Why Islam hasn’t collapsed like Soviet in ’91 and why the Shia/Sunni divide is stronger than ever

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 know 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 an 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 the study showed some astonishing results – it couldn’t be 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 off more pervasive than those explicitly calling for the murdering the infidels. Uttering the words and trying to tell anyone that such a result is astonishing is nothing but preposterous. 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 same 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 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.

Already at the time of Muhammad was the germ of islamic schism planted.

Your are the best community ever brought forth among mankind, commanding virtue and forbidding vice and believing in God.

– Muhammad, 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.

Escape route please?

Since the 19th century this divide has only increased in complexity proportionally to the founding of new lines of sectarianism with nation-states, globalization and pan-sunni/-shia movements.

The creation of the nation-state was the greatest among several changes for the sectarianism of and from the Middle East since the 19th century.

As in Iraq the parts, the Sunni and Shia are in the constant battle of seizing (or disintegrating, for the Sunni part) the nationalism of Iraq.With our cognitive egocentrism we in the West assume that any immigrant coming to our beloved country has a just as stable national feeling as ourselves. Indeed personal identity there is – as described previously more than enough of [if one count the religious and sectarian] however we in the West seem rather consistently unable to discern national feelings/belonging from the sectarian. One may not see the vital difference immediately, however it’s there. There is an essential difference between nationality and sectarian identity which mainly lies by the cultural means. Belonging to a sect such as the arab Sunni sects one is not «able» to let go of parents’ culture because it is as with what I started out with; you are the sect. It cannot be changed – neither by subtraction nor addition. However the immigrants from other countries not bothered with this dilemma may both be [by descent] Vietnamese by nationality and norwegian by cultural means.

However as there’s no physical limitation by racial means that confine arab immigrants to stay in their sectarian place, there are some who makes the jump and seeks to wholly embrace the native culture without the qualms of throwing medieval traditions out the window. These persons comprise increasingly a larger portion of the society, with the following consequence; they cannot be ignored. Walid al-Kubaisi, Abid Q Raja and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is only the most prominent names on this ever-expanding list. Common factor for all of them is that they have all been alienated by the same type of xenophobic and white «anti-racists».

Xenophobic attitudes towards those who turn on «their own» is pervasive throughout all of the culturally enriched West, albeit one may say that Norway and Sweden may somewhat be of the champions in such a category. I think that most immigrants coming to Norway or any other Western nation thinks at least once of what to choose and why? The immigrants are not evil, they are not seeking to destroy their future, but when does the ones who attempt to break away from the shackles really get an alternative? When has ever the multiculturalists – proclaiming their ought to be uniting policy – done anything as for to meet the outlawed? Ignorance or misunderstood «neutrality» (saying that everybody is equally right and equally wrong) does never nor has ever, helped anybody but the oppressor.

Not long ago was Hedegaard attempted murdered for his words on Islam. Characteristically does the media charecterize him consistently and predictably merely as the critic of Islam who «created» the riots and followingly the assassination. What one is meant to understand from the news articles is, that violence is just the natural by-product of criticizing/offending Islam – he just got as ordered.

New fronts

As the contours draws forms the future for integrated muslim arabs seems disparaging.

The Shia revival seen after the downfall of Saddam in Iraq has been until the Arab Revolt the upsurge of a true national we, despite questions on which sect you’re a part of or whether you pray five times à day. Nationalism should be the national counterpart for the family membership. In such a form nationalism forges a level whereas one has the equivalent worth as any other man, no matter what class, religion or sect – majority or minority. This is the ilk of nationalism Iraq so desperately is making its effort to construct in the nation torn apart by the hands of sectarian violence. This is done only through creating a general census, to the hilt, of that belonging to Iraq is the highest instance of adherence.

However as this is not of interest for those who believe in the ultimate supremacy in Islam and what it defines as Islamic land, several branches of Salafi and Wahhabi Islam has its «motivation/propaganda founding in and from Iraq. That’s why pan-Shia movements never really kicked off as hoped [by the mostly iranian followers of Khomeini], they knew that such a movement could only lag and conform the developments and modernization which the lots of the Shia had envisaged.