This point, well made here, needs further elaboration so that the connection between Western influences and jihadi radicalization is clear. After the demise of the Ottoman Empire, which had once led the world in numerous technological advances, Muslims in general entered a state of retreat, as if Allah had determined their scientific adventurism was a moral blunder. In Western parlance it could be seen as a kind of ascetic simplicity, prompting writers like Bernard Lewis to wonder, What Went Wrong? At the same time, Western ideologies, particularly aggressive forms of Marxism, Fascism, and vestigial imperialism along with a slew of unprecedented killing devices were radically shaping the world.
Muslims, influenced by relatively new philosophies, including Wahabism , the Muslim Brotherhood, the Baath parties, along with influences mentioned above, which in turn were shaped by thinkers like Franz Fanon, reached out into that incendiary Western grab bag of violent methods in order to effectuate change. In a way it was an Arabic, or more precisely, a Sunni, Will to Power. And why not? How else to shake off the slumber and begin shaping a comeback? Of course, follow the Western lead. After all, they were the ones who claimed the plains and the sands for themselves. There must be something in that wildness that could serve to motivate the lethargic masses. Saddam Hussein thought so.
Sadly, the more progressive elements, i.e., those who felt comfortable seizing Western methods and technology, secularized themselves not for the sake of adopting practices like democracy, women's rights, and the separation of mosque and state, but for the sole purpose of tyrannizing the crowds. And then those inclined toward zealotry invariably became radicalized mercenaries for Allah.
These diverse strains make it difficult to accurately delineate which sect is "good," which one is "evil," and which ones to help, as the Saudis and Turkey have found out the hard way. On the one hand ISIS puts the Kurds in check, but what next? Turkey's melding of secular and religious values are not acceptable to the zealots. Likewise, ISIS teaches the Shia a lesson or two about submission, but its hierarchical structure has little in common with the Saudi aristocrats, at least as long as it's in a stance where it's a people's party.
In the end, despite the alarming violence, it may be comforting to acknowledge how certain concepts and science may make sense on paper, but once in the hands of brutes like Mussolini, Stalin, or the rulers of ISIS, the malignant aspects of human behavior reach epic proportions. Now, like always, What to do?
This point, well made here, needs further elaboration so that the connection between Western influences and jihadi radicalization is clear. After the demise of the Ottoman Empire, which had once led the world in numerous technological advances, Muslims in general entered a state of retreat, as if Allah had determined their scientific adventurism was a moral blunder. In Western parlance it could be seen as a kind of ascetic simplicity, prompting writers like Bernard Lewis to wonder, What Went Wrong? At the same time, Western ideologies, particularly aggressive forms of Marxism, Fascism, and vestigial imperialism along with a slew of unprecedented killing devices were radically shaping the world.
Muslims, influenced by relatively new philosophies, including Wahabism , the Muslim Brotherhood, the Baath parties, along with influences mentioned above, which in turn were shaped by thinkers like Franz Fanon, reached out into that incendiary Western grab bag of violent methods in order to effectuate change. In a way it was an Arabic, or more precisely, a Sunni, Will to Power. And why not? How else to shake off the slumber and begin shaping a comeback? Of course, follow the Western lead. After all, they were the ones who claimed the plains and the sands for themselves. There must be something in that wildness that could serve to motivate the lethargic masses. Saddam Hussein thought so.
Sadly, the more progressive elements, i.e., those who felt comfortable seizing Western methods and technology, secularized themselves not for the sake of adopting practices like democracy, women's rights, and the separation of mosque and state, but for the sole purpose of tyrannizing the crowds. And then those inclined toward zealotry invariably became radicalized mercenaries for Allah.
These diverse strains make it difficult to accurately delineate which sect is "good," which one is "evil," and which ones to help, as the Saudis and Turkey have found out the hard way. On the one hand ISIS puts the Kurds in check, but what next? Turkey's melding of secular and religious values are not acceptable to the zealots. Likewise, ISIS teaches the Shia a lesson or two about submission, but its hierarchical structure has little in common with the Saudi aristocrats, at least as long as it's in a stance where it's a people's party.
In the end, despite the alarming violence, it may be comforting to acknowledge how certain concepts and science may make sense on paper, but once in the hands of brutes like Mussolini, Stalin, or the rulers of ISIS, the malignant aspects of human behavior reach epic proportions. Now, like always, What to do?