Shortly after UK Parliament voted in favor of air strikes, RAF started campaign, joining USA, France and Russia in war against terrorists. UK Parliament voted in favor of airstrikes in favour by 397 to 223. While Cameron said the action will be important to "keep the British people safe", many UK citizens share the concern of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who thinks that bombing ISIS could make the situation worse. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34980504
I believe sadly that ISIL cells in the UK may launch attacks in the UK, if true to form. The UK may need to deal with a similar event to the recent Paris ones. However a Government can not be held hostage by such fears as to do nothing against ISIL will lead to much worse consequences in the long term IMO. I admire the courage involved as no doubt the British Government is well aware that ISIL will attempt to retaliate, including the demonstration killings of any British hostages being held. There is a shocking war going on and unfortunately causalities are to be anticipated. ( either now or later)
I say good. Britain was already bombing ISIS. They were just doing it in Iraq, where they had permission from the Iraqi government, and not doing it in Syria, where they didn't (because it would mean asking Assad). I have just about zero respect for Jeremy Corbyn, but he may be right in this instance. ISIS might try a Paris-style attack in London as payback for Britain widening its air campaign. But there's more to it than that. ISIS patterns itself after the earliest 7th century Muslims that burst out of Arabia and swept across the civilized world in the space of a single generation. In the view of many Muslims, that early success is an irrefutable sign of God's favor, so ISIS and its supporters want to adhere as closely as they can to 7th century culture and behavior, in hopes of receiving the divine support that they feel they need to defeat the West. (And they possess prophecies that they believe foretell they will.) ISIS has caught the imagination of the world's Muslim youth precisely because of the feeling that it has divine favor and hence is historically invincible. ISIS kind of jumped into the world's consciousness when it declared its 'Caliphate' (a term recalling the unity of early Islam) after taking Mosul from several divisions of Iraqi troops without a fight as those divisions evaporated and fled. That reminded Muslims of early Islam's victories over the Byzantines and Persians and surely was divine intervention. So it's important that ISIS be dealt some major setbacks on the battlefield, that it be seen to lose territory as well as gain it, to lose battles as well as win them. Absent that feeling of divine favor and historical inevitibility, young Muslims aren't going to be quite as eager to seek martyrdom and launch suicide attacks for the holy cause.
ISIS is a very literal and uncompromising illustration of political jihadist Salafism in action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement The word 'Salafism' comes from the Arabic 'salaf' (predecessor) and refers to the Prophet, to his Companions and to the first generations of their followers. Historically, Sunni Islam has always looked to the first generations of Muslims as the authorities on proper Muslim practice and faith. (In Islam, practice and faith are inseparable.) They are the sources of the Hadith, the 'traditions of the Prophet' that have authority in Islam second only to the Quran. The schools of Islamic jurisprudence are devoted to interpreting these earliest Muslim traditions for new situations. (I guess that the role of the Hadith isn't unlike how Protestant Christians in particular look to the writings of Paul and the New Testament writers to interpret Jesus, except that early Christianity didn't emerge as a world conquering military movement in the space of a single generation, so there's far less emphasis in Christianity on creating and imposing a system of divine law upon entire communities. Early Christianity was more about the personal salvation of individuals in small congregations.) During the 1,400 years of Islamic history, Islam has produced all kinds of theology, philosophical schools and schools of mysticism alongside this legalism. Salafism as we have it today in its contemporary form is a fundamentalist "reform" movement within Islam that seeks to sweep away and destroy all these corrupting 'innovations' (hence effectively lobotomizing Muslim tradition) returning it to the essence of the 7th century Islamic revelation, the revelation from God to the earliest Muslims whose success against the unbelievers was irrefutable proof that God was with them. Hence Salafism's iconoclasm and its eagerness to destroy things like centuries old Sufi shrines and its determination to impose Shariah law upon everyone and everything, by force if need be (those who believe in using the force of Holy War as the earliest Muslims did, to impose Gods's will upon non-believers and upon backsliding Muslims alike, are the 'Jihadists'). We see growing adherence to 7th century tradition in the increased frequency with which Muslim women wear hijabs and Muslim men grow beards. We see it in the Muslim world's increasing emphasis on adherence to Shariah, which puts the whole religion onto a collision course with modernity and makes Salafist Muslims (who are probably the majority of Muslims in some countries) very problematic immigrants into Western countries where they may never assimilate.
Opinion: I guess it wasn't that long ago that the Western world was just as problematic in it's attitudes to cultural and religious differences. Ever since the end of the 2nd world war many nations have attempted to throw of this issue with amongst other things the development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The creation of the UDHR allowing a certain globalization of a "level playing field" between signing nations. It is this evolution of human rights that stands out as the most significant divide between Islam and the rest of the world. ( generally speaking of course) If there is any chance of Muslim asylum and refuge seekers to assimilate and integrate in to a country that is legally and socially founded on Human Rights it will only come about if those asylum seekers agree to adhere to those human rights. Unfortunately this would typically mean that they would have to "denounce" key elements of the Salafis-tic aspects of Islam before being granted entry and asylum in to a nation that requires those basic human rights in order to function. In other words the issue is not about religion per see, but very much about Human Rights. As a starting precondition to achieving asylum, I would make it mandatory that all asylum seekers regardless of religious persuasion, be required to swear upon their "God" to support and uphold the full intent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If they can not do so then no asylum is available as their beliefs make them incompatible and potentially destructive to the host nation. I would also go further and set the integrity bar higher. I would also make it mandatory that any trade or commerce is preconditioned like wise. If the target nation or peoples can not do so then no trade or commercial exchange is possible as to do so is only supporting a people or nation that has no genuine respect for the others rights. "One does not trade with one who would be overtly or covertly "happy" about seeing your head on a pole." Do you think the idea of preconditioning the granting of asylum in this manner would be productive?
