Islamic apologism and the persecution of dissenters

Destroying the concept of ‘radicalisation’


‘Radicalisation’, in the past year or so, has been the Leftist media’s favourite catchphrase, for  explaining and excusing vile acts of barbarity and violence perpetrated by individuals from the Islamic state, and other terrorist groups. Discussions around this term revolve around the victimisation, stigma, alienation and ‘islamophobia’ purportedly faced by young Muslim men in the west, causing them to join Islamist groups at an unprecedented scale.

Moreover, to suggest that someone has been ‘radicalised’, can suggest that by a cruel twist of fate, a person has fallen into a deluded, twisted and non- rational stream of thinking, and that individual subsequently has acted in a manner that is devoid of any religious or cultural association.

True, any fighter of the Islamic state or any other Islamist related death cult, is absorbed into a warped and delusional fantasy, in which their killing and persecution shall be met with endless rewards.

But to stress ‘radicalisation’ and in doing so potentially insinuate that these members of the Islamic state are acting in a manner which contradicts the very fundamentals of their faith, is a fabrication of the truth.

It is important that the perpetrators of Islamic terrorism are condemned, ostracised and isolated as far as possible from mainstream society. Nonetheless, if this comes at the cost of acknowledging the truth about Islam, and the real reason why there have been over 25 000 terrors attacks since September 11, then it is imperative that we refocus our dialogue and discussions, and recentre it around reality, not around an imaginary utopia.

4 thoughts on “Destroying the concept of ‘radicalisation’

  1. I agree with your point that extremists are judging others, Muslims and not, to be punished by death for not agreeing with their stance. However, it still sounds that you’re making the mistake of believing that the extremists are actually practicing Islam and the rest of us are just picking and choosing segments. I could repeat what I’ve already blogged on this but basically Islamic law has rules and conditions on warfare. Most Muslims can see that ISIS doesn’t abide by these rules and conditions. Take for example when ISIS burned that Jordanian pilot to death. ISIS cites the passage in the Quran (and Old Testament) of eye for eye, nose for nose, and tooth for tooth when judging him to die by fire. Yet, unambiguously, the Prophet Muhammad said that no one should be burned to death because that is a punishment reserved only for God (via Hellfire). As Muslims, we know that the Quran must be understood relative to the example of the Prophet Muhammad, so it is not a valid argument to just interpret the Quran without knowing its context and how it was applied and whether there were other restrictions. All ISIS did was further demonstrate that they are in fact the ones that will conveniently pick and choose when they want to abide by Islamic law.

    Even saying “Islamic law” is the reason for extremism is like rolling up all of the law in the US into something called “American law” and then professing to know what “American law” is about, whether it is regarding the constitution, or family law, or contract law, or intellectual property, or employment. This, again, is the problem with many people, Muslim and non-Muslim. Many people joining ISIS were rarely ever attending a mosque before suddenly deciding to take on this conviction. Many were criminals or had drug problems. Even those from better socio-economic backgrounds were found to be purchasing “Islam for Dummies” and had little to no religious background. Still, even if they had regular mosque attendance, that is not even comparable to an in-depth, years-long, study of any subject within the realm of Islamic law.

    Every Muslim believes in aspects of Islamic law. This includes our requirements to pray and how to do so; restrictions on what to eat and how to prepare meat; guidance on how to treat one another, Muslim and not; requirements to give regular charity; instruction to obey our governments; restrictions on financial transactions (e.g. no debt slavery, no variable rate mortgages); employment law (e.g. paying regular and timely wages and providing decent living conditions, something Qatar doesn’t do for its construction workers); and rules of warfare. See this open letter from hundreds of Islamic scholars in regard to warfare, explaining why what ISIS is doing is wrong by Islamic law:

    And if you want me to do citations on the other subjects then I’ll embark on that as well.

  2. Why is it, that these non extreme Muslims are killed though? They are killed, because whether you like it or not, under a radical interpretation of their religion, they have adjudged anyone who opposes the caliphate, to be an apostate, punishable by death. That is the first point. Secondly, you mention the stats. Well, there may be a small minority of Muslims involved in the Islamic state. But, it will not take an enormous amount of people to create an enormous amount of damage, as seen in Paris. Again, some Muslims are acting upon these interpretations. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what is written in a book, it is what people act upon. Moreover, there are many Muslims who do not believe in violence. But many more, often believe in aspects of Islamic law, so in that sense there are further values of incompatibility presented to western values. You may practice Islam as you like, but if you think that the Islamic state has nothing to do with Islam, you are mistaken.

  3. You mean those 25,000 terror attacks perpetrated by extremists, primarily against Muslims? As bad as it can be for Arab Christians and Yazidis, Muslims are by far the most regular victim of extremist violence. How is it that extremist anti-Muslims and extremist Muslims both want to believe that violence is true Islam, while the victims are primarily the Muslims that know better that that is not not Islam? How is it that the 20,000 people fighting for ISIS are able to represent the 1.5 billion that are Muslims? That is .000013% of the world’s Muslim population. ISIS supporters’ estimates could be off by several orders of magnitude before it even starts to look logical that this violence is to represent all of Islam. Let’s pretend there was a whole Muslim nation of Australia – 23 million – that were as extreme as pro/anti-Muslim extremists dream of. That’s still .015% of all Muslims in the world. Does this really make any sense at all? Are you really saying that this extremely small percentage of Muslims is really practicing Islam and all of its violence and the rest of us are just some skim milk Muslims?

Leave a Reply