February 6, 2010
“Radical Islam is a Way for the Superfluous Sons to Enter History”
I don't know much about demography, but Martin Kramer makes a strong case in just a few short minutes for the idea that a surplus of military-aged males is a big part of the Middle East's problem right now and that it will eventually correct itself. Worth a look. (Hat tip to Noah Pollak.)
Posted by Michael J. Totten at February 6, 2010 1:14 PM
Comments
If we observed the "anti war" protesters in Europe and America during the early 21st century, and if we observed the tea partiers now, we would have to conclude that an excess of old people is responsible for radicalism.
There are youthful populations in Asia, Africa and Polynesia, but they haven't embraced radicalism.
It's impossible to predict how what large groups of people will behave from one day to the next because these systems are just too chaotic. We can't even predict how one person will behave tomorrow. We just don't know enough yet.
I remember reading predictions that the upcoming 'youth bulge' in Iran would lead to even more extreme Islamist radicalism, and more horrific authoritarian behavior than during the Khomeini years, but that didn't happen. The "Eurabia" predictions are also based on the same idea, and that seems to be just as unlikely.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at February 6, 2010 3:17 pm
There are youthful populations in Asia, Africa and Polynesia, but they haven't embraced radicalism.
It's impossible to predict how what large groups of people will behave from one day to the next because these systems are just too chaotic. We can't even predict how one person will behave tomorrow. We just don't know enough yet.
I remember reading predictions that the upcoming 'youth bulge' in Iran would lead to even more extreme Islamist radicalism, and more horrific authoritarian behavior than during the Khomeini years, but that didn't happen. The "Eurabia" predictions are also based on the same idea, and that seems to be just as unlikely.
This is surprisingly un-Politically Correct.
I'm not sure I buy it. To me, having a population with so many youngsters does not by default lead to Radical Islam taking root. The issue is more a matter of indoctrination. The fact that this many kids are growing up on hatred of Israel and the US and the West -- THAT is what will propel radical Islam for another generation. If they were instead in a society that taught peace, having superfluous males in and of itself I don't think would be a problem.
Posted by: jooliz at February 6, 2010 3:48 pm
I'm not sure I buy it. To me, having a population with so many youngsters does not by default lead to Radical Islam taking root. The issue is more a matter of indoctrination. The fact that this many kids are growing up on hatred of Israel and the US and the West -- THAT is what will propel radical Islam for another generation. If they were instead in a society that taught peace, having superfluous males in and of itself I don't think would be a problem.
Jooliz: having a population with so many youngsters does not by default lead to Radical Islam taking root
Well, of course. But like he said, it gives them an outlet. Something else could surely give them an outlet, but in some places that isn't happening.
I'm not really sure why this is "politically incorrect." Who is supposed to be offended? Military aged males?
Anyway, the entire Middle East is politically incorrect.
Mary Madigan: If we observed the "anti war" protesters in Europe and America during the early 21st century, and if we observed the tea partiers now, we would have to conclude that an excess of old people is responsible for radicalism.
Aren't most of those people responsible for the radicalism during the Baby Boom youth bulge in the 60s?
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 6, 2010 4:03 pm
Well, of course. But like he said, it gives them an outlet. Something else could surely give them an outlet, but in some places that isn't happening.
I'm not really sure why this is "politically incorrect." Who is supposed to be offended? Military aged males?
Anyway, the entire Middle East is politically incorrect.
Mary Madigan: If we observed the "anti war" protesters in Europe and America during the early 21st century, and if we observed the tea partiers now, we would have to conclude that an excess of old people is responsible for radicalism.
Aren't most of those people responsible for the radicalism during the Baby Boom youth bulge in the 60s?
Yes.
An excess of youth has always been a destabilizing and even revolutionary factor. I wouldn't claim that external forces don't contribute.
Posted by: Ombrageux at February 6, 2010 4:39 pm
An excess of youth has always been a destabilizing and even revolutionary factor. I wouldn't claim that external forces don't contribute.
I'm not saying he's wrong to be politically incorrect.
It just seems like he is saying that because of the excess of [military-age, male] youth, it is only natural for violence to occur, in order to "correct" the excess.
I guess my issue with it is this: it sounds like he is giving a justification for it that takes the responsibility out of these societies hands. 'It's not their fault they are so violent, it is just their demographics! Let them fight it out until the demographics are sorted out again.'
It could also be that I'm not used to analyzing geo-politics from this perspective. I'll watch the video again and dwell on it a bit more.
Posted by: jooliz at February 6, 2010 4:45 pm
It just seems like he is saying that because of the excess of [military-age, male] youth, it is only natural for violence to occur, in order to "correct" the excess.
I guess my issue with it is this: it sounds like he is giving a justification for it that takes the responsibility out of these societies hands. 'It's not their fault they are so violent, it is just their demographics! Let them fight it out until the demographics are sorted out again.'
It could also be that I'm not used to analyzing geo-politics from this perspective. I'll watch the video again and dwell on it a bit more.
Some criminologists think that's a big part of the reason our crime rate is falling in the US and why it peaked in the 1970s.
I don't know if it's true. It's not something I've spent much time researching, but I think it's interesting and worth thinking about.
Obviously I was never a terrorist, but I was into radical leftist politics in my late teens and throughout my twenties. Most people mellow out and become more moderate or even conservative (at least temperamentally if not politically) as they get older. They also get into fewer fights and are a lot less likely to get arrested.
When I went on patrols with US soldiers and Marines in Iraq, they were always on the lookout for military aged males and a lot less concerned about everyone else.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 6, 2010 4:46 pm
I don't know if it's true. It's not something I've spent much time researching, but I think it's interesting and worth thinking about.
Obviously I was never a terrorist, but I was into radical leftist politics in my late teens and throughout my twenties. Most people mellow out and become more moderate or even conservative (at least temperamentally if not politically) as they get older. They also get into fewer fights and are a lot less likely to get arrested.
When I went on patrols with US soldiers and Marines in Iraq, they were always on the lookout for military aged males and a lot less concerned about everyone else.
Jooliz: it sounds like he is giving a justification for it that takes the responsibility out of these societies hands.
I know Martin Kramer, and that's not what he's doing.
And like Mary Madigan said above, other parts of the world with youth bulges don't have a problem with terrorism.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 6, 2010 4:48 pm
I know Martin Kramer, and that's not what he's doing.
And like Mary Madigan said above, other parts of the world with youth bulges don't have a problem with terrorism.
Who has been preaching for all good Muslimahs, particularly those in Europe, to squeeze out as many as they can?
Posted by: Squires at February 6, 2010 5:29 pm
[...] J. Totten watches this YouTube video and makes an important point: I don’t know much about demography, but Martin Kramer makes a strong case in just a few [...]
Posted by: Too Many Men | Considerations at February 6, 2010 5:59 pm
I like this analysis, particularly if you take it as a supply-and-demand analysis. There is a supply of young men with a demand for status and excitement who have the youthful tendency for short time horizons exacerbated by limited integration into recognised paths of achieving status, in part due to their numbers.
This demand can be met in various ways: within Muslim communities, it is significantly met by radical Islam. There are other ways for such demands to be met. The trick is to discourage doing so via radical Islam and encourage it being met by other ways. With the hopeful point that it is not an endless problem as the demand will subside as the youth bulges pass.
Posted by: Lorenzo at February 6, 2010 6:25 pm
This demand can be met in various ways: within Muslim communities, it is significantly met by radical Islam. There are other ways for such demands to be met. The trick is to discourage doing so via radical Islam and encourage it being met by other ways. With the hopeful point that it is not an endless problem as the demand will subside as the youth bulges pass.
Aren't most of those people responsible for the radicalism during the Baby Boom youth bulge in the 60s?
Well, yes, but...
Most people mellow out and become more moderate or even conservative (at least temperamentally if not politically) as they get older. They also get into fewer fights and are a lot less likely to get arrested.
The “anti war” and tea party radicals haven’t mellowed out. The baby boomer generation is still being loud and they’re still causing political trouble - which means we can’t blame this generation’s problems on their youth. There are a bunch of other factors.
According to polls, most American baby boomers are more radical and more alienated than most twentysomethings.
I’ve often quoted Martin Kramer, and I think he does good work, but political predictions based on age and population groups usually turn out to be wrong. The current Iranian “youth bulge” is more pro-democracy than their elders. An oversupply of young people during the ’60’s did not lead to mass starvation, as the Club of Rome Report predicted. The Baby boomers continue to cause problems now, yet their children, another ‘youth bulge‘ are relatively well-behaved.
I think we spend too much time studying the foot-soldiers in the Islamist armies and not enough time studying the middle managers, financiers and leaders. Like the young recruits, these leaders and managers are affluent men with goals. Unlike the foot soldiers, they're probably not seeking drugs and excitement. And, unlike the young recruits, they're vulnerable, they fear death and they have a lot to lose. If we want to win this war, they're a lot more interesting.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at February 6, 2010 8:31 pm
Well, yes, but...
Most people mellow out and become more moderate or even conservative (at least temperamentally if not politically) as they get older. They also get into fewer fights and are a lot less likely to get arrested.
The “anti war” and tea party radicals haven’t mellowed out. The baby boomer generation is still being loud and they’re still causing political trouble - which means we can’t blame this generation’s problems on their youth. There are a bunch of other factors.
According to polls, most American baby boomers are more radical and more alienated than most twentysomethings.
I’ve often quoted Martin Kramer, and I think he does good work, but political predictions based on age and population groups usually turn out to be wrong. The current Iranian “youth bulge” is more pro-democracy than their elders. An oversupply of young people during the ’60’s did not lead to mass starvation, as the Club of Rome Report predicted. The Baby boomers continue to cause problems now, yet their children, another ‘youth bulge‘ are relatively well-behaved.
I think we spend too much time studying the foot-soldiers in the Islamist armies and not enough time studying the middle managers, financiers and leaders. Like the young recruits, these leaders and managers are affluent men with goals. Unlike the foot soldiers, they're probably not seeking drugs and excitement. And, unlike the young recruits, they're vulnerable, they fear death and they have a lot to lose. If we want to win this war, they're a lot more interesting.
"I think we spend too much time studying the foot-soldiers in the Islamist armies and not enough time studying the middle managers, financiers and leaders."
Ok.
What motivates them (in your opinion)? Are they mostly responding to external factors, such as US foreign policy? Or are they motivated by ideas or circumstances from within their culture(s)? What could those ideas possibly be? Which of the possible ideas are more likely than others?
Posted by: del at February 6, 2010 9:04 pm
Ok.
What motivates them (in your opinion)? Are they mostly responding to external factors, such as US foreign policy? Or are they motivated by ideas or circumstances from within their culture(s)? What could those ideas possibly be? Which of the possible ideas are more likely than others?
I need more convincing. I read your article with Lee Smith and I think the demographic bubble could be a part of it but in no way a determining factor in the reason for teh jihad.
I realize as people get older they tend to chill out, but "palestinians" purposefully bred themselves in Lebanon. I have no reason to believe that the Middle East is going to just stop breeding.
Kramer uses Iran as an example. Iran is revolting against a regime that shattered their illusion of democracy. But the difference between a radical and a moderate in Iran is indistinguishable to Western eyes. The message seems the same only the volume changes. Also Iran is a far more developed country than the Middle East and more Western. The youth are educated and very culturally different from the Middle East. I can go back a few years and find videos of women being beaten by the vice police for showing too much hair. While women in Saudi Arabia can't leave their home without an escort.
Demographics does not touch on Saudi money flooding the world to spread Wahabbism. Wahabbism is Saudi Arabia's number one export. They have educated most of the Middle East.
Then there is literacy and education as a whole. I am not sure but I'm willing to bet that the hotbeds of jihad come with a high rate of illiteracy too.
I guess my own theory is that jihad is a combination of culture, education, Saudi influence, and Islam itself.
Posted by: theworldisnotenough at February 6, 2010 9:07 pm
I realize as people get older they tend to chill out, but "palestinians" purposefully bred themselves in Lebanon. I have no reason to believe that the Middle East is going to just stop breeding.
Kramer uses Iran as an example. Iran is revolting against a regime that shattered their illusion of democracy. But the difference between a radical and a moderate in Iran is indistinguishable to Western eyes. The message seems the same only the volume changes. Also Iran is a far more developed country than the Middle East and more Western. The youth are educated and very culturally different from the Middle East. I can go back a few years and find videos of women being beaten by the vice police for showing too much hair. While women in Saudi Arabia can't leave their home without an escort.
Demographics does not touch on Saudi money flooding the world to spread Wahabbism. Wahabbism is Saudi Arabia's number one export. They have educated most of the Middle East.
Then there is literacy and education as a whole. I am not sure but I'm willing to bet that the hotbeds of jihad come with a high rate of illiteracy too.
I guess my own theory is that jihad is a combination of culture, education, Saudi influence, and Islam itself.
Young people usually are more rowdy than older people, especially when the economy sucks and they have no opportunity. I think the middle-east is exacerbated by the fact that the purdah system of segregating the genders makes all of the young men sex-starved and always on edge.
Posted by: Lindsey Abelard at February 6, 2010 10:05 pm
Kramer cites unrest in Iran as evidence of his thesis, but it actually seems to undermine it. The pro-democracy, anti-theocratic uprising in Iran is overwhelmingly youth-dominated. If Kramer was right, wouldn't the young be pushing for even more martydom, screaming to fight against the US in Iraq on behalf of Sadr? But there's little evidence of a popular Iranian jihadi movement flowing into Iraq, beyond government-backed covert efforts.
Posted by: Wagner James Au at February 6, 2010 11:46 pm
Thanks for this video, Michael; a great topic to discuss and debate, since youth holds our collective future in their hands, like it or not.
"superfluous young men..." I'm reflecting on the tragedy of lives and futures deemed "superfluous."
Following theworldisnotenough's point, the demographic bubble is fuel, not the spark. As Mary points out, if I may rephrase the concept, the directors are the key, not those directed. This may seem flip in a serious discussion, but Herb Cohen, in his book "You Can Negotiate Anything," said never waste time talking to the monkey. Go straight to the organ grinder; that is, always distinguish the molecule movers from molecules moved.
Where theworldisnotenough and I may diverge is his conclusion that "the difference between a radical and a moderate in Iran is indistinguishable to Western eyes." "Radical", to this (American) Westerner, means a nuclear threat ("threat" being serious enough; adding "nuclear" ratchets the threat level up as high as a scale can go); whereas "moderate" backs down from that nuclear brink, to where---possibly---cooler heads can prevail.
Posted by: Paul S. at February 7, 2010 12:28 am
"superfluous young men..." I'm reflecting on the tragedy of lives and futures deemed "superfluous."
Following theworldisnotenough's point, the demographic bubble is fuel, not the spark. As Mary points out, if I may rephrase the concept, the directors are the key, not those directed. This may seem flip in a serious discussion, but Herb Cohen, in his book "You Can Negotiate Anything," said never waste time talking to the monkey. Go straight to the organ grinder; that is, always distinguish the molecule movers from molecules moved.
Where theworldisnotenough and I may diverge is his conclusion that "the difference between a radical and a moderate in Iran is indistinguishable to Western eyes." "Radical", to this (American) Westerner, means a nuclear threat ("threat" being serious enough; adding "nuclear" ratchets the threat level up as high as a scale can go); whereas "moderate" backs down from that nuclear brink, to where---possibly---cooler heads can prevail.
Wagner: The pro-democracy, anti-theocratic uprising in Iran is overwhelmingly youth-dominated. If Kramer was right, wouldn't the young be pushing for even more martydom, screaming to fight against the US in Iraq on behalf of Sadr?
Not necessarily. Terrorism, etc., isn't the only possible outlet for "superfluous" young people. Kramer seems to be saying that "older" societies eschew radicalism, and Iran hasn't exactly settled down into a comfortable status quo. It's still a radical place, just not in the way Ahmadinejad wishes it was.
I don't know if I'm sold on this theory myself, but I think it's interesting and I doubt it's entirely wrong.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 7, 2010 1:04 am
Not necessarily. Terrorism, etc., isn't the only possible outlet for "superfluous" young people. Kramer seems to be saying that "older" societies eschew radicalism, and Iran hasn't exactly settled down into a comfortable status quo. It's still a radical place, just not in the way Ahmadinejad wishes it was.
I don't know if I'm sold on this theory myself, but I think it's interesting and I doubt it's entirely wrong.
"...Young people usually are more rowdy than older people, especially when the economy sucks and they have no opportunity. I think the middle-east is exacerbated by the fact that the purdah system of segregating the genders makes all of the young men sex-starved and always on edge...."
I agree. Those are the combustible factors: lots of youthful energy, testosterone, no jobs, no family responsibilities ... and then gender segregation so there is no opportunity to relieve the other conditions.
This nascent Iranian revolution and the previous one are both youth revolutions. I dont think the Green Movement would still be going on if there werent so many 20-somethings in Iran. Who WANT to party and let their hair down.
Someone did a study which I cannot place my hands on, to the effect that societies with an excess of young single men are more likely to be politically belligerent. And then there's this famous experiment. Has anyone tried to replicate it?
Posted by: Yehudit at February 7, 2010 5:56 am
I agree. Those are the combustible factors: lots of youthful energy, testosterone, no jobs, no family responsibilities ... and then gender segregation so there is no opportunity to relieve the other conditions.
This nascent Iranian revolution and the previous one are both youth revolutions. I dont think the Green Movement would still be going on if there werent so many 20-somethings in Iran. Who WANT to party and let their hair down.
Someone did a study which I cannot place my hands on, to the effect that societies with an excess of young single men are more likely to be politically belligerent. And then there's this famous experiment. Has anyone tried to replicate it?
What motivates them (in your opinion)? Are they mostly responding to external factors, such as US foreign policy? Or are they motivated by ideas or circumstances from within their culture(s)?
Philospher Andre Glucksman said it best:
"what do extremist ideologies like the communism or Nazism of yesteryear and the Islamism of today have in common? After all, they support ostensibly very different ideals - the superior race, mankind united in socialism, the community of Muslim believers (the Umma). Tomorrow, it could be altogether different ideals: some theological, some scientific, others racist. But the common characteristic is nihilism."
"The root element is the attitude that anything goes, particularly when with regard to ordinary people: I can do whatever I want, without scruples. Goehring put it like this: my consciousness is Adolf Hitler. Bolsheviks said: man is made of iron. And the Islamists whom I visited in Algeria said that you have the right to kill little Muslim children, in order to save them."
"..because Man is human: therefore, he can be civilised, even if he can't read or write, because he can master this hubris."
"Wherever you go, this belligerent hubris is considered lethal. In the huts of the Amazon, young men are taught to conquer this capacity for excessive violence. You can fight together, but you cannot fight in any way that comes to hand, and you don't set out to fight just anyone. The same idea occurs in the teachings of the Greeks, the paidera. All European education is based on the same principle."
"Indeed, all civilisations have two essential taboos in common .. the incest taboo, different in individual cases, but ubiquitous, and the taboo on violence. You are not allowed to succumb to 'absolute violence'. You have to master that hubris in one way or another. In every civilization you can find the mastering of these two absolute, destructive impulses."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Human civilization survives because most people are taught and understand how to suppress their appetite for extreme, random violence (or belligerent hubris).
However, terrorists and genocidal totalitarians, like the Nazis and the Islamists, are not taught to suppress these impulses - they're encouraged, by old guys who should know better- to exaggerate and intensify these civilization-destroying impulses.
The leaders who encourage the destruction of other civilizations (and eventually their own) do this because
1. no one is stopping them
2, it looks cool on TV
3. makes them lots of money and gets them invited to the best UN parties.
As the Saudis say, "My father rode a camel, I drive a car, my son flys a jet plane, his son will ride a camel." The Wahhabis know that they lack the will to survive and thrive. They got a windfall of money, and, instead of using it to educate and improve their citizen's lives, they chose to throw it away on empty luxuries. They also spent it on a grotesque and ultimately self-destructive war against the rest of the world. It's a society based on nihilism in the name of God. That's why we can't "fight" them by appealing to their common sense, love and wisdom.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at February 7, 2010 7:50 am
Philospher Andre Glucksman said it best:
"what do extremist ideologies like the communism or Nazism of yesteryear and the Islamism of today have in common? After all, they support ostensibly very different ideals - the superior race, mankind united in socialism, the community of Muslim believers (the Umma). Tomorrow, it could be altogether different ideals: some theological, some scientific, others racist. But the common characteristic is nihilism."
"The root element is the attitude that anything goes, particularly when with regard to ordinary people: I can do whatever I want, without scruples. Goehring put it like this: my consciousness is Adolf Hitler. Bolsheviks said: man is made of iron. And the Islamists whom I visited in Algeria said that you have the right to kill little Muslim children, in order to save them."
"..because Man is human: therefore, he can be civilised, even if he can't read or write, because he can master this hubris."
"Wherever you go, this belligerent hubris is considered lethal. In the huts of the Amazon, young men are taught to conquer this capacity for excessive violence. You can fight together, but you cannot fight in any way that comes to hand, and you don't set out to fight just anyone. The same idea occurs in the teachings of the Greeks, the paidera. All European education is based on the same principle."
"Indeed, all civilisations have two essential taboos in common .. the incest taboo, different in individual cases, but ubiquitous, and the taboo on violence. You are not allowed to succumb to 'absolute violence'. You have to master that hubris in one way or another. In every civilization you can find the mastering of these two absolute, destructive impulses."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Human civilization survives because most people are taught and understand how to suppress their appetite for extreme, random violence (or belligerent hubris).
However, terrorists and genocidal totalitarians, like the Nazis and the Islamists, are not taught to suppress these impulses - they're encouraged, by old guys who should know better- to exaggerate and intensify these civilization-destroying impulses.
The leaders who encourage the destruction of other civilizations (and eventually their own) do this because
1. no one is stopping them
2, it looks cool on TV
3. makes them lots of money and gets them invited to the best UN parties.
As the Saudis say, "My father rode a camel, I drive a car, my son flys a jet plane, his son will ride a camel." The Wahhabis know that they lack the will to survive and thrive. They got a windfall of money, and, instead of using it to educate and improve their citizen's lives, they chose to throw it away on empty luxuries. They also spent it on a grotesque and ultimately self-destructive war against the rest of the world. It's a society based on nihilism in the name of God. That's why we can't "fight" them by appealing to their common sense, love and wisdom.
Perhaps the a more accurate, but simpler, way to put is that an excess of young men is a necessary condition. But not a sufficient one.
If it were sufficient, China would have the worse problem with radicalism on the planet. After all, as a result of the One Child policy and a cultural/religious requirement for sons to carry on the family, they have by far the biggest excess of young males. But no.
Which brings the question of Why? back to cultural factors.
Posted by: wj at February 7, 2010 11:26 am
If it were sufficient, China would have the worse problem with radicalism on the planet. After all, as a result of the One Child policy and a cultural/religious requirement for sons to carry on the family, they have by far the biggest excess of young males. But no.
Which brings the question of Why? back to cultural factors.
If it were sufficient, China would have the worse problem with radicalism on the planet. After all, as a result of the One Child policy and a cultural/religious requirement for sons to carry on the family, they have by far the biggest excess of young males. But no.
This is very true and I can offer possible explanations for this. Almost all Chinese young men are "only sons". Only sons tend not to make good warriors. It is usually the neglected 3rd or 4th sons who make the great warriors, because they are trying to prove themselves to their fathers, subconsciously speaking. Also, Chinese young men, even more so than Japanese young men, are all mama's boys. Also, again like Japanese young men, they are rather "fem" these days. The only masculine men in East Asia are the South Koreans, because of the requirement that they all serve in the military for a year following high school and that the military training is quite brutal.
You might want to consider that much of the Muslim Middle east is beginning to experience the same decline in birth rate as Europe did 30 years ago. The only regions with high birth rates are Yemen and Afghanistan/Pakistan. The Muslim Middle-east will be demographically a lot like Europe 30 years from now. Even India's birth rates are declining.
The people with the uniformly high birth rates are the Africans, which will send many immigrants to the Middle-east, Europe, and China around 2050 or so.
Posted by: Lindsey Abelard at February 7, 2010 2:09 pm
This is very true and I can offer possible explanations for this. Almost all Chinese young men are "only sons". Only sons tend not to make good warriors. It is usually the neglected 3rd or 4th sons who make the great warriors, because they are trying to prove themselves to their fathers, subconsciously speaking. Also, Chinese young men, even more so than Japanese young men, are all mama's boys. Also, again like Japanese young men, they are rather "fem" these days. The only masculine men in East Asia are the South Koreans, because of the requirement that they all serve in the military for a year following high school and that the military training is quite brutal.
You might want to consider that much of the Muslim Middle east is beginning to experience the same decline in birth rate as Europe did 30 years ago. The only regions with high birth rates are Yemen and Afghanistan/Pakistan. The Muslim Middle-east will be demographically a lot like Europe 30 years from now. Even India's birth rates are declining.
The people with the uniformly high birth rates are the Africans, which will send many immigrants to the Middle-east, Europe, and China around 2050 or so.
I think the key here is that he starts by calling the youth of these countries "economically superfluous" who are with out socially redeeming means to "status".
That is, if you can give these young military aged males, MAM's, a socially acceptable means of attaining fame and fortune you can alleviate some of the social pressures that lead to violence.
In Europe similar demographics led to the colonization of Ireland and to the Crusades. In American the pressure was siphoned off by the "frontier" (and violence against natives and immigrants).
In almost every Muslim country I have seen MAM's loitering around tea shops. Many of them live on government subsidies paid for by oil sales. Interestingly I have seen similar MAM's in non-Arab and even non-Muslim countries and we have had similar bouts of violence there as well.
Serbia during the 90's and early 00's is one example of disaffected MAM's turning to violence. Ukraine likely would have had the same except that many of their youth were recently exported to Europe and America and they have a falling birth rate.
I don't know the exact conditions in Iran. Perhaps they have more economic hope or more cultural avenues to status? I know they have good education and arts, hampered as they are by the regime, but I suspect that their economy is rather limited by sanctions. Maybe the current revolts are outlet enough? Also, I know many young Iranian men are able to get out of the country for education and work.
So I am willing to extend some credence to this demographic theory of violence in the Middle East. I will need to look into it more.
Posted by: Sean at February 8, 2010 2:35 am
That is, if you can give these young military aged males, MAM's, a socially acceptable means of attaining fame and fortune you can alleviate some of the social pressures that lead to violence.
In Europe similar demographics led to the colonization of Ireland and to the Crusades. In American the pressure was siphoned off by the "frontier" (and violence against natives and immigrants).
In almost every Muslim country I have seen MAM's loitering around tea shops. Many of them live on government subsidies paid for by oil sales. Interestingly I have seen similar MAM's in non-Arab and even non-Muslim countries and we have had similar bouts of violence there as well.
Serbia during the 90's and early 00's is one example of disaffected MAM's turning to violence. Ukraine likely would have had the same except that many of their youth were recently exported to Europe and America and they have a falling birth rate.
I don't know the exact conditions in Iran. Perhaps they have more economic hope or more cultural avenues to status? I know they have good education and arts, hampered as they are by the regime, but I suspect that their economy is rather limited by sanctions. Maybe the current revolts are outlet enough? Also, I know many young Iranian men are able to get out of the country for education and work.
So I am willing to extend some credence to this demographic theory of violence in the Middle East. I will need to look into it more.
This just proves what I've been saying all along. All the problems of the Middle East are caused by Whitney Houston. It was her CDs that got people to have sex in 1992.
Posted by: Durand at February 8, 2010 3:37 am
I don't buy the sex starved young male idea. Middle-easterners tend to marry rather young anyway - eighteen, nineteen, or very early twenties. And most middle eastern countries do not segregate the genders.
The problem is too many discontented young men with nothing better to do. Recall the car burnings in Paris two years ago.
Young men need to be kept busy, if not with college, then with a job, the military, or something productive. This is rather 'ancient' wisdom.
Posted by: Toady at February 8, 2010 5:55 am
The problem is too many discontented young men with nothing better to do. Recall the car burnings in Paris two years ago.
Young men need to be kept busy, if not with college, then with a job, the military, or something productive. This is rather 'ancient' wisdom.
A thought that has come to my mind from time to time is that cultures that treat their women badly came to inherit areas where living is harshest because it kept the population down to levels that the land could support. Other cultures might have sprung up or moved in but they probably had serious population boom/famine issues.
If you look at the areas where food is scarce, you see cultures that more highly value men over women and treat women harshly.
Posted by: crosspatch at February 8, 2010 9:00 am
If you look at the areas where food is scarce, you see cultures that more highly value men over women and treat women harshly.
Crosspatch: Interesting idea. I hadn't considered it.
Another explanation (from Francis Fukuyama's "The Great Disruption") is that patriarchal societies arise in geographies that are easy to conquer. In such areas, local people can't rely on a traditional government to enforce contracts, because the government keeps getting overthrown with new traditions replacing them. But because all traders need to know who they can trust, the alternative is to trust particular families who have a good reputation for being honourable and not cheating. This makes it important to be seen to be pious.
So god help the poor female who gets pregnant out of wedlock. It's not like there's plausible deniability, like there is for a man. And so she damages the reputation of the whole family, meaning no one will do business with them. And that's where honour killings come from.
Posted by: Durand at February 8, 2010 1:30 pm
Another explanation (from Francis Fukuyama's "The Great Disruption") is that patriarchal societies arise in geographies that are easy to conquer. In such areas, local people can't rely on a traditional government to enforce contracts, because the government keeps getting overthrown with new traditions replacing them. But because all traders need to know who they can trust, the alternative is to trust particular families who have a good reputation for being honourable and not cheating. This makes it important to be seen to be pious.
So god help the poor female who gets pregnant out of wedlock. It's not like there's plausible deniability, like there is for a man. And so she damages the reputation of the whole family, meaning no one will do business with them. And that's where honour killings come from.
Mary Madigan,
Thanks for the response
"The leaders who encourage the destruction of other civilizations (and eventually their own) do this because
1. no one is stopping them
2, it looks cool on TV
3. makes them lots of money and gets them invited to the best UN parties."
Those 3 are peripheral. There is one more obvious motivation: the texts and teachings of Islam. Or as you might say, "Wahhabist Islam". But really, mainstream Islam and "Wahhabist Islam" use the same texts, and teach the same concepts. You must know that, at least partially.
The quote from Andre Glucksmann demonstrates that he does not understand Islam from the point of view of Muslims. Jihadis are not nihilists. They are strivers toward what they see as a righteous goal, the rule of Sharia everywhere. Their behavior is not "anything goes". Their behavior is governed by Sharia. For example, if one pays attention to the communiques or speeches from Bin Laden and from Ahmadinejad, one can see that both of them, at least once, "invited" President Bush and the American people to become Muslim. Both of them were carefully following the example of their prophet in his conquests. Our refusal to comply with their "righteous" request and warning is a demonstration of our "perfidy", and a justification for warfare. Their behavior really is not "anything goes". It is strictly Islamic, as they understand Islam. Their understanding of Islam is based on Islamic texts and their prophet's example, along with the history of Islam, as each know it.
Posted by: del at February 8, 2010 9:50 pm
Thanks for the response
"The leaders who encourage the destruction of other civilizations (and eventually their own) do this because
1. no one is stopping them
2, it looks cool on TV
3. makes them lots of money and gets them invited to the best UN parties."
Those 3 are peripheral. There is one more obvious motivation: the texts and teachings of Islam. Or as you might say, "Wahhabist Islam". But really, mainstream Islam and "Wahhabist Islam" use the same texts, and teach the same concepts. You must know that, at least partially.
The quote from Andre Glucksmann demonstrates that he does not understand Islam from the point of view of Muslims. Jihadis are not nihilists. They are strivers toward what they see as a righteous goal, the rule of Sharia everywhere. Their behavior is not "anything goes". Their behavior is governed by Sharia. For example, if one pays attention to the communiques or speeches from Bin Laden and from Ahmadinejad, one can see that both of them, at least once, "invited" President Bush and the American people to become Muslim. Both of them were carefully following the example of their prophet in his conquests. Our refusal to comply with their "righteous" request and warning is a demonstration of our "perfidy", and a justification for warfare. Their behavior really is not "anything goes". It is strictly Islamic, as they understand Islam. Their understanding of Islam is based on Islamic texts and their prophet's example, along with the history of Islam, as each know it.
Del, Glucksmann may still have a kind of point. Look at the behavior of GIA in Algeria cca 1997-8. Absolutely senseless campaign of mass murdering of villagers, with the justification that everyone who does not belong to GIA is not a real Muslim, but an apostate deserving death.
This kind of takfir cannot be perceived as righteous by anyone in remotely sane state of mind.
Posted by: Marian Kechlibar at February 8, 2010 11:01 pm
This kind of takfir cannot be perceived as righteous by anyone in remotely sane state of mind.
But really, mainstream Islam and "Wahhabist Islam" use the same texts, and teach the same concepts. You must know that, at least partially.
I know that, in a speech to the commons on June 14th, 1921, in an effort to convince the British government not to give control of Mecca and Medina to the Wahhabi cult, Winston Churchill said:
A large number of Bin Saud's followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relation to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of the religious wars...
He also said:
They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply appearing in the streets. It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette, and as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and bloodthirsty, in their own regions the Wahabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and to the whole institution of the pilgrimage, in which our Indian fellow-subjects are so deeply concerned.
The Indian Muslims who were afraid of Wahhabi influence on the pilgramage to Mecca were not Wahhabis. Neither were the majority of Muslims in those days. The majority of Muslims feared and hated them.
They hate them now, but that doesn't stop them from taking their money and their textbooks.
Unfortunately, Churchill failed to convince his government that the Wahhabis would endanger the region. When the British gave the Wahhabis control of Medina and Mecca, it was the equivalent of giving control of the Vatican to the Nazis. British support of the most rabid element in Muslim society, and our current support of them, has done a lot of damage to the Muslim world.
Of course, there aren't any Muslims saying no to huge Saudi checks and giant Wahhabi-influenced mosques, and they refuse to openly criticize them, so they have to take the blame for the effects of Wahhabism on their religion.
The quote from Andre Glucksmann demonstrates that he does not understand Islam from the point of view of Muslims. Jihadis are not nihilists.
Are you a Muslim? If not, then you don't understand Islam as a Muslim does either.
Glucksman was describing the reasons why the embrace of unrestrained 'absolute violence' will ultimately destroy a society. He was also describing the reasons why random, unrestrained attacks against innocents and noncombatants are taboo in most cultures. He called this nihilism. You can call it whatever you want, but random, unrestrained attacks against innocents and noncombatants is not inherently Islamic. It's inherent to Wahhabism.
Islamic law is repugnant and anti-democratic, it encourages misogyny and slavery, but the history of Wahhabism is not the history of Islam.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at February 9, 2010 8:27 am
I know that, in a speech to the commons on June 14th, 1921, in an effort to convince the British government not to give control of Mecca and Medina to the Wahhabi cult, Winston Churchill said:
A large number of Bin Saud's followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relation to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of the religious wars...
He also said:
They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply appearing in the streets. It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette, and as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and bloodthirsty, in their own regions the Wahabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and to the whole institution of the pilgrimage, in which our Indian fellow-subjects are so deeply concerned.
The Indian Muslims who were afraid of Wahhabi influence on the pilgramage to Mecca were not Wahhabis. Neither were the majority of Muslims in those days. The majority of Muslims feared and hated them.
They hate them now, but that doesn't stop them from taking their money and their textbooks.
Unfortunately, Churchill failed to convince his government that the Wahhabis would endanger the region. When the British gave the Wahhabis control of Medina and Mecca, it was the equivalent of giving control of the Vatican to the Nazis. British support of the most rabid element in Muslim society, and our current support of them, has done a lot of damage to the Muslim world.
Of course, there aren't any Muslims saying no to huge Saudi checks and giant Wahhabi-influenced mosques, and they refuse to openly criticize them, so they have to take the blame for the effects of Wahhabism on their religion.
The quote from Andre Glucksmann demonstrates that he does not understand Islam from the point of view of Muslims. Jihadis are not nihilists.
Are you a Muslim? If not, then you don't understand Islam as a Muslim does either.
Glucksman was describing the reasons why the embrace of unrestrained 'absolute violence' will ultimately destroy a society. He was also describing the reasons why random, unrestrained attacks against innocents and noncombatants are taboo in most cultures. He called this nihilism. You can call it whatever you want, but random, unrestrained attacks against innocents and noncombatants is not inherently Islamic. It's inherent to Wahhabism.
Islamic law is repugnant and anti-democratic, it encourages misogyny and slavery, but the history of Wahhabism is not the history of Islam.
Sorry for these off topic questions.
Is there any documented evidence that Hamas fighters in the Gaza war hid in Gazan civilian buildings?
The Goldstone report states that Hamas fighters did not.
Did Hamas fighters use plain clothes during the war? Am I right that this is illegal under international law?
Is there any evidence of Hamas intimidation of Gazan civilians during the Gaza war? The Goldstone report does not find any evidence of this kind.
The Goldstone report states that some Israeli special units used civilian plain clothes during the Gaza war, which is illegal. Is this true?
During the Gaza war, the Goldstone documents several cases of inappropriate IDF targeting:
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/interviews/interview-with-colonel-desmond-travers.pdf
"HC - Was there any evidence of Hamas intimidation?
DT - None whatsoever. However, I have to be honest and say that we would probably have found it difficult to get people to queue up and give us information about Hamas’ misbehaviour within Gaza
DT - We found no evidence for the human shield phenomenon but, to be honest, I did expect to come across it.
Here’s a little thing nobody has ever raised and I want you to think about this. There were functionaries in combat uniform and in civilian attire, Arab speaking, operating in Gaza. These were Israeli combat troops specially trained to operate in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in civilian attire. They worked as ‘franc-tireurs’ (literally “free shooters”) and could have been in a position to cause confusion among the population. It is for this reason that if there was evidence of Hamas intimidation of any kind, it would have been necessary for me, an investigator, to determine by identification who the perpetrators were. The Israelis themselves have admitted it; if you go to military websites, there are reams of stuff about special Israeli combat troops trained to work in the West Bank and in Gaza infiltrating into the area and working behind the scenes before, during and after the actual ground invasion. What I’m saying to you is, if somebody tells me there is a Hamas operative doing something on some street corner I have to ask, can you identify him for me because, we don’t know."
Posted by: anan at February 9, 2010 8:56 am
Is there any documented evidence that Hamas fighters in the Gaza war hid in Gazan civilian buildings?
The Goldstone report states that Hamas fighters did not.
Did Hamas fighters use plain clothes during the war? Am I right that this is illegal under international law?
Is there any evidence of Hamas intimidation of Gazan civilians during the Gaza war? The Goldstone report does not find any evidence of this kind.
The Goldstone report states that some Israeli special units used civilian plain clothes during the Gaza war, which is illegal. Is this true?
During the Gaza war, the Goldstone documents several cases of inappropriate IDF targeting:
http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/interviews/interview-with-colonel-desmond-travers.pdf
"HC - Was there any evidence of Hamas intimidation?
DT - None whatsoever. However, I have to be honest and say that we would probably have found it difficult to get people to queue up and give us information about Hamas’ misbehaviour within Gaza
DT - We found no evidence for the human shield phenomenon but, to be honest, I did expect to come across it.
Here’s a little thing nobody has ever raised and I want you to think about this. There were functionaries in combat uniform and in civilian attire, Arab speaking, operating in Gaza. These were Israeli combat troops specially trained to operate in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in civilian attire. They worked as ‘franc-tireurs’ (literally “free shooters”) and could have been in a position to cause confusion among the population. It is for this reason that if there was evidence of Hamas intimidation of any kind, it would have been necessary for me, an investigator, to determine by identification who the perpetrators were. The Israelis themselves have admitted it; if you go to military websites, there are reams of stuff about special Israeli combat troops trained to work in the West Bank and in Gaza infiltrating into the area and working behind the scenes before, during and after the actual ground invasion. What I’m saying to you is, if somebody tells me there is a Hamas operative doing something on some street corner I have to ask, can you identify him for me because, we don’t know."
There is a reason why the Goldstone report was rejected by the US House of Representatives " as 'irredeemably biased'" and the vote wasn't even close: 344 to 36.
That report isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
Posted by: crosspatch at February 9, 2010 12:49 pm
That report isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
"Hamas fighters...plain clothes...illegal under international law?"
"Hamas" and "international law" in the same sentence...
I stopped reading at that point.
Now, "Hamas" and "Sderot" in the same sentence, I'll probably read.
Posted by: Paul S. at February 9, 2010 2:40 pm
"Hamas" and "international law" in the same sentence...
I stopped reading at that point.
Now, "Hamas" and "Sderot" in the same sentence, I'll probably read.
Mary Madigan,
No. I am not a Muslim, nor ever was. I don't claim to understand Islam from the point of view of a Muslim, but I try to be aware of that point-of-view, by attending and following Muslim Student Association events and by viewing MEMRI, which shows Muslims speaking to Muslims. Milestones, by Sayed Qutb, was written to a Muslim audience. This is in contrast to much of the production of, for example, Tariq Ramadan, propaganda aimed at non-Muslims. If you haven't read Milestones, and have a strong stomach, get a copy and read it. Qutb was not a Wahhabi, he was an Egyptian, one of the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood, but as a very devout Muslim, many of his beliefs were in agreement with Wahhabi views.
The British did not "give" control of Mecca and Medina to the Sauds; they acquiesced to it, after supporting the Hashemites, who lost their struggle with the Sauds, and to whom (to the Hashemites) they (Britain) then gave, unilaterally without League of Nations permission, more than half of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not Wahhabi, although both subgroups of Sunni Islam are devout, and there has been cross-fertilization (e.g. the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Qutb is the partial ideological father of Al-Qaeda; Zawahri is an Egyptian with a Muslim Brotherhood background but is second in command). There are other Pakistani Sunni groups which are not Wahhabi, but share the same supremacist contempt for kaffirs, heretics, Shia, fringe groups, and apostates. The Muslim Student Association chapters at colleges across the United States, are partially funded (the national office) by the Saudis, but the MSA was founded by Muslim Brotherhood linked people in the 1960s. The Iranian Shiite theocracy is clearly not Wahhabi. Also, the Wahhabi were a back-to-the-roots (radical) reform movement. They went back to the roots of Sunni Islam; they did not manufacture some new religion. They were not innovators. They were and are opposed to innovation, as actually are all of the separately considered nominal "schools" of Islam.
The history of the Islamic conquest of India is certainly not the history of the Wahhabi. Nevertheless it is replete with glorification of the slaughter of tens of thousands of Hindus, done, proudly, in the name of Islam.
I suggest that setting up the Wahhabi as some separated (fringe) bogeymen is a mistake. A large mistake.
Posted by: del at February 9, 2010 8:29 pm
No. I am not a Muslim, nor ever was. I don't claim to understand Islam from the point of view of a Muslim, but I try to be aware of that point-of-view, by attending and following Muslim Student Association events and by viewing MEMRI, which shows Muslims speaking to Muslims. Milestones, by Sayed Qutb, was written to a Muslim audience. This is in contrast to much of the production of, for example, Tariq Ramadan, propaganda aimed at non-Muslims. If you haven't read Milestones, and have a strong stomach, get a copy and read it. Qutb was not a Wahhabi, he was an Egyptian, one of the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood, but as a very devout Muslim, many of his beliefs were in agreement with Wahhabi views.
The British did not "give" control of Mecca and Medina to the Sauds; they acquiesced to it, after supporting the Hashemites, who lost their struggle with the Sauds, and to whom (to the Hashemites) they (Britain) then gave, unilaterally without League of Nations permission, more than half of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not Wahhabi, although both subgroups of Sunni Islam are devout, and there has been cross-fertilization (e.g. the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Qutb is the partial ideological father of Al-Qaeda; Zawahri is an Egyptian with a Muslim Brotherhood background but is second in command). There are other Pakistani Sunni groups which are not Wahhabi, but share the same supremacist contempt for kaffirs, heretics, Shia, fringe groups, and apostates. The Muslim Student Association chapters at colleges across the United States, are partially funded (the national office) by the Saudis, but the MSA was founded by Muslim Brotherhood linked people in the 1960s. The Iranian Shiite theocracy is clearly not Wahhabi. Also, the Wahhabi were a back-to-the-roots (radical) reform movement. They went back to the roots of Sunni Islam; they did not manufacture some new religion. They were not innovators. They were and are opposed to innovation, as actually are all of the separately considered nominal "schools" of Islam.
The history of the Islamic conquest of India is certainly not the history of the Wahhabi. Nevertheless it is replete with glorification of the slaughter of tens of thousands of Hindus, done, proudly, in the name of Islam.
I suggest that setting up the Wahhabi as some separated (fringe) bogeymen is a mistake. A large mistake.
I suggest that setting up the Wahhabi as some separated (fringe) bogeymen is a mistake. A large mistake.
Since wealthy Saudis remain the chief financiers of worldwide terror networks, since the majority of foreign fighters and suicide bombers are Saudi, and since 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, it makes more sense to concentrate on them than on the Koran and your local Muslim greengrocer.
Personally I focus on Saudi Arabia and our destructive alliance with them because no one else does, save for a few experts on terrorism financing.
Speaking of which, you should read Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's book on how drug and oil money finances terrorism, "Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It" She was recently the victim of a 'libel tourism' lawsuit. Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz has been using the British courts to silence critics of Saudi Arabia for years. Although the lawsuit failed, the threat of having to spend a lot of time and money has probably silenced a lot of unpleasant revelations about our Saudi allies.
Of her books, Ehernfeld said:
Terrorism is not cheap. To the contrary, it is a capital-intensive activity. It requires lots of cash for training, weapons, vehicles, salaries, cell phones, airline travel, food and lodging; etc. I showed how the drug trade, not just oil profits, fuels terrorist organizations...When asked why he robbed banks, Willy Sutton famously replied: “Because that’s where the money is.” I followed his lead and followed the money. This led to my second book, Evil Money: The Inside Story of Money Laundering and Corruption in Government, Banks and Business, in which I connected the dots between drug profits, money laundering, political corruption, Islamic banking and how illicit funds are used to undermine democracies.
Notice that she doesn't mention hadiths or Qutub. Islam is used as a recruiting tool for terrorist militias, but drugs and money are also recruiting tools.
If we focus on history and Islamic scholarship the Wahhabis are marginal, but if we focus on the real world and the real military/financial infrastructure of terrorism, we find the Wahhabis at the center of everything.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at February 10, 2010 7:45 am
Since wealthy Saudis remain the chief financiers of worldwide terror networks, since the majority of foreign fighters and suicide bombers are Saudi, and since 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, it makes more sense to concentrate on them than on the Koran and your local Muslim greengrocer.
Personally I focus on Saudi Arabia and our destructive alliance with them because no one else does, save for a few experts on terrorism financing.
Speaking of which, you should read Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's book on how drug and oil money finances terrorism, "Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It" She was recently the victim of a 'libel tourism' lawsuit. Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz has been using the British courts to silence critics of Saudi Arabia for years. Although the lawsuit failed, the threat of having to spend a lot of time and money has probably silenced a lot of unpleasant revelations about our Saudi allies.
Of her books, Ehernfeld said:
Terrorism is not cheap. To the contrary, it is a capital-intensive activity. It requires lots of cash for training, weapons, vehicles, salaries, cell phones, airline travel, food and lodging; etc. I showed how the drug trade, not just oil profits, fuels terrorist organizations...When asked why he robbed banks, Willy Sutton famously replied: “Because that’s where the money is.” I followed his lead and followed the money. This led to my second book, Evil Money: The Inside Story of Money Laundering and Corruption in Government, Banks and Business, in which I connected the dots between drug profits, money laundering, political corruption, Islamic banking and how illicit funds are used to undermine democracies.
Notice that she doesn't mention hadiths or Qutub. Islam is used as a recruiting tool for terrorist militias, but drugs and money are also recruiting tools.
If we focus on history and Islamic scholarship the Wahhabis are marginal, but if we focus on the real world and the real military/financial infrastructure of terrorism, we find the Wahhabis at the center of everything.
PS. I have read about Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood and have discussed them at length with their supporters. Have you ever read Abu Noor al Irlandee, Ikhwan web or Marc Lynch? Wild stuff.
If you're interested in learning more about the British, the Palestinian Mandate, the takeover of Mecca and how the Sauds, the British, the Nazis, and other Muslim leaders worked together against the Hashemites and the Jews, google Jack Philby, Allen Dulles and Ibn Saud...
Posted by: Mary Madigan at February 10, 2010 8:00 am
If you're interested in learning more about the British, the Palestinian Mandate, the takeover of Mecca and how the Sauds, the British, the Nazis, and other Muslim leaders worked together against the Hashemites and the Jews, google Jack Philby, Allen Dulles and Ibn Saud...
"Sorry for these off topic questions"
If you're "sorry", then why did you do it? Clearly your intent was to hijack the thread as you have done with another one. But it is pretty typical of Israel's enemies to use dishonesty as a crutch.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at February 10, 2010 10:53 pm
If you're "sorry", then why did you do it? Clearly your intent was to hijack the thread as you have done with another one. But it is pretty typical of Israel's enemies to use dishonesty as a crutch.
Post a comment
