128shot vs hipsterdufus - Violence of Islam - Page 3

hipsterdufus · 06-19-06, 06:33 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 don't believe that there is one specific cause that can be linked definitively to the rise of sectarian extremism.

Certainly the failure of Muslim governments to provide an opportunity for economic advancement is one cause, and I have already spoken of the current state of anti-intellectualism in a society that treats the Koran as the sole source of morals, values and law.

Sadly, there is no shortage of poor and uneducated people in the world today. Yet, the vast majority of the poor do not choose to commit acts of terrorism so commonplace in Muslim society. On the flip side, there are plenty of rich and well educated Muslims who gleefully murder the "infidels" for the sake of Allah.

In its June 2003 issue, Atlantic Monthly reported that the leaders of Hamas have college degrees and some have masters degrees. In "Who Wants to Be A Martyr?" the New York Times reported on the well educated members of Hezbollah and Pakistani suicide bombers.

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism Atlantic Monthly, June 2003

In this debate I have been dealing primarily with Islamic extremism as it applies to US foreign policy, but there are many other kinds of Islamic extremism that have nothing to do with America. Southeast Asia, Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan and Palestine are all fraught with terrorism, but the goals and causes vary from region to region.

The United States Institute for Peace had the following to say on the subject:

Quote:

The rise of religious extremism in South Asia and the Middle East has to do primarily with four factors: the absence in much of the Muslim world of democratic, accountable governments, and, indirectly related to this, disputes over contested territory; the failure of governments in some Islamic countries to address problems arising from rapid social, demographic, and economic changes in the last century; financial, logistical, and moral support provided by external actors; and the breakdown within Islam itself of ijtihad—the established tradition whereby religious clerics independently interpret the Koran in order to apply Koranic law to diverse and changing circumstances.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr89.html

Again I go back to the main thesis of my argument that it is precisely the vision of life laid out in the Koran and its interpretation through the hadith that is the main cause of violence. There is no Western counterpoint for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, The Taliban and Al Qaeda.

jfuh · 06-19-06, 09:02 PM

I have now concluded my Q&A session for this debate. I hope that those questions have allowed you to brain storm beyond the scope of what you may have come into this contest thinking thus guiding you to think outside the box in your coming battle to the death.
I will now flip the coin again to determine who goes first to which that contestant may choose to either follow up with one of the former questions, refute your opponents position or make a new statement supporting your position. This is the big toss up.

The coin toss is tails, 128 starts off the death round. Remember to keep your rebuttles 3 hours apart. The sources you cite will still be monitored by myself as well as the overall battle itself.
I hope you keep up the marvelous debate you've shown thus far as well as continue on long term vs short term events.

Good luck.

128shot · 06-19-06, 11:07 PM

I know you said much bad about the prophet in your earlier post, in particular you said you can look no further than the prophet himself to justify extreme terrorism, to refresh memory I quote

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipsterdufus

For a look at the long term roots of Islamic violence, you need to look no further than the life of the prophet Muhammad himself.

I have a piece from the book Holy War by Karen Armstrong that mentions specifically how mohammed thought muslims should conduct themselves in times of war.

Quote:

Islam does not justify a total aggressive war of extermination, as the Torah does in the first five books of the bible. A more realistic religion than christianity, islam recongizes that war is inevitable and sometimes a positive dutyu in order to end oppression and suffereing. The Koran teaches that war must be limited and be conducted in as a humane way as possibleMohammed had to fight not only Meccans but also jewish tribes in teh area and christian tribes in Syria who planned an offenssive against him in alliance with the jews. yet this does not make mohammad denounce the people of the book. his muslims were forced to defend themselves but they were not fighting a holy war against the rleigion of their enemies. When mohammed sent his freedman Zaid against the christians at the head of a muslim army, he told them to fight in the cause of god bravely but humanely. They must not molest priests, monks and nuns nor weak and helpless people who were unable to fight. There must be no massacre of civilians nor should they cut down a single tree or pull dow any building. This was very different from the wars of Joshua.

As we can see here. Mohammed did not barbarically invade his enemies who conspired to have him dead. He infact treated them in a quarrel manner as best he could. He knew he had to fight to stay alive, however he knew they were also fighting to stay alive and that to the victory is their victory and to their loss is their loss, and there is no reason to disrepect them as fellow humans for being the victor of a battle.

This is a much different picture of mohammed than most people are exposed to. It shows him as a humane commander of his time (After all, it was standard practice back then to rape and pillage your enemy) any "Execution" he ordered was done out of the idea of justice (to which I will say no more, for I'm not in favor of the death penalty) and not in spite. Yet day after day many people are told mohammad is was a sinister and evil person who's goals were malicious and terrible.

For those who examine history, as we can see, find a different person under those clouds of "evil".

hipsterdufus · 06-20-06, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 128shot

I know you said much bad about the prophet in your earlier post, in particular you said you can look no further than the prophet himself to justify extreme terrorism, to refresh memory I quote

I have a piece from the book Holy War by Karen Armstrong that mentions specifically how mohammed thought muslims should conduct themselves in times of war.

As we can see here. Mohammed did not barbarically invade his enemies who conspired to have him dead. He infact treated them in a quarrel manner as best he could. He knew he had to fight to stay alive, however he knew they were also fighting to stay alive and that to the victory is their victory and to their loss is their loss, and there is no reason to disrepect them as fellow humans for being the victor of a battle.

This is a much different picture of mohammed than most people are exposed to. It shows him as a humane commander of his time (After all, it was standard practice back then to rape and pillage your enemy) any "Execution" he ordered was done out of the idea of justice (to which I will say no more, for I'm not in favor of the death penalty) and not in spite. Yet day after day many people are told mohammad is was a sinister and evil person who's goals were malicious and terrible.

For those who examine history, as we can see, find a different person under those clouds of "evil".

128shot,

I hope that you are not going to conduct your philosophical thesis in this entire debate using only the writings of one author, and more specifically, one book by one author.

Holy War was written in 1988, before WTC 1, The USS Cole and 9/11. The current state of Muslim extremism isn't addressed at all in this book.

Armstrong talks about the Torah in your quote:

Quote:

"Islam does not justify a total aggressive war of extermination, as the Torah does in the first five books of the bible."

Here is an analysis by Robert Spencer:

Quote:

The Old Testament has numerous passages that no Jew or Christian would take as marching orders for today. No Christian or Jew is likely to sell his daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), for example, or put to death someone who works on the Sabbath ( Exodus 35:2). But for the Muslim, all of the Qur'an's commands are valid for all time.

"...no modern Jew or Christian reads the stories and celebrations of Hebrew Warriors as a guide for behavior in the present."

"Jews as well as Christians have developed highly refined methods of allegorical interpretation through which they view bellicose scriptural passages."

Islam Unveiled, Robert Spencer, p. 23,24

In Islam there is a religious duty to wage war against the unbelievers, the pagans and the infidels. Taken to its logical conclusion, Islam preaches a holy quest for world domination. There is no Islamic equivalent to "turn the other cheek" or "love your neighbor."

A Jew or Christian would be very misguided invoking the name of Moses, Joshua or Jesus as a call to arms, but that is not true in Islam. Mohammed was a warrior, a general, and an assassin. You talk about the standard practice of rape and pillage, but don't take into account that Mohammed had sex with the 9 year old Aisha while Mohammed was 53.

Islam is a religion born in battle and formed by war. Islam has as one of its overarching themes a religious calling for world wide domination.

Another of Armstrong's quotes warrants further analysis. She says,

Quote:

" The Koran teaches that war must be limited and be conducted in as a humane way as possible."

Where exactly does Koran say that?

As the sportscaster says, "let's go to the record"

Here?

"When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives"

Koran: Sura XLVII.4

Here?

"Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigourously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate"

Koran: Sura 9:73

Maybe it's here?

"God's curse be on the infidels."

Is this it?
"We shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of of Fire. Evil shall be their fate."
Koran: Sura 2:126

I'm still looking.

"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you.
Koran: Sura 2:190

You also make the mistake of using one example, the story of Zaid, to try to prove that Mohammed was a "humane commander". That's just one story though. What about the assasination of Abu Jahl, whose only crime was speaking out against Mohammed. The Qu'ran also speaks of many assasinations including:
Umaiya
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhamm...es/umaiya.html

Ka`b bin al-Ashraf
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Enemies/kab.html

Sallam Ibn Abu'l-Huqayq
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhamm...es/sallam.html

How could you or Armstrong draw the conclusion that Mohammed was a "humane commander" after studying these assassination accounts?

128shot · 06-21-06, 12:55 PM

We are not the only 2 scholars in the world that believe this. The belief is becoming more wide spread among many circles. The Koran teaches peace, as expressed in this

Quote:

Koran a Book of Peace, Not War, Scholars Say

Peter StandringNational Geographic TodaySeptember 25, 2001Osama bin Laden, who is widely assumed to be the force behind the September 11 hijackings in the United States, cites the Koran, Islam's most holy book, as the inspiration for terrorist attacks. But Muslim scholars around the world who are reviled by such actions explain that the Koran preaches peace.

"The Koran is saying to humans, this is the final guidance from your Creator, for the specific purpose of worshipping him and creating a civil society where you can live in peace with one another," says Muslim scholar Imam Sulayman S. Nyang of Howard University in Washington, D.C.

Muslims around the world rely on the Koran for guidance, says Nyang. Devout followers heed the call to prayer five times each day and recite passages from the holy book. Muslims believe that the Koran is God's unfiltered message—teaching them how to lead a good life and become a better, more moral person. "The Koran is very specific with regard to the nature of human struggle, because in order for a human to be at peace with himself, they must control their baser instincts," says Nyang. The quest to control base instincts such as greed, lust, and cruelty and to seek spiritual purity is known by Muslims as the "great jihad." Featured widely in the Koran, the "great jihad" is a person's most important internal struggle. Nyang quotes Chapter 3, verse 172, of the Koran: "Of those who answered the call of Allah and the messenger, even after being wounded, those who do right and refrain from wrong have a great reward." But also in the holy scripture is a reference to "lower jihad," a more earthly and physical—and controversial—struggle. "To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight] because they are wronged; and verily, God is most powerful for their aid," quotes Nyang. This verse speaks of combat or war to be waged against one's oppressors—a struggle sanctioned by God. But the Koran also states in Chapter 2, Verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors." The essence of the verse, Nyang says, is to fight back "if you are attacked by your persecutors, but don't fight back indiscriminately. Follow the rules of engagement." According to mainstream Muslim clerics, those "rules of engagement"' are explicit: women, children, and innocent civilians are off limits. Perversion of Text Muslims believe the prophet Mohammed received these revelations directly from God some 1400 years ago. It was at a time when he and other Muslims were being driven from their homes, persecuted, and killed. But although the Koran advocates self-defense, its most prevalent message is one of peace and brotherly love. "If people are intent on using religion to motivate terror or violence, they'll find an excuse there no matter what the actual text says," says David Rodier of American University in Washington, D.C., who is an expert on the world's religions. Like the Koran, he says, most holy scriptures are filled with stories of war and warriors, and these images have been used throughout history by some members of every faith to justify bloodshed. "Religion, after all, speaks to our most basic and ultimate convictions, and if you are wanting to use violence, if you can find a religious justification, then you can find a very powerful motivation," says Rodier. Christians have killed in the name of God, as have Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and others. But it is Muslims who have most recently been accused of turning "divine commandments" into a divine license to kill. Terrorists have often said they are striking out against their enemies and oppressors "in the name of Allah." But many Islamic scholars say such terrorists are not only violating the spirit of the Koran, but the letter of it as well. "You do not kill innocent people, you do not cheat, you do not lie, you do not destroy any property of other human beings," says Imam Abdullah Khouj, an Islamic scholar and director of the Islamic Center, in Washington, D.C. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon "can't be in the name of Allah," he adds. "Violation of Allah's Wishes" Islamic scholars interviewed by the TV news show National Geographic Today agreed that terrorists such as Usama bin Laden and his supporters are fanatics using Islam to further their own worldly causes. "In order for them to generate support beyond their small group, they have to latch onto universal symbols, and this is where Islam becomes a target of convenience for them," says Nyang People combine pieces of verse from the Koran and use it to justify their actions, says Khouj. "But to understand the full meaning of the verse," he says, "you have to read the one before it, the one after it, maybe five to six verses to get the full picture." The "full picture" of Islam and the Koran, say Khouj and Nyang, is captured by Chapter 5, Verse 32: "[i]f anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." For most Muslims, the callous and indiscriminate taking of human life violates Allah's wishes. It defies the Koran's central message and undermines the peace that Islam promises to deliver to all people. "Human life in Islam is extremely sacred," says Khouj. "We're not talking about just Muslim [life], but human life in general."

http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html (oh look at that, a different source!)

This is just one sample of articles on that site written by very knowledgable people against violence that these extremist terrorists preach.

As for Mohammed being "not humane" I still disagree. He may have commited those assassins, however, he also didn't rape and pillage Mecca like most armies would have during that period. time and time again it seems that Mohammed prefered the diplomatic solution over war with his enemies. When he took mecca he did not kill many, and he only smashed the alter in the temple of Haas (I think the names correct). This was AFTER the Meccans decided to attack Mohammed even though they made a peace treaty with him. So it was clearly provoked violence and he still didn't rape and pillage.

Are just a few examples worth de-meaning a whole man?

hipsterdufus · 06-21-06, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 128shot

We are not the only 2 scholars in the world that believe this. The belief is becoming more wide spread among many circles. The Koran teaches peace, as expressed in this

http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html (oh look at that, a different source!)

This is just one sample of articles on that site written by very knowledgable people against violence that these extremist terrorists preach.

As for Mohammed being "not humane" I still disagree. He may have commited those assassins, however, he also didn't rape and pillage Mecca like most armies would have during that period. time and time again it seems that Mohammed prefered the diplomatic solution over war with his enemies. When he took mecca he did not kill many, and he only smashed the alter in the temple of Haas (I think the names correct). This was AFTER the Meccans decided to attack Mohammed even though they made a peace treaty with him. So it was clearly provoked violence and he still didn't rape and pillage.

Are just a few examples worth de-meaning a whole man?

128shot,

Just a few points here.

I do not dispute that there are many Muslims who interpret Islam in a more moderate fashion. To me, they are the future of Islam, the ones that hopefully will lead Islam into a more tolerant and less agressive state. Salman Rushdie, Fareed Zakaria & Ibn Warraq are just those kind of moderates.

I was merely trying to point out the danger in continually citing one disputed book as your major source. I wasn't aware that you were a scholar either.

On a similar line, I don't discount that Mohammed did some wonderful things in his life. How many assassinations does it take before you concede the flaws of his character?

Let's look at it another way.

What if the 10 Commandments went as follows?

1. "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods besides Me... .."

2. "Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigourously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate"

3. "Thou shalt not murder"

4. "When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives"

etc. etc.

Can you see where they might be a WIDE opportunity for violent extremist interpretation?

Take it to the next step. Let's say that these new commandments were not just religious in nature, but the law itself, as is the the case in many of the 53 Muslim states.

Again, when there are so many examples of a call to violence against your enemy, as the Qu'ran dicates, it's a natural outcome to have the number of terrorist groups in the world that currently exist.

These are the terrorist groups that the United States knows of and moniters as of 2004.

Note: This is only A-F in a large list.

Quote:

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

Aleph
see Aum Shinrikyo (Aum)

al-Aqsa Martyrs Battalion
see Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade

Ansar Al-Islam (AI)

Ansar al-Sunnah Partisans of Islam
see Ansar Al-Islam (AI)

Arab Revolutionary Brigades
see Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)

Armed Islamic Group

Army of Mohammed
see Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM)

Army of the Pure
see Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT)

Army of the Pure and Righteous
see Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT)

Army of the Righteous
see Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT)

Asbat al-Ansar

Aum Shinrikyo (Aum)

Aum Supreme Truth (Aum)
see Aum Shinrikyo (Aum)

Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia
see Al-Qaida

Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

Batasuna
see Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

Black September
see Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)

Communist Party of Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)

Continuity Army Council
see Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)

Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)

Dev Sol
see Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)

Devrimci Sol
see Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)

Egyptian Islamic Jihad
see Al-Jihad

EIJ
see Al-Jihad

ELA
see Revolutionary Nuclei

Ellalan Force
see The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

Epanastatiki Organosi 17 Noemvri
see 17 November

Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna
see Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)

Fatah Revolutionary Council
see Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)

Freedom and Democracy Congress of Kurdistan
see Kongra-Gel (KGK)

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/tgpndx.htm

My point in listing these is that these groups are certainly not the face of Moderate Islam, but they can make a very strong claim that they are interpretting their faith in a way that is true to the Qu'ran.

128shot · 06-21-06, 02:59 PM

hipsterdufus, its too bad I'm not a scholar. That was a grammar mistake on my part. I ment to say its not just me but there are more than 2 scholars out there that believes these things.

Now on to some of your other points.

I'm well aware that calling assasinations to your political enemies is very unmorale and unethical in character. This does leave a dark etch on mohammed yes, however if you look at mohammeds over all actions, many were revolutionary in their humanity. Such as not raping and pillaging Mecca, for example. Also how he prefred to make friends with tribes instead of just killing these tribes for not instantly accepting him. Like Islam as a religion, Mohammed reflects that fact that it can be very simplified (not in a bad way, lets understand that) when it comes to rule of law.

I've always judged moral character by looking at more than the flaws, but by looking at what might make them more flawless.

I understand that the Koran has alot of texts that can lead to these extreme interpretations. However if you sit down and think about the Koran, there are a few things about it.

A. it has no chapters, its just a beginning to end book. The structure of such can lead to problems in interpretation.

B. one must wonder what these writtings really mean. For instance, if it says do not make war unless war was made unto you and to not transgress these bounds, in one lick, and in the next it says kill unbelievers. Maybe there is a different historical text relating behind this nasty text. For instance if the war is about killing you as an unbeliever, than you should retailiate back in such a manner. The biggest problem with the Koran I think is in its structure. If it was structured as such to be written in accordance with everything relating to each other (if you ever read the Koran, its not. its longest to shortest, and thats about the only order there is) I imagine its this way as it was written by an illiterate (which is why its considered a miracle). This can cause many problems.

Then there is a 3rd factor in some of these fundamentalist interpretations that I think are the main cause of all these problems. The atmosphere in which they all reside.

I mentioned earlier that many of the governments in which these people reside are oppressive and often suffer from economic hardships (taking a hint from China, you can get away with alot of oppression if you keep your people fed and wealthy). The lack of the freedom of information doesn't give these people a defense against state sponsored clerics who preach hate. Essentially all these clerics are feeding upon are these peoples despairs. In wealthy countries it seems this is less and less of a problem as more and more people have a decent standard of living. Take a look at India, they have a trendmously wealthier population now than they did 10 years ago, and they also have a very large muslim community there. Yet this kind of extremism is few and far between.

Then there is a 4th thing that I must mentioned that goes in conjunction with the 3rd. The Rejection of the Ilm. Wahhabism is perpetuated by Saudi Arabia and susquently many other countries have a large Wahhabist population. In Wahhabism however, they reject the Ilm, or the peaceful seeking of knowledge and enlightment (Ever wonder why the muslims were the first to bring forth old style Greco-Roman philsophy?). You know what happens when people start rejectiong knowledge? People tend to become more...how should I say this...sheepish maybe. The crowd mentality becomes more and more and these crowds are lead by hateful clerics, and these clerics preach this hate and start this vicious cycle we know today as islamic fundamentalism. or whatever newspeak they use for it today.

jfuh · 06-21-06, 03:14 PM

Due to the complications of the work scheduel of the two competitors, the short time post by 128shot will be allowed.

hipsterdufus · 06-21-06, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfuh

Due to the complications of the work scheduel of the two competitors, the short time post by 128shot will be allowed.

No problem.

hipsterdufus · 06-21-06, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 128shot

I'm well aware that calling assasinations to your political enemies is very unmorale and unethical in character. This does leave a dark etch on mohammed yes, however if you look at mohammeds over all actions, many were revolutionary in their humanity. Such as not raping and pillaging Mecca, for example. Also how he prefred to make friends with tribes instead of just killing these tribes for not instantly accepting him. Like Islam as a religion, Mohammed reflects that fact that it can be very simplified (not in a bad way, lets understand that) when it comes to rule of law.

I've always judged moral character by looking at more than the flaws, but by looking at what might make them more flawless.

Using this line of reasoning you would judge a murderer based on the character of the time he/she spent not murdering people? I simply don't agree.

As for the raping pillaging argument, Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old girl, Aisha, while at the age of 53. We call that pedophelia today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 128shot

I understand that the Koran has alot of texts that can lead to these extreme interpretations. However if you sit down and think about the Koran, there are a few things about it.

A. it has no chapters, its just a beginning to end book. The structure of such can lead to problems in interpretation.

Unfortunately, the problems in interpretaton are coming from people that are willing to strap bombs onto themselves, safe in the feeling that they we be meeting 72 virgins in heaven.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 128shot

B. one must wonder what these writtings really mean. For instance, if it says do not make war unless war was made unto you and to not transgress these bounds, in one lick, and in the next it says kill unbelievers. Maybe there is a different historical text relating behind this nasty text. For instance if the war is about killing you as an unbeliever, than you should retailiate back in such a manner. The biggest problem with the Koran I think is in its structure. If it was structured as such to be written in accordance with everything relating to each other (if you ever read the Koran, its not. its longest to shortest, and thats about the only order there is) I imagine its this way as it was written by an illiterate (which is why its considered a miracle). This can cause many problems.

The question of who fired the first shot in the war against Islamic extremism is not easily answered. It would be totally justifiable though, to say that any future actions by Islamic terrorist groups are retaliation for any of the following:

The 1958 intervention in Libya
The US Libya bobmbings of 1981 &amp; 1986
US intervention in Lebanon 1982-1984
Operation "Earnest Will" in Iran 1987
Operation Desert Storm
Operation Enduring Freedom
The Bombing of Iraq
The Bombing of Afghanistan
The Bombing of Sudan

I'm sure I'm leaving a few out here, but a Muslim could take their pick from any of these for justification that "war was made against them."

Quote:

Originally Posted by 128shot

Then there is a 3rd factor in some of these fundamentalist interpretations that I think are the main cause of all these problems. The atmosphere in which they all reside.

I mentioned earlier that many of the governments in which these people reside are oppressive and often suffer from economic hardships (taking a hint from China, you can get away with alot of oppression if you keep your people fed and wealthy). The lack of the freedom of information doesn't give these people a defense against state sponsored clerics who preach hate. Essentially all these clerics are feeding upon are these peoples despairs. In wealthy countries it seems this is less and less of a problem as more and more people have a decent standard of living. Take a look at India, they have a trendmously wealthier population now than they did 10 years ago, and they also have a very large muslim community there. Yet this kind of extremism is few and far between.

I don't disagree with much of what you say here. The point I would make is that a Muslim Theocracy, by its very nature is oppressive. It's oppressive to basic human rights, oppresive to women, oppressive to freedom of speech. Heck, the Taliban banned music in Afghanistan. If it was country music or Brittany Spears, I could understand it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 128shot

Then there is a 4th thing that I must mentioned that goes in conjunction with the 3rd. The Rejection of the Ilm. Wahhabism is perpetuated by Saudi Arabia and susquently many other countries have a large Wahhabist population. In Wahhabism however, they reject the Ilm, or the peaceful seeking of knowledge and enlightment (Ever wonder why the muslims were the first to bring forth old style Greco-Roman philsophy?). You know what happens when people start rejectiong knowledge? People tend to become more...how should I say this...sheepish maybe. The crowd mentality becomes more and more and these crowds are lead by hateful clerics, and these clerics preach this hate and start this vicious cycle we know today as islamic fundamentalism. or whatever newspeak they use for it today.

Certainly the Wahhabis are the most militant Islamic group. Saudi Arabia, of course, was the home of most of the terrorists from 9/11 including OBL.

But to paint the Wahhabis as the sole reason for Islamic extremism isn't accurate. There are sects that the Wahhabis would condem as heretics that still have very militant behaviors.

I'll end with this quote:

Quote:

The superiority of Islam to other religions, the idea that force is justified in defending and spreading the faith-these teachings have been given high visibility in Wahhabism, but they are authentic teachings."

[emphasis added]
Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity (Cambridge University Press, 1968) p.179
Quoted in Islam Unveiled , Robert Spencer p.13