I used to let questions and remarks about this subject pass unanswered because answering them in a few lines simply isn’t possible. Not answering them is however not much of a solution. Hence I thought it could be useful to write this short analysis.
Introduction.
Especially in the USA many seem to have the idea that “the Muslim world” is some sort of monolithic bloc where all nations are clones of each other. This impression often comes combined with the idea that “shari’a law” governs them which then must be “based on Al Qur’an” and therefore must be everywhere the same. That impression of a monolithic bloc called “the Muslim world” is as far removed from reality as the idea of “one shari’a law” that is “based on Al Qur’an”.
Many Europeans, having a history intertwined with that of the MENA and being themselves citizens of nations with each their own languages, cultures, constitutions etc… usually can look at this with a more realistic view on the diversity within the Muslim world. Yet when it comes to the legal systems and if and how this incorporates elements of shari’a, the confusion is almost as great about this as it is elsewhere.
In addition most people have the idea that the violent actions they witness – the so-called suicide bombers with their appeal to Allah as justification for their actions - are the result of a more recent history of the region. In reality this is of course only a surfacing, dramatic result of a much longer process. To gain some understanding about this an overview of significant differences between what is usually called “the Muslim world” and “the West” is a necessity.
Before I try to paint such a picture, some remarks
1. Since this isn’t supposed to be a bookwork I shall limit myself to comment on the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region.
2. When I talk about the situation of Muslims in “the West” that is aimed at mainland-Europe. However, when talking about “the West” in context of the main target of the Radicals and causes and context of this radicalism, it should be clear to all those who ever read any “statement” made by some of its leaders that this includes the USA (and sometimes the USA only.)
3. This is only a global, hence by default generalising and superficial, description of some main elements in societies I see as important for a Western audience to become aware of in order to understand where this radicalism is rooted.
4. My focus and goal is to give the reader an idea how such radicalisation – constituting no less then a rape of Islamic dogma and teachings - can be successful in influencing people, Muslims, to commit the most horrible acts while screaming “Allahu Akbar” (=God is the Greatest of everything ever possible).
5. I call such groups and individuals Radicals because “fundamentalist” is a typical US term that can only be understood and applied within the typical Christian context where it originates. The word formerly didn’t even exist in Arabic. The meaning of “fundamentalist” in a (US) Christian context doesn’t cover what I mean with naming “Radicals” those you would call “fundamentalist Muslims”. That should become clear – I hope - while you go on reading.
Chapters can be found here:
http://ad-dabaran.livejournal.com/
1. Being Muslim
2. Political MENA.
3. Social MENA.
4. MENA and the West.
5. MENA goes to Europe.
6. MENA and Wahhabi influence, over there and everywhere.
7. Radicals: The strategy.
8. And what about Al Qur’an?
9. The future.
10. The Danish cartoons.
Like I said, a very short and of course largely incomplete and generalising analysis on a very complex issue, yet I think it can provide for a start of further discussion or questions.
salaam.
Introduction.
Especially in the USA many seem to have the idea that “the Muslim world” is some sort of monolithic bloc where all nations are clones of each other. This impression often comes combined with the idea that “shari’a law” governs them which then must be “based on Al Qur’an” and therefore must be everywhere the same. That impression of a monolithic bloc called “the Muslim world” is as far removed from reality as the idea of “one shari’a law” that is “based on Al Qur’an”.
Many Europeans, having a history intertwined with that of the MENA and being themselves citizens of nations with each their own languages, cultures, constitutions etc… usually can look at this with a more realistic view on the diversity within the Muslim world. Yet when it comes to the legal systems and if and how this incorporates elements of shari’a, the confusion is almost as great about this as it is elsewhere.
In addition most people have the idea that the violent actions they witness – the so-called suicide bombers with their appeal to Allah as justification for their actions - are the result of a more recent history of the region. In reality this is of course only a surfacing, dramatic result of a much longer process. To gain some understanding about this an overview of significant differences between what is usually called “the Muslim world” and “the West” is a necessity.
Before I try to paint such a picture, some remarks
1. Since this isn’t supposed to be a bookwork I shall limit myself to comment on the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region.
2. When I talk about the situation of Muslims in “the West” that is aimed at mainland-Europe. However, when talking about “the West” in context of the main target of the Radicals and causes and context of this radicalism, it should be clear to all those who ever read any “statement” made by some of its leaders that this includes the USA (and sometimes the USA only.)
3. This is only a global, hence by default generalising and superficial, description of some main elements in societies I see as important for a Western audience to become aware of in order to understand where this radicalism is rooted.
4. My focus and goal is to give the reader an idea how such radicalisation – constituting no less then a rape of Islamic dogma and teachings - can be successful in influencing people, Muslims, to commit the most horrible acts while screaming “Allahu Akbar” (=God is the Greatest of everything ever possible).
5. I call such groups and individuals Radicals because “fundamentalist” is a typical US term that can only be understood and applied within the typical Christian context where it originates. The word formerly didn’t even exist in Arabic. The meaning of “fundamentalist” in a (US) Christian context doesn’t cover what I mean with naming “Radicals” those you would call “fundamentalist Muslims”. That should become clear – I hope - while you go on reading.
Chapters can be found here:
http://ad-dabaran.livejournal.com/
1. Being Muslim
2. Political MENA.
3. Social MENA.
4. MENA and the West.
5. MENA goes to Europe.
6. MENA and Wahhabi influence, over there and everywhere.
7. Radicals: The strategy.
8. And what about Al Qur’an?
9. The future.
10. The Danish cartoons.
Like I said, a very short and of course largely incomplete and generalising analysis on a very complex issue, yet I think it can provide for a start of further discussion or questions.
salaam.