Response to a commenter about what Muslims believe
Jimi writes:
I disbelieve media analysis that these terrorists are somehow radicalized by visiting random ISIS websites. The radicalization comes from family and religious groups. The ISIS websites finish the process by urging radical beliefs be converted to radical actions.
As I am sure I explained before, Islam is a fundamentalist religion. All Muslims believe that the Koran is the true and literal word of God (Allah) and that Mohammed was the most perfect man and people should follow the examples he set. And the Hadiths and other sources about Mohammed’s life, although not the true and literal word of God, are nevertheless believe to tell the true story of Allah. Nearly all Muslims really really believe this and it’s what they are taught at Mosques and religious schools. There is no major branch of Islam that believes that the Koran should not be taken 100% literally. This is something that liberals (who don’t personally believe that there is any religious text that’s the true literal word of any divine beings) simply cannot understand.
However, Islam, like all other religions, historically existed—or was appropriated for the function—of serving the elites. Law and order benefits the elites, but people deciding on their own to commit jihad, that doesn’t benefit the elites, so that stuff was not taught to people. Most Muslims, like most Christians, non-Orthodox Jews, etc., are too lazy to read the Holy texts themselves and they let religious leaders tell them what they are supposed to do in order to be good Muslims.
However, since all Muslims have been primed to believe that the Koran is the true and literal word of God, and that Mohammed was the most perfect human and men should live by his example, they are extremely susceptible to groups like ISIS who teach what the Koran really says about jihad, and how Mohammed really lived. And based on the texts of the Koran and the Hadiths, ISIS is correct, or at least they have a very legitimately correct textually-based interpretation.
Lion of the Blogosphere 
Muhammad was essentially a war lord who used his religion to motivate his armies. Don’t forget that the Pope also controlled the Holy Roman Empire which waged violent wars for control of territory too. By modern times Christianity had mostly mellowed out and become a religion of peace. Islam also mellowed out over the centuries.
In my view, the person most responsible for the modern violent strains of Islam is Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab. He was an 18th century Islamic preacher and scholar in what is today Saudi Arabia. He preached a very strict and intolerant version of Islam. He called the Ottoman rulers un-Islamic. The Ottoman rulers were the official heads of Islam, like the Pope. This got him kicked out of Mecca, and he was forced to wander between the Bedouin tribes in the desert. It was there that he met Muhammad bin Saud who was the head of one of the Bedouin tribes. The two together crafted Wahhabism and optimized it as the religion of marauding tribes of bandits. If Muhammad bin Saud wanted to raid a neighboring village, he could declare them to be infidels, even though they were Muslims. Anyone not practicing Wahhabism was an infidel. Once declared infidels, it was then the religious duty of all Wahhabist men to join the jihad against the village. Wahhabism allowed then to loot the village, take all the women and children as slaves, and force the men to either convert to Wahhabism or be killed.
Using this religious motivation Muhammad bin Saud created the first Saudi Kingdom, which covered most of Saudi Arabia and the Sunni portions of Syria and Iraq. When Muhammad bin Saud took control of Mecca, the Wahhabist destroyed all the shrines and art created over the centuries by the Ottomans. Shortly after this the Ottomans dispatched the Egyptian army to deal with the first Saudi Kingdom. Over about 10 years the Egyptian army retook control of the Saudi Kingdom and the Wahhabist were driven back into the desert.
Fast forward to WW I. Lawrence of Arabia recruited the descendants of Muhammad bin Saud to form a guerrilla army to fight the Ottomans. Some of the forces in the guerrilla group were actually Wahhabi militias that reported to Wahhabist religious leaders. After WW I they had been promised control of Saudi Arabia, but the Wahhabist wanted to re-create the Saudi Kingdom. Some Wahhabist militias stayed loyal to the Saudi King and some started raiding into Iraq. The British were very unhappy about this and sold the Saudi King arms, including jeeps equipped with machine guns. There was a large battle with the Wahhabists on camels with rifles and the Saudi army using jeeps with machine guns. The Wahhabists were just mowed down.
Some of the Wahhabists had remained loyal to the king, but the king recognized they were sympathetic with those that had not. The King struct a deal with them. He would give the Wahhabists control of religious life in Saudi Arabia, control of Mecca and a share of the oil wealth, provided they remained loyal to the King and kept Mecca open to all Muslims, not just Wahhabists. Keeping Mecca open to all Muslims was a huge issue in the Muslim world at the time.
The result of this deal is that the Wahhabists have been rolling in money from the Saudi oil wealth, which has allowed them to build schools all over the Islamic world that teach their intolerant, violent strain of Islam. The modern official Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia is not as violent as the original, but the original is still there out of site of the Saudi government officials. ISIS borrows much of its religion from Wahhabism.
Mike CA
June 17, 2016 at 4:50 PM
Very interesting! Thanks for taking the time to write it.
steve@steve.com
June 17, 2016 at 9:55 PM
“Islam also mellowed out over the centuries.”
Not really. They were as vicious as ever, but (a) Christendom had the will and capability to kick Islamic nations asses as required, and (b) Muslims were not permitted to emigrate to Christian countries. Islam’s lack of mellowness was not a problem because the West kept Islam contained.
Tarl
June 18, 2016 at 10:47 AM
The sultans of the Ottoman Empire claimed to be the Caliphs of Islam from 1517 until 1924. By the 18th century the Ottoman empire had become soft and tolerant. They allowed Muhammad bin Saud to crave his own kingdom out of the Ottoman empire until he let the Wahhabists destroy all the shrines the Ottomans had built in Mecca. In the late 19th century Britain and France essentially took control of Egypt. In 1882 the British and French invaded Egypt, defeated the Egyptian army and occupied Egypt. The Ottomans just ignored this and pretended Egypt was still part of the Ottoman Empire.
In 1899 the British made Kuwait a protectorate, detaching it from the Ottoman Empire. The treaty was signed in India to prevent Ottoman interference, but the Ottomans didn’t do much about it.
The Ottomans decriminalized homosexuality in 1858.
It really is the Wahhabists and their oil money fired spread of schools into poor Muslim countries that have created the modern violent, intolerant strains of Islam.
mikeca
June 18, 2016 at 6:50 PM
“Don’t forget that the Pope also controlled the Holy Roman Empire which waged violent wars for control of territory too.”
False on both counts. The Pope had influence over the HRE, sometimes more, and sometimes less. And the Emperor had influence over the Pope. But there was never a time that it could be said that the Pope controlled the HRE.
Nor was the HRE a particularly expansionistic entity. Its lands generally corresponded with the Frankish realms, which were largely established before the HRE was founded (or in many cases before the Franks even became Christian). Later certain territories were peacefully added to the HRE, most prominently Bohemia.
Charlemagne did conquer Lombardy and Saxony, though both events took place before he was crowned Emperor.
Wency
June 20, 2016 at 10:29 AM
However, there are very different ethnic groups within the Ummah. Some of them seem to be more prone to radicalization than others. There are many yihadists from Morocco, from arab countries, from Chechnya… but I’ve never heard of yihadists from Indonesia.
We should take into account the ethnic phenomenon, not only the religious one.
Andy Morensen
June 17, 2016 at 5:19 PM
Agreed. The majority of terrorists seem to come from Arab countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Trump could have avoided a lot PC flak if he just said we should have a moratorium followed by a vetting system for immigrants from these countries.
Turks, Iranians, Bangladeshis, and Indonesians don’t seem to produce much terrorism even though they have large presence in Islamic world.
Jimi
June 17, 2016 at 6:12 PM
“I’ve never heard of yihadists from Indonesia.”
There are lots of them but they are mainly “internal” – they attack the government or Westerners (Americans and Australians) in Indonesia.
Tarl
June 18, 2016 at 10:50 AM
You have a good sense of Ummah.
gothamette
June 18, 2016 at 6:28 PM
How bemusing/infuriating is it that liberals (who don’t personally believe in any religion) are able to excuse the “moderate” Muslims their misogyny and other medieval beliefs (inextricably entwined within the entire worldview of ALL Muslims, incidentally). I wonder, how does anyone manage to maintain such cognitive dissonance?
In essence, Obama (and liberals/progressives in general) are simpatico with the “progressive” Muslims in CAIR and the Moslem Brotherhood. They identify more with what they think are “peaceful” progressive folk like them, fighting the oppressors, rather than with (mainly white) American conservatives, and so can conveniently “not see” that the Emperor wears no clothes. Perhaps their dissonance is reflected in their vituperative hatred of anyone who suggests that “look, the Emperor actually isn’t wearing any clothes”.
51% of US Muslims favour Sharia Law. Think about that. Remember when we got smart after 9/11, did our homework on Islam, and severely restricted Islamic immigration because of the generational war we acknowledged we were in? No?
Do your homework America, for heaven’s sake. It’s 15 years overdue.
Is it really conceivable that 41% of Americans apparently view the Orlando massacre as a “gun control issue”, and only 49% as an attack by radical Islam? And that the AG of this country thought it would be a good idea to prosecute people for so-called “islamophobia”?
The spin apparently keeps working on the sheep. Don’t be a sheep.
I wonder whether and how they will contrive to avoid a Hillary-Donald debate. After the revolving full court press barrage that will run for the rest of time against Trump (amply aided by the turncoats and pu$$ies in the GOP), can they still allow the sheep to view the truth that the debates will unleash? Why it might wake a few of the wiser sheep! Can’t have that, can we.
gda
June 17, 2016 at 5:22 PM
The media has been trying to steer this entire incident as a gun control situation rather than a terrorist one. Although it was largely successful, I’m still a bit heartened. Since I’m in Central Florida, ground zero for this event, local media has been non stop on this incident. A local radio show, that is usually more of the morning zoo type, tried to have a “serious” discussion on gun control, I think even the host was surprised that the vast majority of callers were opposed to more gun control; and that’s in Orlando.
Mike Street Station
June 17, 2016 at 7:03 PM
Trump is a terrible debater, though, and there’s risk that a serious Hillary will come off as more presidential.
CamelCaseRob
June 17, 2016 at 7:04 PM
That’s a no brainer. Trump has no coherent message, just rambling like an angry disenfranchised prole, hence his appeal to that demographic.
JS
June 17, 2016 at 7:51 PM
Why can’t it be an terrorism issue and a gun control issue the same way its both a terrorism and an immigration issue?
Magnavox
June 18, 2016 at 7:28 AM
It is simply an immigration issue. No Muslims = vastly less terrorism and no need for gun control.
Tarl
June 18, 2016 at 11:03 AM
That’s absurd theres a tremendous amount of gun violence among non muslims and even if we cut off immigration we’ll still have a sizable muslim population.
Magnavox
June 20, 2016 at 5:47 AM
Blacks, in far larger numbers than any other group, have proven themselves to be incapable of using fire arms responsibly.
Lewis Medlock
June 20, 2016 at 3:50 PM
“How bemusing/infuriating is it that liberals (who don’t personally believe in any religion) are able to excuse the “moderate” Muslims their misogyny and other medieval beliefs (inextricably entwined within the entire worldview of ALL Muslims, incidentally)….”
Very.
gothamette
June 18, 2016 at 6:30 PM
We’ve been bombing and droning Muslims overseas for 15 years. We don’t see the results on the news, because when there’s a Democrat in the White House, no one cares what he does with the military. But everyone has smart phones today, and you can be sure that they’re sharing photos of mangled dead bodies on Islamist websites.
Combine that with an atomized America where diversity and immigration are worshipped and there is little common culture, and it’s easy to see how Muslim Americans can become radicalized, which is another way of saying that they come to identify more with their cousins overseas we are killing than the stranger in the Starbucks, their “fellow American”.
Now, one might note that this all happened after 9/11, but recall that Osama bin Laden had complaints back then: our “blockade” against Iraq, the presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia, and our support of Israel versus the Palestinians.
David Pinsen
June 17, 2016 at 5:25 PM
Now, one might note that this all happened after 9/11, but recall that Osama bin Laden had complaints back then: our “blockade” against Iraq, the presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia, and our support of Israel versus the Palestinians.
You’ve given an excellent list of reasons to dismiss any historical grievances Muslims have in diplomatic negotiations and just carpet bomb them whenever they get out of line.
We aided the Afghans against a brutal occupation by Soviet Russia, the 1990s blockade was established to protect Muslim Kuwait and other Gulf States from another invasion, our deployment at Saudi Arabia was to protect them from Saddam and deter Iran, and Clinton spent the 1990s trying to negotiate the establishment of a Palestinian state along with a division of Jerusalem; Jerusalem being much more theologically important to Judaism and Christianity than it is to Islam.
The Muslims have no legitimate complaints about American foreign policy. They especially have little right to make moral appeals about the Palestine-Israel conflict when Islam is still holding Christian Holy Sites in the Levant: I’ll entertain a division of Jerusalem when they return Constantinople and the Hagia Sophia to Greece (or Russia).
The Undiscovered Jew
June 17, 2016 at 8:10 PM
“it’s easy to see how Muslim Americans can become radicalized”
Your phony style betrays you.
Perturabo
June 18, 2016 at 4:31 AM
I’ll ask again why anyone in the West should care about the territorial ‘rights’ of Palestine over Jerusalem when Erdogan isn’t returning Constantinople to the Greeks unless nothing short of a Crusade forces him to?
The Undiscovered Jew
June 18, 2016 at 3:59 PM
“We’ve been bombing and droning Muslims overseas for 15 years. We don’t see the results on the news, because when there’s a Democrat in the White House, no one cares what he does with the military. “
Right, and we just bagged a big one, Mullah Mansour (I think, they all have the same name anyway), on May 24. I think this may have set off Mateen. No one has noted that, because killin’ ’em doesn’t register with us.
gothamette
June 18, 2016 at 6:31 PM
It might be time for us reactionaries to consider adopting Islam. Look at how brutally Muslims crush liberals in their own countries and communities.
Otis
June 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Houellebecq
Rifleman
June 17, 2016 at 6:08 PM
so do you agree that he was on to something? The protagonist is miserable at the end of the novel. Liberalism was gone but he hated the new society he was living in.
Not sure Soumission is a good example.
Otis
June 17, 2016 at 8:26 PM
@Otis,
I read Submission, you’re wrong. Via Wiki:
“the novel ends with François poised to convert to Islam and the prospect of a second, better life, with a prestigious job, and wives chosen for him.”
dsgntd_plyr
June 18, 2016 at 1:44 PM
Hitler adored Islam, and with good reason. He saw it as a great tragedy that Germany adopted Christianity: “Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” Hitler jealously eyed Islam, a faith that “glorifies heroism and which opens up the Seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone.” The Muslim countries mostly sided with the Nazis in World War II because they shared numerous goals and ideals.
Mark Caplan
June 18, 2016 at 11:01 AM
Hitler hated the Jews, and Jesus was Jewish, and Christianity is just Judaism plus Jesus minus really strict religious laws like kosher food.
Lion of the Blogosphere
June 18, 2016 at 11:17 AM
I suggested it to the wife but she’s not on board yet. I think all the migrant women here shambling around in their ninja outfits are putting her off.
Tarl
June 18, 2016 at 11:06 AM
I think Islam resonates with a particular races of people who are predisposed to violence. Islam justifies what they want to do anyway.
I read recently that 25% of middle easterners have what was called the warrior gene. It only appears in something around 1% in European populations.
These are violent people that are going to do violent things. They are always fighting each other and everyone else. You could nuke Mecca and destroy every Koran and they would still be violent people. They would just switch over to the Old Testament.
Clay
June 17, 2016 at 6:48 PM
Meh!
Islamic Civilization since its inception, encompasses many different ethnic groups and regions, who’ve been under it religious yoke for more than 1000 years, as we speak. A death cult wouldn’t last that long.
JS
June 17, 2016 at 8:39 PM
If we nuked Mecca right after 911 the American people would have been supportive. Today there would be outrage. That’s how successful the liberal/globalist/PC pro-Islam brainwashing has been. Also, Trump’s Muslim ban would have been wildly popular post-911 and not controversial. It’s sad how far we have regressed since then.
Jay Fink
June 17, 2016 at 9:42 PM
Genesis 16:12
And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
Daniel
June 18, 2016 at 1:36 AM
Most Muslims, like most Christians, non-Orthodox Jews, etc., are too lazy to read the Holy texts themselves and they let religions leaders tell them what they are supposed to do in order to be good Muslims.
And what text they do read and remember is more often than not the blood and gore sections about Jihad, sex slaves, and all the rest, rather than those entries which resemble the positive moral aspects of normal religions.
The Undiscovered Jew
June 17, 2016 at 8:02 PM
“I didn’t so much like the latter part of the book which is more like all preachy talking, than fighting and the old in-out. I liked the parts where these old yahoodies tolchock each other and then drink their Hebrew vino and, then getting on to the bed with their wives’ handmaidens. That kept me going.”
Tarl
June 18, 2016 at 11:08 AM
Which is why the only good Muslim is one who doesn’t take his religion too seriously (literally).
Luke Lea (@lukelea)
June 17, 2016 at 8:46 PM
The problem is that you have no basis for any of these statements.
Magnavox
June 18, 2016 at 7:22 AM
Does anyone here realize, or care, that the Senate just voted to register girls for the draft starting 2018?
gothamette
June 18, 2016 at 6:33 PM
God is great!
Ed
June 19, 2016 at 7:39 AM