This speaker is wrong in saying that muslims were tolerant of others in the past..Actually muslim REGIMES know that they have to tolerate others in order to continue their own rule..
That being said, the ruling regimes are not guilt free either. They themselves offer no solutions to poor employment, education, infrastructure, healthcare, and representation issues. Worse, they are forced to act under US and Western pressure to suppress extremist groups. The suppression - in the form of outright ban or incarceration or curtail of activities - forces "jihadi" organizations to go underground where they become even more radicalized....hoping for a revoluation.
Finally, militant Islamic groups do not offer any solutions to chronic regional problems (like massive poverty, poor heath-care). The entire focus seems to be a biding hate for the ruling elite (seen as corrupt stooges of Western powers). It is assumed - erroneously - that by "turning back the clock", all societal problems will simply disappear. Iran provides a sobering rebuke to this belief. Despite implementation of Sharia law, public is worse off than it was under the Shah.
The fundamentalist "jihadi" organizations - as well as "madrassas" that supply recruits - are ignorant of the multi-cultural, multi-religious, and mutli-ethnic legacy of Muslim empires. For example, discussion of the cosmopolitanism of Indian, Ottoman, and Persian empires is completely absent from "madrassa" curriculum and "jihadi" discourse. Even "Jihad" is defined in its militaristic sense; broader meaning of self improvement (via becoming a better human being) is ignored.
Pakistan co-opted "jihadi" network (established on its soil) after withdrawal of Soviet Union from Afghanistan to fight a proxy war in Kashmir. In addition, it facilitated establishment of a fundamentalist regime (ie. Taliban) in Afghanistan to gain "strategic depth" against India. In keeping with Islamization under Zia in the 1980s, Pak Army even exported recruits of its Jihadi network to Bosnia and Chechnya. The "Jihadi" ideology in turn started radicalizing Pakistani society.
Saudi Arabia not only supplied funding (via its petro-dollar income) for "jihad" but also provided religious justification for it (via its "Wahabi" brand of Islam). It is interesting to note that export of "Wahabiism" - an extremely austere form of Islam that is a state religion of Saudi Arabia - had been a state policy since early 1970s. Moreover, the kingdom saw an Afghan "jihad" as an opportunity to rid herself of native extremists as well as balance influence of Shia Iran.
The US and Saudi Arabia both played critical roles in introduction of militant Islam in South Asia. US was interested in a proxy war against Soviet Union in Afghanistan and fought it by encouraging a "Jihad" (ie. holy war) against the "infidels". An extensive network of "madrassas" were established with CIA help to imbue militant religious fervor as well as impart combat training. Moreover, fundamentalists from around the Muslim world were encouraged to join the "jihad".
It is not surprising that after collapse of Soviet Union, Central Asia experienced an Islamic revival. Soviet communism had suppressed religion and native culture, introduced a Sovietized version of history, put off introduction of local leadership in favor of ethnic Russians, and amalgamated hundreds of ethnic groups into five states. The collapse of the old system encouraged people to discover themselves while defeat of the Red Army in Afghanistan enhanced appeal of Islam.
This is a good analysis of rise of militant Islam in Central and South Asia over the past 20-30 years. Rashid provides an overview of (a) local conditions facilitating Islamic revival, (b) role of external forces in promoting extremism, (c) co-opting of fundamentalism by regional powers for geopolitical aims, (d) poor understanding of Islamic history by fundamentalist organizations, and most importantly, (e) lack of solutions for chronic societal problems by extremist groups.
This speaker is wrong in saying that muslims were tolerant of others in the past..Actually muslim REGIMES know that they have to tolerate others in order to continue their own rule..
gpardhu 1 year ago
PART VIII:
That being said, the ruling regimes are not guilt free either. They themselves offer no solutions to poor employment, education, infrastructure, healthcare, and representation issues. Worse, they are forced to act under US and Western pressure to suppress extremist groups. The suppression - in the form of outright ban or incarceration or curtail of activities - forces "jihadi" organizations to go underground where they become even more radicalized....hoping for a revoluation.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago
PART VII:
Finally, militant Islamic groups do not offer any solutions to chronic regional problems (like massive poverty, poor heath-care). The entire focus seems to be a biding hate for the ruling elite (seen as corrupt stooges of Western powers). It is assumed - erroneously - that by "turning back the clock", all societal problems will simply disappear. Iran provides a sobering rebuke to this belief. Despite implementation of Sharia law, public is worse off than it was under the Shah.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago
PART VI:
The fundamentalist "jihadi" organizations - as well as "madrassas" that supply recruits - are ignorant of the multi-cultural, multi-religious, and mutli-ethnic legacy of Muslim empires. For example, discussion of the cosmopolitanism of Indian, Ottoman, and Persian empires is completely absent from "madrassa" curriculum and "jihadi" discourse. Even "Jihad" is defined in its militaristic sense; broader meaning of self improvement (via becoming a better human being) is ignored.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago
PART V:
Pakistan co-opted "jihadi" network (established on its soil) after withdrawal of Soviet Union from Afghanistan to fight a proxy war in Kashmir. In addition, it facilitated establishment of a fundamentalist regime (ie. Taliban) in Afghanistan to gain "strategic depth" against India. In keeping with Islamization under Zia in the 1980s, Pak Army even exported recruits of its Jihadi network to Bosnia and Chechnya. The "Jihadi" ideology in turn started radicalizing Pakistani society.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago
PART IV:
Saudi Arabia not only supplied funding (via its petro-dollar income) for "jihad" but also provided religious justification for it (via its "Wahabi" brand of Islam). It is interesting to note that export of "Wahabiism" - an extremely austere form of Islam that is a state religion of Saudi Arabia - had been a state policy since early 1970s. Moreover, the kingdom saw an Afghan "jihad" as an opportunity to rid herself of native extremists as well as balance influence of Shia Iran.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago
PART III:
The US and Saudi Arabia both played critical roles in introduction of militant Islam in South Asia. US was interested in a proxy war against Soviet Union in Afghanistan and fought it by encouraging a "Jihad" (ie. holy war) against the "infidels". An extensive network of "madrassas" were established with CIA help to imbue militant religious fervor as well as impart combat training. Moreover, fundamentalists from around the Muslim world were encouraged to join the "jihad".
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago
PART II:
It is not surprising that after collapse of Soviet Union, Central Asia experienced an Islamic revival. Soviet communism had suppressed religion and native culture, introduced a Sovietized version of history, put off introduction of local leadership in favor of ethnic Russians, and amalgamated hundreds of ethnic groups into five states. The collapse of the old system encouraged people to discover themselves while defeat of the Red Army in Afghanistan enhanced appeal of Islam.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago
PART I:
This is a good analysis of rise of militant Islam in Central and South Asia over the past 20-30 years. Rashid provides an overview of (a) local conditions facilitating Islamic revival, (b) role of external forces in promoting extremism, (c) co-opting of fundamentalism by regional powers for geopolitical aims, (d) poor understanding of Islamic history by fundamentalist organizations, and most importantly, (e) lack of solutions for chronic societal problems by extremist groups.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago