128shot vs hipsterdufus - Violence of Islam - Page 2

128shot · 06-17-06, 05:40 PM

Continued-

Quote:

In medina the muyslims had the chance to build the first islamic society and as judaism came of age in the exist of babylon, so did islam come of age in medina. The muslims accepted five pillars of the religion. All muslims must make the simple profession of faith. There is no god but god and mohammed is his prophet. They had to pray at stated times, facing first toward jerusalem and later toward the Kaaba in Meccia, they had to give alms to the poor and fast durhing the month of Ramadan, finally they had to make the pilgrimage to Mecca, and islam, but the present hostility between mecca and islam made it impossible to do so. Islam was an anti-elitist religion. The prayers and requirements were the same for everybody and there was to be no hierarchy, as there was in christianity, which made people first-and second class christians. Evnetually the clergy emerged who led the prayers and were expert in islamic law, but they were never priiests like christian priests, who intervened between god and man. Almsigving was meant to iron out material inequalities and to ensure the even distruibution of istic fast that was within everybody's scope. Even the fast of Ramadan was a realistic task for all. Indeed we shall see that realism is the hallmark of islam. These years in medina were hard years. Mohammed had to struggle against the hostiility of the non-muslim arab community in medina, who had hoped to get the leadership, and of the jews, who als faoought against his rule, besides new social order in medina, the muslims had to worry about a possible invasion by the meccans who now saw medina as an enemy because the people there had taken in the muslims. But mohammed urged his muslims to take every possible practical precaution and at the same time to pray and foster their knowledge of god, in order to make this a joyful experience. What made islam a successful and strong faith was its realism and practicality. Constantly in the koran the muslims are exhorted to expend every possible human effort in the cause. God had promised that he would help them, but he would not do so unless they had worked hard to save themselves. he would not save them by miracle. This realistic approach, established from the very beginning, is one of the distingguishing characteristcs of islam that as I hope to show, makes it very different in spirt from both Judiasm and christianity, where the possibility of miracles is not always ruled out. One of th eprecuations that mohammed took was to establish friendly relations with neighboring tribes. There was no attempt to force conversions upon them. For that would have ment muslims were denying other the freedom of belief that they had been denied in Mecca. But more and more Arabs did convert to islam of their own choice. The religion was very attractive. It was essentially Arab and a marvelous tonic to the Arabs battered sense of self esteem as recipients of god's ultimate revelations, the Arabs were now gods new chosen people. Further, islam had all the atrractions of the monotheism, without the complications of practice and belief that jews and christians had evolved and which were alien to arab way of life.

As we can see from these quotations, which is just a snip of text I have from the book, Mohammed did infact take care to insure that not only his peoples but also non-combants (women, children etc) where not harmed. Even when he struggled in Medina with others he did not use pure force to make his will. He was a shrewd diplomat, and only used military force when first attacked.

This is revolutionary in its way. People in the 600s didn't do this. There isn't a single account of this kind of humanity wide spread across the board, however western historians distort facted, and I quote from the book

Quote:

Many historians even to this day fail to recongize many inaccuracies in western historian text books on Islam and the Muslim empires. Alot of this has to do with Middle Age distortions created in Europe to boost a weak society.

This may be best illiustrated by the texted related to Charlamagne. When charlamagne paints the muslims in Spain as unholy demon attackers. When infact the newly added Spainish territory acquired by the muslims was acquired through very secular means. Infact the The muslims aid in France was asked upon by Charalamgnes enemy.

I think its only fair to say that modern day "islamic fascism" is the response of a battered geopolitical region raped and scanvaged by not only the empires of the past but their own modern day regimes of day foster much of todays muslim angers.

hipsterdufus · 06-18-06, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 128shot

Q: What is the short and long term roots of islamic violence?

For a close look at the history of "muslim violence" and "islamic extremism" I use 2 sources

"Holy War: The cursades and their impact on today's world" by Karen Armstrong

and

In "Holy War" it gives a detailed explaination of how Mohammed handled himself after being exiled from Mecca

128shot, you stated in this post that you are using two sources, but I only see one:

Quote:

Holy War: The cursades (sic) and their impact on today's world

I have not read this book, but I want to note the several of the reviews from Amazon that question Armstrong's credibility and point of view. As far as I know, these reviews are not the work of scholars, but all discredit Armstrong's book in some shape or form.

The 4th review actually calls Holy War

Quote:

"A fascinating book about the dangers of religious extremism."

Hey, that's my pov!

1st review:

Quote:

99 of 139 people found the following review helpful:

Flawed thesis and tunnel vision: interesting dishonesty, December 26, 2001
Reviewer: Sergio Flores (Orange, CA United States) - See all my reviews

The reader must approach this book very carefully, because Armstrong's thesis does not work. She links the past of almost one thousand years ago and argues that today's problems in the Middle East must be understood as a development of the Crusades and that the mistrust and hostility that Muslims and Arabs (not the same thing, but often the terms are confused) in general feel toward Europeans and/or Westerners, and vice-versa, stem from the legacy of the Crusades. My problem with Armstrong is that she selectively goes to a certain chapter in History, then she selectively decides what to mention, and finally she selectively connects that past with the 20th century. This would do for shallow journalism, but not for History, and Armstrong, although apparently not a historian, tries very hard to write History with a capital H.

/snip

She, and all the authors who want to link the Crusades to the present, should also link the Crusades with a medieval Christianity besieged by a powerful and very militant Islamic empire, both before and after the period between the 11th and the 13th centuries. To ignore Islamic imperialism while castigating the European/Christian variety is to be dishonest.

2nd review:

Quote:

39 of 47 people found the following review helpful:

Rich with facts, but not even-handed, March 30, 2004
Reviewer: M. A Michaud "michael_michaud" (Dulles, VA United States) - See all my reviews

Even those of us who have studied the Crusades will learn much from this book. Armstrong digs deep into the events of the crusading era, providing freshly perceived context for those military and religious ventures. Her learning is impressive.
Her objectivity is less so. While Armstrong condemns religiously motivated aggression by Western European Christians, she passes much more lightly over the earlier behavior of Islamic conquerors who also were driven by religious zeal. At one point, she writes that "It is obvious that the Muslim ideal of holy war is very different from the Crusade: it is essentially defensive whereas the Crusaders, like the Jewish holy warriors, had made a holy initiative when they attacked the enemies of God and his chosen people." Yet earlier in the same book she had written "It was the duty of the Muslim state (the house of Islam) to conquer the rest of the non-Muslim world (the House of War) so that the world could reflect the divine unity." How is this morally preferable to crusading theory?

Those who were crushed by Islamic expansionists in the seventh and eighth centuries seem to have been forgotten. Ask the Iranians how they feel about the Muslim conquest of Persia. The memory is hardly golden.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

3rd review:

Quote:

A good read between the lines, May 30, 2006
Reviewer: Danny (El Paso, TX., USA) - See all my reviews
Ms. Armstrong writes a riveting story of the Crusades from what she believes to be the point of view of the three religions of Abraham. Her knowledge on the subject is commendable. Her objectivity is not.

4th review:

Quote:

7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

A fascinating book about the dangers of religious extremism, March 19, 2006
Reviewer: Christian Gough "Christian" (Brooklyn, NY) - See all my reviews

Karen Armstrong's "Holy War" is a timely book that warns of the danger posed by the type of religious fundamentalism leading to conflict, intolerance and suffering. It attempts to draw a comparison between the Christian Crusades and subsequent 200 year occupation of Jerusalem with the current troubles between Israel and the Palestinians.

/snip

Others might find the favorable view of Islam put forth by Karen Armstrong to be biased and inaccurate, and reflecting both anti-semitism and possibly hatred of the modern state of Israel.

Christians find her book offensive because of its unflinching and critical portrayal of the Crusaders, which constitutes the bulk of the text. Karen Armstrong, after all, is a "reformed" Catholic nun who left the convent after becoming disillusioned with its restrictive lifestyle. She is no stranger to attacks coming from Catholics and other Christians, who view her criticism as unfair. In the wake of 9/11 and the US and British invasion of Iraq, there are some segments of Christian tought in the West that will not tolerate any view of Muslims and Arabs other the commonly accepted notion that they are both religious extremists and terrorists.

Muslims are offended by the picture of Islam which is offered by a Western academic who is not a practicing Muslim. They say she has not critically studied the Koran and cannot speak Arabic; therefore, she is not in a suitable position to make any comment about Islam. They say she neglects to mention Islam's many contributions to science and culture, and that she lacks a proper understanding of the role that economics play in Islamic culture and development.

You will notice that the book either is dismissed out of hand, or given solid reviews. Given the book's central theme of the dangers of religious fundamentalism and the intolerance it breeds, I find those who dismiss it out of hand to reflect the same sort of blind and dangerous fervor which ultimately leads people to kill one another in the name of God.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/re...lance&n=283155

128shot · 06-18-06, 12:34 AM

Hipsterdufus,

I thought I edited out the second book, my bad. I decided not to use it at this point and time.

I've read that book from cover to cover, and for what its worth, it is accurate on many accounts as I've researched them.

and for the record, there are positive reviews

Quote:

Karen Armstrong's "Holy War" is a timely book that warns of the danger posed by the type of religious fundamentalism leading to conflict, intolerance and suffering. It attempts to draw a comparison between the Christian Crusades and subsequent 200 year occupation of Jerusalem with the current troubles between Israel and the Palestinians. According to Armstrong, the Crusaders' demise was the result of their religious fundamentalism that left them intolerant and abusive of non-Christians. As a result, popular sentiment gradually turned against the European Crusaders until a popular Muslim leader emerged (Saladin) who was able to unite the Muslim world in a war against the Crusaders, ultimately ousting them from Jerusalem. Armstrong connects the past with the present in an attempt to illustrate how the complex history of the Holy Land has shaped modern conceptions and relations between the three faiths, as illustrated by the current, on-going conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Supporters of Israel might find offense in the comparison of the establishment of the modern state of Israel with the Crusades. Karen Armstrong seems to suggest that unless the Israeli state becomes more tolerant of the Palestinians and willing to make concessions in order to foster peace and coexistence, it is inevitable that it too will share the fate of the Crusaders. Others might find the favorable view of Islam put forth by Karen Armstrong to be biased and inaccurate, and reflecting both anti-semitism and possibly hatred of the modern state of Israel.

Christians find her book offensive because of its unflinching and critical portrayal of the Crusaders, which constitutes the bulk of the text. Karen Armstrong, after all, is a "reformed" Catholic nun who left the convent after becoming disillusioned with its restrictive lifestyle. She is no stranger to attacks coming from Catholics and other Christians, who view her criticism as unfair. In the wake of 9/11 and the US and British invasion of Iraq, there are some segments of Christian tought in the West that will not tolerate any view of Muslims and Arabs other the commonly accepted notion that they are both religious extremists and terrorists.

Muslims are offended by the picture of Islam which is offered by a Western academic who is not a practicing Muslim. They say she has not critically studied the Koran and cannot speak Arabic; therefore, she is not in a suitable position to make any comment about Islam. They say she neglects to mention Islam's many contributions to science and culture, and that she lacks a proper understanding of the role that economics play in Islamic culture and development.

You will notice that the book either is dismissed out of hand, or given solid reviews. Given the book's central theme of the dangers of religious fundamentalism and the intolerance it breeds, I find those who dismiss it out of hand to reflect the same sort of blind and dangerous fervor which ultimately leads people to kill one another in the name of God.

The fact that Karen Armstrong is able to equally offend Jews, Christians and Muslims should speak volumes about her attempts to deal with all three faiths in an even handed manner. If this book offended no one, then it would not have been honest.

This book is a very enjoyable and stimulating read, and carries an important message which is still relevant today.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/re...lance&n=283155

Of course, you can't post those, it doesn't help you!

Anyhow. Are fundamentalists who bend and twist the bible not as crooked as a muslim extremist who bends and twists the Koran to fit their purpose? Is extremist beliefs really an objective way of interpreting how a religion properly conducts itself?

Investigating further, time and time again we find it no. The Crusades don't represent christian core beliefs, and we find that often in the Koran it is repeated again and again that Allah does not like the ignorant ones.

"Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant." Chapter 7, Verse 199

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_qura.htm

jfuh · 06-18-06, 01:24 AM

I remind you both that for now, we are simply in Q&A, we've not gone into the battle rounds yet, so please refrain yourselves from rebuttling each other already.
On a side note please take care when posting as to avoid mishaps in the post - left outs and so on - I suggest you read over your own work before you hit the submit button.

To much of the remainder of the world, Islam remains the more extreeme brings images of religious fundamentalism. In Indonesia there are still constant mini "crusades" against catholic churches and so on.
Are these simply worshippers fighting in god's name or does it go much deeper? ARe we just simply due to lack of understanding of thier culture and identity in an inability to relate that is causing this misunderstanding and making it into something other then what it is?
In Iraq today the conflict rages between Sunni and Shiite thus it seems that the conflicts are about more then simply religious belief or the religious fanatics that we percieve them to be in fighting the west. This violence has been used by many within the islamic world to borrow over and launch a Jihad against the US.

Q2:So is it perhaps us, the west, that have launched this religious war and percieving them religious fanatics when in reality these ppl are merely fighting an foreign power that invaded their nation over excuses? Again please follow along the guidline in illustrating the long term cause and the short therm spark.

hipsterdufus · 06-18-06, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 128shot

Hipsterdufus,

Of course, you can't post those, it doesn't help you!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_qura.htm

I know we're not in the back and forth part of the debate, but I want to note that I quoted the actual post you've cited as a positive review. It's the "4th review".

jfuh · 06-18-06, 10:18 AM

By Coin flip.
heads again,
Hip goes first.

hipsterdufus · 06-18-06, 11:11 AM

Q2:So is it perhaps us, the west, that have launched this religious war and percieving them religious fanatics when in reality these ppl are merely fighting an foreign power that invaded their nation over excuses? Again please follow along the guidline in illustrating the long term cause and the short therm spark.

Quote:

"God told me to invade Iraq", Bush tells Palestinian ministers

Quote:

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pre.../06/bush.shtml

These statements by Bush sends shivers down my spine. So it's a Holy War on both sides? God is dictating American foreign policy to Bush while Allah is helping out the jihadists!
Heaven help us all...

There is a bit of a "chicken/egg" argument here. When did the so called "war on terror" start? Who fired the first shot? For the US, many believe that it was the suicide bombings of the Marine Barracks in Beirut that started our involvement. US foreign policy is teetering perilously close to global hegemony, and certainly that is a common perception of our foreign policy.

I understand the feelings of any society that would fight back against an occupying force. We fought that war in America to win our freedom, and it was our founding fathers who were the extremists in that scenario. Bin Laden uses Islamic religion as a rallying cry for his minions, but you could make the same argument without a jihad. That may sound like an extreme statement, but think about it for a moment. Country X has bombed your town, killed your family and/or your neighbors, and killed 126,000 civilians. Now Country X is building a city the size of the Vatican right down the road. What would you do?

Although I despise Osama Bin Laden and nearly everything he stands for, I do understand his call to arms against American occupation. I also understand the same call in Iraq.

A crucial element that is missing in our "war on terror" is an attempt to understand our enemy. The old question "Why Do They Hate Us?" was answered by Fareed Zakaria as "Why Should We Care?"

Consider the following:

Quote:

"But bin Laden and his followers are not an isolated cult like Aum Shinrikyo or the Branch Davidians or demented loners like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber. They come out of a culture that reinforces their hostility, distrust and hatred of the West--and of America in particular. This culture does not condone terrorism but fuels the fanaticism that is at its heart. To say that Al Qaeda is a fringe group may be reassuring, but it is false. Read the Arab press in the aftermath of the attacks and you will detect a not-so-hidden admiration for bin Laden.

Or consider this from the Pakistani newspaper The Nation:
"September 11 was not mindless terrorism for terrorism's sake. It was reaction and revenge, even retribution." Why else is America's response to the terror attacks so deeply constrained by fears of an "Islamic backlash" on the streets? Pakistan will dare not allow Washington the use of its bases. Saudi Arabia trembles at the thought of having to help us publicly. Egypt pleads that our strikes be as limited as possible. The problem is not that Osama bin Laden believes that this is a religious war against America. It's that millions of people across the Islamic world seem to agree."

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLE...01501_why.html

I need to point out the incredible amounts of money being made in Iraq by the War Profiteers. We all know them: Halliburton, Bechtel, Kellog Brown and Root. Harry Truman called war profiteering "treasonous", and I tend to agree, but that's another debate. The US seems hell-bent on using it's mighty power to defeat Al-qaeda with bombs.

The US takes the position that we "don't negotiate with terrorists." I agree with that approach on many levels, but the war on terror will never end, if we take that hard line approach with the Muslim community. We used to call it "diplomacy" and we seem to have forgotten how to use it.

128shot · 06-18-06, 02:49 PM

Q2:So is it perhaps us, the west, that have launched this religious war and percieving them religious fanatics when in reality these ppl are merely fighting an foreign power that invaded their nation over excuses?

The rise of violence in the muslim world can often be attributed to political instablity and oppressive regimes. In conjunction this can make any society dangerous.

Take Saudi Arabia for example, look at how oppressive the Saudi regime is coupled with economic factors.

Quote:

Human Rights

Saudi courts impose capital punishment and corporal punishment, including amputations of hands and feet for serious robbery, and floggings for lesser crimes such as "sexual deviance" (e.g. homosexuality) and drunkenness. The number of lashes is not clearly prescribed by law and varies according to the discretion of the presiding judges. The number ranges from dozens to several thousand, usually applied over a period of weeks or months. In 2002, the United Nations Committee against Torture criticized Saudi Arabia over the amputations and floggings it carries out under the Shari'a. The Saudi delegation responded defending "legal traditions" held since the inception of Islam in the region 1400 years ago and rejected interference in its legal system. (Source: BBC, see [2]) Perhaps, as a result of its tough stance on crime the country's repressed citizens do enjoy a low crime rate.
[edit]

Religious Freedom

Saudi Arabia is strict on tradition and does not permit religious freedom and bans all visible forms of non-Muslim worship. Non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who do not adhere to the Sunni Islam, are advised by Mutawwa'in (the religious police) for acts considered offensive to state ideology. Citizenship is restricted to Muslims, but non-Muslims are allowed in many jobs all over the country, regardless of their religions. The government maintains 50 Call and Guidance centers to encourage foreigners to convert to Islam. [3] Religious police enforce a modest code of dress and many institutions from schools to ministries are gender-segregated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia

Quote:

In the 90's, Saudi Arabia has experienced a significant contraction of oil revenues combined with a high rate of population growth. Per capita income has fallen from $25,000 in 1980 to $8,000 in 2003, up from about $7,000 in 1999. The decline in inflation-adjusted per-capita income from 1980 to 1999 set a record, being by far the worst such decline suffered by any nation-state in history.

This would make any society a loose cannon willing to jump at what ever they can to relieve their sufferings and frusterations. Its just asking for a basket of cases. Is it any wonder that of all the hijackers only 2 were not Saudi Arabian citizens?

If you look at a moderate and wealthy populated muslim country you find things much differently. Take a look at Kuwait in Progress

Quote:

Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy and has the first directly elected parliament in the Persian gulf Arab countries. Chief of state is the Emir, a hereditary title. The emir appoints the prime minister, who until recently was also the crown prince. A council of ministers aids the prime minister in his task as head of government which must contain at least one of elected members of the parliament. The number of minister must not exceed 1/3 of the elected members of the parliament. On May 16, 2005, Parliament permitted women's suffrage by a 35-23 vote, subject to Islamic law and effective for the 2006 Parliamentary Election. The decision could raise Kuwait's voter rolls from 139,000 to as many as 339,000 if all eligible women register; the total number of Kuwaitis is estimated at more than 960,000. Recently, the former Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah announced the appointment of Dr Massouma Mubarak as planning minister and minister of state for administrative development affairs. The appointment of a woman as a cabinet minister was a big breakthrough in Kuwaiti political system and it makes Kuwait the third country in the conservative Persian Gulf Arab countries to have a woman cabinet minister.

and their economy isn't too shabby either

Quote:

The government has sponsored many social welfare, public works, and development plans financed with oil and investment revenues. Among the benefits for Kuwaiti citizens are retirement income, marriage bonuses, housing loans, virtually guaranteed employment, free medical services, and education at all levels. Foreign nationals residing in Kuwait obtain some, but not all, of the welfare services. The right to own stock in publicly traded companies, real estate, and banks or a majority interest in a business is limited to Kuwaiti citizens and citizens of GCC states under limited circumstances. Industry in Kuwait consists of several large export-oriented petrochemical units, oil refineries, and a range of small manufacturers. It also includes large water desalinization, ammonia, desulfurization, fertilizer, brick, block, and cement plants. During the invasion, the Iraqis looted nearly all movable items of worth, especially high-technology items and small machinery. Much of this has been replaced with newer equipment. The Kuwaiti dinar is a strong currency pegged to a basket of currencies in which the U.S. dollar has the most weight. Kuwait ordinarily runs a balance-of-payments surplus.

Government revenues are dependent on oil revenues. Kuwait's fiscal surplus in 2000 was some 15% of GDP, while it reversed to a deficit of more that 2% of GDP in 2001 on sliding oil prices.

The government's two reserve funds: the Fund for Future Generations and the General Reserve Fund, which totaled nearly $100 billion prior to the invasion in 1990, were the primary source of capital for the Kuwaiti Government during the war. While these funds were depleted to $40-$50 billion after the war, they currently are estimated around $80 billion. The bulk of this reserve is invested in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and Southeast Asia. In order of importance, foreign assets are believed to be invested in stocks and bonds, fixed yield instruments (mostly short term), and real estate. Kuwait follows a generally conservative investment policy.

Kuwait has been a major source of foreign economic assistance to other states through the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development, an autonomous state institution created in 1961 on the pattern of Western and international development agencies. In 1974, the fund's lending mandate was expanded to include all-not just Arab-developing countries.

Over the years aid was provided to Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, as well as the Palestine Liberation Organization. During the Iran-Iraq war, significant Kuwaiti aid was given to the Iraqis. The Kuwait fund issued loans and technical assistance grants totaling over $520 million during its fiscal year ending June 30, 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Kuwait

hmm. And the funny thing is these guys don't seem to be blowing themselves up either.

I wonder why? Does it not seem they have alot more to lose than the average saudi arabian citizen who lives in a much more oppressive and restrictive envoirment?

Its seems that more often than not these governments are fostering their own demise and those who have become more recently liberalized have seen a decline in radical extremism that is often coupled with oppressive countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The UAE is another example. as BBC reporter Frank Gardner noted

Quote:

If I squint hard, the view down the runway at Dubai airport at dawn does not look that different from the way it did on my first visit 25 years ago.

The sun still lifts off the quivering tarmac into a cloudless sky like a giant hot-air balloon, the same skeins of sand still drift around the edges of the runway.

Then, as now, Dubai was defying the pessimists.

Why on earth does Dubai need an airport, they said, when there's one down the road in Sharjah?

But the ruling al-Maktoum family have long had a vision to develop this once-sleepy trading port, previously famous for pearl-diving and gold smuggling.

Dubai has very little oil income of its own to speak of, but you would not think so.

The skyline changes almost overnight as ranks of plate glass skyscrapers shoot up towards the sun.

Far down the coast towards Abu Dhabi, the steamy horizon is perforated by a phalanx of cranes as developers race to complete apartment blocks for Britons, Russians and other expatriates.

Many of them have already invested their life savings in a property that has yet to be built.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...272.<br /> stm

Can religious zealot extremism foster in this envoirment? It just doesn't seem likely.

jfuh · 06-18-06, 09:21 PM

Poor and rural communities world wide with individuals that have seldom, if not never, left thier small community are often more ignorant of the outside world, far more prone to fundamentalism and extreemism. Especially when looking to religion as a form of escapism of thier surrounding poverty. However therein lies the catch 22.
Q3: Is violent sectarian extreemism the result of poverty and ignorance fed by propaganda, or is it the very suppressive nature of Islam itself that is causing such poverty and promoting ignorance?
Should it be the former, is this due to foreign influences for the poverty or because of domestic circumstances. If the later then how did a once prosperous ancient civilization along the Tigeress and Euphradies become so?

The toss
It lands tails, thus the question starts with 128Shot
Posting may begin immediately

128shot · 06-19-06, 12:18 PM

Q3:Is violent sectarian extreemism the result of poverty and ignorance fed by propaganda, or is it the very suppressive nature of Islam itself that is causing such poverty and promoting ignorance?
Should it be the former, is this due to foreign influences for the poverty or because of domestic circumstances. If the later then how did a once prosperous ancient civilization along the Tigeress and Euphradies become so?

I sincerly believe its the former. Why? here is why.

It appears to me that of all this terrorism and hatred seemingly seems to catch on and rise in extremely oppressive, backward, and often times rural areas. While some wealthy muslims have become radical (Osama Bin Laden, I suspect some Saudi royalty) an over all amount of this extreme symapathetics and terrorists have come more and more from poor countries and more specifically, poor parts of these countries.

In Afghanistan where the Taliban and Al quada thrived, for instance, was one of the most backward and brutual countries there is. They weren't allowed TV, no radio except state radio, No outsider books (for those who could read, I guess they could only read the Koran!) they couldn't even play chess! (I guess they were afraid of stimulating thought among their citizens!)

In contrast, lets look at the UAE more closely.

Quote:

Rooted in Islamic culture, the UAE has strong ties with the rest of the Arab world. The government is committed to preserving traditional forms of art and culture, primarily through the Abu Dhabi Cultural Foundation. Change is very apparent in social life however - attitudes toward women are shifting, and new sports are becoming popular alongside traditional camel racing, including golf, with two European Tour events in the country (the Dubai Desert Classic and the Abu Dhabi Golf Championship) and the world's richest horse race, the Dubai World Cup, held annually in March.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAE#Culture

Quote:

Although varying from emirate to emirate, the degree of religious freedom afforded non-Muslims is greater in the UAE than in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. For example, non-Muslims are permitted to worship but not to proselytize. There are several large Christian churches and schools in the UAE, primarily in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_i..._Arab_Emirates

Does this sound like an American and western hating country? While 2 of the men on the planes of 9/11 were from the UAE, its hard to say weither they were just workers or citizens. As 80% of the UAE's population is compromised of non citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_i..._Arab_Emirates

So concluding that, if you look at the large number of terrorists who come out of an oppressive country such as Saudi Arabia (see above post), vs a country such as the UAE which has many degrees of freedom afforded to its citizens that many other countries lack. Wouldn't this just be a powder keg waiting to explode? Instead of the Franz Ferdinand being killed by the black hand many of these oppressive muslim countries, to control their population and leave themselves in power, almost have to preach these hate messages against the west to keep the hatred funneled at the west instead of the real problem, their own leaders.