Is radical Islam an extreme reaction against globalization and its accompanying cultural homogenization...

Is radical Islam an extreme reaction against globalization and its accompanying cultural homogenization? It's strange that it wasn't really a thing until the early 1920's, but especially so since the 1960's/70's with the Afghan-Soviet war (ignoring the earlier Wahhabis because they were localized to Arabia). Is it really all Saudi Arabia's doing or is there more at work here?

What's the deal?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanullah_Khan)
youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

No it's just that everyone used to be violent and merciless but then the west collectively decided to go full secular humanist but most Muslims didn't get the memo.

We're the odd ones out not them.

It's a reaction to that, but also a reaction of the total failure of Arab governments to adapt to the modern world.

You may note that it started getting really big in the 70s when it became clear that Soviet styled secular nationalism wasn't going to work.

This is also why Turkey held out longer than any other kebabed country, because they were the closest to having a functional government.

>the total failure of Arab governments to adapt to the modern world.

>Is radical Islam an extreme reaction against globalization and its accompanying cultural homogenization?
Yes. It didn't arise to do terrorism, but like government in the form of Islamism it steadily crept in and took over from the nationalists and communists. Originally it was a movement against the Westernization of the Middle East, and its most aggressive forms today are still overly concerned with the policing of morals in societies that are increasingly modern and materialistic.

You literally don't know anything about modern middle eastern history do you?

The thing is that they seemed like they were modernizing after WW1/2 and then all of a sudden they changed tack and went full Haji (people like this guy existed en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanullah_Khan)

I mean, Afghanistan/Iran/other Muslim states looked like they were going to actually become modern, secular-ish countries (secular insofar as Christian nations at the time were secular, but a few steps behind), and then they just suddenly all went the exact opposite direction. Afghanistan's a particularly extreme example of this, they had women's education in the 40's and 50's, even universities for them, were modernizing and creating factories, had a national radio service etc.and then after the Communist coup they pulled a 180 and because just as if not more extreme than even their own ancestors.

Not really no.

Always been like this.

Muslim here. Niggas if you know, there was colonization of Middle East. Only muslim country who survived that era was Turkey and Azerbaijan. If you look other Muslim countries you will sea radicalism and slavery. Why? Because of oil

It's a reaction to the west fucking up the middle east in the 1920s.

>It's strange that it wasn't really a thing until the early 1920's
Guess you've never heard of the Barbary States, or the Ottoman Empire?

>Barbary States, or the Ottoman Empire

but those things have almost nothing to ancient or contemporary radical Islam

ottoman invasion of europe has nothing to do with modern terrorism you twat

Pakistan and Afghanistan don't have oil. How do you explain that?

constant civil war and soviet invasion followed by a power vacuum once neither united stated nor russia cared about it

>muslim blames others for problems caused by muslims

Ofcourse achmed, it is never your fault or responsibility.

Wahhabism isn't a reaction to globalism as an economic system. Many Wahhabists adore globalism for making them wealthy.

Wahhabism is a naked reactionary movement that exists in opposition to the ongoing secularization and Westernization of the Middle East. It seeks a return to the mythic past because the present is too sinful or godless.

Westerners have been stoking the Wahhabist flame since at least WW1, riling up conservative Muslims to undermine the Ottomans, the Soviets, and even secular Muslims who didn't cooperate. Until very recently, there was no risk of Wahhabist violence spilling back into Europe.

besides their we wuz khalifate complex?

Iran in 2016 is the most Western and secular it has ever been.

The Revolution was a victory of rural traditionalism over urban secularism. Iran before the revolution was steeply divided, with a Westernized secular urban elite but an intensely religious and reactionary lower class.

The revolution was instigated by liberals and socialists in Tehran and Isfahan who wanted a less repressive society, free of Western political meddling.

Fundamentalists who relied on huge rural support co-opted the struggle against the Shah that opposed Western influence not only in imperial policy but also in liberalism and all cultures practiced perceived as Western.

After a possibly rigged election, the revolution was compromised. It did not begin as a fundamentalist revolution, but Iran's demographic imbalance ensured that fundamentalists would have more popular support.

Ironically, the first people to be purged were the secular Marxists and liberals who instigated the revolution.

Violence committed by Muslims =/= radical Islam

but they identify as muslims and did what the fanfiction expects of them.

Barbary pirates didn't kidnap and sell people because the Koran says so, dude.

Even the Ottoman expansion was more about realpolitik than theology. Remember that much of the territory they took was already Sunni Muslim. They weren't spreading Islam at all.

everyone was killing each other over religion at the time of the barbary states and ottomans. however those wars were about real politics and expansion like any other country would have done, not to convert the infidels or massacre them.

it is still (mis)used as a propaganda point for islamists.

I second this OP, if you study the islamic empires and their western counterparts you'll find that religious affiliation was just one part of a larger identity, and profit was often the main motive.

>it wasn't really a thing until the early 1920's
>being this ignorant

Radical islam was a "thing" ever since the 1100s if not even earlier. The only reason it became relatively tame for a few hundred years is because Turks, instead of headfucked Arabs, started dominating the islamic world. Now that the pendulum shifted back towards Arab dominance it's yet another wave of goatfuckery.

>the belief that Muslims have the right to enslave infidels isn't radical Islam because it wasn't caused by the modern west
Kill yourselves

no, kill yourself for not being able to read.

That's exactly what you said, you fucking dibshit. You're just asking for special pleading because the claim "radical Islam didn't exist before the 20th century" is resoundly false.

The world would be an infinitely better place if you were aborted.

if you want we can also make radical christianity a thing so you can stop crying

>Is radical Islam an extreme reaction against globalization and its accompanying cultural homogenization?
Yes, to an extent, but there are other factors.

I'm not Christian, and Christisn violence has always been a thing

How many more swings and misses are you going to make; you absolutely pathetic waste of human life?

>Wahhabism isn't a reaction to globalism as an economic system.
No but it's a reaction to the social and cultural globalisation going along with it.

>Ironically, the first people to be purged were the secular Marxists and liberals who instigated the revolution.

Happens every time desu

Wahhabism dates back to the 18th century, long before the current concept of globalism existed

You're functionally retarded.

>of the total failure of Arab governments to adapt to the modern world.

Western meddling had a lot to do with that - that cannot be denied. Attempts at pan-arab nationalism, communism etc - basically anything that would have been negative to American and British hegemony and influence but would have been a strong counter to any 'radical' Islam taking root has been dismantled, infiltrated, or co-opted by the USA and UK.

Arab nationalism was a socialist platform funded by the USSR which removed the monarchs through revolutions and caused regional instability in the first place.

On the flip side, the idea of a pan-Arab state along the lines of Saudi Arabia is terrifying. Literally ISIS tier.

>I'm an idiot

If Truman hadn't endorsed the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 against the advice of his State Department and military the Arab world would have embraced western-style democracy and capitalism instead of aligning with the Soviets. The Arabs joined with the USSR because they felt that had to in response to US-support for Israeli aggression in the region.

Why did they murder him?

>ctrl+f Israel
>0 results

Don't want to go full /pol/ but
- the creation of Israel basically reignited the medieval war of religion mentality
- during/following the war Jews were expelled or fled en masse from Muslim countries
- this removed a significant percentage of the urbanized liberal elites in those countries
- geopolitical tensions caused by the occupation of Palestine and Israeli foreign policy festered into antisemitism and anti-Westernism

I don't think it was the only factor, but I'm pretty sure it was a big factor.

It's a warlord's life.

Israel, USA and the USSR certianly contributed. But the ROOT PROBLEM is in Islam and Arabs themselves and shifting the blame solely on external factors is absolutely fucking retarded. Islam apologists sound seriously similar to nazi apologists.

No, it's just that no one had mentioned Israel yet (didn't see before I replied) and it seemed like a glaring omission.

That said, if you're trying to attribute some fundamental qualities to Islam and Arabs themselves you're probably committing a fallacy. Islamic ideology/theology and Arab culture and society could have evolved differently under different circumstances.
Saying that the root problem is Islam is like saying that the root cause of capitalism and consumerism is Christianity and the root cause of Tibet being a reactionary shithole is Buddhism. Religions and cultures evolve hand in hand in their environment, with trends and currents fighting to dominate societies and minds.

I posted Turk and Persian dominated islam could be relatively tame, but Arab dominated islam was always an aggressive dominion of utter goatfuckery.

Radical Islam existed but it was a minority and they were considered hillbillies in the region. Then the cold war happened they were fighting the soviets and america thought " hey those bearded guys are fighting the commies, they must be cool" so the US gave them weapons and more power.

it started with the british using the house of saud to dissolve the ottomans with the arab revolt.

The fuck? The Gommunist era was when Afghanistan was the most secularized, and then the Taliban reversed this. You retarded?

I wouldn't put all of that on the West; the Arab nationalist governments (Nasser, Assad, etc.) came pretty hard after the sizable Islamist movements, like the Muslim Brotherhood, in various Arab countries because their views were at odds with pan-Arabism and socialism. At this time (late 40s, 50s, 60s), they hadn't yet gained the reputation for terrorism they would later acquire. Many were thrown in jail, torture, execution, etc. This only radicalized them further

You can't be more wrong. The most secular ruler was Daoud, he promoted modernization, secularism and women's rights, then the commies removed him by a coup because he was getting too friendly with the west and installed a communist puppet government, which instantly triggered a civil war. This happened in the late 70s and Taliban wasn't a thing until the early 90s when Pakistan-trained militias started pouring into Afghanistan and seizing the power vacuum created by Hekhmatyar and Massoud quarreling with each other.

I can literally think of zero other times this has happened

That's part of it, yeah. That's how Al-Qaeda got started anyways.

Could the Almohad Caliphate be considered an early manifestation of radical Islam?
It was literally founded by some dude who got pissed off at wine shops

It's not just Israel or Islam, it's a lot of factors. I'd be hard-pressed to name a root problem; lots of things are fucked.

Operation Ajax was a mistake.

m80 assuming you're referencing the Taliban and co., the Taliban were from Saudi-funded Pakistani madrassas and Al-Qaeda was bin Laden + was only founded just before the war ended. Even then, it was up to the Pakistani government to divvy up the aid money that was given to them, and they chose Hekmatyar among other less savory Islamists. They could have chosen guys like but didn't, so clearly there was already a bias towards ultra radical Islamists for one reason or another. The Cold War didn't invent radical Islam, nor was it a minority when Iran just had an Islamic revolution and the Saudis + Iranians were busy funding terrorists and/or Mujahideen groups left and right. Hell, even the Uyghurs started to buy into it after the Cultural Revolution ended.

Afghanistan has drugs.

Afghanistan was on a steady path towards secularization/modernization for the past 30 years leading up to the filthy Gommies. The second the Gommies seized power they started fucking things up as they always do and as a result everyone flipped their shit, civil war ensued and then boom, they became one of the most repressive, radical Islamist countries (if not the most, Saudi Arabia's tough competition but still) in the world.

It was actually kind of hilarious how badly Commies fucked up. One of the things they did was prevent all forms of interest from being charged on loans (Sharia already prevented this but there were other methods of repayment and it wasn't strictly enforced), which lead to a moratorium on lending; the Commies did this to end the enslavement of the poor peasants via debt, but they didn't get the memo that the peasants only borrowed money for one of two things, either a lavish wedding feast, or a lavish funeral service, both of which were mainstays of Afghan tradition. When these were no longer able to take place because of the lack of liquidity, it pissed off the entire peasant population because they now felt that they were dishonoring their dead and children by not being able to hold those events.

The Commie revolution took a country that was steadily moving towards they modern world and shifted that shit into 4 gear and gunned the engine, but they just ended up destroying what was and causing it to fall back to where it was several hundred years ago, except now they have AKs, bombs and a huge chip on their shoulder.

That country doesn't really deserve all the shit it gets desu. It's got some really poor cosmic luck.

I think radical is Islam is much smaller problem then you think. It is only the western educated and sometimes western borns Muslims that radical Islam is popular with most of the conflict in the middle east result from tribal conflicts as the states of the middle east dissolve into the more natural entities.

when powers destabilize areas that aren't powers, see that the results are awful and then just keep doing it, you eventually get really fucked up people.

It's actually interesting to read about the Afghan emirs in the 19th century who controlled Afghanistan with an iron fist, whereas in 20th and 21st century the moment someone seizes power a civil war / coup breaks out. Since the monarchy ended, was there at least one Afghan leader who didn't see his country descending into a total shitstorm?

>tfw you just go "fuck it" and want western culture to homogenize the rest of the world
>tfw you go so human/women/gay rights you go neo-imperialist

there is no such thin as radical or moderate islam. that ideology is by it's very nature extremely aggressive and expansionist, it's just that arabs didn't really have any resources to practice jihad effectively before soviets begun dumping shitload of weapons to middle-east

Why is the first post always by some fucking idiot?

Veeky Forums confirmed for bizarro /pol/?

>heuristics: the post
Of course it varies in radicalism--there's leagues of difference between modern Saudi and the Fatimid Caliphate, but both are Muslim.

>But the ROOT PROBLEM is in Islam and Arabs themselves and shifting the blame solely on external factors is absolutely fucking retarded
Fuck off you /pol/kid idiot. If the population of the middle east was Christian the creation of Israel would have had exactly the same results.
Ignoring the direct reasons of any historical event just so you can say "NO BUT THE REAL CAUSE WAS CUZ THEY WERE NIGGERS/MUSLIMS/WHITEBOYS" is ignorant and reductionist as fuck and just shows how much of a dumbass you are.

They dont think, they just post.

>im describing myself

I think a lot of people make the mistake of projecting the "I'm not really religious but I believe in God kinda sorta not really xD who cares just be a good person lol" attitude onto the Muslim world. Religion is serious fucking business in the Muslim world. The average muslim is devout, has no concept of secular law, and bases his entire world view on what his imam tells him. Radical Islam arises as a consequence of this and not the other way around.

Imagine the most religious parts of the deep south on steroids. With a government that affirms this world view and spends billions exporting it to the rest of the world.

It's a reaction to being funded with weapons and money to topple secular governments. Christianity had a fair share of radicals even though they didn't have foreign non-Christian powers fanning the flames.

yall niggas need Qutb

Fuck up Abdul

Except they didn't enslave because their religion or ideology told them to but because slavery makes mad dosh, it was basically just an industry and not an expression of radicalism

>scrolling through
>ctrl+f Qutb
>1 match

Thank you.

I believe this in the case of the "foot soldiers," they probably do truly believe they're getting some green grapes from providing /pol/ with shock images. I wonder how much it carries for the strategists, though, do they have some other geopolitical goals in mind?

I remember my dad telling me during the Bush administration that Osama wanted Saudi Arabia to be an Islamic republic, so even though he was hardly secular he did have a motive other than hating our freedoms.

Sayyid-kun was moe in a pathetic, autistic kind of way. I almost feel bad for him. Almost.

That is sanctioned by the hadith and example of the paragon Muhammad.

>we can also make radical christianity

One step ahead of you hombre.

There is and has been radical Christianity for centuries as well. This sort of religious extremism is political, not just "muh book". Gotta dig deeper nigga.

First time I've ever heard mention of this guy

>Afghanistan was on a steady path towards secularization/modernization for the past 30 years leading up to the filthy Gommies.

IT'S EVERYONE'S FAULT BUT OURS.

youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0

What in the world are you on about

Also, a response to the disintegration of traditional arab society.

Here's the thing to think about with Radical Islam: It's Islam on easy mode. Traditional Islam, you need to not engage in usery, provide for your extended familial relations and a bunch of other shit, that gets increasingly difficult to do in the modern world.

You don't need any of that in Radical Islam. You just need to Allahu Snackbar yourself. It's got that elegant simplicity about how to REALLY live the good life you've been raised to think you were missing out on.

A dynamic that hasn't been raised yet in this thread that I find interesting.
In most cases the "islamist youth" that has been used as a canon fodder to carry out terror attacks have been in most cases people with history of mental illness, especially depression, and a lot of them lived at some point in the western world.
Some articles highlighted the difference between "local islamists", who seemed motivated by ignorance of the world and a desire for revenge against the oppresion of the government/the USA/Israel, and western terrorists, who were seen as borderline narcissists.

>ours
I didn't know Soviet-era Afghan politicians and warlords lurked Veeky Forums.

And he wasn't saying the fault doesn't lie with certain groups, he was merely pointing out that foreign intervention--the usual suspect--had a large hand in the situation, vis a vis handing piles upon piles of weapons and money to zealots (see: Afghan., Syria, Iraq, Libya, Saudi, and more to come ;-)).

It's obviously the drug addict's fault for being addicted to drugs. But the enabler played his role in it and takes a share of the guilt too, doesn't he?

the great game, britain colonized pakistan and attempted to colonize afghanistan to maintain a buffer between russia and the jewel in the crown

though its kind of a funny epilogue to me that throughout the 19th century the british were so afraid of a russian takeover of afghanistan, but when they finally did invade in the 1980's it was an absolute disaster.

There is no such thing as "radical Islam".

The terrorists are just Muslims who follow their book.

Muslims who don't do these acts, are lukewarm Muslims. They ignore the call for violence in the book.

ISIS are 100% Muslims and doing exactly what Mohammed and the Caliphates did.

>Islam is a religion peace!
Pisslam is a religion of feces.

t. ex-Muslim now a Christian

it was really only possible due to the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam saw all the post revolution instability and thought it was an opportunity to conquer part of a hobbled nation, but the invasion had the opposite effect and all of Khomeini's opponents actually lined up behind him for the sake of national unity

the revolutionary guard gladly used that opportunity to purge anyone who disagreed with them

This.

US propped up all kinds of people just to weaken USSR influence in the region.

Was a blunder.

>HURR DURR ITS YOUR FAULT WE ARE KILLING YOU HAHA DIE YOU INFIDEL BUT DO FEEL SORRY FOR THE FACT THAT YOU MADE ME KILL YOU

t. Achmed

If the population of the middle east was christian I would be criticising that. Muslim apologists like you are the slimiest fuckers

You can mention hypotheticals all day but in reality the middle east is arab and muslim so we should address it you twat

>Afghanistan
secular until America started funding and importing radicals from Saudi, Egyptian and other prisons tomfight against aa secular socialist government

>Iran
Secular democracy destroyed by US/MI 6 coup for oil

>Other Muslim countries,
yeah America too. Or Britain and France... but especially post-1917 they're basically the same country when it comes to foreign policy

>this entire thread

t. Noam Chomsky

Have you by any chance read Bhagavad Gita? How would you compare its precepts to the Quran?
How would you compare the behaviour of its followers?

Yeah especially that moment when the People's Mojaheddin performed a terrorist bombing of the Islamic Republican Party headquarters killing 70+ of its leaders, and in a separate attempt the president Rajai and the prime minister Bahonar.
Really strengthened national unity that one.

Hmm, interesting.
But hasn't radical Islam always existed?

What about the Islamists causing terror in the Subsaharan African world?

>was a blunder
Because letting the Soviets expand unimpeded would have worked out better for the world right comrade?