To be honest talking about "islam" just like talking about "judaism", "christianity", "hinduism," etc. as monolithic wholes is pretty much useless and lacks any kind of explanatory value. so much depends on variations in local practice, and how these have historically been produced within different often colonial discourses.
(puts on expert's hat) hinduism as a holistic concept for example didn't exist before the high period of british colonialism when philologists and others claimed to identify a unitary,
textual corpus of works such as the law of manu, completely obliterating the multiple sects, deities, competing oral traditions, etc. spread across South Asia.
in the case of islam, I'm pretty sure the indonesian fisherman and hausa pastoralist are more concerned with fishing and erm grazing cattle than crucifying people and establishing an islamic caliphate.
yes, you could argue that people justify their actions according to islam, but people say they do shit for a bunch of different reasons. if i take a shit and say I'm doing it for jesus, are you going to agree and say "yes, christianity leads to shitting." or will you examine the physiological process of the way in which I make a bowel movement?
just because some crazy bastard in a desert says "i'm going to cut people's heads off cause allah told me to do it" doesn't explain the sociological factors behind the rapid spread of militant movements, and the fact that these often arise in areas where you're dealing more with basic endemic issues of corruption and violent patron-client relations.
yes, there is a small cadre of dedicated hardcore islamists who have gone full blown transnational since the 1970s, but how come we don't think about these loonies in terms of an incomparable number of different frames; as for example the complement to right-wing nationalist extremism in europe? again, is it something intrinsic to "the religion," a mealy mouthed, uneven and inadequate concept? or does it have to do more with the formation of a narrow cadre of people under conditions of repressive regimes, transnational criminal networks, etc.?
even more ambiguously, could the very stereotypes and representations of islam in the media have paradoxically turned it into a discourse anyone can latch onto and appropriate to express their own discontent with shit going down in society? for example, if i want to shoot up a bunch of people because i'm having mental health issues, instead of saying marilyn manson made me do it, i might just say "oh it's cause america is the devil la la jihad."
again though, does this explain jack shit about why people are f**k up? no.
no. no. espanol: no. portuguese: no. back to english: no.
ideas alone can't explain social tendencies and aggregates. my friend's said this a billion times, i'll say it a billion times. YOU NEED INSTITUTIONS (and these are formed under historically specific conditions blah blah). it needs to be broadcast from every loudspeaker available.
on that score, dharma is essentially right. yes folks, he is in fact the crazy hippy who is dead on. at least in terms of the basic kernel of his argument.
final bone: also com, what happened to the whole "in the US, 'whiteness' doesn't exist and 'person of color' is a useless label upon which to build solidarity because it homogenizes differences." but suddenly applying the considerably more homogenizing label of "islam" to nearly two billion people's beliefs and practices is legitimate?
"The hell you say..."