How an Islamic extremist found a new path

[moonshaz]

I don't know how many of you saw this on Rachel's show last week, but it was fascinating.Sohail Ahmed, a self-described reformed Islamic extremist and gay Muslim, spoke with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on radical Islam

Comments

[eldvno]

This kind of interview is very informative, but I think a very crucial part of this discussion is missing: NAME THE PROBLEM.

And I don't mean, "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam", because that doesn't help, there are different levels of susceptibility within Islam, and these phrases which are being used make it seem like ANY type of Muslim can be radicalized. The extremists are not from the 'willy nilly, live and let live, I don't really fast or pray but I like the parties' type of Islam, it is the far-right versions like Wahabbism and Salafism which are being supported by Gulf States. If people are not willing to name the problem, then misinformation and prejudice are going to continue to spread.

[moonshaz]

Actually, I think he sort of did name the problem. He talked about Salafism, the branch of Islam he grew up in, and how it influenced the direction he took.

I strongly recommend watching the interview if you haven't yet, because I think he did address what you're talking about.

[eldvno]

I did, it is really good, and he does mention Salafism, but I should have mentioned that this is a general feeling I have, not in response to those specific interview. I feel like, when actual ideologies are mentioned, the are brushed away by the media (and thus the public) in favor of just calling it "Islamic extremism". While this interview is good, I think people who watch it won't realize this is not an Islamic problem, but a problem associated with certain branches and ideology (all far-right). So even though he mentions Salafism, I don't think this interview will move the discussion in the direction it needs to be headed.

[mimblexwimble]

How will naming the problem Salafism & Wahabbism help prevent prejudice and misinformation, specifically?

ETA: Just wanted to clarify that I'm asking honestly.

[eldvno]

I don't know if it will prevent prejudice, because people who are prejudiced don't care about facts, but I think it will help misinformation. With the priests sexually abusing children, we did not call it "sadistic Christianity" we called it was it was, a problem with the Catholic Church. A layperson would know that it's not Christians who hate homosexuality, it is hard-line Evangelical types which do, it's not an Episcopal problem. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find an Episcopal responsible for religious violence (terrorizing health clinics), but Evangelicals? You will find them in spades

[mimblexwimble]

I am too tired to be eloquent but I wanted to get my thoughts down before I nod off for the night

[eldvno]

I was being hyperbolic when I described the two groups, I did not mean that literally. I apologize that you thought I meant non-practicing = good, practicing = bad, but I did not.

And for your last sentence, that is already what is being implemented! More states are realizing that radicalization is not happening at random, but can be traced to funding coming from oversees. And as such, they are tracing the money. While states in the Balkans are on high alert, more are taking notice and are realizing that large sums of money (egregiously large) being moved to very specific communities is typically linked to Gulf States, and also linked to radicalism in said communities.

I could go on and on about this because it was (and still is) a major research focus for me, but suffice to say, I'd rather people call a spade a spade rather than "one of the cards".