I have a semantics question for you. Do you think “radical Islam” is the proper term for what you’re describing here, and if so, why? Based off the polling we have (I wish there was much more) it appears political violence to spread Islam and punish infidels is not an extreme belief, especially in Muslim majority countries. Alongside this, violence against incidentals is what the Quran calls for. I’ve taken to calling it fundamental Islam.
I think radical is appropriate, yes. There is a pretty big variance in what "punish infidels" means. Criminalizing desecrating a Qu'ran for example probably has majority support in a lot of countries, whereas I don't think mass slaughtering non-believers does. The Old Testament is of course full of such passages as well and has been applied in crazy fashions in the past, but fundamentalism and radicalism are not substantially different things and fundamentalism is itself poorly defined.
Regardless, if you call it "radical Islamic terrorism" people know what you're talking about, so it communicates the point fine.
It needs to be noted that, like any legal system, Sharia can be more or less fine if the judges are reasonable and learned people but is disastrous when they are filled up with random maniacs, which was the problem with the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, for example, that it was highly decentralized and a lot of rural areas ended up getting the positions filled with young extremists who did crazy things like ban watching soccer matches but it was substantially less of a problem in areas where the judges were old men who were actually qualified to hold that position.
> Shameless as ever, Israel is also getting in on this, despite Netanyahu openly taking credit for playing a part in overthrowing Assad.
Is that worse than Obama *not* taking credit for his part in overthrowing Assad? Not that anyone in the media will ever ask him about it.
Thats a fair point, I hadnt even thought about Obama being silent on this so far. Though I pay little attention to him, perhaps he tweeted something
Another great article Brad.
I have a semantics question for you. Do you think “radical Islam” is the proper term for what you’re describing here, and if so, why? Based off the polling we have (I wish there was much more) it appears political violence to spread Islam and punish infidels is not an extreme belief, especially in Muslim majority countries. Alongside this, violence against incidentals is what the Quran calls for. I’ve taken to calling it fundamental Islam.
I think radical is appropriate, yes. There is a pretty big variance in what "punish infidels" means. Criminalizing desecrating a Qu'ran for example probably has majority support in a lot of countries, whereas I don't think mass slaughtering non-believers does. The Old Testament is of course full of such passages as well and has been applied in crazy fashions in the past, but fundamentalism and radicalism are not substantially different things and fundamentalism is itself poorly defined.
Regardless, if you call it "radical Islamic terrorism" people know what you're talking about, so it communicates the point fine.
It needs to be noted that, like any legal system, Sharia can be more or less fine if the judges are reasonable and learned people but is disastrous when they are filled up with random maniacs, which was the problem with the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia, for example, that it was highly decentralized and a lot of rural areas ended up getting the positions filled with young extremists who did crazy things like ban watching soccer matches but it was substantially less of a problem in areas where the judges were old men who were actually qualified to hold that position.