- Yes, the groups behind these attacks are not under one central leadership, rather they are either affiliates or offshoots of competing jihadist groups.
But they all share one cause.
They are all—including ISIS—derived from, or affiliated to just two jihadist groupings: al Qaeda and the Taliban. In turn, jihadists all drink from the same doctrinal well of widespread, rigid Wahhabism. And they share the ideological aims of popular non-terrorist Islamists. They are all unified behind a theocratic desire to enforce a version of Sharia as law over society.
Maybe you're right. But for me the point was that Wahhabism, AKA a conservative and fundamentalist sect of Islam with roots in Saudia Arabia, lays at the foundation of this wave of global terror. Research has struggled to find other predicting indicators for what drives people to commit terrorism. It's not poverty, level of education, place of birth or upbringing, and while isolation and radicalization is a oft-repeated pattern, there's little to explain why some people radicalize and others don't. Something that surprised me was that brothers were an unusually high class of terrorists. But beyond that, the major predictive factor was a strong belief in certain tenets of the Q'ran and in Islam. In Wahhabism particularly. So I see the purpose of the article as a call to reform. But if that point was lost on you or a general readership, then I'd be interested in where the article failed.
I spent too long typing my big long reply so when I actually hit reply the link expired. So I'm just going to go with the highlights. 1. Although reform has begun to happen in our lifetime we will always see it as too small when compared to our own countries. 2. The author calls for reform but doesn't actually provide any tangible way that this could happen. It is happening right now, women gained the right to vote in Saudi Arabia and although that seems small to us it's not small to them. 3. If the strongest predictor we have of who will commit acts of terror in the name of Islam is a strong belief in a fundamentalist version of Islam then we really don't actually know anything. I feel that the article laid the ground work for a good conclusion but then fell flat by just jamming in a few sentences about reform. It's just a buzzword with no real substance. I agree with issue of religion in politics but the author also begins to talk about a difference in values which too me is another buzzword. I have heard so much about my countries "values" without anybody specifying what they are that it's lost all meaning. It's a term used by politicians and horoscope writers because it will mean something to anybody listening. Without actually saying what these value are or this reform entails it allows the reader to insert whatever they want.
By the way, I'm curious. When you say you've heard so much about "my country's values" -- which country are you talking about?
Canada. This past election the Conservatives bombed pretty hard so in an attempt to save things started going on about our "values" which in turn meant a bunch of my lovely small town neighbors repeating it as if the statement meant anything because God forbid they come up with an original thought instead of repeating meaningless sound bites.
That's super annoying. I've had a lot of luck with Chrome on OS X where, if I get a deadlink after typing up a comment and submitting it, I hit Back and then hit the Reply button under the same comment I was replying to, and almost every time, the textbox appears and it's populated with what I had written. This has been the case for others, but some people have said that it doesn't work for them. YMMV As for what reform Maajid Nawaz recommends, I'd point you to the book Islam and the Future of Tolerance. He didn't mention it in this article so me pointing to something outside of it is a little unfair. But I recommend it nonetheless because it's engrossing and thought-provoking, and also a very short read -- like a few hours. Some of the reforms that were offered were basically a dialogue that must take place within the faith-community of Islam. Famously, the phrase in the Bible "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" is a phrase that's credited for Christianity's more-or-less peacable relationship with secular authority. But there is little to no separation between Church and State in a lot of Middle Eastern countries. So the reform would not only be this discussion between Muslims, but also, from the outside, the support of those reformers. Which is decidedly not what's happening, when Salon et al. attack Maajid Nawaz and others as profiteers and opportunists. It's counterproductive. Especially when the Left that's attacking these reformers claim to have the very same goals -- a secular, peaceful Middle East.I spent too long typing my big long reply so when I actually hit reply the link expired. So I'm just going to go with the highlights.
I think next time I'll copy my reply so I'll be able to just paste it if I happens again. I guess this article stands better when already mixed with a background such as the book you mentioned but I felt as though it was trying to reach out and inspire others. Maybe a little to general to really inspire much. I read another article a while back that did a similar thing but I'm failing to remember what it was. In a nutshell though it attempted to provoke an audience but the peice really wasn't directed at that audience to begin with.