A Religious War ... or a Political One? (Sol, Portugal)
"The
movement of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi invested itself with
the prestige of the Caliphate, a political umbrella organization traditionally comprised
of the community of believers. This is not just megalomania. It is about using
a powerful myth [to bind] a historic, cultural and religious community that has
felt marginalized and oppressed for nearly a century. … French Foreign Minister
Laurent Fabius declared at the National Assembly that
he was against the expression 'Islamic State,' as it could be confused with
Islam, and Islamists with Muslims. President Obama has also officially rejected
the designation. ... It is time to consider that there is nothing innocent about references to a 'religion of violence.' The most bloodthirsty regimes of the 20th century were 'secular and republican.'"
Is there a clash of
civilizations? Is there a confrontation between the Islamic world - countries
and religious communities culturally identified with the religion of the Quran
- and the "West," the Judeo-Christian world?
The sudden eruption
last summer of the so-called Islamic State brought many of these questions to
the surface again. The organization headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who
proclaims himself caliph of the new caliphate, demonstrates the globalizing
vocation of a movement that seeks to defeat territorial frontiers, whatever its
methods and however successful they are, and invest itself with the prestige of
the Caliphate, a political umbrella organization traditionally comprised of the
community of believers.
Posted
By Worldmeets.US
This is not just megalomania.
It is about using a powerful myth [to bind] a historic, cultural and religious
community that has felt marginalized and oppressed for nearly a century; hence the
symbolism of a time of political and military greatness and cultural and social
splendor - the time of the Caliphs of Bagdad and Damascus, or the Ottoman
sultans.
Responding to
various Islamic associations that came out to denounce the danger of
associating the Islamic religion with what for them is a band of terrorists and
murderers, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius
declared at the National Assembly that he was against the expression "Islamic
State," as it could be confused with Islam, and Islamists with Muslims.
President Obama has also officially
rejected the designation, saying, “Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is
not 'Islamic.' No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast
majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state.
It
was formerly al-Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq.”
In fact, the majority
of radical fundamentalist attacks have been made against Muslims and in Islamic
and Arab countries. I turn to a
study from ICSR (International Centre for the
Study of Radicalization and State Violence) from November 2014 that was cited by
The Guardian. On the list of affected
countries, there is no European state or the U.S., and only two are Christian-majority
countries. Of the 5,000 victims listed [for November 2014], 1,770 are from
Iraq, and a combined 786 are from Nigeria (BokoHaram) and Afghanistan. These are followed, all with more
than 100 victims each, by Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. The Philippines and Kenya, mainly Christian, close out the list of
victims with 50 each.
These numbers should
get you thinking about those who refer to a "religious war" in regard
to another wave of terrorism, which is an assault on political power under the guise
of religion. It is time also to consider that there is nothing innocent about references
to a "religion of violence." The most bloodthirsty regimes of the 20th
century were "secular and republican."
