Muslim "Moderates"
NCfan
Posts: 945
Thought this was a good article. I don't agree with everything here, but there are still some good points to ponder. Just some food for thought.
Before people freak out, I'd recommend reading the whole thing and I'd also remind people that we can learn something even from hearing and reading points of view that we disagree with. For instance, I'm not a fan of Chomskey, but I've learned an awful lot from reading his work...
February 6, 2008
Muslim “Moderates”
What's in a word?
by Bruce Thornton
Private Papers
The war against Islamic jihad continues to be compromised in the West by the dominant narrative that supposedly makes sense of the conflict. In this scenario, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful moderates, while the jihadists exploit a distortion of Islam fueled by modern discontents. To the left, these discontents are created by Western neo-imperialist and neo-colonialist adventurism, oil-industry greed, a culture-destroying globalization, irrational “Islamophobia” and “Orientalism,” and continuing support for Israel’s “occupation” of Muslim territory and thwarting of Palestinian nationalist aspirations. To the right, a lack of political freedom and economic development dashes Muslim hopes for a better life and leaves them prey to jihadist propaganda. Both interpretations, however, are based on unfounded assumptions.
The first assumption is the existence of large numbers of “Muslim moderates.” Indeed, Muslims who want to integrate their faith with liberal democracy, pluralism, human rights, and economic development exist and deserve our support. But I challenge anyone other than scholars to name one of their spokesmen. The moderates surveyed by Joshua Muravchik and Charles Szrom in their recent Commentary article — Kamran Bokhari, Said Edin Ibrahim, Amr Hamzawy, or Abdel-Aziz el-Sherif — have a negligible influence with the Muslim masses compared to that of bin Laden or the Muslim Brotherhood or the mullahs of Iran. And these moderates are just as marginalized in the West, where instead the duplicitous Tariq Ramadan is promoted and celebrated as a “moderate” despite his adherence to the radical doctrines of the Muslim Brotherhood. If large numbers of Muslim moderates existed, and if such moderation were typical of most Muslims, then wouldn’t these spokesmen have a higher profile and a greater constituency among their co-religionists?
On the contrary, moral and economic support for jihadist organizations continues to run high among Muslims across the world. In other words, millions and millions of Muslims admire and support organizations that supposedly have “distorted” Islamic doctrine. Consider the arrogant, elitist assumption behind this belief: millions of Muslims are so ignorant of their own faith, or so traumatized by political or economic distress, that they can’t tell when someone is distorting Islamic doctrine, and so like children they irrationally “act out” against their own best interests. I think it more likely that these Muslims indeed understand their own faith and support the jihadists because they call for a “reform” of Islam, which does not mean, as we Westerners assume, interpreting Islam to make it compatible with tolerance, pluralism, or democracy. Rather, it means returning Islam to its traditional doctrinal purity and practice.
Yet here in the West, even usually right-thinking commentators like Muravchik and Szrom fail to take seriously the power of jihadist doctrine. At the end of their article they write that, compared to communism, “radical Islam is a fragile and perishable ideology.” This is backwards: communism was “fragile and perishable,” because it grew out of modern superstitions like materialism, atheism, and scientism, and it was imposed for the most part on religious peoples whose traditional spiritual aspirations it thwarted and traduced. So-called “radical” Islam, however, is more correctly traditional Islam, a return to the doctrine of jihad documented in Islamic scripture and history, the spiritual dynamic that created one of the world’s greatest empires.
Recognizing the power of traditional spiritual aspirations and imperatives makes better sense of Muslim behavior than does our own Western materialist or psychological explanations. Take the case of Pakistan. The “Talibanization” of the tribal regions is intensifying unchecked, with the Pakistani security forces, police, and military doing very little to stop it. Why not? Why not accept American military help in rooting out these radical distorters of Islam supposedly despised by the vast majority of Pakistanis? Because Musharraf would most likely fall from power if he more actively cooperated with the Americans and were seen to be their puppet. In other words, to a critical mass of Pakistanis, cooperating with the Americans to root out “distorters” of their faith who murder their fellow citizens is worse than allowing the Taliban to grow in power and kill even more Pakistanis. The dominant narrative would explain this phenomenon by talking about a lack of political and economic freedom (the right) or anger over American neo-imperialist sins against Muslims (the left), both of which blind Pakistanis to their private and national interests. A more convincing explanation is that there is wide support for the jihadists because they are battling the infidel, just as good Muslims have done for fourteen centuries according to the precepts of Mohammed.
Attributing Muslim behavior to reactions to what we do, rather than to Muslim understanding of traditional Islamic doctrine, fuels other distortions, such as the currently popular mantra that American sins against Muslims account for their hatred of us. In reality, the United States has saved more Muslim lives in the last twenty years than anybody else on the planet. In Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq Americans have stopped Muslims from dying and liberated them from an oppressive despot. Yes, Muslims have died in the process, but they are a fraction of those killed by Hussein, not to mention those killed by other Muslim tyrants and terrorists. And America has pumped billions into the Palestinian Authority, an organization of terrorists and kleptocrats that has squandered every opportunity to achieve its ostensible goal of a Palestinian state, all the while we continue to pressure our loyal ally Israel to negotiate and compromise with those who want to kill her citizens.
Here at home, we continually trumpet our admiration for Islam and its glories; we anxiously cultivate Muslim “moderates,” many of whom are shills for jihadists; our airport security aggressively wands and probes old ladies and children so that some young Muslim male won’t be traumatized by “racial profiling”; our courts bestow Geneva Convention “rights” on captive murderers explicitly excluded from those rights by that same Convention; our intellectuals and scholars castigate the West and blame it for the dysfunctions of Islamic states; and we take into our country the sons and daughters of Muslims who tell us over and over they want to kill us. Yet despite all these appeasing beneficia bestowed on Muslims, we are still hated as the “Great Satan.”
This behavior makes sense only if one attends to Islamic doctrine: all non-Muslims are “infidels” whose destiny is to convert, die, or live under Islamic subjection. It doesn’t matter what we do––unless we convert to Islam or stop pursuing our own national interests. Our very existence is an affront to the believers and an impediment to the fulfillment of Allah’s will, and our global success is a bitter reminder of how far Islam has fallen from the glory days of its dominance, when Europe trembled at Allah’s warriors. A critical mass of Muslims know this, and that is why they support the jihadists, even at the price of freedom, security, and prosperity. Until we discard the dominant narrative and take seriously and counter the spiritual imperatives and motives driving the jihadists and their millions of supporters, our chances of success in this struggle will remain bleak.
Before people freak out, I'd recommend reading the whole thing and I'd also remind people that we can learn something even from hearing and reading points of view that we disagree with. For instance, I'm not a fan of Chomskey, but I've learned an awful lot from reading his work...
February 6, 2008
Muslim “Moderates”
What's in a word?
by Bruce Thornton
Private Papers
The war against Islamic jihad continues to be compromised in the West by the dominant narrative that supposedly makes sense of the conflict. In this scenario, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful moderates, while the jihadists exploit a distortion of Islam fueled by modern discontents. To the left, these discontents are created by Western neo-imperialist and neo-colonialist adventurism, oil-industry greed, a culture-destroying globalization, irrational “Islamophobia” and “Orientalism,” and continuing support for Israel’s “occupation” of Muslim territory and thwarting of Palestinian nationalist aspirations. To the right, a lack of political freedom and economic development dashes Muslim hopes for a better life and leaves them prey to jihadist propaganda. Both interpretations, however, are based on unfounded assumptions.
The first assumption is the existence of large numbers of “Muslim moderates.” Indeed, Muslims who want to integrate their faith with liberal democracy, pluralism, human rights, and economic development exist and deserve our support. But I challenge anyone other than scholars to name one of their spokesmen. The moderates surveyed by Joshua Muravchik and Charles Szrom in their recent Commentary article — Kamran Bokhari, Said Edin Ibrahim, Amr Hamzawy, or Abdel-Aziz el-Sherif — have a negligible influence with the Muslim masses compared to that of bin Laden or the Muslim Brotherhood or the mullahs of Iran. And these moderates are just as marginalized in the West, where instead the duplicitous Tariq Ramadan is promoted and celebrated as a “moderate” despite his adherence to the radical doctrines of the Muslim Brotherhood. If large numbers of Muslim moderates existed, and if such moderation were typical of most Muslims, then wouldn’t these spokesmen have a higher profile and a greater constituency among their co-religionists?
On the contrary, moral and economic support for jihadist organizations continues to run high among Muslims across the world. In other words, millions and millions of Muslims admire and support organizations that supposedly have “distorted” Islamic doctrine. Consider the arrogant, elitist assumption behind this belief: millions of Muslims are so ignorant of their own faith, or so traumatized by political or economic distress, that they can’t tell when someone is distorting Islamic doctrine, and so like children they irrationally “act out” against their own best interests. I think it more likely that these Muslims indeed understand their own faith and support the jihadists because they call for a “reform” of Islam, which does not mean, as we Westerners assume, interpreting Islam to make it compatible with tolerance, pluralism, or democracy. Rather, it means returning Islam to its traditional doctrinal purity and practice.
Yet here in the West, even usually right-thinking commentators like Muravchik and Szrom fail to take seriously the power of jihadist doctrine. At the end of their article they write that, compared to communism, “radical Islam is a fragile and perishable ideology.” This is backwards: communism was “fragile and perishable,” because it grew out of modern superstitions like materialism, atheism, and scientism, and it was imposed for the most part on religious peoples whose traditional spiritual aspirations it thwarted and traduced. So-called “radical” Islam, however, is more correctly traditional Islam, a return to the doctrine of jihad documented in Islamic scripture and history, the spiritual dynamic that created one of the world’s greatest empires.
Recognizing the power of traditional spiritual aspirations and imperatives makes better sense of Muslim behavior than does our own Western materialist or psychological explanations. Take the case of Pakistan. The “Talibanization” of the tribal regions is intensifying unchecked, with the Pakistani security forces, police, and military doing very little to stop it. Why not? Why not accept American military help in rooting out these radical distorters of Islam supposedly despised by the vast majority of Pakistanis? Because Musharraf would most likely fall from power if he more actively cooperated with the Americans and were seen to be their puppet. In other words, to a critical mass of Pakistanis, cooperating with the Americans to root out “distorters” of their faith who murder their fellow citizens is worse than allowing the Taliban to grow in power and kill even more Pakistanis. The dominant narrative would explain this phenomenon by talking about a lack of political and economic freedom (the right) or anger over American neo-imperialist sins against Muslims (the left), both of which blind Pakistanis to their private and national interests. A more convincing explanation is that there is wide support for the jihadists because they are battling the infidel, just as good Muslims have done for fourteen centuries according to the precepts of Mohammed.
Attributing Muslim behavior to reactions to what we do, rather than to Muslim understanding of traditional Islamic doctrine, fuels other distortions, such as the currently popular mantra that American sins against Muslims account for their hatred of us. In reality, the United States has saved more Muslim lives in the last twenty years than anybody else on the planet. In Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq Americans have stopped Muslims from dying and liberated them from an oppressive despot. Yes, Muslims have died in the process, but they are a fraction of those killed by Hussein, not to mention those killed by other Muslim tyrants and terrorists. And America has pumped billions into the Palestinian Authority, an organization of terrorists and kleptocrats that has squandered every opportunity to achieve its ostensible goal of a Palestinian state, all the while we continue to pressure our loyal ally Israel to negotiate and compromise with those who want to kill her citizens.
Here at home, we continually trumpet our admiration for Islam and its glories; we anxiously cultivate Muslim “moderates,” many of whom are shills for jihadists; our airport security aggressively wands and probes old ladies and children so that some young Muslim male won’t be traumatized by “racial profiling”; our courts bestow Geneva Convention “rights” on captive murderers explicitly excluded from those rights by that same Convention; our intellectuals and scholars castigate the West and blame it for the dysfunctions of Islamic states; and we take into our country the sons and daughters of Muslims who tell us over and over they want to kill us. Yet despite all these appeasing beneficia bestowed on Muslims, we are still hated as the “Great Satan.”
This behavior makes sense only if one attends to Islamic doctrine: all non-Muslims are “infidels” whose destiny is to convert, die, or live under Islamic subjection. It doesn’t matter what we do––unless we convert to Islam or stop pursuing our own national interests. Our very existence is an affront to the believers and an impediment to the fulfillment of Allah’s will, and our global success is a bitter reminder of how far Islam has fallen from the glory days of its dominance, when Europe trembled at Allah’s warriors. A critical mass of Muslims know this, and that is why they support the jihadists, even at the price of freedom, security, and prosperity. Until we discard the dominant narrative and take seriously and counter the spiritual imperatives and motives driving the jihadists and their millions of supporters, our chances of success in this struggle will remain bleak.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
What I dont get is the need to slam islam in general even if there are "millions" of radicals. Islam is a world faith of a billion people. The huge (and I mean huge) majority of which is not radical "kill the west" jihadists.
Thus the entire premise of the article fails. Otherwise it's just the usual bitching about differing interpretations of the conflicts in question that goes against the "culture war" idea. And a bit flag-waving here and there.
Neo-con war-mongering self-righteous bitching is what this is. Even if there are points that if made by themselves in another setting and tone would be worth talking about, this is what I just said: Neo-con war-mongering self-righteous bitching.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'm gonna draw the conclusion that you cannot separate the problems in the Middle East with Islam. I think there is a very strong connection. I'm not saying all Muslims or even a majority are out for Jihad.
However, the predominant cultures in most middle Eastern countries are strongly based and influenced by this religion. Much more so than any other region of the Earth. I think this is very telling.
I think it reveals something about relgion in general, and moreso, about a religion that is at a tipping point with modernity.
Christains had these types of problems before back in the middle ages in Europe. The refermation fixed a lot of these things, and people migrated to the America's to find religious freedom.
It seems as if something similar needs to happen within Islam of any of these cultures and countries are going to make true progress.
That's interesting. Christianity is sectarian as well with some sects being far more fundamentalist than others. I don't really know enough about islam to comment further but I think honestly it's not simply religion but those sects of whatever religion are so fundemental in thier beliefs that they can't handle science and logic in relation with thier beliefs and this is part of the reason for violent religous conflict or the attempt at "clensing" the world of all the nonbelievers or infidels. Without protected religous or social freedoms upheld the violent sects get out of control. It's one thing to have faith in your beliefs. It's another thing to blow up a federal building or bomb an abortion clinic or bomb a bus because you disagree with someone elses beliefs.
It's just another reason to be afraid of Theocracy.
I can't imagine the amount of courage it took from Martin Luther to nail his 95 theses to the church door and basically tell the ruling religious class they were full of crap and corrupt. That takes a lot of balls when you could be killed for that essentially.
Fine, but the pieces you post are by people who essentially says so. "Muslims are bad and crazy, therefore we are justified to wage war on them." I seperate the problems of the middle east and islam for the most. It's way more about politics than a particular religion.
Telling of what exactly?
Religion in general perhaps somewhat. But still the whole terrorism etc is much more about (power)politics than anything else.
So you saying this is "fixed" in "our" religion? Heh, if anything it's because we to a large degree ignore the religion altogether, and the religion have had to adapt to other times. And you dont have to go back to no reformation to find similar tendencies in the west. Heck, barely 100 years back, actually.
Perhaps. But most importantly something needs to happen with the countries and regimes they have. By that I do not mean invasions or anything like that, since they're highly ineffective at changing anything. The countries there could stand to be freer and less authoritarian for sure. And in a better general atmosphere, the religion will adapt to it.
But your quick points here has 10 tons more merit than the crap article you linked. My attacks are directed towards the article and the way it presents it's case. (like neo-con war-mongering self-righteous bitching whose purpose is to justify war against these "barbarians")
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
That's all fine by me, but a few points.
1. It appears you chalk a lot of the voilence and problems in the Middle East to politics. I have to disagree here. Yes, politics are certainly in play - but religion is very much intertwined. In fact, I would argue that Middle Eastern politics can't evolve due to Islam. Take Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Palestine for example.
2. I posted that article not becuase I totally agree with the author, but he summarized a few things nicely I thought. Most notably, the situation in Pakistan. the general population there would rather surrender a large swath of land to radical Islamists than except help from the U.S. to root these people out and return civil order. That is very telling.
Also The UAE, Kuwait and Qatar cant possibly as strict as other areas of the muslim world.
The definition of Jihad has been distorted. It has many interperations, until recently it would usually mean 'struggle' or 'plight.' No mention of war.
No consider foreign interference in the region. Drawing borders, Military aid from the Soviets and the US. And dependence on foreign infastructure.
The most dissapointing part of the article is that it does not respect history. History shows that foreign powers will support totalitarian regimes if they follow orders; and demonize those who don't regardless of ideology.
It is no surprise that armchair soldiers in the west make this more about religion. Religion is indeed a factor, but after the fact.
I'm not saying there arent muslim extremists. I'm saying it's ridiculous and wrong to blame islam for everything that's wrong in these countries, or somehow imply that islam is particularly violent as religions go. It isn't.
There are a lot of extremists in Pakistan, that's true. And frankly, I am not well enough informed on Pakistani history and politics in general. And I dont really know what you mean about "surrendering a swath of land". If you're talking about the areas near Afghanistan, it's not about surrendering anything, because they have always been like that. Central government has never had control there, making it easy for various people to sneak through or hide. It's like Afghanistan where tribes matter more, nobody trusts outsiders and every village runs itself with a fierce hostility towards outside forces. I know that much. And in a volatile situation where dissent is pretty much outlawed, and huge numbers of the population are dirt-poor, you get a healthy recruiting ground for extremists, also religious.
This has everything to do with Pakistan, it's politics and history. Islam is not behind that, although it gets tacked onto it by extremists.
And generally my argument is that just because many people share a trait, doesn't mean that it's a cause or have anything to do with anything. The countries you name have a lot of history and politics that do a whole lot of a better job explaining things than the armchair theory "muslims are just violent because of their religion, poor things".
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.women/index.html
Where are the Muslims who speak out against this type of behavior/rule of law? Who are their spokespeople, their leaders? Who is their voice? Where are the "moderates" who condemn this? Why don't governments all across the region try to destroy these groups? To the contrary, many governments support these types of people, and enforce these types of rules.
There is no movement against this. Therefore, I can't help but draw the conclusion that most Muslims in these areas agree with it. I mean we don't hear so much as a peep about confronting this type of shit. When we do, it's usually the Americans who are trying to battle it, while our public seems to deny it even exists. They think the war on terror is a false war against a mythical enemy.
Let's let these types of psychos get their own nation-state and let's see what happens....
Again this "where are the moderates!?" stuff. I can well understand that they dont come forward that much. They actually did in Norway, but didn't get much but grief for it. And put yourself in their position, why should you apologize for what someone else did in another country, just because you're supposed to belong to the same religion?
The governments in the region use police state methods to stay in control. They dont give a shit about these things, because that achieves firstly, that a lot of the population are scared of another tiny minority of it and keeps them from aiming at their government, and secondly, the government can be interpreted as somewhat pious and in line, by the most extremist kooks so they get their support. Overall, they stay in control and are fine with that. Certainly fucked up, but there it is. And not because of islam in itself.
The "war on terror" is just as false a war as the "war on drugs". You cant defeat a concept or the description of an act. But it is a neverending justfification for use of force when convenient.
And this about protecting women and whatnot is at best a tacked-on good cause to make yourself feel better about it. Know that Iraq were one of the most progressive countries in the region when it came to gender equality and women's rights under Saddam. He was a bastard against anyone opposing his authority (like most leaders in the region actually), but he was at least secular. This hell-hole you have there now, you helped in creating. This coming of extremist religious bullshit like that link you posted, that started happening after the invasion when the fanatics groups were (and are) allowed to go amok.
And again, this isn't because of islam being the dominant religion in the area. Iraq is fucked right now, and at the mercy of the various militias with various agendas with various backing. So you cant just say "Iraq is a muslim country, this shit happens there, therefore islam leads to shit". It's about as good as "School shootings happen in the US, US is a christian country, christianity leads to shootings". Flawed logic to say the least.
These countries you complaint about are ruled by authoritarian elites, who are backed by big states elsewhere for power-politics reasons. That whole region has political and structural problems, and have a recent history to account for it. This history, territorial and power interests, elites controlling all the wealth, war and rampant poverty does a hell of better job explaining this part of the world rather than "Well, they're muslims and hence violent bastards, see how they suck". Add the neo-con "and therefore we are justified in warring over there in any way we damn please" for flavour if wanted.
Religion is often used as a dividing line between "them" and "us", but rarely are conflicts truly based on that divide. Conflicts are always based in material realities, and religion (or nationalism) never more than flimsy justification.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You say:
This history, territorial and power interests, elites controlling all the wealth, war and rampant poverty does a hell of better job explaining this part of the world rather than "Well, they're muslims and hence violent bastards, see how they suck".
You're taking my argument out of context. It's pretty much the same thing you acuse me of - taking Islam out of context.
I don't believe that just becuase somebody is a Muslim, that they must be violent. I don't think Muslims suck either.
But I do beleive that Islamic culture as a whole in the Middle East prevents progress. Sure, there are fringe zealots who act out when there is no law enforcement. But there are a shit load of average citizens all across the Middle East that want to treat women like second class human beings. I'm not saying they want to cut their heads off becuase they don't wear a burka. But they do want them to wear it none-the-less.
It is this kind of strict, religious culture that is coliding with the forces of globalization. Most of these countries are 30, 40, 50 years behind Western or Asian nations in terms of health care, education, access to information, human rights... you name it!
The power politics you talk about would not be possible without the consent of the people, without a nod from society. We're not talking about suppresion on the level of a North Korea or a Stalinist Russia. Look at a nation like Afghanistan.
I think if people wanted to change their politics, their culture, then they would.
Also, why would Bush wage a war to create a democracy in Iraq if that would only destroy the status quo of "Power Politics" you talk about. The authoritarian elites you talk about are threatened by the war in Iraq, not helped. Please explain that.
Remove us from the equation and we are no longer the target of their hatred.
Hail, Hail!!!
Very little chance of that ever happening. The media has pounded home the fear and hatred of the middle east mercilessly into the hearts and minds of mainstream media viewers.
If it wasn't for China and Russia, Iran would most likely be smoldering by now.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
what a bunch of crap. is was so much nicer when you were gone.
if we wanted to bomb Iran we would have by now. china and russia is not stopping us. and the media does a great job of reporting a real problem that exists in the middle east, Islamic extremism.
Hi
Fuck you
Thanks..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
That's another thing... Why aren't we 'Spreading Democracy' to fucking CHINA?!?!? Their dissident prison population rivals the entire populations of some middle Eastern countries. If any place in the world needs Democracy.. it's COMMUNIST China. Why aren't we spreading our democracy shit over there?
Hail, Hail!!!
they are a pro-business communist state. the country is booming. and we do push for democratic reforms. what are u bitching about? would you like us to invade? I dont ever remember extreme chineseism threatening us
I'm bitching about the bullshit excuse of 'Spreading Democracy' to the Middle east as justification to our being there. It is total bullshit and HAS been total bullshit from the beginning.
Hail, Hail!!!
that has never been the one and only reason for us being anywhere. secondly, its not such a bad side effect of our involvement. freedom isnt such a bad thing.
Yeah.. but, "Spreading Democracy" is a fucking lame excuse. It's kind of like saying the good side effect about taking a drug to deal with your depression is your fingernails are nice and shiny... the bad side effect is your dick turns black and brittle and snaps off in your hand during a painful, burning urination in a filthy Texaco gas station off of I-5 near Stockton.
Hail, Hail!!!
that happened to you too? that was a bad day
If it ever does... I'm telling you... that bad side effect definately would trump the not so bad side effect.
...
And not thanx... I'll stick with staying depressed.
Hail, Hail!!!
There's not really much difference between that and having particular dress codes and behaviour demands for women. You dont have to go back that many decades to find these things in the west too. Maybe not the burka, but controlling women is at the centre of all of our monotheistic religions traditionally. Bad conditions also enhance fundamentalist and radical interpretations of any religion.
That said, it's not islamic culture that prevents progress, but traditional arab patriarchism and tribalism can certainly provide obstacles.
And you went in and crushed the country that was perhaps doing the best among them in health care and education. But yes, this region has been struggling for some time now. But that's not unique to the muslim of the middle east. Most former colony places have these problems. What about sub-Saharan Africa for instance?
And a quick look at history shows that it's not that easy. No, the suppression is not at North Korean levels, but neither is any real dissent allowed in any of those countries. Any movement that at all threatens the ruling elite, has been crushed quickly. Only place where people have been allowed to gather is at the mosques, which explains the religious tone of those calling for change. Many of the ruling elites down there also have so much oil-money they can buy themselves goodwill among the populace that way (and buying weapons).
I dont think people down there want to be western all of a sudden, nor should we demand that. But I do think blaming the religion is going the wrong way, as history do show that poverty and need brings out fundamentalist and heavy traditionalist interpretations of the religion. You dont have shit, but you can take pride in having your "pure" faith.
Saddam didn't play ball anymore, hence he went from ally to problem. The politics there is that he was inconvenient enough for the US elite to take action. How is that anything but power politics? That's my point. Power politics in no way implies status quo, but it implies that the rulers down there "play ball" with one or several other big countries. If not, face the consequences.
I dont see how the elites are anything but helped down there. They can now blame america for more stuff, and their most problematic zealots go to Iraq to fight instead of in their respective countries. I suspect many of them have gotten some sweet deals from the US too, in order to help out in many small ways. Iraq does nothing to threaten them. What would threaten them is if Iraq happened because of internal revolt, and the west had stayed out of it. Then it might spread. As it is, Iraq was invaded by the US, which causes resentment in large parts of the populations also in neighbouring countries. The Iraqi Saddam elite was destroyed (or at least that's what we're led to believe. I think several of those have been silently been re-instated many places), but it has done nothing to harm the neighbouring elites.
But generally, I wouldn't disagree as much if you switched "islamic culture" for "arab culture". I still dont condone that holier-than-thouism towards different cultures, but I would have far less of a problem with it.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Anyway if this is what the writer likes to believe all the power to him/her. I will take satisfaction in the fact that I walk everyday at lunch with a Muslim and work with many more who seem to fit right in with the Cdn way.
Your judging the middle east by what you see in the news not by reality. Not everybody there is a psycho neo-con. THere are millions of people who get by everyday just like the average citizen here. It would be like judging the states by Klan rallies that still take place. An organization of psychos who use fear and religion to justify their actions.
You have to look at the whole picture, you cant just listen to every 15th word of a song and make a judgement based on what you hear.
You can replace the word islam above with the word religion and things wouldnt change.
my problem with this argument is, if the current terrorist activity is indicative of the overall historical beliefs of most muslims, why is it relatively new? wouldn't there be thousands of years in the of history of islam of terrorism? aside from the normal wars, etc, that have been fought in the name of religion (christianity being one of the biggest perpetrators, btw), have there been times in history when "terrorists" were almost exclusively muslims? if i'm missing something, please educate me.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7