The communist regime of Russia with its auxiliary satellite states collapsed inevitably/eventually in 91 because there simply was no more will to drive the self-annhiliating machine for any longer. What feelings surfaced when “Soviets” contemplated on what they owed the soviet nation/ideology/cause? If it [the cause] was to cost such much, then what was it that was worth so much to fight for? As we now today, when the soviets finally came to answer this ubiquitous question the answer was; “nothing”. Not was the soviet communism more of a family matter than to what degree it regulated its freedoms of divorce, moving and such. Neither could any soviet citizen come to the conclusion that they were somehow fighting for the ancestors, identity or anything of such. My point being, a relationship in-between the soviet citizen and the soviet communism was nonexistent, hence it was not a part of oneself, hence there was no feeling for something that they were for – merely against.
At individual level the target per se is not a sufficient drive-force, one needs fuel from behind too – a sense of meaningfulness. Such a force may be nationalism [imperialism], identity or family [tribe] – Soviet had none of them but all against.
However as for Islam this is certainly not the case. As a any muslim raised in the Islamic culture of today one is taught that one is God/al-Quran or anyhow a step-in (this is mainly the case for Sunni-Islam). This line of thought is evident in the islamic perspective on blasphemy, whereas one – as a muslim – is commanded to judge – as if with the judgment of God – the infidel and prescribe and execute God’s punishment.
This is merely a lesser part of Islam’s teaching which practically is the attempt to bring earth to heaven, one lifetime too early.
This culture of generating identity in Islam is mainstream and conventional. This is in practice indoctrination with the intent of making the muslims eventually believing that they and all what the world they exhibit contains, rises and falls with Islam; their spiritual demise would the equivalent of physical demise. Accepting this, turnout numbers in Islamic demonstrations suddenly doesn’t seem that mysterious after all.
I’ve now only spoken one religion so why on earth have I chosen to involve the Shia/Sunni divide in this text? Because it’s about exactly the same thing. What has made the Islamic civilization so great is the same that tears it apart. In no other religion is it possible to trace such a hateful and bloodstained schism.
I want to introduce another factor.I read an article of propaganda rhetoric in al-Qaeda last summer which was telling that what the study showed some astonishing results – it couldn’t been less so. It said that it was astonishing that the results was not as expected because they had foreseen to be witnessing perverted texts of how to dismember americans and what cruel monsters jews are. The latter was a frequent hit but they came to realize that the verses demanding protection of Islam for slander of its prophet, land and Umma was far of more pervasive than those explicitly calling for the murdering of the infidels. Uttering the words and trying to tell anyone that such a result is astonishing is nothing butpreposterous. Any person with some bits of memory from the time that they learned of nazi Germany should be able to recognize what really lies behind the rhetoric of al-Qaeda.
“Experts” daily tells us through the camera “This is just another typical propaganda text inciting violence because it is telling us that to protect our nation and so fort indirectly implying that there exists an imminent danger.” Yes indeed, such texts as described is to be found on the Net and does inspire to fear which naturally leads to hate among the lot of us. Whoever who has studied propaganda ought to know, it’s not of news.
Moreover , a constant tone in the public “debate” in Germany was also the sam as in Islamic rhetoric: How one should be. Which race? Who are appropriate people to socialize with? What people is destined to rule all land and people [of infidel’s Gods]. All of these questions share the same common factor, they are either intentionally made to arise a dichotomy between the chosen and righteous and that of the “others” or implicitly so. When concluding that arians are of the superior race one ultimately have to realize that there are some “less good” races, as when muslims claims that muslims is the only appropriate company for muslims one is of course saying that others are wrong to be with. This enamored view of the pure and righteous is consistently pervasive throughout all of Islam’s history.
Allready at the time of Muhammed was the germ of the islamic schism planted.
Your are the best community ever brought forth among mankind commanding virtue and forbidding vice and believing in God.
– Muhammed, al-’Imran 110
in this text lies the uncompromising tenants of all islamic directions. Everybody enjoys the firm belief of being a 100% right with all the following God-given might it brings. This makes any conciliation next to impossible in any instance.
Bloodshed was and is inevitable .
Since the 19th century this divide has only increased in complexity proportionally with the founding of new lines of sectarianism with nation-states, globalization and pan-sunni movements.