Printable View
Yes, we had some issues, but not the ones the speaker is implying. We have a sizable immigrant population that is not integrating as well as we hoped or as well as we thought it did. Spain does not have the same problems as the Netherlands or France.
Actually there is I know Im not going to change your mind but you have to realize the west isnt ruled by religon and if the muslims want to live here they must realize that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
The Dutch are a theving people:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
This system of thought disgusts me. You would have us silence ourselves out of fear of barbarians. Let them come if they want a fight. I have faith yet in the people of Europe to stave off virtual sharia law.Quote:
What are they gonna do, fight the Muslims? The Muslims won't mind if that happens. They are not going to backdown from any sort of fight. Stop insulting Islam, stop getting thrashed by Muslims. That's how it works.
They have no such right. They can protest (peacefully, with no intimidating signs) and boycott, but that is it.Quote:
Every time someone gets the "bright idea" to "re-affirm the right to free expression" by desecrating Islam, then Mulims are going to re-affirm their right to make sure that was a regretable decision.
No. So sayeth the laws of Christianity. Perhaps you've heard of that; it advises turning the other cheek to insults. Nor is it great that they are so pig-headed they want to kill anyone who disagrees with them.Quote:
Says who? The laws of evil secularist men?
The Muslims do not care about such laws, nor should they. That's what's so great, their faith & conviction is so strong that no matter who or how many tell them "no, that's bad, you're wrong, you can't do that!", they are just gonna keep on keepin' on.
Yes there is. What if I did as they did and killed anyone who disagreed with my faith? First off would be you, Nav, after your grevious insults to my religion. Of course, if the radicals you cheer on had their way, you'd be dead too. It is a law, base trait to take insult from every one who does not bow down to your faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
It appears you support these radicals solely because they are blindly whipped up into a frenzy over a stupid cartoon for religious reasons. Would you support them if they were riled up for nationalistic or ethnicity reasons? Do you think that they judge you any better than the secularist Europeans they now protest? I think any difference is lost on them.
Cheers to those brave people who stand up for freedom. Although we differ on many issues, I stand with you on this one. :knight:
Crazed Rabbit
When it comes down to it, the most the radicals could ever do is blow stuff up or something along those lines - and, when it comes down to it, Europeans have a fairly substantial experience in dealing with that.
Even in worst-case scenarios simple realities of geographics and military geometry make anything else a wistful pipe dream.
Some of the worst-case scenarios involve some pretty unpleasant prospects for the Muslim populations on the subcontinent though, which is among the reasons they're going to be unwilling to cooperate with the radical agenda past certain limits regardless of reasons.
While the principle is admirable its practical applicability is a little so-so. As a columnist put it in yesterday's newspaper in a different context, "keep turning the other cheek long enough and it'll start to hurt." Not that even Christians, for all the strange glorification of suffering their faith entails, have ever been terribly devout practicioners unless forced by circumstances; immediate retaliation and/or taking it out on someone suitably defenceless (Jewish ghettoes having been the millenial favourite, closely followed by the Gypsies whenever they could be caught) has tended to be the agenda otherwise.Quote:
So sayeth the laws of Christianity. Perhaps you've heard of that; it advises turning the other cheek to insults.
Churchill said the same things about Ghandi as he did Hitler. A broken clock can be right twice a day.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Churchill was the bulldog that was brought out to attack anything that moves. Be that Ghandi, striking workers or Hitler he all treated them the same.
Also as a military genius he fell far short. Gallopolli? North Sea debacle.
Churchill had many flaws and one of them definitly was as Watchman-san noted that he was a biased observor and I would add imperialist to boot.
He did go to the front after Gallopolli but it was more the case of being depressed then an act of contrition given his actions that followed later in his life.
However his flaws were outweighed by his ability to motivate a Britain that could quite easily have lost against an aggresive Germany. It was a very close call for Britain and they almost did lose early on. So for that the British should be happy. But it should not mean they lose perspective on who he wasn't just because of who he was.
As it was, gallipolli was a complete farce. Why was this? The ships set off, tried to land, and found they were not packed correctly... so went away for a few months to sort that out. When they had first got there opposition was low to non existent. When they got back, the Ottomans had grabbed every available troop to the percieved new front. The rest is history.
How far Churchill is to blame for the incorrect packing of the ships, the failure to call off the attack once this error was known I do not know. The strategy was OK, the implementation was appalling.
Being an imperialist per se is not a flaw IMO, but of course that is open to opinion.
Britain loose early on? When was that? Even if the Battle of Britain was lost (a very great if) an invasion would have had to contend with the royal navy - yes heavy losses, but the transports would be slaughtered.
Hitler realised that gains were sufficiently small to render invasion not worth it. In the long term if he'd not finally gone after the USSR I imagine he would have at least got a favourable peace - which is what he wanted to go after the USSR.
~:smoking:
It is, as it invariably includes the imperialist attitude and worldview - ie. "I'm better than you because of [flaky justification XYZ] and hence perfectly justified in conquering your country and treating you as I feel like; indeed, you should be grateful I do it."Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
That sort of attitude is a lot more tolerable in the Romans than the supposed heirs of Enlightement.
Which indeed is your opinion on the matter. Whether the country would be better run if conquered by another country could surely depend on the country? There are so many countries (mainly in Africa) that are a complete mess, I'd imagine that all would be better run by a "first world" country. As for treating them as we wish, it can't be any worse than how they treat each other.
~:smoking:
Alright then...suggest someone who is a good source for fair commentary on islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
:inquisitive:
Excuse me, but have you somehow misunderstood what "critique" and particularly "source critique" are all about ? Even on general principles there is no need to be able to immediately provide a better example when criticizing a patently invalid, biased and/or otherwise useless source as such.
Churchill was a long-term politician in the Imperial-era British governement, and duly had most of the prejudices that came with the teritory (some of the more stubborn resistance to the Empire came specifically from Muslims too, which no doubt had its effects...). Moreover, he had zionist sympathies and was as a high-ranking governement official involved in the messy British-Jew-Arab triangle down in Palestine, which alone provides more than enough motivation for him to issue manifestly unsympathetic and tendentious statements about Islam.
Where the Hell is it necessary to bother providing better examples when declaring such a man an eminently partial and hence quite unreliable source ?
But if you really want, I can suggest a few guidelines. Pick up some decent handbooks on whatever name comparative theology, religious science or whatever goes by in your neck of woods. At least the ones our university here uses provide highly informative, lucid and unbiased views of religions. Then go and read some good works on culture, anthropology, history and so on, so you have a decent mental "toolbox" and information base to analyze the issue with.
...why do I even need to explain this, anyway ?
No. I think you'll find that the Danes, the French and anyone else for that matter, has the right to piss all over yours or any religion while on their own native soil and there's not alot that you or your extremist chums can do about that, except make yourselves even more despised with impotent public ranting and flag burning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
Was Churchill wrong though? Given what we have witnessed?
Oh Hell yeah. His commentary betrays White Man's Burden arrogance, tendentious cultural particularism, straight self-serving bias, and an unwillingness or inability to see the forest behind the trees (or, if you prefer it that way, the actual cause-and-effect chains in question).
Complex questions remain complex questions, and cannot just be brushed aside with stupid, arrogant and simplistic - nevermind tendentious - garbage like "Islam is bad" or "Arabs are wacky".
As home secretary (1910-11) he used troops against strikers in South Wales.Quote:
"It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor."
- Winston Churchill, 1930
In 1925:
Quote:
The Samuel Commission published its report in March 1926. It recognised that the industry needed to be reorganised but rejected the suggestion of nationalization. The report also recommended that the Government subsidy should be withdrawn and the miners' wages should be reduced.
The month in which the report was issued also saw the mine-owners publishing new terms of employment. These new procedures included an extension of the seven-hour working day, district wage-agreements, and a reduction in the wages of all miners. Depending on a variety of factors, the wages would be cut by between 10% and 25%. The mine-owners announced that if the miners did not accept their new terms of employment then from the first day of May they would be locked out of the pits.
Churchill was right about Hitler... unfortunately it can be seen that he painted everyone else who was not with him in the same light.Quote:
Churchill because of his tremendously chauvinist, flag-waving British Gazette, talking about the miners and the T.U.C. as the enemy of the people. Churchill wanted to hand the army with the police, and bring tanks and machine guns into the cities! Baldwin restrained him.
Yes, but in the grand schemes of things, whatever Churchill thought about Gandhi or Welsh strikers doesn't matter.
What is important in the light of history, is what he thougth of Hitler in 1940.
And boy, am I glad that the British had this rabies pitbull for a PM back then. :2thumbsup:
Oh yeah Churchill was a bastard to be sure, name one great leader who wasn't?
And don't even get me going on Jesus, concieved outside the marriage. Virgin mary, like arse!
I wonder if any christians will now declare a crusade on my ass?
The fact is the revisionist left will discredit nearly any "western" leader before the "social revolution", so whats the point of arguing?
Whereas the far right will sanction a god fearing god talking lunatic any day of the week.
yeah, Chamberlaine did such a wonderful job of helping the struggle for democracy. Unfortunately, we have too many Chamberlaines in the west... and too many quasi Hitlers in the middle east. I don't think GWB fits the bill as a Churchill did...he doesn't know the nature of war.
America needs a bulldog right about now.
America needs a clue right about now.
Exactly, mon vieux. Mr Churchill's detractors even forgot the 'Mussolini letters' in which Churchill expressed his sympathy for Italian fascism in no uncertain terms. Never mind. In the grand scheme of things those letters do not matter either. (Alternatively, we could challenge Mr Churchill's detractors to name their own favourite war leader and see if that man's record is without blemish. A brief and unequal fight would ensue.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
What mattters is that Churchill was one of the few and at times the only British politician of stature who understood Hitler and nazi Germany. His detractors are willing to concede this, but they seem to think this insight just happened spontaneously to Mr Churchill and was in no way connected to his overall mindset and personal experience. In reality of course, these were intimately connected. Like many conservative authors, Mr Churchill shows us what is, not what should be. What made him an excellent judge of Hitler and nazi Germany also made him an excellent observer of Islam.
His book The River War (1898) is very well-written and to the point. It is about the campaign (in which Winston took part) to defeat the Mahdi, who had risen to protest, among other things, General Gordon's ban on slavery. As we see, even in those days Islam was not exactly at the forefront of civilisation and progress. That is why some of the things Churchill wrote about Islam still ring true today, from the 'fanatical frenzy' we witnessed in the cartoon riots to his observation that 'the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it'. Precisely because of this paralysis not a whole lot has changed and indeed some things are the same today as they were back then.
Mind you, in The River War Churchill shows a keen understanding of the opposition when he writes about the Mahdi (who grew up an orphan): 'Solitary trees, if they grow at all, grow strong: and a boy deprived of a father's care often develops, if he escape the perils of youth, an independence and a vigour of thought which may restore in after life the heavy loss of early days.'
He also had a keen eye for the less palatable aspects of the imperialist undertaking, for instance the desecration of the Mahdi's grave: 'By Sir H. Kitchener's orders, the Tomb has been profaned and razed to the ground. The corpse of the Mahdi was dug up. The head was separated from the body, and, to quote the official explanation, "preserved for future disposal" ... If the people of the Sudan cared no more for the Mahdi, then it was an act of vandalism and folly to destroy the only fine building which might attract the traveller and interest the historian. It is a gloomy augury for the future of the Sudan that the first action of its civilised conquerors and present ruler should have been to level the one pinnacle which rose above the mud houses. If, on the other hand, the people of the Sudan still venerated the memory of the Mahdi (and more than 50,000 had fought hard only a week before to assert their respect and belief) then I shall not hesitate to declare that to destroy what was sacred and holy to them was a wicked act, of which the true Christian, no less than the philosopher, must express his abhorrence.'
Hence, the fact that such observations were written down by an imperialist -- Booh! Pavlov drool! -- does not disqualify them in any way. We should judge them on their merits and in case of doubt we should remember that Mr Churchill knew what he was talking about, unlike generations of Orientalist 'experts' (many of whom were beholden to sheikhs and other Muslim rulers), American policy-makers who regarded islamism as a viable alternative to Communism, and lefty do-gooders like Michel Foucault -- to name but one example among many -- who in 1979 welcomed Khomeini as a 'social revolutionary'.
Even an understanding Victorian Imperialist commentator remains a Victorian Imperialist commentator, with all the vulgar-Darwinist attitudes. Whether he expended too many joules of mental effort on analyzing the ever-important "why" of the issues discussed I won't comment on as I don't know, but certainly what has been quoted of the man thus far gives little grounds for optimism in that regard.
Out of curiosity, did he ever write anything about the Zulus or other reasonably severe non-Islamic native opposition to the expansion of the Empire ? That'd make an interesting comparision.
It has been said that had the comparatively palatable Italian version of Fascism been the only one for sale, quite a few of the "old guard" conservatives of the period would most likely have been only too happy to adopt it if only to counter the seeming avalanche of Communism. Liberal democracy wasn't the hottest topic around those times.Quote:
Mr Churchill's detractors even forgot the 'Mussolini letters' in which Churchill expressed his sympathy for Italian fascism in no uncertain terms.
The German take on the same, which essentially took the leading place of the overall movement, was however a bit much not in the least due to its naked ambitions that made it a clear and present threat to various Fatherlands.
The first claim is categorical bull, although "conservatives" tend to really like it. Wonder why...? :dizzy2: So far as I'm aware of "conservatives" do not have to any notable degree a "clearer" or "more realistic" take on reality; rather, they have a habit of trying to claim certain existing states of affairs of dubious moral and ethical standing as "the way the world works" or "inevitable developements" or whatever, in other words defining reality to suit their own ideology. "What is" my ass. Not that they were exactly the only ones with such tendencies mind you, they just tend to be among those whose patently false claims of objectivity are the most pronounced. I think it's because they usually can't play the emancipatory/enlightement card the way "liberals" can.Quote:
Like many conservative authors, Mr Churchill shows us what is, not what should be. What made him an excellent judge of Hitler and nazi Germany also made him an excellent observer of Islam.
As for judgements, Age of Empire was not a time of equal and universal standards of measure. "Europeans" and "savages" were overwhelmingly considered two entirely different things to the point of sheer absurdity - as one commentator sarcastically put it when discussing the Great War, "machine guns and artillery were considered fine for mowing down hordes of ill-armed savages, but surely they would never have such effects on the superior, white-skinned race ?"
Well, leave me out of that. I was never a believer in the spit-polish images of Great Man personality cults or the infallibility of people in general. Quite the contrary.Quote:
Alternatively, we could challenge Mr Churchill's detractors to name their own favourite war leader and see if that man's record is without blemish.
Your words make me wonder how old you are, Watchman. You are smart, you have a way with words and I often agree with the gist of your posts, but on this issue you are completely off the mark. Why don't you read an eminent conservative commentator like Burke? Just pick up his Reflections and you will see that none of your pre-conceived notions apply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I fail to see where I said all "conservative" commentators/authors/whatever are/were like that. "Like many conservative authors, Mr Churchill shows us what is, not what should be" just irks the living daylights out of me, as does any such categorical and baseless claim to truthfulness and objectivity.
Well, my comment wasn't meant as the ontological be-all-and-end-all you make it out to be either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Let me put it this way then.
I think Mr Churchill was essentially right when he stated that Islam is not a force for progress, but a regressive force that holds back much-needed social change. Since then, generations of well-meaning progressives have put their hopes on Islam as a force for progress and they were proven wrong.
In particular since the latter part of the twentieth century, Leftists have had a tendency to consider any anti-American tendency in the world as a force for good. As the notion of a global proletarian revolution and all the illusions bound up with it gradually dissipated, all sorts of 'Third World' movements were hailed as its replacement in Leftist ideology. Islamism is one of them. Islamic fundamentalism is still regarded in some Leftist circles as a bearer of emancipatory policies, as a 'voice of the oppressed' so to speak. A notion which I think is fundamentally (pun intended) wrong, and which represents a serious conceptual problem of the Left today.
Now we can argue endlessly over what is and what should be, but I hope we can agree that any sort of sharia does not belong in the latter category.
This little discussion has little chance of progressing if Watchman stands by his prejudices that Conservatives and Imperialists are inherently racist, islamophobic and misguided amonst other things...
It's not going to be progressing in any particularly constructive direction if you remain entrenched in your particular prejudices about Islam being an inherently reactionary and ossifying faith, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
Imperialists, at least the historical kind, were racists pretty much by default because few people growing up in the society they sprang from avoided ingesting the hegemonic values of the time. And those were patently racist, unless you're going to argue a firm belief in the inherent, God-given superiority of the "White Man" and Western civilization (and deriving from them their right, indeed duty, to conquer and "civilize" the "savages" of the world) doesn't count as such.
At which point I'm going to call horse cakes on you.
Conservatives I'm going to call racists if they demonstrate ideas and attitudes that mark them as such. Many do, some don't. Beating around the bush isn't really my thing, and I practice the same policy with everyone regardless of other political and ideological leanings.
And I think you, like him, are either unwilling or unable to see the forest for the trees. You're confusing cause and effect. Moreover, you're being particularist about it. Islam is no more inherently regressive or reactionary religion than any other; but like any other, rigidly orthodox reading of it will make it a powerful blunt instrument for such causes. How long did the Western civilization wrestle with ossified, outdated, discriminatory, regressive et multiple cetera applications of the Christian faith ? Quite long; when it comes down to it it took the virtual sidelining of the religion to get the matter resolved, and the arm-wrestling continues even if secularization on the whole has the upper hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
I'm sure even cursory delving into the history of virtually any major religion will turn up quite a few instances of reactionaries utilizing it as their hobby horse, or the entire thing being reduced to a monument of social and cultural petrification.
Islam has the dubious honor, as the main common, uncontested, unifying and potentially life-defining rallying point of the otherwise rather fractured Islamc world, of acting as the chief vehicle for protestations and backlashes against modernity, progress, globalization and so on and so on whose side effects the populace dislike (and let's be honest, particularly as far as economy goes there's a lot to protest against; we do it in the West too, don't we ?). Do you know who the Luddites were ? Although naturally ineffectual in their vandalism, they were actually quite correct in regarding the newfangled machineries were an enemy that would reduce them to what Marx called "proletarization." Tilting against windmills for lack of better ways to express their discontent and anxiety, as it were.
Few people have ever been as suspicious of change and progress as the "working poor" - the peasantry and their urban equivalents. Usually they've also been quite justified, in that the progress has tended to proletarize them and/or generally make their already difficult lives only more so.
This is more or less the case with radical Islam, which has been a recognized factor on world stage only since the Iranian Revolution (the earlier issues with Palestinians being correctly regarded as extensions of the territorial struggle with Israel). As the main shared banner of cultural unity and identity, nevermind now an institution nigh inviolable and unassailable to even the most heavy-handed tyrant (and there's been no shortage of those in the Muslim world; most also receive(d) at least tacit Western support so long as the oil flowed, which was not missed by the unhappy masses), and a faith that can be used to formulate Fundamental Truths on how life should be lived, what's good and what's not, and so on and so on - in short, to provide easy answers to complex issues as anxious, poorly educated and disgruntled masses have always been eager to hear - Islam has became the battle flag of the reactionaries of the Muslim world.
People have an unfortunate tendency to blame wrong things for their troubles you see, or at least things that are safe to blame. Given the sheer poverty and resulting low education levels widepread in the Muslim world, it is unrealistic to expect the "man on the street" to be able to grasp the macroeconomical and geopolitical dynamics that keep him poor and oppressed. He's in much the same position as the ill-educated and often barely literate skinheads in the West; he knows something is amiss, if nothing else as he feels the effects, but lacks the instruments to understand what. He must act by what he knows; the skinhead takes it out on ethnic minorities and the like, the irate Arab on suitably prominent symbols of Western encroachement into his world. In a sense both are partially correct, as they're attacking and opposing visible expressions of the larger incomprehensibe phenomena that partly bring about their situation; both, as such angry and disenfranchised groups always, are duly easy prey to populist agitation.
Skinheads are usually ultra-rightists and ultranationalists, so naturally it is inconceivable for them to assume there would be flaws per ce in their native systems; so they displace it onto "damn foreigners" or "******* commies in the capital" or some similar scapegoat. For the irate Muslim displacing the guilt onto something "alien" and "foreign" is often a dire necessity, as open opposition to the local elites (who tend to be the main direct source of his or her misery) is... unhealthy. The assorted autocracies bend over backwards to deflect the rage of the mobs towards the West for entirely sensible reasons, and the populist leaders - in the Muslim world, the niche tends to be filled with firebrand reactionary clerics - are quite aware of it. Saudi Arabia for one example has for a good long time been trading concessions to the radicals for comparative internal stability - the rulers let the preachers have a say in social matters, the preachers don't try to pull a Khomeini to summarize the basic idea.
"The Evil Comes From The Outside" is the eternal populist explanation for problems. In the skinheads and similar right-wing reactionaries, it expresses in violence towards "foreigners" and support of essentially fascist ideas (naturally enough; fascism was a populist reaction against modernity too). In the radicals of the Muslim world it is expressed as categorical rejection of everything Western - which is really overkill, but follows the usual phenomenom of "taint by association" (ie. opposing everything from a certain source just to be on the safe side and because the source is "bad") - and support of populist causes, in this case reactionary religious dogmatism.
In the case of the educated West, it is currently expressed in the categorical dismissal of Islam as "evil cult" and so on; you folks are an altogether too good an example.
And it has been such an instrument for centuries on end now. Like you state, other religions reformed under the influence of non-religious pressures and movements. The same will have to happen to Islam. Free speech will have to triumph in Islamic countries. I mean true free speech, not the freedom to draw antisemitic cartoons or call for the killing of all unbelievers at the drop of a leader's turban.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Unwittingly, you are painting a rather appropriate picture of present-day Islam. It is, indeed, stuck in ossified, outdated, discriminatory, regressive views and practices, a stage where predominantly Christian western societies used to be not so very long ago. Why do you have such trouble admitting it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I think I understand perfectly well where Islam's 'rallying capacity' comes from. But that does not make it any more acceptable as a creed than the neo-nazism which you refer to so abundantly and so out of context. You see, we deal with our local fascists here. In many islamic countries, they are the governing party.
Fixed. You're generalizing. And I dunno about you, but I hate applications of collective guilt.Quote:
Unwittingly, you are painting a rather appropriate picture of present-day militant Islam.
:inquisitive:Quote:
It is, indeed, stuck in ossified, outdated, discriminatory, regressive views and practices, a stage where predominantly Christian western societies used to be not so very long ago. Why do you have such trouble admitting it?
Excuse me, but since when have *I* had any trouble admitting it ? I've been quite consistently making the comparision for God knows how long.
Repeat after me:Quote:
I think I understand perfectly well where Islam's 'rallying capacity' comes from. But that does not make it any more acceptable as a creed than the neo-nazism which you refer to so abundantly and so out of context.
Understanding.
Doen't.
Equal.
Acceptance.
Helps comprehend the situation and modulate sensible opinions greatly, though.
I don't ever recall claiming it acceptable. Do you ? Neo-nazis are an useful comparision as they're a similar reflex against "future shock", albeit a marginalized one. The basic principle remains the same regardless of the scale; remember, it's barely six or seven decades since Fascism was the hottest new thing around, and widely popular in many places. The reasons it (and for that matter revolutionary Communism around the same period) could garner such audiences were much the same as those now at work in the Muslim world. Discontent. Anxiety. Uncertanty. Want of future prospects. The works.
...and it only took the single most destructive war in the history of mankind for us to start doing that. :dizzy2: As a result certains types of ultra-rightist ideas are legally punishable and freedom of speech be damned on that account.Quote:
You see, we deal with our local fascists here.
Well, it's a working solution. One does hope better ones are found though; the first part is... unpleasant.
Incorrect. Iran is the exactly only one I can think of from the top of my head now that the Taliban are back in the mountains and out of the capital, and even it has a domestic parliamentary opposition (many forget that Iran actually is an as-such working democratic republic, if perhaps not exactly a model case; it's the "control elements" added above the parliamentary system where the mullahs sit). The rest are run by a variety of monarchs, dictators, military juntas, and other autocratic strongmen whose adherence to the Faith tends to be dubious at best and opportunism considerable; their relations with their domestic radical Islamists have a tendency to be testy, which has much to do with the way the Islamists are about the only reasonably safe way for the populace to vent their opinions.Quote:
In many islamic countries, they are the governing party.
Moreover, the Islamist movements tend to AFAIK lack the Charismatic Leader dependency of true fascism; they're "fascist" only in the sense they go under the same basic heading of ultra-conservative reactionaries. Plus their main gist tends to be whatever version of rigid religious orthodoxy the local tub-thumpers adhere to, not the militant ultranationalism characteristic of the ultra-right movements that go under the rubric of "fascist." Although in typical fashion - the Muslim world having contacted the idea of nationalism like everyone else in the first part of the 20th century - those sorts of ideas have a tendency of getting thrown into the mix for good measure...
Incidentally, do you recall how things went in Algeria when the military forcibly vetoed the electoral victory of the Islamists ? I understand the junta isn't exactly a bunch you'd want ruling your country...
In your dreams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I recall you writing above that 'Islam has the dubious honor, as the main common, uncontested, unifying and potentially life-defining rallying point of the otherwise rather fractured Islamic world, of acting as the chief vehicle for protestations and backlashes against modernity, progress, globalization and so on and so on whose side effects the populace dislike'.
I agree. And it is my contention that it is the wrong vehicle.
Since the demise of Arab nationalism, Islam has also become the chief ideological vehicle of all scoundrels, dictators, fascists and populists ruling the Islamic world. For that very reason, the Saudi, Syrian and Iranian rulers are presently vying to take the lead of the anti-cartoon movement. They are competing with the Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda and FIS for the hearts and minds of their co-religionists. There is hardly any Islamic movement or party today that is not stuck in those totally ossified views we lament. This is the tragedy of the Islamic world. As long as it remains 'uncontested', Islam will secure the Muslim world in this ossified state.There, you have said it. Denying that the sorry state of nearly all Islamic countries has anything to do with Islam is just as silly as denying that the sorry state of the former Soviet Union had anything to do with Communism. It is just the same old Leftist ploy in a new disguise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Somehow I'm still getting an impression from between the lines that you're not quite admitting it's not Islam itself that is the problem, but the social and political circumstances in the Muslim world that motivate the reactionaries therein.Quote:
There, you have said it. Denying that the sorry state of nearly all Islamic countries has anything to do with Islam is just as silly as denying that the sorry state of the former Soviet Union had anything to do with Communism. It is just the same old Leftist ploy in a new disguise.
Which are two quite different issues.
It is my firm belief religions, for all their adherents' protestations, are nothing more nor less than what people make out of them. And the current problem is that the ultra-conservatives are (if only for lack of better ones) making Islam into their high horse from which to campaign against modernity, something it by no means needs to be.
Another problem is that the West has recently started copping a similar idiot-prejudice attitude by misplacing guilt and failing to run proper cause-and-effect analyses.
The Quran is pretty vitrolic stuff. No compromise "kill everyone else" attitude. To interpret it into a favourable light would take some doing - as would overlooking all the errors dotted in the text. Best be done with the whole thing, and wait for God's next Prophet. Hopefully he is more litterate. :book:
~:smoking: