a middle-class family or an impoverished one, is intensely religious or a “theological amateur,” as Wright calls bin Laden and his cohort, he springs almost invariably from an ossified society with an autocratic government that is unable to provide any reason to believe in the future. Islam offers dignity, even in — especially in — death. Living in the West, Atta and the others felt these things more acutely, not less.
There’s an excellent examination of the key concept of “takfir” — the ability of a Muslim to declare another “impure” and essentially excommunicate him from the faith — and make him a target for killing. That’s a key element of Sunni jihadi faith and doctrine, which allows for the mass slaughter of those it considers apostates. It’s a concept many Muslims consider un-Islamic. Wright’s outstanding book will inform both those who argue that Islamic radicalism “has nothing to do with Islam” and those who would tar all Muslims with the same brush.
I’m returning to my resolve to stay out of pointless “debates” on Facebook. My response to those who opine on Islamic terrorism is “Read this book — it will reward you with greater understanding.” Learn something. Do something. Reset.
Matthew says
One thing I’ve noticed that no one talks about is that the majority of victims of Militant Islam are other Muslims.
More Muslims die at the hands of jihadists than anybody else. You don’t hear that a lot.
JimC says
Absolutely true — on both counts. And 50 dead is an average day in Iraq and a quiet one in Syria.
Matthew says
The liberals that are so worried that there’s going to be a outbreak of anti-Muslim violence in America (and so disappointed that it doesn’t happen) don’t seem to care much about addressing the real issues.
Of course, people like Anne Coulter and the Trumpists would have you think Westerners are the only victims.
JimC says
There are so many loud voices with vested interests in narrow, strident, divisive discourse that it’s hard for any even slightly nuanced point of view to be heard. Nuance is bad for cable news ratings and too hard for social media.
Ryan says
to true.
Breaker Morant says
I am a huge fan of Mark Steyn and one passage from “America Alone” sticks with me. His Mr. Tayler is probably a good example of a Frontier Partisan.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>> “With the Soonnees the Wahabees are on terms of tolerable agreement, though differing on certain points, but from the Sheahs, they differ radically, and their hatred, like all religious hatred, is bitter and intolerant. But the most striking characteristic of the Wahabee sect, and that which principally concerns this narrative, is the entire subservience which they yield to the Peer, or spiritual guide.” <<<<
Mr. Tayler, a minor civil servant in Bengal, was a genuine “multiculturalist.” Although he regarded his own culture as superior, he was engaged enough by the ways of others to study the differences between them. By contrast, contemporary multiculturalism absolves one from knowing anything about other cultures as long as one feels warm and fluffy toward them. After all, if it’s grossly judgmental to say one culture’s better than another, why bother learning about the differences? “Celebrate diversity” with a uniformity of ignorance.
Had William Tayler been around when the Islamification of the West got under way and you’d said to him there was a mosque opening down the street, he’d have wanted to know: What kind of mosque? Who’s the imam? What branch of Islam? Old-school imperialists could never get away with the feel-good condescension of PC progressives.
JimC says
Well played, Breaker.
Breaker Morant says
Just to be clear-Those are Steyn’s words and not mine.
Just got back from the National History Bee. My 7th Grader placed roughly in the middle. I have an essay or thoughts on “Rote Learning” VS “Organic Knowledge” that is begging to be written.
Pleasantly surprised at the large number of Military History questions.
The most Frontier Partisan question was probably about Kit Carson and the Navajo-several kids got sucked into going down the Trail of Tears/Andrew Jackson/Cherokee route. Correct answer was “Navajo.”
I figure that one of the standing rules here is that an allusion to the Comanches or Apaches is never out of order (LOL).
Read a book (suggested by someone here) on the 2nd Cavalry in Texas prior to the Civil and was surprised to run across this nugget. The father of Admiral Kimmel-the commander at Pearl Harbor-was a member of the 2nd in Texas prior to the Civil.
That surprised me-it is an 80 year span-but it shorten up history-Comanches to Pearl Harbor in a Father/Son span.
Pat_h says
Well played indeed.
Ryan says
Steyn’s an idiot who falls in the “all muslims are terrorists and islam is a monolith” guy. He supported eurabia for instance. Islam has beauty as well as ugliness and does have good elements too (a history of contributing to arts and sciences) and most importantly DOES have elements that advocate tolerance (loads of contradictions, just like all holy books)
As someone else said
“Every ex-Muslim can recite a litany of horrors that Islam perpetrates. But I don’t think most would argue that we need to erase the history of the Middle East, Asia, North Africa, and contributions all around the world. We should not ignore the Islamic gifts to literature, poetry, music, mathematics, and science; we must not forget that these are human beings who may feel the deepest love for their culture as a whole, even as they deplore aspects of it.
I want to embrace Islamic culture as a significant part of the human experience, even while I reject the barbarisms within it, exactly as I am a child of Western culture who wants to see our flaws recognized and corrected. My hope for the future isn’t a world of uniformity, but one where we can enjoy each others’ differences and not kill each other for them.”
That’s my view; one can acknowledge that islam has good elements and isn’t monolithic while acknowledging the evil.
The only reason christian fundies aren’t as bad is that christianity’s power is broken for th most part; if not they would be happily throwing gays from roofs
Breaker Morant says
My Apologies-My post did not come through in a clear format and did not make clear that the “Soonnee/Wahabbi quote was from a Mr. Tayler and written after the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny.
JimC says
Compañero Craig Rullman posted a reading list on FB — I’m taking the liberty of adding it here:
That is indeed a great book, and I can recommend several more…so I will: God’s Terrorists, The Crisis of Islam, The Shia Revival, Guests of the Ayatollah, Hatred’s Kingdom, Future Jihad, The War of Ideas, The Confrontation–(Everything written by Walid Phares) Warrant for Terror, Lightning out of Lebanon, Ghost Wars, See No Evil…and of course, the Koran, and the Hadiths. I would also recommend Keegan’s History of Warfare, so that Islam’s current military strategy can be placed in historical perspective–this is a partial list, but given jihadiis are the Nazis of our time, it’s worth the work. The more you know, the more you know…
Davide Mana says
Sadly, radicalism is in-built in the Muslim system – just as it is present, in varying degree, in any belief system.
Which does not mean of course that the equation “Muslim = Killer” that some are promoting is anywhere true, but just that the system of thought underlying Muslim beliefs supports and favors “by default” those that go down the radical path. Not everybody does it, obviously, just like not every Christian goes the radical way (those that cheered the Orlando shooter? My goodness!) But Islam probably makes it easier to go down the radical path than Christianity or Buddhism or whatever.
And I agree that “multiculturalism” should be based on knowledge, dialogue and respect, not on ignorant bliss.
JimC says
That’s right in the X-ring. Deuce Richardson, on Facebook, articulated it very well. In response t a comment that Omar Mateen seems to have some repressed homosexual urges and that disturbed young men sometimes seek body fame:
Pat_h says
The more we look at Mateen, the more we might have to conclude that the assumption that was leaped to that his act was based on that particular motivation may be fairly flawed. I’m not familiar enough with Islamic beliefs in these areas to really know what they are, but they seem to be classically somewhat similar to their beliefs on male conduct with women. I.e., believing males get a really wide pass on their conduct, here and in the next world.
The FBI’s look into it apparently found that Mateen wasn’t obviously displaying that motivation for his actions. He had been in that bar before, as we know, we may indicate the opposite. But it might also simply mean he was casing the joint. And if we was acting in regards to the conduct the establishment represented, it might have been a strike against license in general, rather than this particular group of licenses.
Which gets us back to the fact that while not all Muslims are dangerous, and while most are not, most Muslims aren’t extremely dedicated to the original tenants of Muhammad, and even most of those who are don’t act on them. None of which counters the fact that some who do become seriously observant will feel drawn to these acts as a matter of dedication, and that some people who otherwise are troubled will likewise find consolation in their troubles by adopting the path of violence.
JimC says
My theory: The “tolerance & diversity” class actually has a very difficult time understanding (and tolerating) ACTUAL diversity — as in people who don’t think and feel the same way they do. They can’t understand that there are people who are seriously, murderously dedicated to their religious faith. My friend Craig Rullman frequently points out that when Islamists say they are going to do something, they do it. They mean what they say and say what they mean. When they say they mean to fulfill prophesy of men in black clothes with long beards from the east bringing down the West, they really mean to do it.
The ludicrous argument that “this has nothing to do with Islam” is willful rejection of a manifest reality. Apparently the purveyors of “tolerance” don’t have the capacity to grasp that, while salafist Islamic radicals do not “represent Islam” they take their interpretation of their faith extremely seriously, to the point of being willing to murder anyone who does not conform to that, including other Muslims. Mateen was obviously a troubled man. So was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the creator of al Qaeda in Iraq and the precursor to ISIS. That man was a monster. He gravitated to a radical interpretation of Islam — and took it seriously. Men like these find justification for their violent impulses and absolution for their own twistedness in their faith. This is not hard to understand — but there’s a large segment of the Western “intelligentsia” and commentariat for whom such an understanding conflicts with their narrative — which boils down to, “somehow, this must be our fault” — and therefore it must be suppressed.
This is insane. Literally.
Pat_h says
One of the most common failing of the chattering class in the western world is a very serious belief that “everyone is just like us”, by which is meant that everyone thinks just like the chattering class, or sure ought to. That means that a fairly large segment of society is actually completely unable to grasp that a movement like radical Islam really means what they say.
Not this is new. Quite a few flat out believed that that various Communist movements and countries really took hardcore Communism seriously, and many absolutely failed to believe that the Nazis really meant what they said. All these movements are different, of course, except that the most extreme of movements tend to be honest about their goals.
Breaker Morant says
As this has developed, I think we are seeing a textbook case of how, as Steyn says-““contemporary multiculturalism absolves one from knowing anything about other cultures as long as one feels warm and fluffy toward them.”
Those that want to absolve Islam from this, are focusing on the Orlando shooter’s possible homosexual acts from a western perspective. He was a self-loathing homosexual-etc etc.
My view is that we have to consider that he is a product of the Afghan culture and men in that society really tend to “Like” their boys.
James Michener wrote decades ago in “Caravans” about the Afghan males’ fondness for the Dancing Boys.
Frontline did a 2009 documentary on the Dancing Boys of Afghanistan.
There are numerous reports of American soldiers running across instances of Boy Rape by our Afghan allies and being ordered to ignore it.
My favorite examples is from John Masters’ memoir on the Northwest Frontier prior to WW2. He wrote (in those pre-PC days) in “Bugles and a Tiger” that they joked that the attitude of the Afghan males is that “Women are for business, boys are for pleasure.”
I don’t quite understand how/why Afghanistan (and other Muslim countries) decide which homosexual acts warrant execution in light of the stuff I just described. But I am basically laughing (it is all I can do) at the militant multiculturalists, who, as I described above, are viewing the shooter’s homosexual leanings (or whatever they are) simply through a western lens.
JimC says
Excellent points, Breaker, as always. The liberal of the species in Europe and the U.S. tend to think that everyone has the same values at heart.
Ryan says
Again, Mark Steyn is a racist idiot who would cheerfully advocate throwing muslims into gas chambers. He inspired Anders Breivik for christ’s sake
lane batot says
Been away from compooters awhile, so I’ll respond here lumping a lot of these similar subject posts together. Humans(and their religions) are mostly very hypocritical critters. And speaking of critters, all this rehashing of Muslim conflicts, Nazi Bass-Turds, etc.–heck, guys, it don’t matter WHAT religions are being practiced, WHAT racial diversity is in existence, or even WHAT team in whatever sport one prefers, folks is ALWAYS goin’ to be fightin’ over stuff! ALWAYS! Sure it’s sad, but no gettin’ away from it. I lived with wild chimpanzees and baboons, who were usually their own worst enemies–more killing of each other by far than predators just looking for an honest meal! Wolves kill wolves, lions kill lions–we are NOT ALONE in the world on intra-species aggression! What drives me NUTS about these horrible incidents, is everyone whining and feeling sorry about it all with NO THOUGHT as to FIGHTING THE FRICK BACK! Was there not ONE GUN on anybody, or on that premise in Orlando? I’m all for Gun Control–EVERYBODY get guns and learn how to control them! One well-placed bullet by an angry citizen would have likely saved a lot of lives in Orlando. Instead, people lie around like overly domesticated sheep chewing their cuds while insane predators lurk all around them. THAT is largely the “problem” in my opinion–humans are becoming TOO DOMESTICATED! There have always been killers lurking–animal and human. Always will be. Wild prey animals almost all have horns, antlers, tusks, or hooves, and have no qualms about using them whenever necessary! C’MON people, FIGHT BACK! Quit going to meetings to express your feelings about these things–notice that the insane killer-types never attend such meetings? Sheesh!
john roberts says
Many other cultures have a more nuanced approach to same-sex/opposite sex relations. The Christian rigidity on the matter is the exception. In the Classical world, the distinction was drawn between older/younger and active/passive. Incidentally, this goes for U.S. prisons, too. To ancient Greek philosophers, love could only exist between equals, and men and women could never be equals. To Romans, there was nothing wrong with free men using slave boys (but never freeborn boys). Between grown men, it was disgraceful to be the passive partner. This was what made the late Emperor Elagabalus so contemptible. He was (to put it mildly) an enthusiastic “bottom.” It’s much the same in Islamic society: Man/boy, okay. Man/man, not okay.
JimC says
Yep — reckon that’s correct. Do you think the Judeo-Christian attitude was a direct reaction to the Greco/Roman or was it organic?
john roberts says
Christianity started out as a Jewish sect and I think they went back to the earliest Jewish traditions on the subject. The early Hebrews were a tribal, herding and subsistence farming people, and they had the typical laws of such people, regarding adultery, homosexuality and subjection to parents and authority figures. Anything that subverted the family, the tribe or the chieftain was forbidden.
The Greeks and Romans (at least the ones who wrote books) were an urban, politically sophisticated people. They didn’t feel threatened by anyone’s sexuality or sexual practices. They cared about your political orientation, patriotism and so forth, concepts too sophisticated for the shepherds of the Old Testament. As things developed, the ideals adopted by the early Christians turned out to be very appropriate for the Dark Age period following the fall of the West, and have come down to us almost unchanged.
JimC says
Thanks for that. Completely makes sense.
Gary M says
Jim, I have taken up your excellent suggestion of reading The Looming Tower and am presently about half way through it so far as well as having found study guide discussions from other sources as to what is to come further on. Wright does do a top notch job of laying out the twists and turns through the formative years of bin Laden and al-Zawahir, their birthing of Al Qaeda and grooming of cadres of martyrs.
The biggest new takeaway for me so far from it was his early foundation laying out the powerful influence of Sayyid Qutb’s writing — of whom I had only rather cursory knowledge. I took some chilling side paths away from the book reading a little more about him than Wright offered to fill in my gaps . Unquestionably his writings have caused a sea change and, unfortunately, may be one of the few unifying factors for elements of both the Sunni and Shia radical fundamentalists today. Yes, Houston. There is a problem. And the world needs to get a handle on a long-term solution, not just fighting the flash fires we are now. I thought this read did a great job on the evolution of Al Qaeda and tracing the path to the 9/11 attacks as well as the roots of current Sunni terrorism today. Thanks for suggesting the read.
Blog observations:
Comment on your Deuce Richardson quote: I know one heck of a lot of extremely devout Christians that are convinced that you are going to hell if you have not formally accepted Jesus Christ as your savior. Many American preachers shout this from the pulpit whether or not the Bible is quite as explicit as the Quran is.
Comment on your Craig Rullman book list quote: I was pretty taken aback at Craig’s phrase that you quoted in his suggested terrorism reading list referring to “Islam’s current military strategy”. I hope that was a slip on his part rather than a real belief. I sure hope with his experience Craig was intending Daesh’s, the Talibans or Al Qaeda’s there rather than painting 22% of the world as having a unified and cohesive military strategy. So many sects and factions themselves are still rarely even discuss details of faith with each other outside of the hadj, also true with much of Christianity of course.
Finally I would like to offer another outstanding book as a reading list suggestion, that being “No God But God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam by Reza Aslan”, for any interested in getting deeper in understanding the larger complexity than the immediate extremist battlefront. This is a highly rated work boiling the complex picture of Muslim society into a coherent and interesting read drawing on sources many sources pre-Lawrence / WWI as well. It is critical for us all to have an understanding of Muslim societies historical evolution into a combined and somewhat balanced social/judicial, religious and political partnership in order that the world as a whole will have a chance to help that part of the world do a meaningful recovery from the Sikes-Picot post Ottoman dismantling that threw it so badly out of kilter as the three legs of their stool were ripped apart on them. As Wright also points out, those borders have no real meaning to most who live there and are often problematic to the tribal and sectarian coherence which fact is now contributing so deeply to the roiling currents traveling the Middle East today. Maybe a fresh look at supporting redraws to give those groups self-determination or at least secure territories should be one part of the paths forward. Craig R. has adroitly pointed out that this is often the reality on the ground anyway. Complex as hell, that is certain.
JimC says
Glad it resonated. And, yes, Qutb is a watershed figure.
As for redrawing the map, that’s what’s happening de facto right now. You’ll never get the parties at a table to formalize it — some of the players can’t sit at a table with civilized humans, we can only put their heads upon it — and the rest can’t even maintain a very modest cease fire agreement in Syria. It’ll take a generation to sort out, but the map will look very different in 2050. At least there will be a Kurdistan, which has been a long time coming.
Gary M says
The Kurds have sure earned it with honor. Both the gals and the guys.
Pat_h says
It’s interesting to watch the reaction to these events on our own soil, just as its also tragic. Our surrender to relativism has been so strong that we can’t even seem to grasp that our enemy is serious, sane, dedicated, and motivated by Islam. We usually react at first with “ho my gosh, an Islamic terrorist!”, but within hour we look to excuse that. “No, he was insane. . . ” “No. . . it was an act of criminal prejudice” “No, he lost his job”.
Even where one or more of the secondary excuses is true or partially true, that doesn’t mean that a serious devotion to Islam wasn’t the final motivating factor. And the twin attraction/revulsion nature of those actors reaction to our society is well established (I blogged a bit on that, although I strayed pretty far in doing so, this past week http://lexanteinternet.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-peoples-who-allow-natural-bases-of.html on my own blog).
Soon after we have our reaction and find our excuse, we then set about redefining an act of war as a crime, which is a mistake. In all of the Islamic terror strikes on the US following 9/11 (with 9/11 being therefore the exception) we’ve fallen back into viewing each act as a crime, with the most recent Orlando example being the most recent example. We did that with San Bernadino as well, we did that with the 2015 Chattanooga example, we did that with the Ft. Hood example, and we did that with the Canadian Parliament example. And any or all of these shooters may have been warped, to be sure. But then a few FLN fighters may have been warped, and a few Viet Cong fighters may have been warped. Characterizing their actions as simply a product of that would have been deluded, and by simply dismissing all of these acts as criminal acts and going on to look for a legislative solution is really missing the point.
At the risk of causing thread hijacking to occur, on a solution, one possible one to mention on this July 4 is to take a bit of a Minute Man approach, to some extent: http://lexanteinternet.blogspot.com/2016/07/packing-heat.html