Islam Is Not Peaceful (But Neither Is Anyone Else)

Greetings all!

This piece comes after a brief break I took in order to work out the final weeks of my high school education. Now that it has been concluded, I likely won’t be taking such leaves of absence for a while now. Beyond that, I've decided to make Islam (and religion in general) a topic this week due to some events as of late which convinced me to tear open the wounds anew. The events I speak of range from the beheading of a British soldier to the stabbing of a French soldier. While the latter has not been confirmed as being in the name of Islam, the events surrounding it would suggest so. This is in contrast to the former, where Islamic extremism has been identified as the clear cause. And while I’d love to go on about how Islam is not the religion of peace its followers claim it to be, neither is any religion, and to go on about one necessitates my action on all others. This week’s quote comes from Olof Palme, an influential Swedish Prime Minister of the past whom I hold the utmost respect and admiration for.

I’d like to note that, while fundamentalist Islam was clearly the inspiration for the attack on the British soldier, there are other factors at play we should not ignore. Ultimately, all conflict between people is class conflict, and minority groups like Muslims and Afro-European British citizens are subjected to societal repression. Like in much of Europe, British economic and societal structures have a de facto trend to benefit the Anglican White community. While the British welfare state helps to neutralize factors that exacerbate differences between groups in the U.K., the system is not so expansive or effective to negate such differences. This is especially true in light of austerity in the U.K., a failed policy. However, British austerity and economic recession has also highlighted ethnic and social tensions which erupted into violent riots in 2011. It should be very obvious that poverty and systematic poor treatment of minorities is at play here.

But at the center of all this is Islam. It seems these days that radical Islam is blamed for quite a bit of the violence in the modern world, regardless of whether that violence occurs in a first-world European capital or in the rural communities of a third-world Middle Eastern nation. In truth, radical Islamic violence is not a huge problem in richer, secularized countries. Many conservatives in the U.S. Congress claim that it is, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of terrorist attacks in America are not inspired by Islamism. Most acts of terror are either committed by one side of the political spectrum or another, or are acts of terrorism with no clear political or religious role. In fact, religious terrorism in America is mostly dominated by groups that are not Islamic.

Instead, Islamic terrorism is a much larger problem for those nations which host majority-Islamic populations and have at least some semblance of Islamic influence in the civil structure. For example, Islamic terrorism is a much more prominent issue in Saudi Arabia, where the constitution is defined as being the Qur’an itself. Saudi Arabia is possibly the single most oppressively Islamic nation on Earth, and yet terrorism is a greater threat there than where most people complaining about Islamic terrorism are (Europe and the U.S.).

How you read the text of the Qur’an does not actually have to be held as a large piece of my debate; whether you view the original writings of Muhammad as peaceful or violent is up to you. Instead, what matters is the effect said writing has on modern society and how humans interact with each other. It is frequently held that Islam is a “religion of peace” by its adherents. These Muslims often try to explain Islamic law and theory in the most muted way possible, babying those who condemn Islam along to a point where they hope tolerance is possible. One of the most noted points brought up by Islamic apologists is that the term “jihad” does not mean war. This is true; jihad means struggle, and this can be much more broadly applied than one would think. Hell, studying hard in order to pass a test can be considered jihad.

However, jihad has been extended to benefit those that commit acts of religious war against Western and non-Islamic or secular society. Even back in WWI, the Ottoman Empire declared jihad against its enemies in order to inspire Muslim fighters towards victory. Jihad continued to be used for political interests throughout the 20^th century; the 1979 Iranian Revolution was inspired by radical Islam. The Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan during the Soviet War in the 1980s had declared a jihad against communist and secular forces in the country. The followers of Osama Bin Laden used jihad as an excuse to perform countless bombings in areas they considered to be not Islamic enough. At this point in history, jihad is now tied into horrid acts of violence, and the chances of it separating are little. As it should be.

To explain, let me say that an idea, if absolutely noble in its roots is perverted and corrupted in practice, should not be tossed out entirely. Secular rule in Afghanistan was certainly plagued by such issues in the brief time it was allowed power, but that does not mean the idea should be thrown away. However, if the idea is not pure in its roots, it should be removed. Jihad is not pure; while the strict translation from Arabic means struggle, the Qur’an is clear in its interpretation of jihad. Physical jihad, the highest level of jihad, guarantees those who practice it paradise, as long as that physical jihad is justified righteously. We can argue all we like about what the original intention of that justification was, but the reality of the situation is that jihad is frequently used as a means of justifying incredible violence. As such, Islam is no religion of peace.

At the same time, other religions are not absent of guilt. Christianity is no religion of peace. Au contraire, Christianity and the divinity of Jesus have been used to excuse countless generations of murderers and oppressors. Nearly three centuries of war known as the Crusades occurred blatantly to reclaim the holy land for Christianity. Colonizers of the new world and Africa used Christianity to change local populations to suit their own needs, eventually ingraining a foreign way of life into these people. The Dark Ages were characterized by oppression of progress in Europe by the Christian authorities. Even today, evangelical Christianity is used to overpower populations of the United States for profit and influence.

Judaism is not clean, despite what many of my people would like to suggest. While Jews don’t have nearly the same kind of international influence, power, or arrogance of Christians or Muslims, Jews very much do as they please in Israel. Israel is defined in its Basic Law as a “Jewish state,” ignoring the fact that Israel has Arab Muslims, Christians, and secular citizens which such a state would rightfully exclude. For much of its history, Israel has conscripted citizens into the army, but Haredi Jews were allowed exclusion from such service until recently (a subject of contentious debate). The far-right Israeli Likud party supports settlements of Palestinian lands, despite the obvious religious and social conflicts such actions ignite.

Other religions in the world are just as guilty as the Abrahamic faiths. The Hindu class structure has oppressed millions of Indians over decades of improvement and progress in Indian society. Hindu extremists have committed violence against minority religions like Christianity and Islam in India; indeed, it was a Hindu extremist that murdered Mohandas Gandhi himself. While even some atheists give Buddhism slack, Buddhist monks have played a large role in anti-Muslim violence in Burma. Animist structures in central Africa have long played a role in the dramatically backward patriarchy there.

My point is that, while Islam is most certainly not a peaceful religion, no religion is. All religions, at some point or other, have been used for violence. All religions have been used to oppress others. All religions have been used to confirm backwards and/or unequal societal structures. No religion is innocent. And so, to say that Islam is a violent religion, I must qualify my statement by saying that all religions are violent. And therefore, all religions contribute to the destruction of the world. All religions make the world less safe and less tolerant. And lastly, the world will not be safe and peaceful until all religions bite the dust.

That’s all for this week, and I hope I've got enough sources for the point I've been making. Your feedback is encouraged through the comments and, barring that, my email at zerospintop@live.com. As always, I can be reached through Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Steam, DeviantArt, Tumblr, and Reddit as well. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

A Generation, Lost: Modern Pakistan

Greetings all!

While this post comes amid election season in several nations such as Bulgaria, I felt it necessary to take a closer look at Pakistan this time. My reasoning for this is because Pakistan is key to combating the power of the Taliban, especially in relation to Afghan stability and progress. However, I also wish to address the outcome of Pakistani elections because Pakistan seems to have lost an entire way of life over these last few decades. This week’s quote comes from the former prime minister of Pakistan, now deceased, Benazir Bhutto. I consider her to probably be the only respectable Pakistani leader since Muhammad Ali Jinnah, honestly, so I figured her voice in this would be well-placed.

I define Pakistan as lost due to the way the nation’s governance has been dominated over the years. For the most part, there have been two major political forces in Pakistan; conservative parties, led by people such as Nawaz Sharif, and the military/intelligence structure. All the while Pakistan has been engulfed in attempts to spread influence to Afghanistan by corrupt leaders while pointless wars with India have been fought. Oh, how the wars are so pointless by now. I won’t get much into it, but I have trouble seeing why either Pakistan or India wants Kashmir so badly. I suppose I understand the whole territorial claim, but it’s not like Kashmir is particularly great land to have anyway.

At the same time, Pakistan has been held back oh so strongly by religious fervor and a strange yet ardent nationalism propagated by essentially all of its modern leaders. Sharif was one of those leaders; in the hope of establishing a democracy with a religious conservative society, he Islamized much of Pakistan. Sharif made the Qur'an the law of the land in Pakistan, nearly setting Pakistan on the same levels of legalized theocracy as Saudi Arabia. Sharif also embedded capitalist forces in Pakistan through deregulation efforts and other liberalizing effects on Pakistan’s economy. While positive then, just like all other economic liberalizations it strengthened the income gap in Pakistan and entrenched the power money holds in politics there.

Pakistan’s military has largely acted in the belief that it was pursuing what was in the best interest of Pakistan. This is why the military has led so many coups in Pakistan; the ISI and other intelligence units believed that Pakistani sovereignty was at stake, and that democracy would hinder the process of dealing with large issues. However, in doing so the Pakistani military removed any possible democratic precedent. At present, it is historic for one democratic regime to hand power to another in Pakistan. That should give you an idea of how often the military has involved itself, and why it is likely too much by now.

And yet through all the suffering, all the strife, Pakistan had no hope in this election. There were but four major options this time, all just as problematic as the next. First and foremost was Nawaz Sharif. He represents the most conservative forces in Pakistan, and a return to a turbulent nuclear past which cannot possibly bring change to a nation struggling with power shortages and widespread underemployment. We know this to be self-evident: a theocracy will not save Pakistan. Religion can no longer be a savior in the Middle East.

The second fairly popular option was Imran Khan, whose Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Party represented a youthful, anti-corruption message to the nation. And while Khan was noble in his cause, much of his popularity was driven by the fact that he was simply a former celebrity leading an anti-establishment message, much like Beppe Grillo in Italy. Khan had no real plan for Pakistan, although the Taliban didn't seem to object to him, giving you a clue to how socially conservative he is. And of course, that is exactly what Pakistan must avoid these days.

The last democratic option was the Pakistan People’s Party, led under a banner by Asif Ali Zardari and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, respectively the current Pakistani president and his son, whom holds onto the legacy of Benazir Bhutto. Unfortunately, like most of the PPP, the elder Zardari is a man accused of corruption throughout his term, and it’s become quite certain as of late that the accusations are true. While the main messages of the PPP are easily the best for Pakistan, those leading the party are not. Mired by cynicism and corruption, much of the leadership of Pakistan’s largest progressive party is not fit to rule a new democratic Pakistan. The younger Zardari would have made for the ideal candidate, one with the message but not the corruption, but alas he is too young.

The final option was, of course, the military option. But by now, we know why such an option has already been exhausted to the point that enacting it would do nothing but harm Pakistan.

Unlike most fully-industrialized nations, Pakistan’s older generation is not one that will give power up as time passes to a newer folk that will move the nation forward. In nations across the Western world, the culture will change and so too will the society, leading to a different era in governance. But in the packed streets of Islamabad, nothing will change until that older generation dies or becomes incompetent. The hold of conservatism, Islamism, and militarism in Pakistan are all brought forth by those born in it, and all these things will likely die with them. Let’s hope it comes soon, for the sake of all Pakistanis.

That is all for this week, and I hope I've given good reasoning for my claims. As always, your feedback in the comments is appreciated. Outside the comments, I am still available for contact at my email of zerospintop@live.com, my Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Steam, DeviantArt, Tumblr, and Reddit accounts. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off. 

We Are Failing: The Need to Rise Up

Greetings all!

This post comes after a self-imposed hiatus in order to assist in with work that needed to be done on DeviantArt. Now that that is over, I have returned to write anew. Much has occurred in the time that I was on break; the Boston marathon became the epicenter of a violent bombing, gun control debate flopped in the American senate, and Rhode Island, along with Uruguay, New Zealand, and France, passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage (and in some cases adoption). And while I do feel a need to write scathing remarks about our reaction to the aforementioned bombing, that will have to come later. I feel there is something greater to be addressed. While some parts of the world have made progress as of late, there is a certain horrifying trend of failure I’m seeing as well. It’s something that came together for me today, when it was announced that the Barisan National Coalition won elections in Malaysia. This week’s quote comes from Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the opposition in Malaysia.

The world is not failing its people entirely. There are little bright spots along the way, and they happen when we least expect them. While gun control measures failed in the senate, a huge majority of Americans still support the measures proposed. And while same-sex marriage is not yet the law of the land, polls suggest that a majority of Americans support marriage equality as well. As far as I can tell, many of us around the world have what is right in our hearts.

But at the same time, these recent weeks have confirmed to me just how strong our foes are. Protection laws for Monsanto, written by Monsanto, have been passed. Egyptian Islamic law has been tightening as of late, with an amount of public support that should frighten any rational person. Hugo Chavez has died, and while Nicolas Maduro represents a good way to continue his legacy Venezuela is running out of good ways to keep progress coming. North Korea remains a belligerent state that betrays its own ideals, and it does not appear as though it will become truly free anytime soon. And despite proof that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not win the Iranian elections of 2009, Iran is still possibly one of the most backward, terrifying places on the planet.

The reason the Malaysian elections struck me so is because it fomented in my mind just how endemic reactionary and bourgeois forces are in our world. It has solidified in my mind not just how powerful conservative forces are within the hearts and minds of our people; conservative forces are part of culture.

This is best exemplified by the U.K. at the moment. As of late, the U.K. Independence Party has won seats in local elections. Unfortunately, this is one of the single worst things I can imagine for the United Kingdom. Hell, I’d rather tolerate Tories than the UKIP.

The UKIP has risen to prominence in the wake of a harsh economy in the U.K. As we all know, in times of extreme or prolonged hardship the masses of any nation become more politically polarized as discontent with the political establishment grows. This is an expected occurrence, no matter what the location is. This is why the Syrian opposition is increasingly dominated by Islamists; dissatisfaction with the lack of victories, people are turning to those more confident in their ideologies to act. Unfortunately, this situation always increases the risks present in any country.

Take, say, the Weimar Republic, the government of Germany between the two World Wars. At the beginning, the Weimar Republic made a good showing of Germany and performed leaps and bounds for a good part of the 1920s. But by the 1930s, serious economic depression strongly polarized the electorate, leaving the government split between communists and Nazis. This lead to inaction on the part of the government, eventually leaving Germany to hand over executive power to Hitler. We all know what horrors followed.

The UKIP represents a similar threat. The United Kingdom, however, is not now split between the radical left and right, nor does it look like it will be in the near future. The strongest left-wing party in the U.K. is the Labour Party, and at best it is centre-left and represents social democratic ideals which won’t compete with the vivacity of the UKIP. This is especially true in light of the fact that Labour is not now a majority party, and it likely will not become one. The risks involved with the UKIP do not involve there being a simple chance that a radical side of politics will take over. The UKIP may take power in Britain without opposition, solidifying a racist political party that will surely drive one of the world’s oldest nations into the dumps if given the chance. The war clouds hang over Europe with the arrival of the UKIP; my fear is growing for our world.

Greece suffers a similar situation at the moment. While the left-winged Syriza coalition holds the will of a good portion of the people, the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn Party has gained increasing popularity as well. This is more in line with traditional dissatisfaction with government; the population is split, and there is a risk that one of the two radical sides will take power and enforce its will on the country. At least in Greece the more rational left has a chance; not so for the U.K.

The Malaysian election proved to me that not only will conservative forces do anything to keep power, but that in some cases they don’t have a strident need to do so on their own. I don’t doubt that the BN coalition rigged the elections at least a little bit; that’s pretty much a given in a nation where said political grouping has held power literally since independence. However, I am thoroughly convinced that enough people genuinely believe in conservative forces in Malaysia enough to vote for them. We must not allow this to happen; we must be aware, and we must fight. We need numbers to win the world; that is where our power comes from. Never forget that.

That is all for this week, and I hope I've provided a well-backed argument. As always, I can be reached by comments here, or through my email at zerospintop@live.com. My accounts on Facebook, Twitter, DeviantArt, Steam, Tumblr, and Reddit can also be reached if necessary. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.