The reformation of Islam, part two: Political evolution

[Husar]

Actually they did , the good old teutons and the germanic empire that was split with the reformation and the seperation of the Austrians shall be reunited by the good volk .
The third reich was the succesor to the first reich of Charlemagne according to those crazy german nationalists .

Well yes, if you ask me we should clone Charlemagne ASAP and make him Kaiser of the EU.

On topic, I do think that Islam will loosen up, but it takes time, every generation loosens up a bit and even in Christianity some hardliners remained who never loosened up much, but on a whole they will most likely change, influenced by capitalist luxury etc. the devil's ways are just too tempting for most.

[Banquo's Ghost]

On topic, I do think that Islam will loosen up, but it takes time, every generation loosens up a bit and even in Christianity some hardliners remained who never loosened up much, but on a whole they will most likely change, influenced by capitalist luxury etc. the devil's ways are just too tempting for most.

Using Husar's post as an anchor, but I think many of you are missing the point. Islam is not a monolithic structure and Islamofascism is not the only option.

There are substantial and ideologically sound alternatives that have been developed in recent history. Because of the West's predilection for "safe" strongmen, those alternatives have been sidelined by the fanatics as somehow "less pure" and the more we characterise political Islam as only fanaticism, the stronger we make our enemies. The example of Clinton's fatheaded treatment of Khatami in Iran is apposite, getting us only the more dangerous Ahmadinejad.

We are terrified of advocating more democracy (or greater freedoms) in Islamic states because of the Hamas factor - maybe all we'll get is elected fanatics. But maybe advocating and supporting more moves like King Hussein's (Syria now being a good example) would make greater gains for marginalising Islamicism.

Simply characterising all Islam as mediaeval is a cop out and simply gives the dangerous men even more fertile ground to threaten our interests - because they do the same thing in characterising the west as an imperial hegemony.

Islam had a Golden Age of tolerance and scientific progress that Europe only dreamt of for five hundred years. Surely we can think constructively about what events impacted that culture so badly that Islamofascism has the currency it currently does?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't buy into this "Islam just needs time to grow up" mentality, not least because it belittles Islam as a system of thought. When we were grubbing around in the dirt and divided into petty post-Roman kingdoms, with mass illiteracy, and military and organisational collapse perpetually immenant the Caliphate was building schools, hospitals, universities, translating Aristotle and Palto.

Were it not for Islam we would not have access to many ancient philosophical works, histories etc. 1000 years ago Islam was 500 years ahead of us, now they are 500 years behind. We need to recognise this and understand how it happened. The Muslim world has in many ways remained static, or regressed. In few has it progressed.

I also think we need to stop comparing Islam to Christianity, the two have less in common than they do different. For one thing the Christian story is bottom-up, Islam top-down. That means that Christianity can survive political marginalisation much better, while Islam flourishes when it is the religion of the elite.

I believe that the best we can do now is leave the Arab world alone, without Western support despots will either have to loosen their grip on power, or be ousted. If the region decends into bloody carnage we send in medical supplies and food directly to the people. We support the people not the regimes.

So I suppose I agree with Banquo in part, but at this point I would advocate extreme non-involement at the governmental level.

We make the Arabs like the West by being nice to them.

[Strike For The South]

I think there needs to be a distinct social culture. Islam can not dominate both public and private life. The muslim nations with the most "liberal" governments all have distinct culture (Turkey, Indonesia, Iran)

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I have to state a partial agreement with Calicula. Essentially my view would be that the best option is non-involvement. Allow the Islamic states to operate as they will, providing the human rights of the populace are not infringed. Islam is a major component in all aspects of life in the region whether western governments can understand this or not. The problem that many people have when looking at a region like the Middle East is that we view it through the lens of our own influences and culture. Just because we expect and want secular government doesn't mean that the peoples of the Middle East do. Indeed, as the article states, many people in these countries view the West with cynicism and mistrust, as they uphold and support despotism for their own needs, while conversely claiming to be exponents of democracy and freedom.

Non-intervention by western nations is an important step on the road to allowing Islamic states to find their own ideal methods of governance.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The challenge for non-intervention (normally my default position) is two-fold:

a) Many Islamic states also sit atop our energy sources. The West cannot allow the oil to stop flowing.

b) The damage has, in large part, already been done by intervention and Islamofascism has, and will, reach out to affect us on our own shores.

Like it or not, we're involved.

[Fragony]

Don't need to be, the whole of europe needs a full stop of immigration from islamic country's, as long as we allow mass immigration we are importing the problem. Not worried about terrorism personally I am worried of a demographic timebomb. Maybe the change in the islamic world can come from people who have lived in the west, make it atractive to go back, a 20.000 or 30.000 reward or so, can't cost us more money then it does now

[Furunculus]

The challenge for non-intervention (normally my default position) is two-fold:

a) Many Islamic states also sit atop our energy sources. The West cannot allow the oil to stop flowing.

b) The damage has, in large part, already been done by intervention and Islamofascism has, and will, reach out to affect us on our own shores.

Like it or not, we're involved.

partly the reason why i said what i said above.

the west only needs the middle-east for the next generation, when the oil runs out and the ME is left with a bunch of non-consuming, zero middle-class, illerate peasants we simply won't care.

so the ME has to persuade us that its in our interest to support democratic reform versus supporting autocrats.

democratic reform will have a cost (i.e. potentially installing islamist gov'ts), what we need to know is that benefits outweigh the costs of continueing to sit on the pressure cooker until we cease to depend on the ME's oil and gas.

the benefits alluded to above might include the transformation of the ME into an advanced trading region within a generation, so we have some reason to look beyond the oil.