ISLAMIC JIHAD: SYMPTOM OF A WESTERN CAUSE

[walker2713]

A thoughtful essay about how we came to find ourselves where we are today vis a vis Islamic terrorism....


https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2015/12/14/islamic-jihad-symptom-of-a-western-cause/?singlepage=true

[JHC]

Good read, thanks.

[Dagga Boy]

Good stuff, thanks for posting it.

[Mike C]

+1 Thanks. Great info.

[RoyGBiv]

asinine emotionalism.
+1

[BehindBlueI's]

Lots of BS there. LOTS. Oversimplification of history, selective and half-truths, etc.

Anyone who wants to actually understand Radical Islam would do well to read the memoir Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism.

[JHC]

Lots of BS there. LOTS. Oversimplification of history, selective and half-truths, etc.

Anyone who wants to actually understand Radical Islam would do well to read the memoir Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism.

It's simplified, it's a short article. It did not let fundamentalist Islamism off the hook in any manner, only offered a perspective that Western attributes bestow more power to it than it can warrant solo.

It's important to know three elements of BS contained therein if you could summarize.

[BehindBlueI's]

It's simplified, it's a short article. It did not let fundamentalist Islamism off the hook in any manner, only offered a perspective that Western attributes bestow more power to it than it can warrant solo.

It's important to know three elements of BS contained therein if you could summarize.

1) the Muslim world is immensely weak and intrinsically incapable of being a threat.

I'm not sure what he means by "the Muslim world" but Paksitan is a nuclear power with over 100 nuclear warheads.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

I'd hesitate to call any nation with multiple nuclear weapons weak and incapable of being a threat.

2) For approximately one thousand years, the Islamic world was the scourge of the West. Today’s history books may refer to those who terrorized Christian Europe as Arabs, Saracens, Moors, Ottomans, Turks, Mongols, or Tatars[i]...

...and Vikings and Franks and Normans... Even a cursory understanding of history of the time shows it was not Christian Europe V Muslims, it was a free for all of warfare and territory grabs. The Vikings invaded what would become England to take slaves and plunder, mutilate those who stood against them (cutting off noses, lips, and fingers was popular at the time), The Franks fought everyone and then fought themselves, etc. etc. The "Muslim world" was the same, with Turks invading Arabs, northern Africa splintering away from rulers further west, etc. etc. It was not, as often represented, two monolithic superpowers waged in a giant war of cultures. I like he refers back to something he wrote as the source.

3) The root cause behind the non-stop Muslim terrorization of the West is found in those who stifle or whitewash all talk and examination of Muslim doctrine and history; who welcome hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants while knowing that some are jihadi operatives and many are simply “radical”; who work to overthrow secular Arab dictators in the name of “democracy” and “freedom,” only to uncork the jihad long suppressed by the autocrats (the Islamic State’s territory consists of lands that were “liberated” in Iraq, Libya, and Syria by the U.S. and its allies).

Sounds like a fancy way to say "No Muslims allowed" Also presents the false dichotomy of allowing dictators (which, do you suppose may be the source of a lot of resentment when we prop them up) or allowing jihadists.


There's your 3. Didn't have to dig real deep. I don't have the time or inclination to do a point by point rebuttal. I can recommend some reading if you're interested, though. You could probably research the author a bit as well and decide on your own if he's legit or just selling what people are buying and cashing in on it.

[Mike C]

BehindBlueI's, I'd be interested in hearing your suggested reading. If you don't mind.

Also what were your thoughts on the authors comments, (I will paraphrase for brevity) specifically about Western empowerment of Jihadism rooted in philosophies of relativism, multiculturalism, anti-Western, and anti-Christian sentiment.

Frankly not everything in the article resonated as true or perfect for me but the point of view was rather interesting. I am genuinely curious to your thoughts. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JHC]

1) the Muslim world is immensely weak and intrinsically incapable of being a threat.

I'm not sure what he means by "the Muslim world" but Paksitan is a nuclear power with over 100 nuclear warheads.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

I'd hesitate to call any nation with multiple nuclear weapons weak and incapable of being a threat.

2) For approximately one thousand years, the Islamic world was the scourge of the West. Today’s history books may refer to those who terrorized Christian Europe as Arabs, Saracens, Moors, Ottomans, Turks, Mongols, or Tatars[i]...

...and Vikings and Franks and Normans... Even a cursory understanding of history of the time shows it was not Christian Europe V Muslims, it was a free for all of warfare and territory grabs. The Vikings invaded what would become England to take slaves and plunder, mutilate those who stood against them (cutting off noses, lips, and fingers was popular at the time), The Franks fought everyone and then fought themselves, etc. etc. The "Muslim world" was the same, with Turks invading Arabs, northern Africa splintering away from rulers further west, etc. etc. It was not, as often represented, two monolithic superpowers waged in a giant war of cultures. I like he refers back to something he wrote as the source.

3) The root cause behind the non-stop Muslim terrorization of the West is found in those who stifle or whitewash all talk and examination of Muslim doctrine and history; who welcome hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants while knowing that some are jihadi operatives and many are simply “radical”; who work to overthrow secular Arab dictators in the name of “democracy” and “freedom,” only to uncork the jihad long suppressed by the autocrats (the Islamic State’s territory consists of lands that were “liberated” in Iraq, Libya, and Syria by the U.S. and its allies).

Sounds like a fancy way to say "No Muslims allowed" Also presents the false dichotomy of allowing dictators (which, do you suppose may be the source of a lot of resentment when we prop them up) or allowing jihadists.


There's your 3. Didn't have to dig real deep. I don't have the time or inclination to do a point by point rebuttal. I can recommend some reading if you're interested, though. You could probably research the author a bit as well and decide on your own if he's legit or just selling what people are buying and cashing in on it.

Thanks! Point 1 is pretty good. I don't find the other two convincing but it's great to understand where you saw such gaps.

[BehindBlueI's]

BehindBlueI's, I'd be interested in hearing your suggested reading. If you don't mind.

Also what were your thoughts on the authors comments, (I will paraphrase for brevity) specifically about Western empowerment of Jihadism rooted in philosophies of relativism, multiculturalism, anti-Western, and anti-Christian sentiment.

Frankly not everything in the article resonated as true or perfect for me but the point of view was rather interesting. I am genuinely curious to your thoughts. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's one of the half-truths. Multiculturalism can go too far, and then can be used as cover. You can't be afraid to have the debate because of "you're a racist!" but you also need some level of multiculturalism to humanize both sides and create understanding. It can certainly be taken too far. Multiculturalism with an emphasis on basic human rights is good. Multiculturalism with relativism such as "you kill children because they are the wrong sex? What an interesting custom" is bad.

I think it also oversimplifies and is really close to "White Man's Burden" that everything everyone does everywhere is either because of us or about us. Isn't "anti-Western" just as much an attempt to shut down one half of the debate? If I point out that Western governments have propped up some pretty brutal dictators and that the lack of basic human rights, torture, etc. is a source of mistrust and one reason we see people become jihadists, is that "anti-Western" or is that addressing a root cause? If I point out that we used the argument of spreading democracy to invade Iraq, but ally with Saudi Arabia where complaining about the religious police can earn you 1,000 lashes, leading to a narrative of hypocrisy, shut me down with anti-Western? (Note that while this is true, I understand it's an oversimplification as well, we need allies but cannot simply dictate internal politics to them, etc. but that's the narrative used to recruit people to extremist causes).

Reading:
Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism - One of the best memoirs I've read since Unbroken as far as overcoming, although the struggle here is mostly internal. A very good look at how people are recruited to extremist interpretations of Islam, predominately from secular populations and remarkably similar to how criminal gangs recruit, from a former recruiter.

A Brief History of Islam (Karen Armstrong) - Former Catholic nun who had a crisis of faith that led her to really try to understand religion to attempt to reconnect with God. She's written several histories on various religions, and religion as a whole, and is widely regarded as fair and as bias free as anyone can be. Note this was written pre-9/11, which also removes the motive for bias. It's a helpful book in that it also shows Islam is not a bloc, it's a collective, with over 30 major schools of thought, evolutions on doctrine, etc. When you have centuries of history and thirty+ schools of thought and millions of adherents, if you want to pick the violent times and places and paint a religion as violent, you can certainly do so. It's been done to every major religion at some point, but this is a broader view.

The Arab Mind, a book on the psychology of dominant Arab cultures. It's tough to understand the Middle East without understanding the thought processes of the inhabitants. Frankly, this book is getting dated IMO, but still worth a read.

The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land (Thomas Asbridge) - A very fair treatment of the Crusades that doesn't demonize or lionize either side, doesn't make moral judgements, and lays out context. It also goes well beyond Christian V Muslim, shows the internal strife and that the Crusades at the time were not as...epic as tend to think of them today. It was more border-war not a world war. I include it because of the narrative of this ongoing struggle between Christian and Muslim as some sort of centuries long power struggle and presenting both sides as blocs.

Seven Pillars of Wisdom (T. E. Lawrence) - Lawrence of Arabia's book. It's just plain fun to read, and it's an interesting perspective.

If you want to get more into WW1 through WW2 and how that helped make the modern Middle East I can add a few more, but that's where I'd start.

[UNK]

Add them !

I think that's one of the half-truths. Multiculturalism can go too far, and then can be used as cover. You can't be afraid to have the debate because of "you're a racist!" but you also need some level of multiculturalism to humanize both sides and create understanding. It can certainly be taken too far. Multiculturalism with an emphasis on basic human rights is good. Multiculturalism with relativism such as "you kill children because they are the wrong sex? What an interesting custom" is bad.

I think it also oversimplifies and is really close to "White Man's Burden" that everything everyone does everywhere is either because of us or about us. Isn't "anti-Western" just as much an attempt to shut down one half of the debate? If I point out that Western governments have propped up some pretty brutal dictators and that the lack of basic human rights, torture, etc. is a source of mistrust and one reason we see people become jihadists, is that "anti-Western" or is that addressing a root cause? If I point out that we used the argument of spreading democracy to invade Iraq, but ally with Saudi Arabia where complaining about the religious police can earn you 1,000 lashes, leading to a narrative of hypocrisy, shut me down with anti-Western? (Note that while this is true, I understand it's an oversimplification as well, we need allies but cannot simply dictate internal politics to them, etc. but that's the narrative used to recruit people to extremist causes).

Reading:
Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism - One of the best memoirs I've read since Unbroken as far as overcoming, although the struggle here is mostly internal. A very good look at how people are recruited to extremist interpretations of Islam, predominately from secular populations and remarkably similar to how criminal gangs recruit, from a former recruiter.

A Brief History of Islam (Karen Armstrong) - Former Catholic nun who had a crisis of faith that led her to really try to understand religion to attempt to reconnect with God. She's written several histories on various religions, and religion as a whole, and is widely regarded as fair and as bias free as anyone can be. Note this was written pre-9/11, which also removes the motive for bias. It's a helpful book in that it also shows Islam is not a bloc, it's a collective, with over 30 major schools of thought, evolutions on doctrine, etc. When you have centuries of history and thirty+ schools of thought and millions of adherents, if you want to pick the violent times and places and paint a religion as violent, you can certainly do so. It's been done to every major religion at some point, but this is a broader view.

The Arab Mind, a book on the psychology of dominant Arab cultures. It's tough to understand the Middle East without understanding the thought processes of the inhabitants. Frankly, this book is getting dated IMO, but still worth a read.

The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land (Thomas Asbridge) - A very fair treatment of the Crusades that doesn't demonize or lionize either side, doesn't make moral judgements, and lays out context. It also goes well beyond Christian V Muslim, shows the internal strife and that the Crusades at the time were not as...epic as tend to think of them today. It was more border-war not a world war. I include it because of the narrative of this ongoing struggle between Christian and Muslim as some sort of centuries long power struggle and presenting both sides as blocs.

Seven Pillars of Wisdom (T. E. Lawrence) - Lawrence of Arabia's book. It's just plain fun to read, and it's an interesting perspective.

If you want to get more into WW1 through WW2 and how that helped make the modern Middle East I can add a few more, but that's where I'd start.

[GardoneVT]

In some ways, the Islamic nature of modern terrorism is almost irrelevant. I read a fascinating study on Middle Eastern economic patterns, and noticed -similar to our own inner city gangs-how violent terror groups frequently target economically depressed areas.

One example mentioned in the paper-I can't cite it here due to being on my alma matter university's intranet- was how few terror suspects are of Kuwaiti heritage. That nation also enjoys a stupefyingly high standard of living, in some ways higher then ours.

Contrast that with most of the Middle East, where poverty is basically the status quo for the average man. To someone with few or no practical financial prospects of a better life, the message of "Our Problems Are Caused By the West" combined with "Be Someone, join us and fight it " seems to be an attractive one.

Much like how inner city gangs target minorities with the same general message of "Our Problems are Caused By Whitey" and "Join our set and Be Somebody".

Fix the underlying economic and political issues -here , entrenched systemic corruption and overseas, government bias and tribalism - and you fix the violence problem at the source. People with Mercedes sedans and paid for University scholarships don't tend to commit mass murder .

[peterb]

"Lawrence in Arabia" by Scott Anderson describes how Middle East policy in WW1 was largely decided by amateurs and incompetents. Fascinating.

[Jeep]

One example mentioned in the paper-I can't cite it here due to being on my alma matter university's intranet- was how few terror suspects are of Kuwaiti heritage. That nation also enjoys a stupefyingly high standard of living, in some ways higher then ours.

* * *

Fix the underlying economic and political issues -here , entrenched systemic corruption and overseas, government bias and tribalism - and you fix the violence problem at the source. People with Mercedes sedans and paid for University scholarships don't tend to commit mass murder .

I have real doubts about this. More than a few Kuwaitis have financed/participated in Islamic terrorism; much of ISIS' funding comes from rich natives of the Gulf; and a lot of jihadis have come from relatively well off families.

It is true that the Arab world has a lot of economic problems, but most of those problems in turn are caused or influenced by the societies themselves--which are highly unstable.

One big problem is that Islam, which claims to have rules for everything, doesn't have rules for how power is gained. So, the Arab world is stuck in the ancient pattern of "me against my brother; my brother and I against our cousin; my btother I and my cousin against the village; the village against the tribe and the tribe against the world."

That mindset long predates Islam, but Islam has no answer for it, and thus it continues. Power is grabbed by force in the Arab world, and to the victors go the spoils.

Rich kids who want to get richer thus often gravitate to becoming Jihadis in the hope that is the path to political and economic power.

In other words, Iraq is probably very different from Chi-raq.

[GardoneVT]

One big problem is that Islam, which claims to have rules for everything, doesn't have rules for how power is gained. So, the Arab world is stuck in the ancient pattern of "me against my brother; my brother and I against our cousin; my btother I and my cousin against the village; the village against the tribe and the tribe against the world."

That mindset long predates Islam, but Islam has no answer for it, and thus it continues. Power is grabbed by force in the Arab world, and to the victors go the spoils.

Rich kids who want to get richer thus often gravitate to becoming Jihadis in the hope that is the path to political and economic power.

In other words, Iraq is probably very different from Chi-raq.

Interesting, as you've basically just described the socio-cultural power structure of the Chicago Folk Nation.

Just change the "Jihadis" to "Baptist Christianity" and "local politics" ,minus the international reach. Rather then rich emir's funding terrorism, you've got Mayors and politicians routing money to street gangs here in the states. Same essential business model.

[Mike C]

I think that's one of the half-truths. Multiculturalism can go too far, and then can be used as cover. You can't be afraid to have the debate because of "you're a racist!" but you also need some level of multiculturalism to humanize both sides and create understanding. It can certainly be taken too far. Multiculturalism with an emphasis on basic human rights is good. Multiculturalism with relativism such as "you kill children because they are the wrong sex? What an interesting custom" is bad.

I think it also oversimplifies and is really close to "White Man's Burden" that everything everyone does everywhere is either because of us or about us. Isn't "anti-Western" just as much an attempt to shut down one half of the debate? If I point out that Western governments have propped up some pretty brutal dictators and that the lack of basic human rights, torture, etc. is a source of mistrust and one reason we see people become jihadists, is that "anti-Western" or is that addressing a root cause? If I point out that we used the argument of spreading democracy to invade Iraq, but ally with Saudi Arabia where complaining about the religious police can earn you 1,000 lashes, leading to a narrative of hypocrisy, shut me down with anti-Western? (Note that while this is true, I understand it's an oversimplification as well, we need allies but cannot simply dictate internal politics to them, etc. but that's the narrative used to recruit people to extremist causes).

Reading:
Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism - One of the best memoirs I've read since Unbroken as far as overcoming, although the struggle here is mostly internal. A very good look at how people are recruited to extremist interpretations of Islam, predominately from secular populations and remarkably similar to how criminal gangs recruit, from a former recruiter.

A Brief History of Islam (Karen Armstrong) - Former Catholic nun who had a crisis of faith that led her to really try to understand religion to attempt to reconnect with God. She's written several histories on various religions, and religion as a whole, and is widely regarded as fair and as bias free as anyone can be. Note this was written pre-9/11, which also removes the motive for bias. It's a helpful book in that it also shows Islam is not a bloc, it's a collective, with over 30 major schools of thought, evolutions on doctrine, etc. When you have centuries of history and thirty+ schools of thought and millions of adherents, if you want to pick the violent times and places and paint a religion as violent, you can certainly do so. It's been done to every major religion at some point, but this is a broader view.

The Arab Mind, a book on the psychology of dominant Arab cultures. It's tough to understand the Middle East without understanding the thought processes of the inhabitants. Frankly, this book is getting dated IMO, but still worth a read.

The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land (Thomas Asbridge) - A very fair treatment of the Crusades that doesn't demonize or lionize either side, doesn't make moral judgements, and lays out context. It also goes well beyond Christian V Muslim, shows the internal strife and that the Crusades at the time were not as...epic as tend to think of them today. It was more border-war not a world war. I include it because of the narrative of this ongoing struggle between Christian and Muslim as some sort of centuries long power struggle and presenting both sides as blocs.

Seven Pillars of Wisdom (T. E. Lawrence) - Lawrence of Arabia's book. It's just plain fun to read, and it's an interesting perspective.

If you want to get more into WW1 through WW2 and how that helped make the modern Middle East I can add a few more, but that's where I'd start.

Thank you very much.

[BehindBlueI's]

Interesting, as you've basically just described the socio-cultural power structure of the Chicago Folk Nation.

Just change the "Jihadis" to "Baptist Christianity" and "local politics" ,minus the international reach. Rather then rich emir's funding terrorism, you've got Mayors and politicians routing money to street gangs here in the states. Same essential business model.


It is the EXACT same business model. In "Radical" he talks about recruiting gang members and drug dealers, I think in Denmark (going from memory). It was the same concept, but allowed more self worth and a "mission" to believe in. He said that the cell became one of the most violent and spiraled into extremism that many extremists weren't comfortable with.

[BehindBlueI's]

Add them !

Ok, but be warned a few of these are dry as stale toast.

A Peace to End All Peace (David Fromkin) : Kind of a slog, a lot of good information, though. Focuses more on British involvement, IIRC

Empires of the Sand (Karsh & Karsh): Dense, dense writing. It is written as more of a textbook then a narrative and while it's very informative and covers a lot of important turning points that other books don't touch on...it's dry. I read this one probably 10 years ago or so, and really ought to go back through it now that I've gotten more understanding of events leading up to events it talks about...but I remember that it took some discipline to get through it the first time. It covers 1789-1923 very, very well IF you can make yourself get through it and pay attention. Did I mention it's a bit dry in tone?

I'd start there. Really, half-joking aside, Empires of the Sand will give you a pretty good picture by itself but it is textbook-ish in its writing.


"Lawrence in Arabia" by Scott Anderson describes how Middle East policy in WW1 was largely decided by amateurs and incompetents. Fascinating.

TE Lawrence says the same in his own book. He's not exactly unbiased, of course, he had a real affection for the Arabs he fought with and he did get sucked in by some of the charismatic leadership. I haven't read Anderson's book, but does he talk about how the Brits were suckered by some locals into thinking the locals were much more important than they actually were...which ended up making them real important? It's easy to dismiss them as idiots and incompetents, and of course they sometimes were, but you have to remember the context of the day. Empire building was all the rage, and "natives" were barely people, they were simpletons to be displaced or 'civilized', and that wasn't just the Brits, that was pretty much everyone who wasn't staying home.

**edit** Actually I did read Anderson's book in 2013 per my Kindle. Sorry, they run together sometimes.

**Edit to edit**

And if you'd like to be scared as to how dangerous extremism can be, Pakistan on the Brink is...really really terrifying to read.

[johncorey]

About the only irrefutable point that piece makes is that "Islam didn't change, but the West did". As already touched upon, oversimplification much? Referring to anything as the "Islamic World" and referencing that as a single entity is ridiculous as best. Whenever I read articles like this, I cringe because he's getting paid millions, while others who actually could have a legitimate impact are not even given a platform to reach out from.

I think I could mistake Blue's bookshelves for mine! You could spend a lifetime of reading and listening on this issue, and still not get done. The amount of history, geography, political, cultural, religious and lord knows how many other qualifiers which frame the modern Islamic World (any place where Islam is the dominant practice), is staggering to say the least.

A great place to start would be a reader of the Ottoman Empire. The amount of crap we still deal with from fallout associated with their decisions is absurd. Kosovo anyone? A follow up would be to delve into Sykes-Picot. Again, you could spend a lifetime...

[BehindBlueI's]

About the only irrefutable point that piece makes is that "Islam didn't change, but the West did". As already touched upon, oversimplification much? Referring to anything as the "Islamic World" and referencing that as a single entity is ridiculous as best. Whenever I read articles like this, I cringe because he's getting paid millions, while others who actually could have a legitimate impact are not even given a platform to reach out from.

I think I could mistake Blue's bookshelves for mine! You could spend a lifetime of reading and listening on this issue, and still not get done. The amount of history, geography, political, cultural, religious and lord knows how many other qualifiers which frame the modern Islamic World (any place where Islam is the dominant practice), is staggering to say the least.

A great place to start would be a reader of the Ottoman Empire. The amount of crap we still deal with from fallout associated with their decisions is absurd. Kosovo anyone? A follow up would be to delve into Sykes-Picot. Again, you could spend a lifetime...

It just keeps branching out for me. I've sort of worked backwards. I started reading and learning about this in 2003 or so...and now I'm reading about the Norman Conquest and trying to find a good book on the Mongols. It surprises we how often in history someone conquers a people and then adopts the conquered people's religion. The Vikings to Christianity in what would now be England and France, the Mongols to Islam in modern day Iran and various -istans. While there is always a lot of emotion and bias when we talk about religion, the political expediency, the "outgrowing" of religions tailored for pre-agricultural cultures to early agricultural cultures to feudal societies, etc and the incorporation of preceding religion into the new one really fascinates me, showing evolution and easing the masses into the new belief system as opposed to completely overthrowing the last.

[Jeep]

Interesting, as you've basically just described the socio-cultural power structure of the Chicago Folk Nation.

Just change the "Jihadis" to "Baptist Christianity" and "local politics" ,minus the international reach. Rather then rich emir's funding terrorism, you've got Mayors and politicians routing money to street gangs here in the states. Same essential business model.

I don't think that fully works. Baptist Christianity doesn't give out licenses to go kill, rape and loot people, which some Sunni imams do. And the mayors and politicians route money to the street gangs in order to line up votes and get campaign contributions.

The Gulf Arabs (and reputedly more than a few Saudi princes) support the jihadis out of ideology and a desire to hedge their bets. They don't think they will gain power from it (that probably overstates things a bit--some of those Saudi princes probably think they might be able to use the jihadis as a way to gain power, but most probably don't)--but they think it will help them survive an Islamist take over.

The "me against my brother against our cousin against the village against the tribe against the world" probably is similar--and we probably all have that buried deeply in us. But even then, that Baptist preacher, even if he/she is an utter hypocrite, will still be preaching that such violence is wrong, while the imam will have little to say. There is an enormous difference there, a difference that has created very different societies.

So is Chi-raq closer to Iraq in some of these says than, say Evanston (which I have a vague notion is a wealthy Chicago suburb)? Probably. But in other ways the hood is closer to the suburbs than either is to much of the Arab world.

[Dagga Boy]

Didn't want to cloud the waters too much on this, but the Vikings were sort of interesting in how they did things. When they went south, you did not see conquest and war, but commerce. This included with the Turks. When they went west, when there was resistance to commerce, you got the hammer. Those who welcomed trade got a good relationship, those who fought it got raiding and eventually conquest and expansion goals.

[johncorey]

It just keeps branching out for me. I've sort of worked backwards. I started reading and learning about this in 2003 or so...and now I'm reading about the Norman Conquest and trying to find a good book on the Mongols. It surprises we how often in history someone conquers a people and then adopts the conquered people's religion. The Vikings to Christianity in what would now be England and France, the Mongols to Islam in modern day Iran and various -istans. While there is always a lot of emotion and bias when we talk about religion, the political expediency, the "outgrowing" of religions tailored for pre-agricultural cultures to early agricultural cultures to feudal societies, etc and the incorporation of preceding religion into the new one really fascinates me, showing evolution and easing the masses into the new belief system as opposed to completely overthrowing the last.

My "non-traditional" Islam flavor of the decade has been India. So I'm sure at some point I will run into the Mongols as well. As for conquerors adopting the conquered belief structures, it does appear to transcend a lot of regional boundaries. Seems the common thread is to make the transition smoother for sake of expediency and less violent resistance.

[johncorey]

I don't think that fully works. Baptist Christianity doesn't give out licenses to go kill, rape and loot people, which some Sunni imams do. And the mayors and politicians route money to the street gangs in order to line up votes and get campaign contributions.

The Gulf Arabs (and reputedly more than a few Saudi princes) support the jihadis out of ideology and a desire to hedge their bets. They don't think they will gain power from it (that probably overstates things a bit--some of those Saudi princes probably think they might be able to use the jihadis as a way to gain power, but most probably don't)--but they think it will help them survive an Islamist take over.

The "me against my brother against our cousin against the village against the tribe against the world" probably is similar--and we probably all have that buried deeply in us. But even then, that Baptist preacher, even if he/she is an utter hypocrite, will still be preaching that such violence is wrong, while the imam will have little to say. There is an enormous difference there, a difference that has created very different societies.

So is Chi-raq closer to Iraq in some of these says than, say Evanston (which I have a vague notion is a wealthy Chicago suburb)? Probably. But in other ways the hood is closer to the suburbs than either is to much of the Arab world.

Every bit I've come across would indicate the same in regard to Gulf Arabs. They are just hoping to manage the maelstrom. That usually works out so well.

[johncorey]

Didn't want to cloud the waters too much on this, but the Vikings were sort of interesting in how they did things. When they went south, you did not see conquest and war, but commerce. This included with the Turks. When they went west, when there was resistance to commerce, you got the hammer. Those who welcomed trade got a good relationship, those who fought it got raiding and eventually conquest and expansion goals.


Mostly, yes. I like to think them as the first Norse mobsters. The structure is incredibly similar. Once the English/Scottish/Irish/French abbeys realized it was just smarter to pay up and avoid the killing, raping and pillaging, things became inherently easier for them. The Viking reputation grew, they're chests became fuller and they began their gradual descent into becoming soft. By the time some of them reached Constantinople, they were banking solely on lore. Once there, they had to reacquaint themselves with crushing enemies and hearing the lamentations of the women. Keep in mind, being a raiding Viking was a part time gig in the off-season so to speak. Once they professionalized it, branching out into trade was inevitable.

[BehindBlueI's]

Didn't want to cloud the waters too much on this, but the Vikings were sort of interesting in how they did things. When they went south, you did not see conquest and war, but commerce. This included with the Turks. When they went west, when there was resistance to commerce, you got the hammer. Those who welcomed trade got a good relationship, those who fought it got raiding and eventually conquest and expansion goals.

What time frame? They were taking slaves and pillaging in England at least in the 1,000 AD era. I'm not really up on Viking history, just sort of incidentally picking up things here and there.

[BehindBlueI's]

My "non-traditional" Islam flavor of the decade has been India. So I'm sure at some point I will run into the Mongols as well. As for conquerors adopting the conquered belief structures, it does appear to transcend a lot of regional boundaries. Seems the common thread is to make the transition smoother for sake of expediency and less violent resistance.

What I've learned about the Mongols so far is during their early conquests and was more focused on their impact on Islam. They seemed to adopt many things from cultures they conquered, if they thought it was better than their existing whatever. If your accounting/logistics system was better, it was adopted. If your road building was better, it was adopted. The author attributed a lot of Mongol success to this constant improvement, folding in cultures instead of stamping them out, and a pretty good marketing campaign of "join us and we share all this with you and you get our protection, reputation, etc...resist and you know we'll squish your soldiers and get our way anyway."

[Dagga Boy]

What time frame? They were taking slaves and pillaging in England at least in the 1,000 AD era. I'm not really up on Viking history, just sort of incidentally picking up things here and there.

I ve read a lot of much deeper stuff, and my post was fairly elementary to something we could discuss for days. The Norse and Rus northerners were dealing with a much different group in the Middle East and Eastern Europe than in the west and commercial cooperation went farther than trying to kill each other. This does a pretty good job in a quick read.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians

[BehindBlueI's]

I ve read a lot of much deeper stuff, and my post was fairly elementary to something we could discuss for days. The Norse and Rus northerners were dealing with a much different group in the Middle East and Eastern Europe than in the west and commercial cooperation went farther than trying to kill each other. This does a pretty good job in a quick read.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangians

I was really just asking what time frame, not suggesting you were wrong. I knew they settled down at some point, but no idea when. I'm just now learning how big the European slave trade was pre-feudal. Wow.

[Dagga Boy]

Didn't take it that way. The commercial dynamic came up as an observation in some of the books I was reading. Most of what we tend to focus on with Vikings is the raiding in the west and exploration, where they did quite a bit in Eastern Europe and down to the Middle East.