Isis: The Origins Of Violence

[naomi24]

Did anyone see this on Channel 4 last night? I recorded it and will hopefully watch it sometime today, but this from the London Evening Standard and makes interesting reading.
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/interview-historian-tom-holland-on-isis-receiving-death-threats-and-why-there-is-a-civil-war-in-the-a3541236.html
Tom Holland finishes by saying , “Ever since Rushdie, people have a sense that if you say anything negative about Islam, angry Muslims will protest. But there’s a further anxiety that if you insult Muslims, you’re a racist. There’s a conflation. Both of those anxieties have a chilling effect on questioning a fundamental issue: to what extent is there an ideological dimension to what is being done in Islam’s name? It seems there is a considerable ideological dimension.”

Holland believes it is better that we discuss this openly. “People acknowledge it but are afraid to say it. That played a substantial part in the Dutch and French elections — a feeling of resentment that people aren’t allowed to express it. It’s better that we open the windows — for Muslims too. Because all the time, this is metastasising away. This is like refusing to go to the dentist when you have a toothache. Sooner or later, it will fall out and your jaw will go rotten.”

Needless to say perhaps, I think he’s absolutely right.

[Garaman]

//So what you're saying is that Islamic scriptures and teachings preceded Islamic terrorism? OK. I agree. Now having established that, what does it demonstrate as far as you're concerned?//

It demonstrates that it probably isn’t the reason behind the attacks, rather the justification being used for the attacks. If it was the reason behind the attacks it wouldn’t have taken so long for the attacks to start, and probably a lot more followers of the scriptures would be attacking us.

I am not sure why you have asked because I am pretty sure that you don’t want to know what I think.

[naomi24]

Garaman, methods have change, but Jihad is not new. Since Mohammed’s time Islam’s ambition has been to conquer.

//From an early date Muslim law laid down" jihad in the military sense as "one of the principal obligations" of both "the head of the Muslim state", who declared the jihad, and the Muslim community//

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

[Garaman]

I am not suggesting for a minute that Jihad is a new concept, Naomi. I am though questioning what makes a Muslim take to Jihad. Is it simply because that is what is written in scriptures, or are there other factors? I think there are other factors, and the worry for me is that we could drive more to Jihad if we are not careful how we handle the situation, which of course is what Isis wants.

[naomi24]

Garaman, you did say you don’t believe that Islamic scripture is fundamental to the attacks – but it is. The rest simply serves to assist Islam’s cause. Additionally many people fail to recognise that Islam attacks in more ways than one. All we see is the carnage and the mayhem, but if you look you will find Muslims who are not murdering Jihadists, being encouraged to seek high office in the west – and, in our ignorance, and with our penchant for mistakenly assuming that all human beings possess a similar moral code and think pretty much alike, they’re succeeding. A case of softly, softly, catchee monkey. Islam is a creeping cancer that is polluting the whole world and one for which there is no cure. Regardless of what we do it will not be appeased. Islam doesn’t compromise. When people think nothing of the passage of time and welcome death as an honour, they have nothing whatsoever to lose.

[Garaman]

//Garaman, you did say you don’t believe that Islamic scripture is fundamental to the attacks – but it is. The rest simply serves to assist Islam’s cause. //

Yes, I think that pretty much sums up our different views. I believe that world events, social exclusion etc. are fundamental to the attacks on the UK and the scripture serves to assist their cause.

[naomi24]

If Jihad has been happening since Islam was founded – which it has – that makes no sense. There was a reason then – and there’s a reason now. The same reason.

[Garaman]

//What you're doing is trying to pin the blame of Islamic terrorism on those who simply do not roll over and accept the dominance of Islam. This is victim blaming; and it's absolutely shameful of you.//

That isn't what I said, but if you are suggesting that I should be ashamed for saying that turning on all Muslims because some of them want to harm us, Is what Isis wants, and will likely make more want to harm us, well I am not in the slightest ashamed for saying that.

[Garaman]

//I know that isn't what you 'said'. I'm not sure anyone would be quite so silly as to actually overtly blame the victims of terrorists attacks. But that is precisely what you are implying. And I think that you know it.//

I am not, for example, blaming those poor people of Manchester for anything, and please don't assume to tell me that is what I am implying.

I will leave it there.