Will Islam modernize this century?

[IMfez]

Do you guys think that the major Islamic nations will modernize any time soon? Or are they developing into some kind of anti-western religion?

My definition of a religion "modernizing" is that it becomes less extreme & more aligned with high-tech culture, but you can certainly use your own definition if you see differently.

[YaraMateo]

Why would they? They have no need to. It's a very big religion. I think modernizing would make more people leave than the number it would attract. The only thing I think might happen (as did last century witht the Catholic church) is they might loosen up about the Quran and other materials being translated. As I understand, that is a big no no. Other than that, no. There is no need to. The Catholic church is closer to the brink of dying out and they're not really changing either.

[Argent Towers]

I think it's definitely possible. But these countries seem fairly able to use Western technology without adopting Western social views. I believe that technology is socially/politically neutral, ultimately. A country could be completely up to date technologically and still be a religious theocracy.

Whether or not the Islamic world becomes more socially and religiously tolerant depends on whether or not they can start seeing mankind as one group rather than as Muslim vs. Non-Muslim. Or Sunni Muslim vs. Shi-ite Muslim or whatever. I believe all men all across the world can be brothers if they can lay down their religious differences and see each other as human beings. Will they do this? I don't know. I hope so. But that's the answer.

[even sven]

Is Christianity "modernized?" Danish Christianity is different than Ugandan Christianity. Nepalese Buddhism is different than Japanese Buddhism.

It's not religion, it's culture. Islam is found from Senegal to Indonesia. That's a lot of cultures. How can you begin to predict what will happen to dozens of cultures in countries as diverse as Burkina Faso, China, Bulgaria, Bangladesh, Iran and the Phillipines?

[Rachellelogram]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

A country could be completely up to date technologically and still be a religious theocracy.

This is more of a GD topic, but I don't believe this is sustainable. Up-to-date technology means non-restricted access to the internet. Browsing the internet means being exposed to alternative views, where open-mindedness is encouraged. Totalitarian theocracies survive on ignorance of the common people. It's much easier to control the masses when they don't know that similarly-oppressed citizens of other countries are revolting in the streets.

[Czarcasm]

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

This is more of a GD topic, but I don't believe this is sustainable. Up-to-date technology means non-restricted access to the internet. Browsing the internet means being exposed to alternative views, where open-mindedness is encouraged. Totalitarian theocracies survive on ignorance of the common people. It's much easier to control the masses when they don't know that similarly-oppressed citizens of other countries are revolting in the streets.

I dunno. China censors their internet, but I don't think anyone would claim that they're not "up to date" technologically. They have the technology, they just don't give their citizens unrestricted access.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

I dunno. China censors their internet, but I don't think anyone would claim that they're not "up to date" technologically. They have the technology, they just don't give their citizens unrestricted access.

For that matter, Iran also censors its interwebs - a technologically advanced theocracy.

[WotNot]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

This is more of a GD topic, but I don't believe this is sustainable. Up-to-date technology means non-restricted access to the internet. Browsing the internet means being exposed to alternative views, where open-mindedness is encouraged. Totalitarian theocracies survive on ignorance of the common people. It's much easier to control the masses when they don't know that similarly-oppressed citizens of other countries are revolting in the streets.

The joy of running a theocracy, of course, is that the common people can be relied upon to keep themselves in ignorance and organise their own oppression – because that's what they think God wants.

I don't think wide-spread and unrestricted internet access has had a significant influence on opinions in the US regarding evolution, for instance.

Not that I'm suggesting that America is a theocracy, of course, but I don't see why eastern Muslims would be any easier to persuade from their beliefs than western Christians.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

I believe all men all across the world can be brothers if they can lay down their religious differences and see each other as human beings.

Yes, if all men could just get along the way brothers do . . . . . . Did you ever have a brother?!

[fumster]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

This is more of a GD topic, but I don't believe this is sustainable. Up-to-date technology means non-restricted access to the internet. Browsing the internet means being exposed to alternative views, where open-mindedness is encouraged. Totalitarian theocracies survive on ignorance of the common people. It's much easier to control the masses when they don't know that similarly-oppressed citizens of other countries are revolting in the streets.

Have you read the posts on American message boards? People are stupid, they want to be stupid, and they don't care at all about what the "truth" is. Look at how the US is reacting to the "threat" of Islamic influence. Is that us being "open minded"? Now put yourselves in the shoes of someone in a Muslim country who sees their entire culture under attack from western influences. If we freak out at someone wearing a head scarf, think how they feel to see someone who in their eyes might as well be naked walking down the street.

As for "controlling the masses", our elite somehow convinced us that we should spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives to attack Iraq. Meanwhile they have the masses supporting economic and tax policies that are against their own interest.

[Inbred Mm domesticus]

Since Muslims are one giant uniform group I declare Muslims already modernized because selecting one part of a monolithic, uniform whole is just sampling. Turkey is a major Muslim nation, has embraced capitalism and democratic governance and now is trying to produce its own assault rifle. Question answered.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

For my purposes, a religion "modernizes" when it starts tolerating a non-literal interpretation of its holy books. Thus far I don't think that's occurring much in Islam.

So I don't think they'll modernize soon, given that definition.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan

For my purposes, a religion "modernizes" when it starts tolerating a non-literal interpretation of its holy books. Thus far I don't think that's occurring much in Islam.

So I don't think they'll modernize soon, given that definition.

No, looking at the history here I would say a religion "modernizes" when it starts simply paying less attention to its holy books, however interpreted. Indifferentism is civilization's best friend. When the majority of Muslims are "Ramadan-and-Hajj" Muslims the way there are "Easter and Christmas" Christians, modernity will have come.

[wisernow]

Does not seem likely, especially if we look at the past record. Religion is about blind faith, which in turn is a state of mind. Technological advancement cannot do anything to change a person’s faith.

Islam by its nature is an extremely closed religion, and strongly discourages thinking outside of its set guidelines. Generally speaking, a person brought up as a believing Muslim is highly unlikely to even attempt to analyse or question his beliefs, and this is regardless of which country he/she is brought up in.

[code_grey]

the lunatic libtard atheocracy idiocracy thrives in the West despite all the technology and despite the Conservative opposition's use of the internet to oppose their lies. The same can apply to Muslim theocracies or Baath-type fascist regimes, except they might be more proactive in shutting down websites with opposing views and punishing people who voice them.

While there are many undeveloped Muslim countries, some are developing rapidly, e.g. the traditionally prosperous and regionally dominant nations of Iran and Turkey. If the nearby Arabs remain underdeveloped and basically a punching bag for non-Arab powers (both regional and foreign) then it is hardly the fault of their religion as such.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by IMfez

My definition of a religion "modernizing" is that it becomes less extreme & more aligned with high-tech culture, but you can certainly use your own definition if you see differently.

That definition is not meaningful. To take the technology aspect first, how many religions are there that take any stance against technology? The only ones I can name are fringe groups like the Amish. Some people believe, as Rachellelogram suggested that the internet will necessarily work against radicalization because "open-mindedness is encouraged". I have to wonder whether people who believe that have ever been on the internet.

The first part of your definition depends on the definition of "extreme". At least according to normal understandings of the term, Islam is far more extreme now than it was fifty years ago or even three hundred years ago. From roughly 1400 to 1900 the Middle East and North Africa were ruled by the Ottoman Empire, which had no desire to see fanatical Islamic groups within its borders. The Ottoman Empire fell apart during WWI and was replaced by various secular regimes, most of which sought to rebuild their countries along western lines. But in the 60's and 70's those regimes failed and radical Muslim groups stepped in to fill the void.

[appleciders]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

When the majority of Muslims are "Ramadan-and-Hajj" Muslims the way there are "Easter and Christmas" Christians, modernity will have come.

There already are "Ramadan Muslims" the same way there are "Easter-and-Christmas Christians" and "Rosh-Hashanah-and-Yom-Kippur Jews." There are churches that share parking lots with mosques because they need overflow parking on different days. Many Muslim youth in America and other Western states are as thoroughly Westernized and liberal in their interpretations of Islam as any Christian who attends church only occasionally. There is as great a cultural range in Islam as there is in Christianity; consider the differences between modern-day Liberal Quakers and Southern Baptists, or between Unitarians and the Amish. To speak of Islam as a whole "modernizing" is a little silly; many groups will modernize drastically as Western culture has an influence, while others will fight to move in the other direction as a reaction. But it's not a single monolithic entity, just like Christianity.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan

For my purposes, a religion "modernizes" when it starts tolerating a non-literal interpretation of its holy books. Thus far I don't think that's occurring much in Islam.

So I don't think they'll modernize soon, given that definition.

The first question would be how this applies to religions that don't have a holy book or books.

The second, though, more clearly points out the flaw in the whole discussion. Some people seem to assume that all religions will follow the same path of intellectual development. In that formulation some people seem to think that a religion must have a renaissance around the 14th century just as surely as person must go through puberty around their 14th year.

But this presupposes that all religions are basically the same, which they are not. Christianity and Judaism are the only religions that ever "modernized" in the way that OP seems to have in mind. Some folks hold to a narrative in which Christianity opposed all steps of movement from pre-modern to modern society. But if Christianity actually supported those steps, that would explain why western civilization, starting out far behind other civilizations in the early Middle Ages, leaped ahead of the others by the end of the Middle Ages. It would also explain why waiting for Islam to "modernize" is an exercise in futility.

Christians and Jews believed in a living God who guides human history, and that holy books are intended to help us build a relationship with God. Muslims believed that God's final revelation to humanity came through one particular book written in the 500's. By definition Islam cannot incorporate any theology, philosophy, or wisdom from any other source. There's no point in trying to get Islam to "tolerate a non-literal interpretation" or "pay less attention". If that happens it won't be Islam any more.

[I_Know_Nothing]

The "major Islamic nations" are modernized.

Top 6 largest Muslim nations:

Turkey(70 million people)-modern democracy, NATO ally, seeking EU membership

Indonesia(230 million people)constitution grants freedom of religion, has constantly over many decades popularly rejected movements to officially become an Islamic republic

Bangladesh(160 million)yet another secular democracy

Iran(75 million)extremely wired and cosmopolitan country, though currently a religious dictatorship. I've known 3 Persian women in my life. All very chic, smoking hot, Muslim, and just as easy as any Baptist.

Pakistan(170 million)yeah its officially an Islamic republic. But practices the most liberal and tolerant form of Islamic Law(hanafi). Mostly Sufi influenced moderate form of Islam.

Egypt(80 million)one of two Arab countries at peace with Israel. Just look at the recent uprising. Not much fundamentalist or traditionalist about it.


Did you have something else in mind when you meant major Islamic nation?

[Siam Sam]

And Malaysia is pretty modern overall too.

I think guessing whether anything will happen this early in a century is an exercise in futility. Think about someone asking in 1911 the course of anything in the 20th century. And the rate of technological and social progress is supposedly even more rapid these days. If Islam has not "modernized" by, say, 2070 or 2080, then it might be a fair question to ask.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by I_Know_Nothing

The "major Islamic nations" are modernized.....
Did you have something else in mind when you meant major Islamic nation?

(Yes, I snipped out many interesting details.)

I don't think the OP is interested in reality. Or in this thread--which he's been avoiding.

[bahia hombre]

Religious modernization to me means establishment of basic human rights such as democratic freedom, education, equality for women, etc. The process is well underway so by the end of the 21st century I expect Islam to be all but extinct.

[BrainGlutton]

Fascinating review by John J. Reilly:

Destiny Disrupted:
A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes

By Tamim Ansary
Public Affairs, 2009
390 Pages, US$26.95
ISBN-13: 978-1-58648-606-8

There are several ways to look at the not entirely frictionless interaction of the West with the Islamic world over the past few decades. The most common, perhaps, is Samuel Huntington's “Class of Civilizations” model. Like most exercises in cultural comparison, it has many merits, but tends to view the cultures in question as static entities. Destiny Disrupted takes a somewhat different approach: the West and the Islamic world are different histories. They look back on different pasts, even when those pasts record many of the same events, and they have different ideas about how the world works and where it is going. According to this book, these systems have bounced off each other often in the past, but without deflecting the historical narrative of either to any important degree. That is, not until the latter 17th century, when Western influence began to seriously interfere with Muslim self-confidence and historical expectations. This disruption sparked movements dedicated to renaissance and reaction (sometimes both in the same movement) that met with a measure of success, but also led to the asymmetric conflicts of the early 21st century.

<snip>

The author gives commendable attention to the scientific and intellectual evolution of Abbasid times. This evolution was never entirely divorced from theology, which in the case of Islam meant close attention to the text and ontological status of the Koran. To put a complicated matter very briefly, the period began with an epistemologically optimistic appropriation of Aristotelianism; pure reason and empirical observation were believed capable of producing a high degree of reliable knowledge. This optimism was increasingly called into question by controversy over the interpretation of scripture, notably the issue of the degree to which the statements of the Koran can be applied analogically to address new situations. The dispute is sometimes formulated as the question whether the Koran is Allah's substance or one of his creatures. The prevailing conclusion was that the Koran was “uncreated,” and so had a higher ontological status than any analysis of it. (Compared to their Muslim analogues, the strictest Christian literalists view the Bible as a collection of helpful hints.) The tradition of philosophical enquiry ended with a skepticism of the power of reason that David Hume might envy. The motive, however, was more like that of Immanuel Kant: to make room for faith by restricting the scope of intellectual critique.

The result was a kind of pious skepticism with a quite postmodern flavor (this is the reviewer's characterization, not the author's). In any religion with scriptures, naïve fundamentalism is possible in which the believer clings to the literal interpretation of the text because the text is all he knows. Late classical Islamic thought, however, expressed a fundamentalism that had tried a variety of ways of knowing but found them wanting; it returned to the text, or rather to the traditional interpretations of the text, because the text was the one foundation of certainty remaining. Meanwhile, though pure reason had been found wanting on technical grounds, rational religion had also been increasingly wanting for psychological purposes. There was a great market for religious experience which the emerging Sufi orders met, just at the time the political order was falling to pieces.

So, in at least one interpretation of history (and not necessarily one the author endorses), one might say that the over-refined world of the Abbasids had come to an end for its dissention and impiety, just as the Muslims of the First Community had lost battles when they failed to obey Mohammed. The situation righted itself with the new orthodoxy of the Turkish revival.

History failed to end, however. Suddenly there were Europeans everywhere, as technical experts in the Ottoman lands, as military advisers in Persia, as traders in Moghul India. At first they were not militarily overwhelming, but they did have know-how and financial resources that put venal and foolish Muslim rulers under their influence, and indeed in their power. From this account, it is not at all clear how this happened, which suggests that it is not really clear to most Muslims. Nonetheless, over the course of two centuries, the typical Western-Muslim interaction went from Venetian merchants cadging favors from the Divine Porte in Istanbul to the British holding durbars at Delhi. Why, then did the Muslim world fail to adapt to modernity, or to develop a technological and political revolution of its own?

The author is aware that part of the answer lies in the deep structure of Muslim societies. For instance, Muslim reformers in the 19th century tried to introduce constitutions in Muslim states, but with mixed success. The problem was that the arbitrary nature of Muslim rule was reflected all the way down. Every man could be a whimsical tyrant in his own home if he so chose, subject only to the whim of his superiors, who were subject to the whim of their superiors, and so on up to the sultan (who might, as the saying goes, have a whim of iron). In discussing the technological and commercial conservatism of Muslim societies, the author has a great deal to say about gender roles, the Sufic sanction of artisanal industry, and even the difficulty of adapting to clock time. These are all interesting points, but more attention might have been given to issues such as responsible government and the rule of law.

The fundamentally arbitrary nature of power may, perhaps, be an insistence of Islam itself. This was the point that Benedict XVI was making in the Regensburg Address: Allah may incorporate a text, but apparently not the Logos. If so, this has important consequences not just for politics but also for science. A universe informed by a Supreme Being without Divine Reason would imply whimsical government at the human level and whimsical physics at the natural. One could in fact argue that there is a deep connection in Western thought from Christology to constitutionalism to science. (On the other hand, as the author notes, Muslim apologists have argued that reason is precisely the element that Islam adds to the Abrahamic religions.)

<snip>

The point is that the aspects of the West that Muslim reformers wished to graft onto Muslim societies as the world of the Three Empires decayed were not the secularized products of a newly post-Christian West, but were continuous with the ancient traditions of Christendom. That is not the same as saying, for instance, that in order to establish a postal system you first must accept the Filioque Clause. The provenance of the attractive features of modernity does imply, however, that in other societies they may not mean quite what they mean in the West; and that in any case, they cannot be established simply by royal proclamation. The author has a lively sense this indeed proved to be the case. The author takes us through the reform and nationalist movements from the 18th century Wahhabis to the Muslim Brotherhood and Taliban of the 21st. He emphasizes that although Wahhabism represents itself as a return to the unmediated Islam of the First Community, its rejection of tradition is in fact as modern in its own way as 20th-century Baathist technocracy. Among the major streams of reformist thought, our Afghan author clearly roots for the home team represented by Sayyid Jamaluddin-i-Afghan (1836-1897; this book suggests 1895). He was a polyglot polymath who traveled the world preaching a program of modernization on Islamic terms. According to the author, he was feeling his way toward a geostrategic strategy for the Muslim states that anticipated mid-20th-century Third Worldism.

The author suggests that the Islamist eruption that began in the last quarter of the 20th century was quite as much a disruption of the Western historical narrative as the appearance of a newly potent early modern West was to the Three Empires. One can pick on Francis Fukuyama too much, but it is true that the model of history he proposed at the end of the Cold War had singularly little to say about such a development. As things stand, the West keeps talking about freedom and looking for another Cold War to win, while the Islamists preach about decadence and look for another Byzantine emperor to defeat. Both of the world histories these enterprises assume are true, the author suggests. A genuinely universal history that unites them is possible, but the time is not yet.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan

For my purposes, a religion "modernizes" when it starts tolerating a non-literal interpretation of its holy books. Thus far I don't think that's occurring much in Islam.

Eh? I don't know any Muslims who interpret, say, the Quranic creation story literally (which is more or less the same as the Judeo-Christian one, just told from Mohammed's perspective):

And it is He who created the heavens and the earth in six days - and His Throne had been upon water - that He might test you as to which of you is best in deed. But if you say, "Indeed, you are resurrected after death," those who disbelieve will surely say, "This is not but obvious magic."

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

(Yes, I snipped out many interesting details.)

I don't think the OP is interested in reality. Or in this thread--which he's been avoiding.

Perhaps the OP's opening question could have been more clearly worded, and perhaps he or she will return to make the clarification with regard to the word 'nation'.

Regardless, attacking the poster in this forum is inappropriate. Knock it off.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by bahia hombre

Religious modernization to me means establishment of basic human rights such as democratic freedom, education, equality for women, etc. The process is well underway so by the end of the 21st century I expect Islam to be all but extinct.

Er, why does Islam have to be "all but extinct" in order to have such things?

Neither Judaism or Christianity is "all but extinct" and yet Democracy, equality of women etc. is hardly unheard of in countries where the majority of people are Christians or Jews and this is despite the fact that both religions are no more inherently more progressive or less sexist than Islam.

[AntiCoyote]

Islam isn't a religion it is an all accompanying way of life. From the second you wake up to the second you fall asleep, from the moment your born, till after death, Islam is about you and vice versa. There is no separation.

Islam teaches the Koran is the direct word of Allah and it doesn't have errors. So how can it change? Islams is very strict in getting people to stay Muslim once they accept it. Even more so, the Koran in Arabic is the only acceptable way to truly understand Islam, since all translations are open to error.

This kind of hold keeps Arab culture where Islam started onto places where it doesn't quite fit, like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia.

Islam is tolerant of other religions but not accepting of them.

This is not unique nor unsolvable. Look at places like Indonesia, where a lot of their Islam is mixed with local beliefs. In Syria the Alawites, of whom the leader of the country is one, are so far from standard Muslim practice, they aren't even considered to be Muslim by some groups.

Sub-Sahara Africans have the same issue. They want to be rich like the West, but they don't want to lose their traditions. And people will often try to say you can't be both. Eventually a compromise will be worked out.

One of the things the West doesn't often understand is just how divided the Islamic world is. They want to be united, but often the countries where Islam is practice, don't like each other.

Much in the same way Europe before WWII was full of Christian nations that couldn't stand each other. Now they're basically integrated in the EU. Could you imagine a general war breaking out in Europe now? But 100 years ago, it was just the opposite.

[even sven]

This kind of Isllamic exceptionalism- the idea that Islam is uniquely literalist, war like or unable to change- is as much bullshit as the idea that Chinese (Italians, Irish, Mexicans, Pakistanis, etc.) are uniquely unable to itegrate. Furthermore, it flies in the face of every religion ever. Every religions develops a range if interpretation. Every religion is peaceful in tmes of peace and violent in times of war. Buddhists have commited genocide and Sikhs have peacefully farmed. The Amish coexist with the megachurches who coexist with the Catholics who coexist with the Unitarians.

Islam has this diversity, too. We don't hear about it because "nice West African Sufi guys lives quiet life" doesn't make the news.It doesn't help that Islam is found in some exceptionally unstable regions, so Islam and instability get mixed up politically.

[AK84]

[quote=I_Know_Nothing;13995154]The "major Islamic nations" are modernized.

Top 6 largest Muslim nations:

Turkey(70 million people)-modern democracy, NATO ally, seeking EU membership

Indonesia(230 million people)constitution grants freedom of religion, has constantly over many decades popularly rejected movements to officially become an Islamic republic

Bangladesh(160 million)yet another secular democracy


Pakistan(170 million)yeah its officially an Islamic republic. But practices the most liberal and tolerant form of Islamic Law(hanafi). Mostly Sufi influenced moderate form of Islam.

QUOTE]

Bangladesh's state religion has been Islam since circa 1980. And Pakistan's law is based upon the common law of England and Wales; not Hanfi or any other school of law.

[I_Know_Nothing]

Originally Posted by even sven

Islam has this diversity, too. We don't hear about it because "nice West African Sufi guys lives quiet life" doesn't make the news.

Where's a Muslim The Onion when you need one. I remember one my first Onion headlines: "Local man sits on couch, watches football all day." I can imagine a Muslim equivalent: "Local Muslim man watches cricket, stuffs himself with hummus, falls asleep on couch."

Not that I think there is a strong anti-Muslim media bias. News inherently needs to be novel to be interesting. I seem to remember a study that found that people who watched/read more news were more likely to overestimate the likelyhood of natural disasters. I probably would not be interested in buying a newspaper who's headline, 364 days a year, read "Major earthquake does not hit California."

Food for thought: A suicide bomber in Pakistan kills 100 Muslims: why does it only feed the stereotype a of a fanatical Muslim suicide bomber? Why doesn't it feed a stereotype of Muslims being constant cannon fodder for suicide bombers?

[BigT]

Originally Posted by I_Know_Nothing

Food for thought: A suicide bomber in Pakistan kills 100 Muslims: why does it only feed the stereotype a of a fanatical Muslim suicide bomber? Why doesn't it feed a stereotype of Muslims being constant cannon fodder for suicide bombers?

Because, if there is a guilty party, news is about that person, and not the victims. Or, more generally, we as a society pay more attention to the people who do wrong than the people who do right.

[AK84]

Originally Posted by I_Know_Nothing

Where's a Muslim The Onion when you need one. I remember one my first Onion headlines: "Local man sits on couch, watches football all day." I can imagine a Muslim equivalent: "Local Muslim man watches cricket, stuffs himself with hummus, falls asleep on couch."

Not that I think there is a strong anti-Muslim media bias. News inherently needs to be novel to be interesting. I seem to remember a study that found that people who watched/read more news were more likely to overestimate the likelyhood of natural disasters. I probably would not be interested in buying a newspaper who's headline, 364 days a year, read "Major earthquake does not hit California."

Food for thought: A suicide bomber in Pakistan kills 100 Muslims: why does it only feed the stereotype a of a fanatical Muslim suicide bomber? Why doesn't it feed a stereotype of Muslims being constant cannon fodder for suicide bombers?

1) Muslim men whio would watch cricket are unlikely to be Hummus eaters; its a middle eastern dish uncommon in South Asia where cricket is popular.

2) On the Onion, please be referred to Pakistan's Roznama Jawaani, roughly translatesd; "the Daily Puberty".

Fox News however mistook one of their headlines for real.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by AK84

Fox News however mistook one of their headlines for real.

That link doesn't work for me.

EDIT: OK, I got it to work by clipping "mobile" out of the address.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Link not really safe for work.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by even sven

This kind of Isllamic exceptionalism- the idea that Islam is uniquely literalist, war like or unable to change- is as much bullshit as the idea that Chinese (Italians, Irish, Mexicans, Pakistanis, etc.) are uniquely unable to itegrate. Furthermore, it flies in the face of every religion ever. Every religions develops a range if interpretation. Every religion is peaceful in tmes of peace and violent in times of war. Buddhists have commited genocide and Sikhs have peacefully farmed. The Amish coexist with the megachurches who coexist with the Catholics who coexist with the Unitarians.

Islam has this diversity, too. We don't hear about it because "nice West African Sufi guys lives quiet life" doesn't make the news.It doesn't help that Islam is found in some exceptionally unstable regions, so Islam and instability get mixed up politically.

When we see vast differences in social behaviors, cultural norms, and various outcomes between one place and another, it is always worthwhile to look into to causes of those differences. Consider the vast differences in murder rates between New York City and Washington D.C. One could say that there is a range of attitudes towards murder among both New Yorkers and D. C. residents. It would be true. But it doesn't eliminate the fact that the murder rate in D.C. is more than five times higher than New York. There must be some actual reason for that fact.

Likewise if we see enormous differences cropping up between Islamic civilization and western civilization, it may be true to say that there's a range of religious beliefs within both, but that doesn't capture the whole picture. The differences still exist.

[even sven]

I don't find it st all that surprising that various not-western societies are not paticularly western. There are large cultural gaps between Buddhist and Hindu and Vudun societies and the West as well. It comes with the territory of not being western.

I'm unconvinced that Islam is the uniting factor. An Indian Muslim has a lot more in common wirh an Indian Hindu than a Mauritainian Muslim. An Egyptian Muslim is much more similar to an Egyptian Christian than to an Indonesian Muslim. If Islam evaporated from Afghanistan, do you really think it'd suddenly turn in to Minneasota? And would much change if it disappeared from Turkey?

The uniting factor between violence in DC, DR Congo and Columbia is not Christianity. Indeed, there isn't any real uniting factor- each is it's own mess of history.

Anyway, of everything that defines a society, religions is the most flexible. Geography, economics, governments....all of these things are relatively fixed. But religion is created and performed by people constantly. So I tend to believe that most religious beliefs are adaptive, and tend to be shaped by the environment more often than doing the shaping.

[RaleighRally]

Originally Posted by even sven

I don't find it st all that surprising that various not-western societies are not paticularly western. There are large cultural gaps between Buddhist and Hindu and Vudun societies and the West as well. It comes with the territory of not being western.

I'm unconvinced that Islam is the uniting factor. An Indian Muslim has a lot more in common wirh an Indian Hindu than a Mauritainian Muslim. An Egyptian Muslim is much more similar to an Egyptian Christian than to an Indonesian Muslim. If Islam evaporated from Afghanistan, do you really think it'd suddenly turn in to Minneasota? And would much change if it disappeared from Turkey?

The uniting factor between violence in DC, DR Congo and Columbia is not Christianity. Indeed, there isn't any real uniting factor- each is it's own mess of history.

Anyway, of everything that defines a society, religions is the most flexible. Geography, economics, governments....all of these things are relatively fixed. But religion is created and performed by people constantly. So I tend to believe that most religious beliefs are adaptive, and tend to be shaped by the environment more often than doing the shaping.

I couldn't agree more. There is a reason why the most reformed version of Christianity (Lutheranism) is practiced in the Scandinavian countries. And as I have pointed out before, the Scandinavians are the best immigrants to the US ever in terms of social capital. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...1&postcount=73
Nowadays most Swedes are atheists. You see high quality peoples don't care about religion. Americans, who mostly are descendants of poor Europeans who didn't have the ability to compete with their more capable countrymen, are much more religious than the average Western European.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by RaleighRally

I couldn't agree more. There is a reason why the most reformed version of Christianity (Lutheranism) is practiced in the Scandinavian countries. And as I have pointed out before, the Scandinavians are the best immigrants to the US ever in terms of social capital. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...1&postcount=73
Nowadays most Swedes are atheists. You see high quality peoples don't care about religion. Americans, who mostly are descendants of poor Europeans who didn't have the ability to compete with their more capable countrymen, are much more religious than the average Western European.

. . . Are you talking about culture or genetics here?