Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

avaistheone1

(14,626 posts)
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 11:39 AM Apr 2013

Tamerlan Tsarnaev was thrown out of the mosque -- the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center --

about three months ago, after he stood up and shouted at the imam during a Friday prayer service, they said. The imam had held up slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of a man to emulate, recalled one worshiper who would give his name only as Muhammad.

Enraged, Tamerlan stood up and began shouting, Muhammad said.

“You cannot mention this guy because he’s not a Muslim!” Muhammad recalled Tamerlan shouting, shocking others in attendance.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-boston-bombing-suspect-radical-fbi-20130420,0,4341067.story

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tamerlan Tsarnaev was thrown out of the mosque -- the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center -- (Original Post) avaistheone1 Apr 2013 OP
Uncle Rusland has this guy pegged BeyondGeography Apr 2013 #1
+1 looooooser flamingdem Apr 2013 #3
I was somewhat skeptical about the Uncle at first. avaistheone1 Apr 2013 #6
Pretty formidable guy when you think about it BeyondGeography Apr 2013 #15
unlcle r. is now saying tamerlane was set up, more or less. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #17
Now comes all the reports of people who knew he was a lose cannon Heather MC Apr 2013 #2
Saw somewhere he was Sufi? Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #4
No denomination's going to be monolithic in the end. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2013 #5
The family may be Sufi, but the extremists are Salafi FarCenter Apr 2013 #7
But DU is insisting that it was unrelated to his religious extremism. nt Codeine Apr 2013 #8
DU can't accept that some forms of religion are incompatible with a pluralistic society FarCenter Apr 2013 #10
Depends on the meaning of "form of religion". The extremes of almost all religions are incompatible pampango Apr 2013 #11
The problem seems to be evangelical fundamentalism FarCenter Apr 2013 #14
That's a fair point about Islamic governments, but I wonder that is not also an issue of pampango Apr 2013 #16
In the Arab world dictators have tended to keep a lid on sectarian violence FarCenter Apr 2013 #18
I do think that dictators can keep a lid on sectarian violence but I am not so sure that their pampango Apr 2013 #20
+1 jessie04 Apr 2013 #12
I read elsewhere that they did let him back in at some point nt LiberalElite Apr 2013 #9
I find this reassuring. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #13
K&R CaliforniaPeggy Apr 2013 #19
 

avaistheone1

(14,626 posts)
6. I was somewhat skeptical about the Uncle at first.
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:20 PM
Apr 2013

But he appears to have understood that Tamerlan had changed, was up to no good and was a troubling influence on his younger brother.

In retrospect, Uncle Rusland was very brave to come forward and say so many difficult things about his own family. It must have been very painful for him to do so.

BeyondGeography

(39,377 posts)
15. Pretty formidable guy when you think about it
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 03:00 PM
Apr 2013

At the center of a global firestorm, to react to what is a personal crisis for him so lucidly and perceptively in a foreign language (not easy) showed real intelligence.

 

Heather MC

(8,084 posts)
2. Now comes all the reports of people who knew he was a lose cannon
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 11:45 AM
Apr 2013

It's a shame we can't stop these people before they, full on batshit crazy.

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
4. Saw somewhere he was Sufi?
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 12:03 PM
Apr 2013

Is this a Sufi mosque? Asking because they're known to be liberal, and have actually been repeatedly attacked by other Muslims. It would be completely bizarre if he was in fact Sufi.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
7. The family may be Sufi, but the extremists are Salafi
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:42 PM
Apr 2013
Radical Islam in Chechnya

The Islamic missionaries who infiltrated Chechnya were representatives of fundamentalist political Islam in its Salafi-Jihadi interpretation[10] (the Russian media coined “Wahhabists” as a generic term for Salafi Islamists and Arab fighters in general in Chechnya[11]). In the Early 1990’s these “Wahhabi” emissaries operated according to a simple scheme: local Mullahs and Imams were offered one-time grants of $1-1.5 thousand plus a monthly salary of $100-150 in return for their consent to join the Wahhabi sect[12]. Thus, Sufi Chechens encountered for the first time active propaganda by members of the Salafi-Jihadi movement, who encouraged Chechens to reject Sufism and follow a radical interpretation of Islam[13]. In addition to “Wahhabi” propagators, Chechnya became a popular destination for Middle Eastern militants and mercenaries, including the Afghani mujahedeen, who were supplied with weapons and transferred to the Caucasus[14]. The most prominent figure among foreign fighters in Chechnya was Ibn al-Ktattab, who arrived in Chechnya along with eight other fighters in spring 1995. Khattab and his companions established a “foreign holy warrior” battalion, which played a critical role in Chechen military operations from1996-1999 and offered military training to Chechen separatists[15].

...


“Wahhabism” was therefore used as an ideological platform for political goals despite its inherent incompatibilities with traditional Chechen Sufism[47]. While Salafist followers resent certain aspects of Chechen Sufism, “Wahhabi” Islam was foreign to the social, cultural and political traditions of the Chechen society[48]. Its presence induced internal conflict and ideological chaos. “Wahhabism’s” antagonistic attitude towards Sufism offered the Chechens only one alternative: Saudi Arabia as a model of ideological and political conduct. Foreign “Wahhabi” influence thus led to enmity between proponents of increased political and cultural orientation on Saudi Arabia and other Islamic regimes, and those who aspired to preserve the local form of Islam and the traditional, indigenous foundations of government. Furthermore, for the Chechen society “Wahhabism” constituted an artificially adopted international religious-political ideology, which severely compromised the rudimentary Sufi traditions of ancestral worship, veneration of holy sites and sainthood[49].

The division between proponents of Salafi-Jihadi rule and supporters of Aslan Maskhadov’s government is exemplified by an event that occurred in the summer of 1998. On July 14, 1998, in Gudermes, a quarrel took place between supporters of “Wahhabism” and followers the pro-Maskhadov warlord S. Yamadayev. The “Wahhabists” were led by Arbi Barayev and Abdul-Malik Mezhidov – both prominent warlords self-proclaimed judges in military Sharia tribunals. In the ensuing battle, the inhabitants of the Gudermes region immediately came to the assistance of Yamadayev’s forces. The fight ended with tens of casualties, including 30 Wahhabists, 20 supporters of Aslan Maskhadov and 10 innocent bystanders[50].



http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/tabid/66/Articlsid/636/Default.aspx
 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
10. DU can't accept that some forms of religion are incompatible with a pluralistic society
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 01:53 PM
Apr 2013

But it took 4 centuries of bloodshed in Europe to attenuate christianity to the point where its sects can live together (mostly).

pampango

(24,692 posts)
11. Depends on the meaning of "form of religion". The extremes of almost all religions are incompatible
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 02:08 PM
Apr 2013

with a pluralistic society. There are many Muslims, of course, who function very well in a pluralistic society including the imam at this mosque and the others who tossed Tamerlan out.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
14. The problem seems to be evangelical fundamentalism
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 02:40 PM
Apr 2013

Fundamentalism implies that the religion's scriptures and clergy are the sole fount of religious truths and that other religions and sources of religious understanding are invalid or sources of evil.

Evangelicalism implies that the religion has the right and duty to convert others to its views. If this is done through persuasion it is not dangerous, but historically it has been through forcible conversions and by using secular power to oppress adherents of other religions.

Christianity and Isalm have historically been the two religions that have combined these principles to advance themselves by fire and sword. Both have minority sects that adhere to these principles now, but only Islam has this kind of minority sects in control of governments to put them into action.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
16. That's a fair point about Islamic governments, but I wonder that is not also an issue of
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 03:11 PM
Apr 2013

dictatorship vs. democracy. Islamic democracies like in Turkey and Indonesia seem less inclined historically to advance their religion by "fire and sword".

Dictators and kings (of any religion) rely on the army and police to stay in power and have been more likely to use 'fire and sword' to enhance and spread their power whether that involved secular conquest or the spread of religion. Also repressive governments often try deal with their citizens' frustrations with their own government by using the old "Look! Over there! A Jew (or a Christian or a Sunni or a Shia, etc.) Getting repressed people (and sometimes a not-so-repressed people) to focus on an external 'enemy' rather than the one living in the palace is a tried-and-true tactic of governments to deal with dissent.

If democracy does spread in the Muslim world, it will be interesting to see if their governments become less keen on spreading their religion through "fire and sword". It is hard to know for sure but it is a possibility.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
18. In the Arab world dictators have tended to keep a lid on sectarian violence
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 04:08 PM
Apr 2013

The Assads, Hussein, Nasser, Sadat, Mubarak and Kaddafi all kept the lid on Islamic radicals in their countries.

Their removal has tended to increase conflict and result in takeovers by more fundamentalist factions. I would expect democracy to fail, and theocratic regimes reflecting the most vocal and intense extremist view to succeed.

The prospects for the Copts in Egypt are very dim. The non-Muslim populations have mostly been driven out of Iraq.

In Turkey, secularism was instituted by Ataturk after WW I. It was kept in place by the Turkish Army. Recent trends are towards more democracy and hence a more religious regime reflecting the overwhelmingly Muslim populations views.

Pakistan is a religous state -- it was born out of a religous civil war.

Farther east Malaysia and Indonesia seem more democratic and pluralistic, but there was that issue of persecution of Christians in East Timor.

There is also the ongoing conflict between Muslims and Catholics in the Philipines.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
20. I do think that dictators can keep a lid on sectarian violence but I am not so sure that their
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 05:35 PM
Apr 2013

repression does anything but make the underlying contradictions worse and worse.

You may be right about the future of democracy in that region. If you are, I feel sorry for the people there. They seem to want many of the same things that we want but their leaders - political and religious - may well retain control of everyone's lives.



Few Muslims in the Middle East think that the US is genuinely concerned with them ever achieving any degree of human rights and government by consent of the governed.



http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/07/10/most-muslims-want-democracy-personal-freedoms-and-islam-in-political-life/

And Arabs may have good reason for believing that the US cares little about their rights and democratic aspirations. Americans believe that stability in the Middle East is more important than democracy (though Democrats lean more towards democracy as a goal there but still a majority of Democrats prioritize stability). Democrats are somewhat more optimistic than republicans that the Arab Spring will bring lasting improvements to the people there, but still a plurality think things will not change for the better - which I think is in line with what you are saying. Republicans overwhelmingly say that the Arab Spring will be bad for the people in the region and bad for Americans.



I would say that Muslims in that region are probably quite perceptive when it comes to what they can expect from the US.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Tamerlan Tsarnaev was thr...