Did you know, one Swedish king once went all Old Testament with his legislation. It was called off after his death, as the number of executions over quite ludicrous issues had gone through the roof.
Printable View
Did you know, one Swedish king once went all Old Testament with his legislation. It was called off after his death, as the number of executions over quite ludicrous issues had gone through the roof.
Well, on that point we agree. For instance as long as I visit this forum I have argued against western military intervention as the solution to problems in the Middle East. Our American friends in particular have behaved like idiots over there lately, but they are the only Americans we have in this world and I have grown rather fond of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
And in the controversy over the Danish cartoons and all that ensued, well -- let me say that even in the life of a gentleman there are limits to cross-cultural 'understanding'. I simply had to come out on the side of free speech with guns blazing, unwilling to make any prisoners and ignoring all dubious alliance proposals. I took a few hits from Muslims, from Web pirates and from European and American appeasers, but I am still afloat and fully loaded.
Fire in the hole!... :charge:
Cor blimey, I had no idea rory could read Classical Arabic and engage in learned debate of Muslim theology with the scholars of the faith. I tip my hat, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
:rtwno:
So not.
I've said it before: I'd be overall a much happier man if my cynical views of people in general weren't being constantly proven correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I suppose that the video released by the Newspapers is better than few drawings… And it will improve the relationship between the Muslim world and the UK…:help:
So one must only read the Quran in Arabic? Must one also read the new Testament in Greek? Must one have church services in Latin?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
He was quite wrong to base laws on the Old Testament, since Christians should rank the New Testament higher being based on the wisdom of Christ Almighty...Quote:
Did you know, one Swedish king once went all Old Testament with his legislation. It was called off after his death, as the number of executions over quite ludicrous issues had gone through the roof.
Yes, I noted. Am I correct in that you also made a little U-turn a few days into the row? From a 'respect and understanding goes a long way' to a 'line in the sand' approach?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm see?? English!
No need salute - I'm just able to find an Emglish translation...
Discuss with experts? And hear a different point of view? I'd rather see the text, NOT what someone thinks they meant to have said.
~:smoking:
That site went into my Favorites, just on general principles.
The thing with translations is translation errors. IMO just about the single most clever move the composers of the Qu'ran pulled was to declare the thing is only a valid Scripture in the original language - a far wise decision, when you consider how much bloods Christians have spilled over translation issues.
Translations of the Qu'ran rank as "explanations" or something along those lines, far as I know, not the "real thing".
'Course, there's now the minor issue one and half millenia have taken the classical language of the Scripture some ways away from the everyday Arabic in use, but then that's a trouble for the scholars.
However, most of the issues with this particular Scripture stem specifically from the interpretation side, and the fact the moderate-critical line of "practically applied interpretation" withered away some centuries ago. Not that the modernist progressive Imams weren't doing their best anyway.
I looked around that site a bit. Whoever did the annotations to the Qu'ran was clearly not of the same caliber as the guy who did the Bible. Downright boring, even.
From what I can gather Watchman is stating that the powers that be are using (militant) Islam to garner favour with the disaffected poor and bewildered with modern life. In the West the equivalent vehicle of choice for power two generations ago was facism, followed quickly on its heels be communism. Those two choices have given a bad name to conservatives and socialists respectively.
That other vehicles of choice could be used. And that they could be better for all. That Islam has not gone through an equivalent Reformation so it does not currently have a (reformationist) Islam link to a modern world. That things like the Declaration of Independance, Magna Carta, Suffragetes, Freedom of Speech, Equality for all and other routes to the modern world have not found equivalents yet in the (militant) Islamic world.
Mind you it is strange to think that there have been female Muslim presidents of Pakistan and Indonesia but no secular or Christian female president of the USA or Prime Minister of Australia...
What are the root causes of these problems?
The changes in the West involved distribution of ideas. Printing Press, a more powerful upper class to dethrone the royalty, then a more powerful middle class that demanded more rights to match their economic might.
Is the root cause Oil? To be precise the concentration of the money from oil in the hands of a few. That the endowments from this oil is not shared, that it is not reinvested into the infrastructure of the country but on pleasure yachts and palaces for a few. That the same oil money is using educated people to get, people educated overseas. That an undereducated populace that does not question and does not have economic clout will follow their leaders like sheep.
Maybe the root cause is that there have been no translations of the Qu'ran. Ideas that cannot adapt become fossils if the conditions in which they were created change and they find themselves clinging to a bygone era. It is also possible to have the opposite that Ideas find a new time were they will be of more use... the extreme right and the price of gold both get a new gloss in the times of insecurity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
Yeah, mother of all battles and such. No, the last time Moslims thrashed anyone was probably Gallipoli, but they got thrashed regularly since then. Those Muslim fanatics are more like the annoying child that freaks out because the others kids don't want to play his game. We, the evil secularist men, want to stop those wackos before they piss off the until now self-restraint West so much that it goes into a red haze, lowers itself to their level and stuffs them down a well. And a few other that stand in the way. And, boy, they will mind that!
Just for the record, the usual route was first absolutism that largely relegated the aristocracy to secondary importance save as a source of officers and cavalry soldiers, followed by eventual middle-class takeover by the merit of sheer wealth (the landed aristocracy was notoriously bad at actually making money). Where both monarchy and aristocracy were present, and the monarch was unable to assert himself over the aristocracy, the standard result was stagnation; as said, the landed aristocracy was notoriously poor at finances. For assorted reasons much of East and Central Europe followed that route, and according to some theories are still paying the bill.Quote:
The changes in the West involved distribution of ideas. Printing Press, a more powerful upper class to dethrone the royalty, then a more powerful middle class that demanded more rights to match their economic might.
At least as far as the Middle East and other oil-rich regions are concerned oil has to be among the bigger issues. Or to be more precise, its global importance which saw the local grabby elites left alone first by the colonial empires so long as the gunk flowed, and then the "global community" (such as it now is) so long as the gunk flowed. And the way the astronomical profits from the oil industry are near-exclusively splurged on the high living and tax-haven accounts of the upper crust; for comparision one of Saddam's preciously few good points was his willingness to invest some of his ill-gotten gains in stuff like public education and healthcare...
When you think about it, the model actually looks suspiciously like the pattern that led Eastern Europe into such trouble.
Naturally enough the Great Unwashed don't exactly like the situation, which is a boon for the militant clergy - all the more so as they're relatively safe from state violence, and instead need to be negotiated with.
Personally I think most of the MidEast dictatorships are on a road to general revolt. AFAIK the firebrand clerics consider their native overlords only a marginally lesser evil than the encroaching godless West, and would quite happily kick them down if they could (and put someone suitable, like some seriously hardcase reactionary old fart from amongst their number, into the empty space...). The practice of trading concessions to the radicals and letting them rage against the West when they feel like it is quite likely just stalling and will eventually become untenable; it is almost certain all such incidents only strenghten the radicals' position in the long run, and it is entirely possible the dictators will eventually find themselves with nothing more to sell.
Well, the mess might also collapse into ugly civil war too. Long-term dictators are often bad at giving up power and quietly slipping out of the back door when the fat lady starts singing.
Usually a good preventive medicine against popular uprisings is sufficient socioeconomical and political reforms to make the people reasonably happy and give them a "stake" in the existing state of affairs, so they no longer want to tear it down in hopes of building something better instead. Now, getting such moves through the sheer corruption and stubborn power-monopolizing of the autocratic elites is an entirely different matter...
It would be a lot easier if there was no oil... then they would have to either learn or work their collective butts off to create wealth.
So alternative energy sources could castrate the dictators of the middle east. It would also seriously hamper the clerics from having any wealth to wage war with. And it would then require the locals to learn if they wanted any wealth at all.
Overly simplistic; although similar effects are most pronounced in Third World countries with suitably exploitable valuable raw materials (say, diamonds), they're no strangers to less 'fortunate' countries either. The world economy just plain is developed in such a way as to severely disadvantage the common folk and economies of the "developing world," in most cases at least partially as a legacy of the colonial period.
And remember, terrorism is the low-budget warfare method. :bounce:
Pfft. I am one of the common folk in the Western world yet I can expect access to more information and ideas then Library of Alexandria. A longer lifespan then the Emperors of Ancient Rome or China. Access to a greater variety of food, communications, transport, countries and clothes then the Aristocracy of a thousand years ago.Quote:
The world economy just plain is developed in such a way as to severely disadvantage the common folk and economies of the "developing world,"
The Third World is the Third World more because of what the people have done then with when they were last conquored. Post WWII Europe seems to have bounded back to a robust economy. Admittadely some colonial powers were better then others for putting in place infrastructure and insitutions. However a quick look at places like Zimbabwee and you can see that the locals have been pretty good at destroying any advantages they once had.
On the other hand countries like Singapore (a ex-colonial outpost) have managed to rise above these so called shackles of colonial poverty without oil or mineral wealth.
Sure people can blame colonialists that have long since left them for their independance... but surely given the amount of ex-colonial countries that have done well for themselves hints that it has far more to do with the locals lack of motivation and education rather then some historic change in leadership.
I think I defended the principle that 'diplomacy goes a long way'. It does, most people don't realise that. As usual most of the Muslim holy rage has dissipated. I bet they are all eating Danish yoghurt again in the coming days and weeks because their governments don't need a trade row with the EU. Many a Mid-Eastern shopkeeper has Peter Mandelson to thank for not provoking Arab leaders into behaving even more stupidly and formalising a boycot of Danish products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
But I am not a diplomat.. ~:)
But some common folk are at a much bigger disadvantage than others because of their ossified intellectual climate. Latin America is doing ten times better than the Arab world, and mostly without oil. They have a middle class, they have intellectual freedom and a religious outlook that encourages curiosity and initiative, as opposed to modern Islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Again, you unwittingly cut to the heart of the matter. Islamic terrorism is hugely expensive. Its recruitment alone depends on very expensive programmes, for instance on the Saudi Wahhabists wasting millions and millions of oil revenue on madrassas in Asia where children learn absolutely nothing useful.Quote:
On the average it tends to look like it's very much a bad thing for a Third World country to possess valuable natural resources. That seems to very easily lead to the nasty cycle of wealth-hogging upper class that cheerfully sells the stuff, whatever it now is, on the cheap so long as they get a fat check on the side, and the rest of the world being much more willing to ignore such management practices. All the more so if the local "culture of governance" hasn't gotten past its grabby and nepotistic colonial stage.
AFAIK Congo is the most extreme example at the moment. By what I've read of it there is no longer any real link between the ruling elite and the common folk there; exploitation of the rich natural resources (duly in cooperation with unscrupulous global business interests) makes the elite functionally independent from whatever meager taxes the country might be able to provide, and that wealth also allows them to hire as many thugs and leg-breakers as they want as the army without resorting to the populace at large. Coversely the common folk have more or less entirely given up hope on their rulers and as contact with them most of the time brings them nothing good, avoid it and try to get by as much without the state as possible.
Naw, a better part of the problems of the Third World are a fairly direct legacy of the disortions of the colonial period, and the further skewing caused by the Cold War and the so-called "postcolonialism". Claiming anything else is really just dodging responsibility, even if it's only indirect. I've read the watershed was actually around the late 60s or early 70s; until then much of Africa was actually progressing relatively well. It is hardly coincidential that the same period saw great changes in the world economy in general - I seem to recall something called "Bretton-Woods system" being often mentioned in the context - and the end of the so-called "Postwar Golden Age Of Capitalism", ie. the before that essentially uninterrupted economical upswing that followed the reconstruction efforts after the WW2. I also seem to recall seeing mentions of the foreign debt of many Third World countries starting to spiral out of control specifically around that period...
...Hey, wasn't that also the time around when many industrialized Western countries spawned troublesome ultra-Leftist terrorist groups ? Bader-Meinhof, the various Red Flags and Armies, those kinds of groups ? That sort of radicalization usually happens as a reaction to something or other too, which would further suggests some sort of paradigm shift was afoot.
I'd kinda hazard a guess it has much more to do with how A) Latin America had already shaken off the worst of its colonial shackles already before the Age of Empire (which did the most lasting damage in the Third World, including the Muslim parts) B) in the last few decades outright dictators and military juntas have largely disappeared from the political scene. Not having to fear the thought police all the time has, I suspect, much more of an invigorating effect on the intellectual life than the details of faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
This also has to be about the first time ever I see Catholic Christianity, especially the fairly conservative branch that's in the majority in Latin America, referred to as "a religious outlook that encourages curiosity and initiative"... :inquisitive:
I think I'm smelling a bias here. How about you ?
It is quite correct that, as one source put it, "the average middle-class American [might as well read Westerner] in many ways lives in more comfort and luxury than a medieval king." I however fail to see the relevance when discussing the Third World, all the more so as our high living has an unhappy tendency to indirectly come at their expense. The aforementioned disortions of global economy, you know. How much do you imagine the farmer who cultivated the beans your morning coffee is made out of on the average gets paid for his troubles ? Much of the time he can consider himself lucky if he makes enough profit to keep himself and his immediate family passably fed and clotched...Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Sure it is the fault of the locals. After all, dictators and military juntas are famous for their love and support of popular motivation, general education and critical thinking... :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Right. Can we stop the Blame The Victims game about right now ? It is an exceedingly distasteful pasttime.
...Except the Al-Qaeda leadership I know of tends to come from well-schooled middle- and upper-class backgrounds, even if they've also attended such pinko-religious circles. Hardly surprising really; revolutionary movements have always had a tendency to have for one reason or another disgruntled members of the elite as their "officer class" and ideologists, as those folks tend to have the sort of educational base and skills needed. Even rebelling Medieval peasants normally tried to recruit unhappy members of the warrior aristocracy as their leaders, usually succesfully (or were led to revolt by such men to begin with).Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
The grunts for their part tend to come from amongst the lower and lower middle classes, don't they ? And the vast majority of the militant activists are pure volunteers who don't need to be paid anything as such; even the impious unscrupulous opportunists in the lot seem to take care of their own profit with classic "warlord economy" methods.
Moreover, AFAIK much of the budget comes from sympathetic individuals as donations, some of them prosperous members of the elites. As that sort of income isn't dependent on state taxation (often quite au contraire; state taxes are straight off the pool such 'philanthropes' can spare for such donations, aren't they ?) the whole system seems comparatively low-cost overall. At least compared to the insane sums that need to be expended to counter it - how many dollars the War on Terror eats up every day ? - and the disproportionate returns-of-investement that can often be achieved.
Put this way: whatever it cost Osama's organisation and its supporters on the long run to destroy the WTC, it was still chump change compared to what it would have cost to achieve the same effects through conventional military means - because the latter was and remains patently impossible and hence incalculably expensive. Remember, asymmetrical warfare and guerilla strategy (of which modern terrorism is really just a global and urbanized version) have always been and remain the choice method of those who cannot afford to fight by other means.
I agree with all that and have maintained it in this very forum in the face of pretty stiff opposition. But it is not the whole story. You fail to address the issue I keep pointing out, which is that Islam is not a vehicle for any sort of progress in the present situation. In its present form it is an ossified body of pseudo-knowledge and absolutist claims that blocks any sort of social or intellectual progress. I think I understand quite well how this deplorable state of affairs came about, thank you very much, but I am not prepared to accept it as a desirable vision for the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
There we go again. You confirm what I wrote earlier about the Leftist fallacy that islamic terrorism is somehow a legitimate form of resistance of the Arab world's wretched masses. Osama bin Laden as the 'voice of the oppressed'... Give us a break and allow us to have a good laugh over our Danish yoghurt, Watchman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
I'm getting the impression you're not quite reading what I'm saying here. Forest behind the trees again.
On the contrary. They have already done much about it: sent a loud and clear message that the desecration of Islam will not go unanswered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beorhtwulf
Everyone is going to think twice now before trying to desecrate Islam again.
Of course for those who "forget" that the desecration will be answered, I'm sure the reminders will be swiftly forthcoming in any future incidents.:2thumbsup:
Well, why don't you skip the gratuitous anti-imperialism and cut to the bone then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Do you think Islam is a force for much-needed social change in the Arab world or not?
Considering what they view as desecration, and what is done against other religions with no backlash, IMO it is an extreme reaction, and one that is not condusive to much of Europe. They can scream and shout, but I don't see why I should have kid gloves around their beliefs to the any more than our society has concerning ones that have been resident here for over 1,000 years. :furious3:
~:smoking:
Do you think it's the root of all ills therein ?Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
And please stop putting words in my mouth.
Please stop dodging the issue and answer my question: Do you think Islam is a force for much-needed social change in the Arab world or not? And please elaborate on your answer, in the same way as I have done. Otherwise this discussion is going nowhere. I don't plan on debating abstract notions of 'racism' and 'imperialism' till kingdom come.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Well, I'm not one for shirking an opportunity to look like a prat, so there's my :2cents:
The Middle East stands on the silk and spice trade from the Far East, and although much is arid there are river valleys were conditions are far more pleasant. This has been the case probably since the Babylonians were around.
The region also inherited much of the learnings of Greece and Rome after The Byzantium Empire fell - teachings that did not reappear in the west for centuries.
So, wealth, fertile valleys and masses of educational material: what the hell went wrong?
Arguably every benefit was at their feet - far more leisure time than was had in the West for the rich, and far more opportunities to build on the findings of the past.
East and West both fought masses of wars, both had at least at some point religions that were utterly intolerant - in fact until recently far more true of the West than the East, which was relatively enlightened in many ways.
So is that the nugget that is needed?
When Islam was ascending, they were relatively benign: tolerance of others - as long as they paid taxes the locals were left alone. The Christians at the time were loosing, and so were extremists - the Spanish Inquisition for example. Then came the change: Islam went into territorial decline. The Ottoman Empire receded from all the lands it had conquered, and eventually ceased to exist all together. In this time, freedoms were slowly won in Western Europe until we emerge into the pretty secular world we now inhabit. Islam has gotten more and more extreme, ending up with religious genocide of 1.2 million Christians under the Ottomans.
Whereas West Europe had to reinvent much of what was lost, Islam already had it, and appears to have lost the desire to search for any more knowledge (rather like the complacency of the Chinese prior to the Gunboat diplomacy of the West).
Now, fracticious little states squabble like children in the sand. Most are not countries as such, as all were made and most have greater centifugal forces than any other. Their "dark matter" is religion: it focuses their burning hatred against all those that wronged them, and prevented the triumphant spread of their culture and religion (indeed is now eroding their own with foreign values - and as such regardless of what they are are hated / feared as they are often being forced on the locals).
Can Islam be salvaged? Of course - look at those moderates in the West. Although they are not pleased with the cartoons for example most are not advocating that all Westeners die. With a few more generations they will be more integrated with Western culture and will accept our values as opposed to clinging with tenacity to those their parents brought with them as reminders of their homeland.
Whether it can in the areas we endearingly call the Middle East is a different matter. So many factors reenforce the slant of islam that is present only a massive change will enable those that live there to look forwards and understand their fellow man instead of looking back to a perceived golden age and hating the leaders of the present.
~:smoking:
This is my hope as well: the coming of a European Islam that is embedded in Western society and re-imported into the Arab world. Then maybe in the long run it will become a force for progress, though in the end I would prefer it to just disappear from politics and become a sort of folklore in the same way Christianity has become mostly folklore.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Unfortunately that is not going to happen for a long time. Most islamic states are still in a state of regression or stagnation, ruled by dictators and not democratically governed. They have virtually no womens rights, draconian judicial systems and the majority of the population living in abject poverty, which always leads a helping hand to any kind of extremism. Even Turkey which is moderately westernised has it's fair share of extremists. While the average person would love to live under a regime like the Taliban and any attempt at democracy has to include a restriction in civil liberties for women and the fundamentals of sharia law, how can democracy be achieved? The attempts at democracy in Iraq are totally forced. The whole situation is extremely fragile. If western forces were pulled out, even in the next two years, I have no doubt that the entire process would fall apart and the country erupt into civil war.
The whole situation in Iraq is doomed...I still don't know why we're there...oil? anyone?
The last time I was working in and around coffee plantations my crew was earning $3 Australian each per day in Sumatra. The local coffee farmers were on a similar overall amount. Very friendly bunch most of them they offered fresh coffee straight from the plantation, except for the one farmer that threatened my crew with a machete. And there was that one meeting which we had out on a track with a dozen local farmers all armed with machetes who were complaining about what we were doing (mind you a farmer with a machete is like an engineer with a pocket protector and a calculator, just business tools)... in the end of the day both us and them agreed it was the Javanese administration that was at fault for not keeping everyone informed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Yes the success or failure of the country is ultimately at the feet of the locals. Sure some of them were dealt better hands then others depending on their colonial power. However where they went from their starting positions is their choice. Try comparing the outcomes of various colonial countries. If it is the locals who make the profits and decisions in successful countries the same responsibility for outcomes can be laid at the feet of the countries that do not succeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Blaming the colonialists from generations past rather then the current dictators and juntas is a bit rich. And the people still have the option of overthrowing the juntas... it seems to be an almost weekly passion in some countries.