Without getting into the politics of it or racism; how did radical islam begin and why does it persist in the 21st...

>how did radical islam begin
Quran.

>until Saddam started mixing it up with Islamism

Fox news much?

Not him, but it's fairly well documented that Saddam dabbled in Islamism after the Iran-Iraq war.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_campaign
I understand that it was more of a strategic move than anything but still, it allowed Islamists to breathe for a while

It's all le evil America and Israel's fault!

t. brainwashed European

>le fox news is bad meme

nowadays they're pretty good, way better than CNN, RT, and AJ at least

He never said so.
Why does /pol/iticans always have to project?

They're obviously not the only ones at fault but they both played a big part in it

only clinton, bush and obama

Israel and the other presidents did nothing wrong

Read this

>/pol/tards are the only ones who hate Islam

*tiptip*

>only clinton, bush and obama
Yeah and radical Islam never existed only Baghdadi and Osama bin Laden

>Israel dindu nuffin
Yeah it' s just defending itself from a bunch of illogical crazy sandnigger terrorists amirite

Posting Nazi spurdo is a good hint desu

>book about wahabism
Very ironic this work is coming from a brit, who basically let wahabis to have their own nation.

Ottoman did a lot of wrong thing, but one thing they got right was to surpess wahabi ideology.

Yeah the part about Israel is correct, except unironically. Don't believe everything /pol/ and leftist media tell you.

Okay, here, you're wrong. Here's a media tier list:

Best Tier: Peer reviewed journals like PNAS, reputable publications like Foreign Affairs, The Economist, etcetera

Still Great, But Incredibly Biased Tier: The Nation and The National Review, Al Jazeera, other publications of their ilk

I Mean, If You're A Pleb Or Poor I Guess It'll Have To Do Tier: CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, essentially most mainstream media outlets

Approaching The Cliff Tier: Fox News, MSNBC, etcetera

Please Never Voice Any Opinion You Have On Anything To Anyone Ever Again Tier: Slate, Brietbart, The Drudge Report, Vox, Gawker, Jezebel, Inspire Magazine, Russia Today, etcetera

Your Tinfoil Hat and Rabies Foam Frighten Me, Please Leave My Apartement Or I Will Call The Police Tier: WorldNetDaily, BeforeItsNews, etcetera

>Without getting into the politics of it or racism;
Its the first fuckin sentence you illiterate jew

>please discuss A without resorting to B as an explanation

OH MY GAWD IF YOU CRITICIZE A IT DOESN´T MEAN THAT YOU ARE B!!!1!1!!

Ypu realize there are several racist explanations for it that don't have to do with tgem just being Muslims?

It comes from two or three different ideological movements in the modern Middle East that mixed together in the vat of revolution and civil war.

First you had Islamic Revival, various movements that sought to revitalize Islam in reaction to major social and political changes. They ranged from peaceful, even pacifist civil-resistance movements to literalist fundamentalism to national consciousness resisting foreign imperialism to apocalyptic revolution. Their one commonality was a rejection of Islamic orthodoxy, Islamic Protestantism if you will, which they saw as corrupted or unfit for the times or collaborators with their enemies. The two movements that are most important for our topic that came out of this soup are now known as Salafism and Wahhabism.

Meanwhile, Muslims had been absorbing Western thought and ideology for decades, giving rise to Middle Eastern republicans, nationalists, socialists, and so on and so forth. But one movement came to synthesize much of national-socialist thought with Arab and Islamic cultural trappings, and created what we now know as Islamism. This group was far more political, and in a time where coups and dictatorships were increasingly common they were repeatedly suppressed until they became political terrorists.

Over time, Salafism and Wahhabism became one and the same due in part to Saudi efforts to spread their ideals across the Muslim world. Meanwhile Islamism and Salafi/Wahhabi thought also fused together in the prison cells and battlefields of the various dictatorships and civil wars of the 20th century.

More or less that, although the Grand Mosque takeover and the gigantic fuck-up of Saudis in managing it should also be mentioned

>Where did radical islam come from?
From the Qur'an and the Hadiths (sayings and deeds of Muhammad).

Sunnis and Shias have been killing each other ever since Muhammad died.

Sad that all of those networks are tainted actually.

The only good thing about The Economist is that it is regularly called out on being propaganda by its own readers. Where the readers themselves will fact check it and say what is / isn't true. That, or they're engaging in politics and disinfo.

NYT is pretty bad these days. Most of what they write has become trash and their liberal heads are really, really far up their own asses. They've published some completely fabricated pieces to assert their agenda.

nytimes.com/video/world/asia/100000004108808/the-killing-of-farkhunda.html

I just don't think any news is trustworthy atm. However now I'm beginning to question on whether networks should even tell the truth.

Imagine CNN just came out and said, "well we need to fuck up Iran next so that Israel remains the only nuclear power there. We also fucked with Assad and support ISIS and "rebels" because we want the Qatar - Turkey pipeline to undercut Russian oil interests.

It galvanizes opinions. Apathy is the death of any movement that runs on conviction. Attacks on civilian Muslims causes the government to take action, and the result is that some people side further with the government, others hate the government more for being unable to protect them or for the way they're cracking down and exercising power, and others rush to join the terrorists.

>wahh I disagree with professional economists and what they write so I'll call it disinformation and propaganda

Opinion discarded.

That's the readers I read on literally every article, not me. I'm not an economist. I don't exactly appeal to authority but I simply think I shouldn't interject my opinions on something I'm largely ignorant of. I listen and read, and listen and read some more until I can make a decent opinion and either get it swatted down or believe in it enough to interject it. The thing I like about it is in the Economist immediately in the comments section people will argue over the article written. Whereas in NYT it will become literal virtue signalling. "Haha, it's about time someone stood up to drumpf!"

Whereas CNN...
Black woman - Burn that shit down, take it to the suburbs!
CNN - "And his sister calling for peace."

The Economist gets called out by professional economists all the time too, it's not really just that user.

>Al Jazeera several tiers higher than RT

they're both literally the same

LmaoIslamAreTheGoodGuys
LmaoRussiaAreTheGoodGuys

Breitbart deserves to be several tiers higher simply for not being part of the leftist mainstream media

You don't get credit for being batshit just because you're a different brand of batshit.

Instead it sprouts wingnut propaganda. It isnt really better.

>"dude all the mainstream media has a leftist bias. What should we do?"

>"Bro let us just make a openly rightwing biased tabloid that will sure show them the truth".

Regardless what you pick the truth is far away muddled under political agendas.

But on every story not concerning their region they do some of the best reporting in the world, hence the higher tier.

That isn't how it works.

>reading the economist online
>seriously arguing that internet commenters on any website have valuable opinions

Not in the same way. Professional economists argue over theory and fine points, but they don't accuse each other of writing propaganda pieces. Unless they're austrian memeconomists, who don't really count; as their answer when confronted with empirical evidence contradicting their views was to disregard empirical evidence as a matter of doctrine.

hello breitbart shill

>misunderstanding this hard
It's not about whether the people on the internet have valid opinions. I'm sure some do. You're on the internet, are your opinions all shit? If so, why even bother engaging until you're more well read.

It's that at least they aren't swallowing the load and are thinking for themselves. And you can assess the quality of the paper through the readers to a degree as well.

If you read NYT / MSNBC / Huffpo you get virtue signalling out the ass. They tow the line, and they tow it hard.

If you read CNN in their comments section they have some balance where people call them out at least. It's still Clinton News Network but some of its viewers will call bullshit on them.

If you read Breitbart you get loose conspiracy theories, memes, and nationalism.

So part of judging a paper is through the quality of its readers.

> why does it persist in the 21st century?
Because it started like 40 years ago.

I heard some user's theory on here which was pretty interesting and I hadn't even considered before: T.E Lawrence's campaign forced a militaristic paradigm on the middle east which wasn't there before, and it continues to today. In seven pillars he even mentions that abdulla the second son of the sherif wasn't firey enough and so he wanted feisal instead for leadership, and it's possible he's guilty of a sort of orientalist belief that arabs are more militaristic by virtue of their race/culture. I wanna say though I didn't really want to use the word guilty there, because I think yes, different peoples function in different ways, but even so Lawrence might have pushed his perceptions of their society on to them. And also my copy of the book has an intro accusing him of orientalism, but it was written by some old disconnected fuck who had never been to the middle east.

Out of curiosity, are there any other examples from history that could be compared to the modern Middle East and radical Islam? I.e. other situations where ideological failure and factors like war and political collapse resulted in a reversion to religious extremism?

Oh please, arabs were raiding and raping each other long before that araboo got there

Everything radica with Christianity was state sponsored i think

Arabs are in fact more militaristic by virtue of their culture. Up until the 20th century, the majority of Arabs in the Arabian peninsula were semi-nomadic traders and herdsmen who spent much of their time raiding neighboring clans. It was these clans that Lawrence hoped to rally. It was these same clans that the House of Sa'ud did rally to capture Mecca and Medina.

The militaristic paradigm you're discussing was already in place in my opinion.

From fucking Mohammad.

Is it a requirement to post here that you know absolutely jack shit about actual history?

There's some merit in this, although it's an oversimplification. A lot of what is considered "radical" Islam is really just fundamental Islam. Wahhabism especially goes back to a system of legalism and social mores which come strictly from the Quran without the softening and interpretation of other systems of Islamic thought.

ISIS is another good example of this. They follow an extremely old and literal interpretation of Islam that holds that the end of the world is coming and it's time to cleanse the world of non-believers.

Radical islam existed in a significant form before Nasser.

Your argument only explains a small part of it.

Why did Radical Islamic terror appear in the Philippines and Malaysia and Thailand if it was caused by the failure of pan-Arabism+ Israel/Palestine?

al-Wahhab started the movement as we know it in the 1700s. Why it later became popular is a different question that I'll leave to others

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al-Wahhab

>The Economist

Literally a pro-US tabloid opinion piece feeding off its older reputation.

It's so that retards don't start saying shit like "Sandbiggers are subhumans dats why they kill whites" and to have an actual discussion with faggots memeing the tread into oblivion

The Economist is not written by professional economists you dumbfuck.

>Professional economists argue over theory and fine points, but they don't accuse each other of writing propaganda pieces

Except they literally do you dumbfuck.

95% of The Economist is not economics. 99% is not written by professional economists. It's written by tabloid opinion writers who have interviewed a few biased people, copy-pasted a graph, and then interjected The Economist's neoliberal bias into the "analysis".

Iran, shia country, funded Hezbollah to commit suicide attacks against american interests and personnel in Lebanon
This was not wahabbi
Isis os wahabbi yes but radical Islam cant be linked to one source

This
People forget how much radical islam attacks were because of Iran

Started in the Middle East, spread across the world. Islamic fanatics existed before Nasser, but Nasser did his damnedest to suppress them. With that suppression gone, they were free to grow and spread.

I think its like the global version on a street gang
Disenfranchised young males fall for the islam meme because it offers hope and community for people
That's why shitty non arab countries can have islamic insurgencies
Its also easy to blame others for their short comings if they join an organization which does this already

>Americans are really this stupid
>not understanding what appeasement and image politics are

Those are all bad, but Fox is still pretty bad by itself. Easily the worst of mainstream American cable news channels.

wtf I hate Iran now!

It's not radical, it's always been like this.

This is from 1786, and its the exact same shit ISIS/"radicals" say today.

>t noam chomsky

If you're a Christian/Jew you can live in an Islamic society as long as you pay your taxes, if you're a Muslim who leaves Islam you must die. They view "moderate" muslims (and anyone who disagrees with them) as "fallen" muslims.

>envoy from Tripoli

You can live as a christian/jew only if you accept humiliation, never publicly show your faith, and a special tax, not just any tax. And you get basicly no rights whatsoever, only muslims have rights.
And obviously all other religions/non-abrahamic, not of the book) are excluded, those are just enemies outright.
At least thats what sharia states.

A theocracy is a shitplace to live in, islamic or otherwise.

Found the /pol/tard

Yes. Envoy from Tripoli, an official representative of the Ottoman Empire. And he gives the same speech/reasoning that ISIS gives nowadays.
The USA didn't exist back then. But I'm sure they were at fault anyway somehow. The envoy clearly didn't mean to give religious reasoning here, thats just my racism projecting. Islam was peaceful back then.

I am as left as it gets. Why others from the left would deny that a murderous ideology is murderous, I can not fathom.

"These people have no agency, or brains, it must be US somehow causing everything. If only we were nicer, they'd ignore the quran suddenly."

I mean, the left did literally get racist didn't it? Expecting nothing from the "brown people", the white man being the only deciding factor in history?

Christians in Iraq did okay before daesh

Go away /pol/

>/pol/ in charge of reading comprehension

PROTIP: Christianity Is the same. Judaism is the same.

Those religions simply have had all the bad stuff omitted. For instance you are meant to kill anyone who works the Sabbath (Hebrew Bible).

>Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 15For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. 16'So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.'

Pic related for all you who follow a new updated version of the bibles and not the original words of the Apostles. You all failed gods tests and have not read any of his words.

Apostasy in Judaism
>"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

Apostasy in Christianity is a bit different, but pretty much anything which turns you from your faith in Christianity means a round-a-bout death sentence/heavy punishment. Adulterers are expected to cut their dicks off in order to avoid adultery
>Matthew 5:27-30.

This, the Salafiyya of the early 20th century is an islamic "back to the scriprture" movement. It's the basis for modern Islamism, therefore the Quran and Hadith are. But there are other factors that made it as prevalent as it is today, for example the Saud-Wahab pact, the failing of pan arabic nationalism and indeed foreign interventions in the middle east.

ISIS, isn't wahhabist, they're salafists, yes, but wahhabism is the specific saudi brand of salafism and ISIS does indeed oppose saudi hegemony.

Caharism, beginnings of reformation (sorta), Cristero wars and bogomilisms are the first radical christian anti-state movements that come tomind.

>extremely old

When will this meme ever die?
Saying that salafism is old is like saying that protestantism is old. Just because a mvement claims that it is based on the original tradition does not negate that, factualy, it is embossed by the ideosyncracys of the Zeitgeist of the time in which it originated. Salafism is literally unthinkable without 19th century concepts.

Support from the Saudis is how it got so far, but I'm not sure how it got big enough to become a major player in Saudi Arabia.

This "back to scripture" movement of the Salafyia is largely inspired by american christian fundamentalism (protestant) and the idea of infalliability of the Bible.

>And obviously all other religions/non-abrahamic, not of the book) are excluded, those are just enemies outright. At least thats what sharia states.

No its not you fucking nigger

>Historically, dhimmi status was originally applied to Jews, Christians, and Sabians. This status later also came to be applied to Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, Hindus, and Buddhists.[12][page needed][13]
>Eventually, the Hanafi school, the largest school of Islamic jurisprudence, and the Maliki school, the second largest school of Islamic jurisprudence, applied this term to all non-Muslims living in Islamic lands outside the sacred area surrounding Mecca, in present-day Saudi Arabia.[14]
>The jurists and scholars of Islamic sharia law called for humane treatment of the dhimmis.[101]

Reminder that Sharia law is interpreted differently depending on the school of Islamic jurisprudence

Are you fucking retarded? The location of Mecca has always been Arabia. Muslims pray towards Mecca, not Ankara.

Are you fucking retarded? Mecca was Ottoman clay! The ottoman empire was the islamic hegemon of the middle East as well as the last caliphate
The location of Mecca has nothing to do with who's in charge

Americans inspired radical islam

>Envoy from Tripoli, an official representative of the Ottoman Empire.
He was not. He was the representative of Tripoli alone, and could only guarantee that Tunis would follow suit with any treaty he made for Tripoli while Morocco and Algiers would require separate deals. At no point in the negotiations did the government in Constantinople come up, nor did Jefferson or Jay have any doubts that they were trying to deal with the Barbary States and the Empire of Morocco, not the Ottoman Empire.

>And he gives the same speech/reasoning that ISIS gives nowadays.
It's not since ISIS is mostly at war with other Muslims around them and their arguments are entirely geared towards declaring others apostates, proclaiming the revival of the rightful caliphate, and the destruction of all modern corruption within the wider Muslim world including modern Muslim government and law. There was actually another ideology around this time period that believed almost the same exact things, and we today call them Wahhabis. The Ottoman Empire crushed them, and paraded the heads of their leaders in the streets of Constantinople as heretics.

>The USA didn't exist back then. But I'm sure they were at fault anyway somehow.
The US had existed for nearly a decade by then. They weren't at fault, they were just preyed upon by British, Spanish, and Portuguese diplomacy, European insurers and lenders, and the pirates of North Africa being diplomatically, militarily, and economically weak at the time.

(cont)

(cont)
>The envoy clearly didn't mean to give religious reasoning here, thats just my racism projecting. Islam was peaceful back then.
The ambassador was trying to intimidate Jefferson into paying him a fortune quickly and up front for his services in drawing up a treaty. In the very same letter that quote is drawn from, the ambassador asks that the US sign a perpetual peace treaty at a higher rate than a yearly truce in which the ambassador will get a 10% cut of the total sum, then in the very next breath after the blurb about the Quran goes on to claim that the corsairs are motivated to fanatical extreme by aggressive boarding tactics which rewards the first pirate to reach the enemy ship, and that he believes the pirates are literally supported by the Devil himself because of how successful they are.

If it's not obvious, the guy is a hypocrite and a con artist. By the very same law of the Prophet he invokes, there are no such things as a perpetual peace treaty, and his attempt to push one onto Jefferson is his way of making the most personal profit in case he's replaced a year or two later, and is saying whatever he can to scare the US into believing the Barbary corsairs are raving fanatics who don't fear death, carry daggers in their teeths, and have Satan on speed dial, all so that they'd agree to pay up instead of using gunboat diplomacy like the British and French did at the time.

So the north African wars spawned radical islam? I don't see your point but you seem knowledgeable

The Qur'an read It and you will understand

Islam is radical, there's no such thing as radical Islam.

As a muslim you're supposed to be a true muslim, i.e live as Muhammed lived, if you don't you're not a true muslim.

Islam has been the same since 600 CE

Radical Islam is not related to North African piracy, they are instead two offshoots of a Jihadist mentality that existed parallel to Islamic society either at its lawless border regions or at its Turkic courts. What most self-proclaimed critics of Islam don't really understand is that Islam did not exist as a coherent system but several parallel societies each emphasizing a different way of life and which tolerated one another out of fears of civil war and internal chaos. What modern Islamist groups have done is combine two of these visions - the border reaver and the militant takfiri - into a single ideology which projects itself as the One True Faith.

Corsair culture was a remnant of the pirate holy wars of the Renaissance and Enlightenment in which they fought against equally religious and predatory Catholic pirates while the more secular powers around them tried to limit the damage they caused to their trade and authority.

Oic thanks for the clarification

>nazi spurdo
>complaining about "fucking leftists"

>i-i'm not a /pol/tard

wrong

wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/From Militant Secularism to Islamism.pdf

From Militant Secularism to Islamism:
The Iraqi Ba’th Regime 1968-2003

This pretty much shows you are wrong. He made a swerve to Islamism.

Do /pol/cucks not understand the concept of an ethnoreligious group?

He didn't say that. Keep projecting though.

The leftist notion of the "white man" isn't really racist per se - it is not directly focused on any innate biological traits of white men, but rather on their historical role, particularly intervention and colonization in non-Western societies. The Middle East always tended towards instability, but the actions of Western countries have at times worsened things, by trying to take control of the region while having no emotional connection to the land or the people, and thus not really paying much attention or even being aware of the consequences of their actions. The Arab-Israeli conflict is largely due to the British promising the same regions of the Middle East to two opposing groups.