How extreme is Islamic extremism?

[Ritual]

Originally posted by treide

Originally posted by supervike
One thing I don\'t really understand is the Jewish connection to this.

The animosity between Islam and Judaism goes way back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Land_of_Israel#Islamic_and_Crusader_periods

Interesting... I never knew jews had returned to the area so early. In school they began the history of the current conflict with the zionism that started in the 1800s.

BTW, I had missed your question about why radical Islam was more appealing than other religions. Well, if you live in a muslim country or have your roots in a muslim culture, wouldn\'t Islam then be the most obvious option?

 

[treide]

Originally posted by Ritual
BTW, I had missed your question about why radical Islam was more appealing than other religions. Well, if you live in a muslim country or have your roots in a muslim culture, wouldn\'t Islam then be the most obvious option?

Sure, in Muslim countries. I think that this phenomenon occurs in countries where Islam is not the dominant religion. To apply the \"appeal to the disenfranchised\" example, many prisoners in US prisons who \"find religion\" embrace Islam (Malcolm X, for example). I am curious as to why Islam is so appealing in such situations. It isn\'t like there aren\'t Protestant ministers or Catholic priests available for the prisoners, right?

Why the amazing growth of Islam in Indonesia? That was not traditionally a Muslim area of the world, was it? Correct me if I am wrong, as I am woefully ignorant about Indonesian history.

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by philologus
I assumed your use of the phrase McCarthy era was just for general identification purposes, but I found it odd that it would be included in a list of atrocities.....

I was using it as an example of Extremism (along with the Salem Witch Trials) to show that it can occur so very easily even in a democratic state.

Originally by Treide
\"Why the amazing growth of Islam in Indonesia? That was not traditionally a Muslim area of the world, was it? Correct me if I am wrong, as I am woefully ignorant about Indonesian history. \"

If you take a look at map of the world you will see that the Primary distribution of \'Islamic countries\' lie along the old Spice Trade and trading routes used by Arabic / Farsi speaking traders. (In fact what was the old Persian Empire and it\'s trade routes). Indonesia has long had a tradition of Muslim and \'original beliefs\' (*) sitting side by side.
One of the duties of any Muslim is in fact the spreading of the \"Word of God as given by the Prophet Mohammed\" and given that the trade routes were primarily all dominated by peoples speaking the same basic language stucture the expansion of Islam occurred far faster than the expansion of Christianity. As an example by the time Christinity became the \'official religion\' of England {Mid 10th Century} most of the North African countries on the Meditteranean, great tracts of Spain & Portugal, Turkey and the Caucasas regions were under Muslim control. The expansion continued Eastward, what is now Malaysia, India Afgahnistan, pushing up into Mongolia and through to China following the Spice/Silk trade.
Now compare the growth Of Christianity throughout Europe, this took far longer and was \'hampered\' by differing languages, differing cultures, and the adoption of some of those cultural practises into Christianity. Add into that mix the \"Barbaric\" state of Europe following the Collapse of the Roman Empire, you can then see that there was less stability and the expansion was slower. Islam in the Arabic world expanded on existing cultural behaviours and was therefore more easily adopted because of those \'cultural templates\'. (**)

Islam in itself has both secular and religious rules, hence for a religious leader to also be a political leader causes no conflict of interest.




(* Terrible phrase I know, But I can\'t remember the proper name of the religious culture).
(** Long Lunchtime discussions over coffee with a former Iranian colleague).

 

[Bill]

One of my Muslim friends told me that he\'s not allowed to buy coca-cola because the company has given jobs to Jews, and the Jews use the money to buy weapons to kill Muslims. Clever

 

[Dragon Forge Design]

Originally posted by Bill
One of my Muslim friends told me that he\'s not allowed to buy coca-cola because the company has given jobs to Jews, and the Jews use the money to buy weapons to kill Muslims. Clever

Ive herd the same thing and of other products, but because its Kosher.

As for the question How extreme is (insert any religion) extremism? Well any person willing to strap 50 pounds of explosives and a 1000 ball bearings to their body and walk into a crowd of people they don\'t like and detnate it is well, pretty extreme if you ask me.

But through out history man has found the ability to hate others because because of some sort of reason..even something as simple as hey the grass is greener on your side of the fence.

 

[treide]

Originally posted by Dragonsreach

If you take a look at map of the world you will see that the Primary distribution of \'Islamic countries\' lie along the old Spice Trade and trading routes used by Arabic / Farsi speaking traders.

Thanks, makes perfect sense. BTW, what were the original religious belief systems in Indonesia/Malaysia? Polytheism?

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by treide

Originally posted by Dragonsreach

If you take a look at map of the world you will see that the Primary distribution of \'Islamic countries\' lie along the old Spice Trade and trading routes used by Arabic / Farsi speaking traders.

Thanks, makes perfect sense. BTW, what were the original religious belief systems in Indonesia/Malaysia? Polytheism?

To be totally honest, I\'m not sure.
I think it was an Animalism or Shamanism base, probably with Bhuddism and or Confucianistic (?) bits thrown in.
You\'ll need someone with a stronger knowledge base of the area to confirm it. Sorry.

 

[MPJ]

After reading all the messages in this thread I can\'t help but notice that noone brings up the topic of education and how it relates to religious extremists.

It\'s my thought that many/most extremists in the world are also un or under educated by any \'non secular\' form of formal education. A population that is ignorant of other peoples and have history are far more likely to fall into a more extremest belief system as that is all they know or are taught.

I\'m not saying that less educated peoples are less intelligent but they do have far less \'experience\' and knowledge of the world and are therefore less able to make rational and independant decisions.

I would certainlly list education as a major contributing factor to extremism over poverty, necessity, location, or any other pressure.

 

[farseerlum]

perhaps but it\'s hard to say since usually with better education is better law enforcement.

would there be a lot of extreme nazis and christian supremests without the state enforcing tolerance? i\'m going to guess yes.

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by MPJ
After reading all the messages in this thread I can\'t help but notice that noone brings up the topic of education and how it relates to religious extremists.

It\'s my thought that many/most extremists in the world are also un or under educated by any \'non secular\' form of formal education. A population that is ignorant of other peoples and have history are far more likely to fall into a more extremest belief system as that is all they know or are taught.
I\'m sorry but that argument is somewhat weak, Osama Bin Laden and his Lieutenants are all fairly well educated people. Bin Laden himself comes from a very wealthy family so his secular education will be better than most. I also doubt that the men who carried out the September 11th atrocities were poorly educated as several of them were Pilots, and you don\'t pick up a pilots license by staring at the south end of a northbound donkey for 30 years.

If you are aiming your comments about the mob mentality then yes there is probabilty that lack of education, coupled with resentment over the seeming opulence of the \'western lifestyle\' gives easy and fertile ground to rabble rousing rhetoric.

However if you take an example of European history, Hilter and the Nazi party developed great support in the universities, recruiting men like Albert Speer from within them. To continue the example men like Goering and Himmler weren\'t stupid or ill educated.
In a more modern example Ian Paisley is considered by many to be an extremeist, and yet he\'s not only an ordained minister and the head of a church but an elected politician.

I\'m not saying that less educated peoples are less intelligent but they do have far less \'experience\' and knowledge of the world and are therefore less able to make rational and independant decisions.

I would certainlly list education as a major contributing factor to extremism over poverty, necessity, location, or any other pressure.

 

[Godlikebuthumble]

Interesting discussion so far, some very good points (Ritual and DR) brought up.

Just to throw this in, as it might add to the discussion. Violence in Islam is a very valid part of the life-style; very much like Judaism, unlike Christianity, notice I\'m not talking history, but \"book\" message. Islam doesn\'t think turning the other cheek is a viable option. Pretty much old-school \"eye for an eye\" policy here. So violence in service of religion(=way of life) was never seen as a paradox, like it was/is in Christianity.

Another point: The fight for Islam, according to ancient sources, is \"fought with three weapons: the mouth, the hand, and the sword\". Meaning: a) Spreading the \"good word\", which is basically what your average Jehova\'s Witness does. b) Acting according to the teachings of Islam. Charity, following the rules, etc. Leading by example, basically. c) Defending your faith and country from aggression. Using violence if neccessary.
Note that a) and b) constitute the \"great Jyhad\", while c) constitutes the \"small Jyhad\". It is, of course, treacherously easy to omit the great one, and instead convince people they\'re being threatened, neccessitating \"a\" Jyhad, a violent one, of course... So, pretty analogous to the history of any other religious violence...

 

[Shawn R. L.]

Saying you are following God is no guarantee of goodness. Christ often talked about the heart of a person. He said that TRUE religion is to feed the hungry, cart for the widow and fatherless. He said that the greatest commandments were to love God and to love your neighbor. A person can quit drinkin, cussin and smokin, go to church every day and carry a 20 pound bible and still, in their heart, be very far from these principals.

3\"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

This is what He preached for us to aspire to. The extremism that is so prevelant (and seems to have always been) has NOTHING to do with what Christ preached. If he is to be called extreme I would have to say it is in his love of the unlovely and his fierce opposition to the cruelty of the religion that on the outside proported to be of God yet IN IT\"S HEART had NOTHING to do with God. Speaking directly to the established church of his time he said - Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men\'s bones and everything unclean.Christ brought life and freedom......the wickedness of peoples hearts simply used the guise of religion to further their own lusts and ultimately killed God\'s own son.

 

[Avelorn]

I\'ve barely scratched the surface on this topic, but we did have about Islamism in relation to Orientalism/occidentalism last fall.

First. There are many branches of islam, and many branches of islamism, fundamentalism, traditionalism etc. Fundamentalism is not the same as islamism. Fundamentalism has more to do with trying to remove influences from local cultures from Islam while Islamism could be interpretated as the political islam, that the politics should be based on the Qu\'ran or values derived from the Qu\'ran. So an islamistic movement might or might not be fundamentalistic for example.

Some organisations/parties within the broad lines of islamism could be considered to be in the lines of the European \"Christian democratic\" parties while others are extremists. Some are working for democracy in for example Egypt, while others are.. not.

I think people have raised many good points on why extremism is on the rise. Think of it as they are not as much acting for something as against something. The history of many of these countries has been filled with despotic leaders and failed attempts at modernisation. Trying to remove Islam by force and pulling of the Hijabs (head covers) of women as a notable example. Imperialism, greed, capitalism, prostitution and the decadence of \"western countries\" are brought up as a \"why should we become like them?\". Amongst the ones that like modernise, very few are saying they should take our path. Combine that with organisation like Hizbollah speaking about solidarity and providing food and healthcare where there is none.

But my view is people aren\'t guided by words when they decide to do acts of terrorism, they are guided by emotions. How can they do what they do? Well I saw a documentary about an old IRA member, he simply said that he back then didn\'t view the protestants as people. It is through dehumanisation and demonisation we can do this to each other. That and of course the all evident rationalisation \"they\'ll do it to me if they could\". I disagree that we are a particulary aggressive and brutal race, even if we have aggression it is hardly anything that defines us. If it would we wouldn\'t be horrified by it... I could go on here if anyone care do discuss that particular topic.

Originally posted by dauber22
it\'s the unquestioning \"True Believers\" that scare me - whatever it is they believe in....

True - so true!