The Student Room Group

Could first cousin marriage be a major part of understanding Islamic extremism?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Atlas Thugged
The man who planned the Bataclan attacks, Salah Abdeslam, was seen as a hero in his ghetto, but had Islam been followed to the letter, he would have been whipped and probably sentenced to death for his drug use, history of petty crime (banditry) and womanising (zina).
He was no Islamic extremist until they got their hands on him, most of these guys going out to commit such acts are no extremists or even religious at all themselves, they are vulnerable people preyed upon by the true extremists. They get hold of them and psychologically brainwash them, generating a virulent hatred of anyone fingered as an enemy. equipping them with all needed on their way to death. Truly wicked, how anyone can do so in the name of God but such is the nature of the beast.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 61
And yet, studies show that 19 million UK citizens fell below the poverty line for at least one year out of three, and nearly 8% were in permanent poverty.

Muslims only make up around 4% of the UK population, so even if every single Muslim was in permanent poverty, they would still only constitute arounh half of the population in permanent poverty. Therefore, if your argument is sound, we should be experiencing a level of violent extremism from Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, atheists, etc, approximately the same as that we experience from Muslims.
But we don't.

And the level of property ownership is 48% amongst Muslims and 64% amongst the general population, so clearly no endimic poverty - especially given the shorter period of time available for the acquisition of property by Muslim families compared to families with many generations of residence.

So the data again refutes your argument.
Original post by QE2
And yet, studies show that 19 million UK citizens fell below the poverty line for at least one year out of three, and nearly 8% were in permanent poverty.

Muslims only make up around 4% of the UK population, so even if every single Muslim was in permanent poverty, they would still only constitute arounh half of the population in permanent poverty. Therefore, if your argument is sound, we should be experiencing a level of violent extremism from Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, atheists, etc, approximately the same as that we experience from Muslims.
But we don't.

And the level of property ownership is 48% amongst Muslims and 64% amongst the general population, so clearly no endimic poverty - especially given the shorter period of time available for the acquisition of property by Muslim families compared to families with many generations of residence.

So the data again refutes your argument.

If you want a debate please stop putting words in my mouth and assigning me a position I have not taken.

I have not said poverty is the only factor, I have said it is A factor.
The more poor you are, the more likely you are to turn to extremism.
And in the other religions you mentioned, poverty is far lower.

*
*To refute your earlier point you do realise the US initially funded and armed what became the Taliban? You do also realise the political vacuum created by the wears foreign policy created the conditions for ISIS to flourish?*

But the problem is people like you have an agenda to prevent us discussing ALL the reasons for extremism and they include western foreign policy and an economic system which leaves communities behind.

They are not the only reasons but they must be discussed yet you seem to refuse to allow a debate on them.*
Original post by QE2
And yet, there are no other groups who suffer poverty and deprivation going to join any of the Jihadist groups (the name of such groups is a clue as to the source of the ideological justification), othe that Muslim. There are no hispanic Christians, no Indian Sikhs, no African American atheists or Thai Buddhists.


Probably because they haven't experienced an onslaught on their countries, their religious identities, their ummah.


Are you seriously claiming that Islamic ideology is not a major factor in Islamic extremism? You need research studies that demonstrate such a connection? Wow!


I'm not claiming anything. It's just I trust rigorous papers more than some guy on TSR. I apologise if I'm not inclined to believe your simplistic analysis without some sort of study. If Islam really is the main factor, I'd expect to see similar rates of Muslims joining Jihadist groups like ISIS from different countries.


Do you also need studies before you believe that alcohol is a major factor in alcoholism, or overeating a major factor in obesity.


No, but I would need evidence for the above. I'm sure there are studies out there that explore the causality of terrorism. I'm just asking you to show me the ones that conclude "Islam is responsible for terrorism", as opposed to some geo-political context we may be missing.


As I said, rational people are getting tired of this kind of wilful ignorance, deflection and head burying.


you talk a lot
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by QE2
But that says that Black Africans and Black Caribbeans suffer even greater poverty than many Muslims, so according to your argument, we should be experiencing violent terrorism from (mostly Christian) Black Africans and Caribbeans.

Yet we are not.
You data seems to refute your argument.
Sorry.


Maybe Black Africans and Caribbeans are not marginalised and have their ethno-religious identities attacked on a constant basis. Maybe they're not as angry. I think it’s fairly universal that when young people do not enjoy meaningful opportunities in their lives, and are alienated from the societies around them, and when they have grievances that go unaddressed, that they are going to be more at-risk for joining the kinds of movements that we’ve been seeing in the news recently
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 65
Original post by Bornblue
When you have people growing up in poverty, with no opportunities and a crappy life, the lure of these cults becomes far greater. That goes for the far right and the young Muslims who join Isis.
Have you looked at any case studies of the young British Muslims who travel to join ISIS?

I can't think of any that fit your model.
But I can think of several that refute it.

Are you just making this stuff up or is there some source you are using?
Original post by admonit
So your solution includes giving even more social housing and even more money?
You consider them as poor children, but they are not. They came to your country with their mentality, with their culture, with their religion and with their traditions - all that which make their countries of origin poor and unstable. This is the reason of their poverty.
"Ruin, therefore, is ... something that starts in people's heads"
Mikhail Bulgakov "Heart of a Dog"


He is correct in terms of the reasons and people are being very unfair to say he is an apologist if he is merely identifying the circumstances which lead to terrorism, but I agree that vague suggestions regarding the failures of so called neoliberal economic policy and calls for investment in housing are massive cop-outs. If a Chinese man and wife can come here with nothing, start their own business and their children are now in top universities, it really does piss all over the notion that there is no opportunity for migrants in the West.


Simply ''investing in housing'' just teaches scum like Abdelsalam he can continue smoking weed and being a loser and that society will take care of him in spite of his personal failings, which leads to further nihilism.

Original post by QE2
But that says that Black Africans and Black Caribbeans suffer even greater poverty than many Muslims, so according to your argument, we should be experiencing violent terrorism from (mostly Christian) Black Africans and Caribbeans.Yet we are not.You data seems to refute your argument.Sorry.

This is not so, it's an interaction between culture and unfavourable socioeconomic circumstances rather than poverty creating terrorism. A socially alienated person of Caribbean backgrounds might turn to gang-culture or political radicalism rather than terror because he is more likely to encounter those things by way of his background.


I don't really want to piss all over Black people to be honest since I do feel a lot of White people just assume they're gangsters, even though Africans are generally successful and middle class and the Black gangster thing is a meme from American television.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by SaucissonSecCy
Your thoughts?


Should we be worried about Norfolk and the Royals?
Reply 68
Original post by Bornblue
If you want a debate please stop putting words in my mouth and assigning me a position I have not taken.
It is simply applying your argument to the data available. You made a claim. If that claim was true we would expect to see certain effects. Either we do, or we don't. It's part of the scientific method, using hypotheses to make predictions, then using observation to confirm or reject said predictions.

I have not said poverty is the only factor, I have said it is A factor.
You said it was a "big", "huge", "main" factor (iirc). Observation clearly refutes this. It is very likely a factor in some cases - but not all.
The more poor you are, the more likely you are to turn to extremism.
Demonstrably untrue. I will try and explain again.
If poverty was a more important factor than Islam, we would expect to see some extremely poor non-Muslims involved in Islamic extremism. But we do not. We find that there are none!
Also, we find that many of the people involved in Islamic extremism from Western countries are not impoverished.

And in the other religions you mentioned, poverty is far lower.
Yet the data provided shows that certain non-Muslim groups suffer greater poverty than Muslim groups from which Islamist extremists have come, so poverty is clearly not "far lower" in those religions as far as those people are concerned.

To refute your earlier point you do realise the US initially funded and armed what became the Taliban?
Erm...that's what I said. But you claimed that the US and UK created Al Qaeda. They didn't.

You do also realise the political vacuum created by the wears foreign policy created the conditions for ISIS to flourish?*
Nope. It was the sectarian violence resulting from the Syrian civil war. The west was not involved in Syria as its backers are Iran and Russia. You do realise that at the time of ISIS's invasion, Iraq was a self-governing democracy and the only reason that ISIS made gains in Iraq was because the Iraqi army dumped all their kit and legged it at the first sign of trouble. There was no "political vacuum" in Iraq.

But the problem is people like you have an agenda to prevent us discussing ALL the reasons for extremism and they include western foreign policy and an economic system which leaves communities behind.
*boinnnggg*
There goes the spring on my ACME Irony-o-Meter™.
You have spent this entire thread desperately trying to convince people that Islam has nothing to do with Islamist extremism. Any reasonable person knows that there are always many factors involved in such things, but in this case, the main factor is Islamiist ideology. As has been repeatedlt demonstrated.

They are not the only reasons but they must be discussed yet you seem to refuse to allow a debate on them.*
The thread is about Islamist extremism.
Could you explain why all the other groups involved in the Syrian civil war and Iraqi insurgence are not involved in Islamist extremist attacks in the west?
Why no Kurdish bombs? Why no Yazidi shootings? Why no Ahmeddiya truck attacks? There haven't even been any Shia attacks in recent decades, that I can think of.
They are suffering more than Sunni communities, and certainly suffer at least the same levels of poverty so according to your argument they should be as involved in Islamist extremism in the weast as Sunni groups.
Are they?
No. They are not.
Therefore, the main issue is the ideology of those groups.
QED.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 69
Original post by blah3210
Probably because they haven't experienced an onslaught on their countries, their religious identities, their ummah.
So their religion is a major factor then?
And what "onslaught"? You do realise that the vast majority of the ummah have been killed by other members of the ummah, because they disagree on their religious identity?

I'm not claiming anything. It's just I trust rigorous papers more than some guy on TSR. I apologise if I'm not inclined to believe your simplistic analysis without some sort of study.
I guess that attributing Islamic ideology as a major factor in the cause of Islamist extremism is a little simplistic, and obviously cannot be accepted without some sort of study.

So, here's one.
Possibly every perpetrator of Islamist violence has been a Muslim.
Source - every report of Islamist extremist attack and every study on the nature of such attacks.
If you have any evidence of people who are not Muslims carrying out Islamist attacks, please present it.

If Islam really is the main factor, I'd expect to see similar rates of Muslims joining Jihadist groups like ISIS from different countries.
This doesn't make sense.
If Islam is the main factor, you would expect to see mainly Muslims joining Jihadist groups, expressing pro-Islamic sentiments.
And we do.

No, but I would need evidence for the above.
So you do not require studies to accept that alcohol is a major factor in alcoholism, or that overeating is a major factor being overweight - but you require studies to accept that Islam is a major factor in Islamist extremism!
Wow! The level of denial is breathtaking.

I'm sure there are studies out there that explore the causality of terrorism. I'm just asking you to show me the ones that conclude "Islam is responsible for terrorism", as opposed to some geo-political context we may be missing.
I never claimed that "Islam is responsible for terrorism", only that "Islam is a major factor in Islamist terrorism".
It may be possible that there are no studies into this specific claim, in the same way that there are no studies into "are feet a major factor in shoes?" or "is seeing a major function of the eye".
It is probably difficult to find funding for a report into "stating the bleeding obvious".
Reply 70
Original post by blah3210
Maybe Black Africans and Caribbeans are not marginalised and have their ethno-religious identities attacked on a constant basis.
Are you completely unaware of recent British or American history?

So, you agree that their religion is a major factor in their anger.

Maybe they're not as angry. I think it’s fairly universal that when young people do not enjoy meaningful opportunities in their lives, and are alienated from the societies around them, and when they have grievances that go unaddressed, that they are going to be more at-risk for joining the kinds of movements that we’ve been seeing in the news recently
Which is why, over the last few decades, we have seen similar levels of extremism and violence from the African and Afro-Caribbean communities, and from the non-Muslim Asian communities (remember that people have only really been aware of Islam as an identity for the last decade).

Oh...
Original post by generallee
The number of dangerous extremists (far right and Islamist) is very small, a few thousand at most.. As a percentage of those in poverty (by your figures) it doesn't really explain the phenomenon very well.

Why do hundreds of thousands in poverty (by your definition) resist the lure of the cults, and only a relative handful succumb?

The reasons are intensely personal and far more complex.

Extremism not neccessary should be mainstream. Rather we can speak about favorable conditions in Muslim communities for Islamic extremism.
Original post by QE2
So their religion is a major factor then?
And what "onslaught"? You do realise that the vast majority of the ummah have been killed by other members of the ummah, because they disagree on their religious identity?


The onslaught that has killed hundreds of thousands in Muslim-majority countries. Of course I realise that, one could argue there is a religious factor in sectarian violence, but that's not an attack on the religious identity. You're forgetting that a lot of the countries in turmoil in the ME weren't exactly helped by the Western imperialists.


I guess that attributing Islamic ideology as a major factor in the cause of Islamist extremism is a little simplistic, and obviously cannot be accepted without some sort of study.


Or maybe because "Islamic ideology" isn't a major factor, hence it's not accepted as such in studies.

So, here's one.
Possibly every perpetrator of Islamist violence has been a Muslim.


What kind of "Muslim"?


Source - every report of Islamist extremist attack and every study on the nature of such attacks.
If you have any evidence of people who are not Muslims carrying out Islamist attacks, please present it.


I didn't know attack by Muslim was equivalent to Islam-inspired attack? And that's not a study.


This doesn't make sense.
If Islam is the main factor, you would expect to see mainly Muslims joining Jihadist groups, expressing pro-Islamic sentiments.
And we do.


Actually, many join just for the salary. But it doesn't make sense to you because it doesn't fit your narrative. It makes perfect sense to any rational person: if Islam were the "major factor", we'd expect to see similar rates of attacks from Muslim communities across the world. We'd expect to see similar rates of Muslims migrating to join the ISIS.
And we don't.


So you do not require studies to accept that alcohol is a major factor in alcoholism, or that overeating is a major factor being overweight - but you require studies to accept that Islam is a major factor in Islamist extremism!
Wow! The level of denial is breathtaking.


Nope, I'd still say the major factors are poverty, alienation, perceived attacks on ethno-religious identity, and susceptibility to believe preachers of hate without knowing much about Islam.


I never claimed that "Islam is responsible for terrorism", only that "Islam is a major factor in Islamist terrorism".


The examples you give below have nothing to do with causality. I see you still haven't provided any studies, whereas I can provide one which arrives at the opposite conclusion: increased knowledge of Islam has a dampening effect for support for militancy.


It is probably difficult to find funding for a report into "stating the bleeding obvious".


If it is so bleeding obvious, I'm sure there must some study that supports it.
Original post by generallee
Actually you find a lot of educated and or rich Islamists.

Osama Bin Laden was the scion of a billionaire. \


Osama Bin laden an Islamist? lol.

Bin Laden and his group were first backed by the US in the 80's(and a bit of the 90's) to fight off Soviet invaders. Soon after the Soviets had retreated, Al-Qaeda still had a lot of power, control of worlds largest opium industry, and a hell of a lot of guns and weapons.
The US then had to stop that group and invaded Afghan and tried to diminish it(in which Al-Qaeda opposed and fought) And since then Al-Qaeda and US relations have gone the drain(and history followed after that...9/11).

It's so unorthodox that US's closest ally became the world's most wanted person
Original post by QE2
Are you completely unaware of recent British or American history?


Please enlighten me.


So, you agree that their religion is a major factor in their anger.


Nope. Religious identity comes from a sense of belonging to a community. It's not unique to Islam. This may explain why Muslims here get angry when Muslims elsewhere are killed.


Which is why, over the last few decades, we have seen similar levels of extremism and violence from the African and Afro-Caribbean communities, and from the non-Muslim Asian communities (remember that people have only really been aware of Islam as an identity for the last decade).

Oh...


I don't remember African countries being bombed and being severely destabilised in the past few years, nor do I remember seeing them being alienated in society or in the news.
Original post by QE2


Erm...that's what I said. But you claimed that the US and UK created Al Qaeda. They didn't.

You have religious knowledge no doubt. But you seem to be ill-knowledgeable about History.
Remember the Soviet Invasion of Afganistan in 1979? There were 2 combatants in this war, the Mujahideen and the Soviets. The mujahideen were basically a bunch of blokes who were defending their country from this invasion.And guess what? After 10 years of fighting, the Mujahideen won! and the Soviets backed out.
And the US and it's allies were in full support of the mujahideen. They were NOT known as islamic terrorists back then, but rather freedom fighters.
Here is US president Ronald with Afghani rebel group Leaders:


http://www.businessinsider.in/That-Time-Ronald-Reagan-Hosted-Those-Freedom-Fighters-At-The-Oval-Office/articleshow/21365147.cms
(however, many people misquote that Ronald actually said to them something about 'moral founding fathers)

But the US was fully in support of these rebel groups which eventually turned into Taliban and Al-Qaeda after the war 'cause they had nothing better to do.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
If you want a debate please stop putting words in my mouth

I have not said poverty is the only factor, I have said it is A factor.


Simple question

Is Islam a factor in Islamic Extremism?
Original post by KingYusHalo
Osama Bin laden an Islamist? lol.

Bin Laden and his group were first backed by the US in the 80's(and a bit of the 90's) to fight off Soviet invaders. Soon after the Soviets had retreated, Al-Qaeda still had a lot of power, control of worlds largest opium industry, and a hell of a lot of guns and weapons.
The US then had to stop that group and invaded Afghan and tried to diminish it(in which Al-Qaeda opposed and fought) And since then Al-Qaeda and US relations have gone the drain(and history followed after that...9/11).

It's so unorthodox that US's closest ally became the world's most wanted person


Yeah, Bin Laden was an Islamist.

And he was such a staunch ally of the US that they sent in a bunch of special forces by helicopter to assassinate him and then threw his bloodstained corpse off an aircraft carrier.

The same will eventually happen to Baghdadi. If he isn't already dead.
Original post by generallee
Yeah, Bin Laden was an Islamist.

And he was such a staunch ally of the US that they sent in a bunch of special forces by helicopter to assassinate him and then threw his bloodstained corpse off an aircraft carrier.

The same will eventually happen to Baghdadi. If he isn't already dead.

BUT Baghdadi was never supported by the US, he was and is always an enemy

Bin Laden used to be a homie to the US government.....until they started fighting
Original post by Bornblue


But the problem is people like you have an agenda to prevent us discussing ALL the reasons for extremism and they include western foreign policy and an economic system which leaves communities behind.



Adel Kermiche, one of the the priest beheaders in Normandy was hardly the victim of an "economic system which leaves communities behind."

As middle class as they come. His mother a professor and sister a doctor.

He may have disagreed with France bombing his mates in the Islamic State, I'll give you that...

Quick Reply