why islam is acting up

Great Debates
1

Actually , Islam is not acting up . Only fundamental Islam is acting up.
It seems to me the reason these fundamental types are on the war path is this : They realize that fundamental Islam is on the way out ! All fundamental religions are loosing converts because science has poked holes in their tenets . Yet ,in what appears to be denial , they blame the “infidels” for this calamatous loss of faith . This has happened before in history :
The New England puritans of the 1600’s experienced a vicious witch hunt just when the ferver of the the congregation seemed to cool off .
France experienced a “reign of terror” after the revolution was a few years old, the reason for which I am not familiar with (but I can only guess).
The people’s republic of China had its “cultural revolution”
The Soviets had their Stalin years.

What’s the point of this observation, (which I am sure many people have already made) ? It’s this : we should try not to loose our cool over it too much . These morons are already doomed ,whether we do anything about them or not. The more we fight them , the more they think that those voices in their heads that keep telling them to kill everybody are real !

2

This is a foolish observation. Fundamentalist Islam is the problem itself. It does not make sense to say that Fundamentalist Islam is acting up - Fundamentalist Islam = Islam acting up. That does not mean that all Muslims are fundamentalists, or any other such statement, but it means that a segment of Islam is causing problems for the rest of the world (U.S. & Europe, India, Israel, secular Muslims, etc.).
**

I don’t know enough about the history of the Witch Trials to say when they “cooled off”, but do you have a cite for this?

The reign of terror lasted around 4 or 5 years, after which Napoleon took over. Sure, the Revolution ended with the reign of terror, but how is that relevant? The Revolution had to end sometime. And Napoleon’s reign wasn’t too nice (in some respects; in others, he could very well have been considered an enlightened despot), but he lasted another 15 years after that.

And? The PRC still exists today. Sure, it’s not as brutal as when Mao was Chairman, but suppression of dissidents and censorship of media still occur. Hell, the Tiananmen Square massacre happened under Deng.

And? Stalin died in 1953 (his rule began in 1928). The USSR still continued, and still continued being shitty, until 1991. What is your point with this analogy? Where are we supposed to be now within the “Stalin years”?

I’d say 9/11 was serious enough to lose your cool over once in a while. Yeah, of course we should get on with our lives, I don’t think anyone would argue any differently. But your “What, me worry?” attitude is a little disturbing.

Quite possibly the most ridiculous sentence of this post. Problems do not go away in the face of inaction. Fundamentalist Islam is a powerful, and most likely even growing, movement, and it is not to be taken lightly. You don’t think this is a big problem? Why don’t you go on MEMRI sometime and see what some mosques in Pakistan and Yemen are preaching to their congregations (insert standard disclaimer about how MEMRI has some pro-Israeli/pro-American bias, but its translations are generally accurate)? Then tell us you think this will go away if we just ignore it. Fundamentalist movements are extremely strong in numerous Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even our secular ally Turkey. These morons are not “doomed” if we do not take action against them.

:rolleyes:

3

So what are you saying - that we shouldn’t fight them?

Anyway they aren’t “on the way out” as you put it. Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion. As a religion grows so does the number of people attracted to it’s extremes. Not because there’s anything wrong with Islam (or any other religion) but just because more people means the extremists have a bigger catchment area (more people they can appeal to).

Also, insofar as science has poked any holes at all into religion, it has poked holes into religion generally (both fundamentalist and mainstream).

Also I don’t really understand how Stalin and China fit into the picture.

I think your theory needs some more work.

4

I’m sorry . I must have visited the wrong board : I wanted the “great debate” board . Not the “nit pickers” board

5

It’s spelled “nitpickers”.

You haven’t really given us anything to debate. The facts suporting your premise (which is pretty shaky and incoherent in itself) are either wrong or irrelevant. Violent Islamic fundamentalism will not be easy to uproot and counter (60 years after WW2, neo-Nazis are still floating around) but your argument for inaction makes no sense.

Unlike debates among proponents of democracy, there are no compromises to be had. When political parties square off in Washington, Ottawa or London, it’s with an understanding that compromise is possible and should be able to give most of the people what they need most of the time. A Western politician will not (generally) kill his opponents. No such safeguard is available in fascist or fundamentalist systems, where killing or threatening to kill your opponent is an effective technique, and that includes enemies domestic and foreign.

I you think you can neutralize fundamentalists by ignoring them, go ahead. History will show you that those who seek power are never satisfied.

6

Have you been reading this forum? This is the very essence of debate–to pick apart your opponent’s arguments and refute their conclusions. What did you want, warm fuzzies about your vague “great ideas” in the OP? All I see are generalities and non-sequiturs

You might want to do some research on the history and nature of Islam, and the relation of fundamentalist religions to the rest of society. It’s not my area of expertise, but as others have pointed out, it’s not yours either.

7

I didn’t expect the “warm-fuzzies”. But I did expect some kind of civility . I can write extensively ,defending my “foolish” and “vague” statements. I can show that my “non-sequiturs” are in reality “sequiturs”. But all my motivation has just evaporated ;

8

::wipes away a tear::

9

Good, your loss of motivation has saved me time and energy.

However, may I suggest that OPs on Islam try to be minimaly informed? Lewis’ books are readily available, for example.

10

I thought I was being perfectly civil and cordial during every phase of my complete demolition of your stupid arguments.

Hmph!

11

I thought I was being perfectly civil and cordial during every phase of my complete demolition of your stupid arguments.

Hmph!

12

That was funny the first time, I swear.

13

Actually the Salem witch hunt was a tiny bit of witch hunts that had been going on in Europe for around 200 years.

It’s a dubious effort to draw general principles from a few selected historic epsodes. It’s certainly impossible without an understanding of those episodes.

14

flabbygirlyman: To echo Collounsbury, though your OP contains some possible debate material ( i.e. whether or not Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise or not - personally I’m on the fence on that one ), your framing points are a bit ill-informed. For example as others have pointed out, your historical parallels are pretty non-parallel and the scientific revolution really has had only a pretty minimal ( or at least pretty oblique ) influence on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

Now I do think that one can take the idea of stamping out whole creeds like fundamentalism a bit too far. Not only is it utterly impractical, but ignores the fact that Muslim fundamentalists are not all cut from the same cloth. Extending the campaign against al-Qaeda to, say, Iran, would be folly IMHO.

But the fact of the matter is that the lunatic extreme of the jihadists-salafists, like ObL and his ilk, really are a threat, cannot be reasoned with, and are best exterminated. Isolationism is really not a good solution in this instance.

  • Tamerlane
15

c’mon folks ! I wasn’t submitting my PhD thesis to you ! I didn’t know that I had to provide footnotes for everything I said .
I never said I was an expert on Islam ! But I’m not illiterate; I do know some things about Islam from what I’ve seen,read and been told. And I do know something about history : the Salem witch trials were widely thought to be a result of a crisis of faith among the puritans ----no ! I can’t cite ! And ,as far as I can see,my historical parallels are valid enough: the Cultural Revolution was a last ditch effort by Mao’s people to redeem themselves against the reactionaries (read : infidels ). Mao’s people are OUT ! China may still be a communist shit hole but the ferver is gone. ALL revolutionary movements are self limiting ; they always run out of steam . I didn’t say that we should be isolationists , just that we shouldn’t despair about the situation and make the idiots more powerful than they are.

16

"Salem’s time to kill-all the more tragic for its theological roots-claimed 25 lives. Nineteen ‘witches’ were hanged at Gallows Hill in 1692, and one defendant, Giles Cory, was tortured to death for refusing to enter a plea at his trial. Five others, including an infant, died in prison.

"Each of the four rounds of executions deepened the dismay of many of the New Englanders who watched the witchcraft hysteria run its course. On October 3, 1692, the Reverend Increase Mather, president of Harvard College, denounced the use of so-called spectral evidence. ‘It were better,’ Mather admonished his fellow ministers (including his son Cotton), ‘that ten suspected witches should escape than one innocent person should be condemned.’ "

Source: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/salem/
Why was Cory Giles tortured?

Money! He was staked to the ground spread eagle, a barn door was placed on top of him. At unset intervals, rocks were added to the top of the door. The entire time he was being crushed two preachers were poking him with sharp sticks, “offering” to hear his confession. If he confessed to being a witch, they would slit his throat as an act of mercy but his property was forfeit to the church. The church was the largest property holder in the county and the church elders were vastly wealthy. Giles was the second largest property holder in the county after the church and not a member of that congregation.

Giles lasted 17 hours through his execution and never confessed. By enduring this he prevented his wife and children from being forced into bondage. Every other female placed in such bondage was later identified as a “body slave.” We call them prostitutes.

It wasn’t a crisis of faith among the puritans. It was about power and control. Faith had nothing to do with it. IMHO, fundamentalist ideology is always about power and control.

17

According to Bernard Lewis(mentioned above by Collounsbury) in his recent book What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response says that the problem started about 500 years ago, when the West emerged from the Dark Ages and the Arabs ceded leadership. He says that today they are asking themselves “What went wrong?” and have come up with two answers. [ul][li]They got away from following their religion They stopped keeping up with the modern world.[/ul] The fundalmentalists are the ones that go along with the former and we need to assist those that believe the latter. A big problem he sees is our support for tyrannical leaders, who are keeping their people from governing themselves, but he says that is not a main cause of the problem.[/li]In a review of the book, Publishers Weekly says:

I believe those two books are more what Collounsbury was suggesting.

18

Could you back that with statistics please?

You suggest that fundamentalist religions would lose converts due to science, but generally it is fundamentalists who ignore/deny scientific hole poking.
(Caveat: I realize that last statement is broad and sweeping – hence the use of “generally”). :slight_smile:

This may be a cultural/national case of YMMV, but where I live in New Zealand all of the moderate and mainstream churches (Christian at least) are losing members – they have an aging congregation and little in the way of young people. The only churches running opposite to this trend are the fundamental and evangelical ones.

19

A most insightful comment my friend. A comment which I think encapsulates the dangerous New World Order which President Bush Snr never realised he was ushering in.

At the risk of sounding like I’m pontificating somewhat vacuously, the quote I chosse above is incredibly pivotal to everything attached to the debates on 9/11, or the Bali Bombing, or the huntdown of al-Quaida, or Afghanistan or any of the many other aspects of Militant Islamic zealoutry - namely, the concept of a pure Islamic State, or “Sharia Law” is ultimately the goal of the proponents involved.

Of course, every other religion has it’s dreadful zealouts too - and the Christian church should still hold it’s head in shame regarding the Inquisitions and the Crusades etc.

However, within reason, the Christian world kinda evolved into what I call the “relatively peaceful democratic world”. Nonetheless, in 1917 a certain political movement in Czarist Russia became convinced it had invented a new and better way of doing things. And for the next 50 or 60 years or so it really had quite a head of steam. But eventually the Cold War broke it down - primarily I feel due to the fact that either side of the “us and them” divide kinda realised that we weren’t so different after all.

The interesting thing for me, of course, is that the concept of “Sharia Law” is so remarkably similar to raw Communism in it’s desire to turn entire nation states over to a new “way of living”. I know, I know - the actual details of that “new way of living” are incredibly different - but the desire to expand is eerily similar it seems to me.

In many respects, I rather think that we here in the West tend to make a mistake when we talk about the “religous” aspects of Islam. I can’t help but perceive the goals (not the actions) of Militant Islamists as being infinitely more political than they are religious. That being said, I abhor those persons who partake in violence to further a political goal. It’s plain evil - no other way to call it.

As the insightful poster pointed out above, down through history, as we study the rise and fall of religious zealoutry, their ‘means’ might be incredibly different from era to era, but the ends are frighteningly similar - namely, control - total control over an entire nation state.

So as I said, Militant Islamists are as guilty of anyone of the famous cliches attached to totalitarian regimes which have come or gone over the years. They go about their methods differently from region to region but oddly, at it’s ultimate extension, Sharia Law has a surprising thing in common with Communism. And it’s this…

A friend of mine yesterday described the difference between Democracy vs Sharia Law as being that the former is all about “freedom of religion” whereas the latter is all about “enforcement of religion”. Well, in many respects, Communism too was a religion - except that it was a religion of atheism. Nonetheless, it was a form of government which “enforced a religion (that is, no religion)” on it’s people’s mindset - and that is a totalitarian form of government by definition. Which in reality, is what Sharia Law is too.

So? Having learned our lessons from the Cold War? How did the West win? Well, in reality, we concentrated on doing what we did best and spent only 4-5% of GNP on NATO and suchforth - whereas the Warsaw Pact spent up to 25% of GNP on THEIR side of the fence. History shows that in reality, the West didn’t truly need to fight some of the fights it fought and that some of the countries who fell to Communism eventually had a pendulum swing back to democracy anyway.

My suggestion is this - we can’t force any given sovereign state to be a democracy, or to NOT be an Islamic state. We have to let them want to be good global citizens.

However, we CAN do the following - we can identify countries who are known terrorist hotspots and ban them from the Western world. Now this is different to typical arguements for isolationism. What I’m suggesting here is a form of exclusionism which forces a country to wish to be better global citizens.

And has such a course of action worked before? I would venture to say it has actually. I would offer South Africa as an example of peaceful regime change brought on by world exclusionism.

Anyways fellow dopers - thanks for reading this far. Hope I gave you some things to ponder. Be gentle on me if you choose to disagree!

20

Sorry for the hijack, but the terror lasted only for one year or so, until its leaders themselves were executed, it was then replaced by a regular republican system ( the “directoire”) which lasted 4 or 5 years, until Bonaparte’s coup. So, nope, Napoleon didn’t even put an end to the terror. He just ousted a regular government.