When the 'oppressed' are demanding a state on theological formulations what secular grievance would one suggest government focus upon (outside the religiously motivated calls for its dismantling and replacement)?
When the 'oppressed' are demanding a state on theological formulations what secular grievance would one suggest government focus upon (outside the religiously motivated calls for its dismantling and replacement)?
That is an excellent question!Originally Posted by J Singh
Religion is often the primary identifier in conflict, but it is rarely the primary instigator. N Ireland exemplifies this. The drivers are Fear, Honour and Greed (welcome back my old friend Thucydides), primarily power and resources. The Troubles are focused almost entirely in time and space on deprived urban ghettos on both sides of the sectarian divide. The middle classes in N Ireland may not talk to each other, but they certainly do not fight each other.
I believe that it is an accepted social trend that the more affluent and secure a society is the less religious fervor is apparent. This would seem to link with religion as an identifer and not necessarily an instigator.
The problem in the Middle East at the moment is that religion is seen not just as an identifier but as a solution, and under many of the brands of Islam being marketed, a solution that brooks no compromise (and compromise is the essence of politics).
RR
"War is an option of difficulties"
I think we risk misleading ourselves when we use Northern Ireland as a paradigm for what we're seeing in Muslim lands. This gets back to cherry picking an example of religious conflict (in this case it is actually is a political power conflict) to fit the proposal that governance is the fix.Religion is often the primary identifier in conflict, but it is rarely the primary instigator. N Ireland exemplifies this. The drivers are Fear, Honour and Greed (welcome back my old friend Thucydides
I believe that it is an accepted social trend that the more affluent and secure a society is the less religious fervor is apparent. This would seem to link with religion as an identifer and not necessarily an instigator.
The problem in the Middle East at the moment is that religion is seen not just as an identifier but as a solution, and under many of the brands of Islam being marketed, a solution that brooks no compromise (and compromise is the essence of politics).
If you look at other examples, oppressive governance has been effective in suppressing violence between sects (Indonesia, Iraq, Syria, Yugoslavia, etc.), but when the oppressive government loses the means to oppress (by whatever means) we often see sectarian conflict. Other forms of governance that don't discriminate, provide opportunity for all, etc. also seem to work if they can get to the left of the problem. I'm not aware of any historical examples, where changes in government policy (other than oppressive) have resolved deep rooted religious conflicts without religious leaders (civil society) mutually agreeing to stop the violence.
Bob is calling the kettle black in my opinion, the ideologues in the U.S. were the neo-conservatives who pushed for regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, and hoped for more regime changes in the Middle East during the Arab Spring in the belief that if democratic governments were installed peace would break out throughout the land. Wolfowitz dismissed the potential for religious strife in Iraq, and the civil war that erupted between Sunnis and Shia has spread throughout the region. While I respect Bob's views, and I think they will ultimately play an important role in the ultimate solution, I don't think you focus on government while excluding the reality of religion's impact.
Yes Bob despite your excessive arrogance in tone, I actually agree with much of what you write. The problem is it is not complete.
You cannot make this stuff up...
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News...ion-void-.html
Agreed on the differences between N. Ireland and the current fractures in Islam. Two totally different times, places, circumstances, and underlying causes. Protestant or Catholic was just a bumper sticker.Radical cleric Abu Qatada, who is being tried on terror charges in Jordan, on Tuesday denounced as "void" the declaration of a caliphate by Sunni jihadists in Iraq and Syria.
"The announcement of a caliphate by the Islamic State (IS) is void and meaningless because it was not approved by jihadists in other parts of the world," Abu Qatada wrote in a 21-page document published on jihadist websites.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been fighting in neighbouring Syria and Iraq, on June 29 proclaimed a "caliphate" straddling both countries and headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who now calls himself Caliph Ibrahim.
"This group does not have the authority to rule all Muslims and their declaration applies to no-one but themselves," said Abu Qatada.
"Its threats to kill opponents, sidelining of other groups and violent way of fighting opponents constitute a great sin, reflecting the reality of the group," wrote the Palestinian-born preacher.
Abu Qatada, who has repeatedly criticised the Islamic State, urged other Muslims against joining the Sunni jihadist group.
"They are merciless in dealing with other jihadists. How would they deal with the poor, the weak and other people?"
Jordan's jihadist movement is generally dominated by anti-IS groups that support Al-Qaeda and its Syrian ally, Al-Nusra Front.
Abu Qatada's statement came after leading Jordanian jihadist ideologist Issam Barqawi, known as Abu Mohammed al-Maqdessi, denounced the declaration of the caliphate on July 2.
Once mentor to Iraq's now slain Al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before the two fell out over ideological differences, Maqdessi told the IS to "reform yourselves, repent and stop killing Muslims and distorting religion."
Abu Qatada, who was deported from Britain in July 2013 after a 10-year legal battle, was acquitted last month of plotting a 1999 attack on the American school in Amman.
But he remained in prison, facing another terror charge of plotting to attack tourists in Jordan during millennium celebrations.
Sort of agree.
In many sectarian conflicts the great sectarian identifier is religious - but does that make it a religious conflict or a sectarian conflict? I would describe a religious conflict as one being where the primary motivator is a religious requirement. It therefore follows that for some in the Middle East the conflict is religious - they see themselves as under a religious duty to act as they do, but these are the fringe irreconcilables. Most sectarian conflicts in my opinion are over power and resources.
RR
"War is an option of difficulties"
I generally agree with the above, and it is the fringe irreconcilables I have been speaking of for the most part. They are in fact waging a war based on perceived religious duties.In many sectarian conflicts the great sectarian identifier is religious - but does that make it a religious conflict or a sectarian conflict? I would describe a religious conflict as one being where the primary motivator is a religious requirement. It therefore follows that for some in the Middle East the conflict is religious - they see themselves as under a religious duty to act as they do, but these are the fringe irreconcilables. Most sectarian conflicts in my opinion are over power and resources.
The other conflict is sectarian, and religion is the key identity groups, so again religion plays a role. While the fighting may not be principally over religious reasons, it will take credible religious leaders along with government to get the violence under control. We can't simply ignore an identity group as some seem to be proposing.
Once violence evolves into hatred the political issues are not as important as hatred and fear in driving further violence, which just continues to escalate, at first mindlessly. The opposing religious identity groups are not going to stop the violence simply due to some political changes being implemented, although those changes are probably desperately needed. Governments will have to reach out to credible religious leaders to bring their folks into the peace process.
The only point in all of this is that religion matters, to ignore it completely to hype a particular model, or the desire secular Western approach, is misleading and potentially dangerous as we found out in Iraq.
A problem with secular shoehorning of grievances is its application in cases where it does not apply. This holds especially apt when dealing with religious motivations involving religions that extent from the mere intrapersonal to the interpersonal (e.g. the organization of society as a whole along religious strictures). Could one engage in insurgency from an ideology of secular deprivation? Sure. Could one engage in insurgency from an ideology of religious commandment? Sure. Understanding 'why they fight' requires understanding their motivations, from their perspective, rather than shoehorning their motivations into what one might wish they were.
As an aside, the whole concept of violence as a method for implementing political change as being 'radical', 'extremist', etc. smacks of epistemological bias.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks