The Muslim World

[Argus]

I have been hearing repeatedly over the last some months that it is a major part of the Koran's teaching that Islam must be spread everywhere, that the infidels must be converted or killed. Certainly that was how Islam was spread in its earlier years. I have been reading up some on Islamic history, and in fact, it was spread right up until the rise of the West as such a potent force that Islam was absolutely balked.

Now a lot of people like to make the case that the great majority of Muslims are peaceful people who want only to co-exist with everyone else. I'm not sure that's correct. I'd like to ask a question. Has the Islamic world given up on expanding by force or is it simply balked by a lack of military power?

For example, say some wonderful leftist type takes over in Europe, and spreads a great philsophy of tolerance and peace. So powerful is this message, that all the nations of Europe, as well as the US and other associated Western states, disarm. Furthermore, no one interferes at all in the middle east any more. No aid is provided to governments there, no attempt made to interfere with the rise of miltant Islam. We let the Muslim world do as it wishes.

How many think that the Muslim world would suddenly break out in human rights respecting democratic governments?

How many think that brutal theocracies would soon reign throughout the Muslim world?

Further. With Iranian style governments in place in all the major Muslim nations, from Pakistan to Egypt, from Syria to Morocco, how long would it be before there was a military invasion of the Infidel states of Europe? I mean, seriously. If it weren't for the overwhelming military power of the West, would the Islamic world once again begin to try and spread Islam by force? I personally think it would. And while many Muslims would just as soon get on about their business of raising their kids and looking after their businesses, that has always been the case in every empire and nation throughout time. Even most of the Germans in the Nazi era really only cared about doing their job and raising their kids. Same goes for Soviet citizens.

But I think most of us would agree that left to their own devices, the people of the Muslim world would soon be under brutal theocratic government. Hell, a poll taken in the UK last week showed that even among the supposedly enlightened, educated, western Muslims, 40% wanted Sharia law implimented in Muslim areas.

So I don't think we can dismiss the religious sentiment as a few loonies, as in the Oklahoma bombers.

The only thing which I believe keeps the Muslim world from being a threat is the fact the West has overwhelming force. The culture of the Islamic world is still rife with religious fervour and a violent religious mania which allows for all manner of violent acts. I think you'd have no difficulty at all - were it possible - in finding literally millions of volunteers for a Jihad against the infidels in the West.

[arif]

I have been hearing repeatedly over the last some months that it is a major part of the Koran's teaching that Islam must be spread everywhere, that the infidels must be converted or killed. Certainly that was how Islam was spread in its earlier years. I have been reading up some on Islamic history, and in fact, it was spread right up until the rise of the West as such a potent force that Islam was absolutely balked.

Now a lot of people like to make the case that the great majority of Muslims are peaceful people who want only to co-exist with everyone else. I'm not sure that's correct. I'd like to ask a question. Has the Islamic world given up on expanding by force or is it simply balked by a lack of military power?

For example, say some wonderful leftist type takes over in Europe, and spreads a great philsophy of tolerance and peace. So powerful is this message, that all the nations of Europe, as well as the US and other associated Western states, disarm. Furthermore, no one interferes at all in the middle east any more. No aid is provided to governments there, no attempt made to interfere with the rise of miltant Islam. We let the Muslim world do as it wishes.

How many think that the Muslim world would suddenly break out in human rights respecting democratic governments?

How many think that brutal theocracies would soon reign throughout the Muslim world?

Further. With Iranian style governments in place in all the major Muslim nations, from Pakistan to Egypt, from Syria to Morocco, how long would it be before there was a military invasion of the Infidel states of Europe? I mean, seriously. If it weren't for the overwhelming military power of the West, would the Islamic world once again begin to try and spread Islam by force? I personally think it would. And while many Muslims would just as soon get on about their business of raising their kids and looking after their businesses, that has always been the case in every empire and nation throughout time. Even most of the Germans in the Nazi era really only cared about doing their job and raising their kids. Same goes for Soviet citizens.

But I think most of us would agree that left to their own devices, the people of the Muslim world would soon be under brutal theocratic government. Hell, a poll taken in the UK last week showed that even among the supposedly enlightened, educated, western Muslims, 40% wanted Sharia law implimented in Muslim areas.

So I don't think we can dismiss the religious sentiment as a few loonies, as in the Oklahoma bombers.

The only thing which I believe keeps the Muslim world from being a threat is the fact the West has overwhelming force. The culture of the Islamic world is still rife with religious fervour and a violent religious mania which allows for all manner of violent acts. I think you'd have no difficulty at all - were it possible - in finding literally millions of volunteers for a Jihad against the infidels in the West.

Argus,

your scholarship of muslim history is limited and obviously biased. we've been experiencing successive empire-building world-domination themes for thousands of years. we've had the Greeks, the romans, the mongols, the crusades, communists, colonialists, and we have the nice and subtle neoliberalists backing the multinational corporations, and the muslims too.

the thing about ignorance and fear is that it escalates conflict, it sends both sides to the extremes, it sets out a reactionary tone, rather than a proactionary one.

it works like this, you take the middle east - palestine in particular. you have mostly arabs, some jewish people, some christians - you have the occasional conflicts and such. then the brits come along with their wonderful record of divide and rule, they start slicing up the pie. there is plenty of immigration. now, even in canada where immigrants are contributing greatly to the economy, there can be a backlash. in palestine you have a 3rd party colonialist controlling while playing on the divide and rule strategy. Then they create a state of israel in that land with historic ties to judaism and in response to the holocaust, israel relies on zionism for great immigration to ensure ethnically based majority in the region, palestinians are marginalized. palestinians all along are not without blame politically and civilly in antagonizing immigrants and not showing goodwill to the reality of the need for israel following the holocaust. the brits pull out with a number of border and land disputes and a lingering sense of injustice and animosity. palestinians and israelis dispute these for the next half century, except that aid from the US goes primarily to israel. israel creates a modern, democratic state while palestinians remain stateless. none of justifies the escalation of violence on civilians by the palestinians, which further destabilizes the region and reverses their progress toward a solution. over the years many israelis and palestinians develop relationships and seek peace through moderation. yet violence diminishes their voice, violence is reported by the media where ordinary progress is not. palestinians continue with violence against civilians that contravenes the most basic international law, israel routinely contravenes these laws as well. then hamas gets elected setting us all back.

Failed politics and long-standing patterns of conflict-escalation and reaction create the context for the rise of religious violence, as the regression to simplistic, emotionally charged and violent interpretations becomes attractive to the desperate. the spirtually degraded clerics who can take advantage of this energy gain an upper hand. when insults are heaped on top of this, on everyone in the group, some will carry on rejecting violence, for others its yet another push in the direction of accepting a solution that offers divinely-inspired rage in the place of shame and helplessness.

It's no crime to understand a situation, and it has nothing to do with tolerance or being a bleeding heart. Understanding a situation is important for those who wish to solve problems, less important for those who simply want to chirp away on the sidelines.

peace,

Arif

[Argus]

But I think most of us would agree that left to their own devices, the people of the Muslim world would soon be under brutal theocratic government. Hell, a poll taken in the UK last week showed that even among the supposedly enlightened, educated, western Muslims, 40% wanted Sharia law implimented in Muslim areas.

So I don't think we can dismiss the religious sentiment as a few loonies, as in the Oklahoma bombers.

The only thing which I believe keeps the Muslim world from being a threat is the fact the West has overwhelming force. The culture of the Islamic world is still rife with religious fervour and a violent religious mania which allows for all manner of violent acts. I think you'd have no difficulty at all - were it possible - in finding literally millions of volunteers for a Jihad against the infidels in the West.

Argus,

your scholarship of muslim history is limited and obviously biased. we've been experiencing successive empire-building world-domination themes for thousands of years. we've had the Greeks, the romans, the mongols, the crusades, communists, colonialists, and we have the nice and subtle neoliberalists backing the multinational corporations, and the muslims too.

I understand that. But the Greeks and Mongols are no longer a threat. Even if their tone had not moderated, their numbers have. The Muslim world's numbers continue to grow, and yet, they do not appear to be growing more moderate.

Failed politics and long-standing patterns of conflict-escalation and reaction create the context for the rise of religious violence, as the regression to simplistic, emotionally charged and violent interpretations becomes attractive to the desperate. the spirtually degraded clerics who can take advantage of this energy gain an upper hand. when insults are heaped on top of this, on everyone in the group, some will carry on rejecting violence, for others its yet another push in the direction of accepting a solution that offers divinely-inspired rage in the place of shame and helplessness.

Granted that what you say sounds quite logical. But that does not alter what is. Even if we manage to get all the Jews out of the occupied territories and set up some sort of Palestinian state, I do not think this would reduce the level of religiously inspired violence or antagonism towards others which is rife in the Muslim world. The religious intolerence emenating from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran are not the result of failed states, for both nations are comparatively well-run and wealthy by third-world terms. Yet they appear to be the primary source of the intellectual inspiration for religiously inspired violence. The young, well-off Saudis volunteering to be suicide bombers are not the products of poverty, violence and desperation, after all.

[arif]

But I think most of us would agree that left to their own devices, the people of the Muslim world would soon be under brutal theocratic government. Hell, a poll taken in the UK last week showed that even among the supposedly enlightened, educated, western Muslims, 40% wanted Sharia law implimented in Muslim areas.

So I don't think we can dismiss the religious sentiment as a few loonies, as in the Oklahoma bombers.

The only thing which I believe keeps the Muslim world from being a threat is the fact the West has overwhelming force. The culture of the Islamic world is still rife with religious fervour and a violent religious mania which allows for all manner of violent acts. I think you'd have no difficulty at all - were it possible - in finding literally millions of volunteers for a Jihad against the infidels in the West.

Argus,

your scholarship of muslim history is limited and obviously biased. we've been experiencing successive empire-building world-domination themes for thousands of years. we've had the Greeks, the romans, the mongols, the crusades, communists, colonialists, and we have the nice and subtle neoliberalists backing the multinational corporations, and the muslims too.

I understand that. But the Greeks and Mongols are no longer a threat. Even if their tone had not moderated, their numbers have. The Muslim world's numbers continue to grow, and yet, they do not appear to be growing more moderate.

Failed politics and long-standing patterns of conflict-escalation and reaction create the context for the rise of religious violence, as the regression to simplistic, emotionally charged and violent interpretations becomes attractive to the desperate. the spirtually degraded clerics who can take advantage of this energy gain an upper hand. when insults are heaped on top of this, on everyone in the group, some will carry on rejecting violence, for others its yet another push in the direction of accepting a solution that offers divinely-inspired rage in the place of shame and helplessness.

Granted that what you say sounds quite logical. But that does not alter what is. Even if we manage to get all the Jews out of the occupied territories and set up some sort of Palestinian state, I do not think this would reduce the level of religiously inspired violence or antagonism towards others which is rife in the Muslim world. The religious intolerence emenating from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Iran are not the result of failed states, for both nations are comparatively well-run and wealthy by third-world terms. Yet they appear to be the primary source of the intellectual inspiration for religiously inspired violence. The young, well-off Saudis volunteering to be suicide bombers are not the products of poverty, violence and desperation, after all.

The Saudis are a product of the unholy marriage of an exceedingly regressive and fundamentalist Wahabbi interpretation of Islam, with a corrupt House of Saud, which hoped to gain political authority by gaining the sponsorhip of Wahab. The US has no difficulty in providing the wealth by buying the oil - so you get an awful mix of corruption, money and power that legitimizes itself through relationship with Wahabbism. Wahabbism has its attraction because it is fundamentalist and literalist, though its use of literal authority is selective and without context, it attracts those who wish to reject modernity. And though you and I appreciate modernity and see it as more good than bad, it is possible to create a laundry list of its negative points, especially when the West carries its colonial and economically imperialist baggage. I have no sympathy for the Wahabbis in general, especially those who embrace its tenets even having had access to a broader education and opportunities.

Iran was better off with the Shah, yet it was the colonial nature of the Shah that encouraged the Revolution. What followed was great regression and oppression of dissidence. Khotami offered hope of reform, but his hands were tied by the power of the clerics who held authority over police, and even Khotami backpedalled on his promises to the Iranian youth. Now it is much worse, as Iran's leader is apparently insane.

for those countries, I agree that there is great threat. I would agree that the current greatest threat the world that is using religion as a force, are the Islamists. It is as you say.

But remember that Khotami was being urged by the Iranian youth to reform. We know that China is a great threat, we know what it's done to Tibet. But we remember the students of tian'nammen square, so we cannot say that Chinese imperialism is a Chinese cultural force, no more than we can say that Islamism is integral to Islam itself.

I often pondered how I would address a North African culture that practiced female genital mutilation. I'm no cultural relativist, and full well believe that the practice is wrong, but instead of demeaning an entire culture as backward and hopeless, I would look and see where the effort is from within that culture to change the practice. In this case, the absence of FGM in other cultures shows those cultures that the practise isn't necessary, while cultural relativism would reinforce the validity of it. We all influence one another, that's why these forums are great. You'll find those people who are saying look, we've got to stop doing this, you support them from outside the culture, and soon enough, governments are banning the practise. You have people in that culture who've traveled and opened their eyes, and they move to change.

We're going to change it, I'm willing to commit my life to it, to bring peace.

Arif