Islam: A Defective Civilization?

[Swift]

I'm sure somebody will give me hell for not writing my own posts, but who cares?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1237

Islam: A Defective Civilization?

PRESIDENT BUSH CLEARLY HAS NIGHTMARES about the current war on terror turning into a war with Islam. On the military plane, this is unlikely so long as we do nothing stupid, but on the philosophical plane the question has already been forced in a lot of people’s minds: Is Islam a fundamentally defective civilization and are the advanced nations of the earth therefore doomed to find it a source of trouble? One cannot help noticing that if we take “civilization” in the sense established by Sam Huntingdon’s excellent The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, it appears that they are the problem child of the planet. The alternative, of course, is that the trouble Islam appears to cause is the product of pure politics and not of religion per se. After years of politically-correct West-bashing sapping our spirit, it is probably salutary for us to assert our superiority if it is warranted, so let’s take a look.

These are the facts that confront us about the Muslim world:

1. Politics: Few Muslim nations are real democracies; in the Arab heartland, the count is zero. An exceptionally high proportion of the Muslim nations, the highest proportion of any major bloc of countries, are politically pathological, having failed to achieve internal stability that rests on anything other than brute force. They are also prone to external aggression, directly or by proxy, much of it serving no discernable national interest.

2. Economics: The Muslim world is impoverished and backward economically if one ignores oil, a windfall that it did not itself create. Worse still, even the oil states can’t produce their own oil but rely on foreign expertise and labor.

3. Society: Most Muslim societies are backward in terms of basic social indicators like levels of education and the status of women. Civil society is stunted. Corruption is rife. Alienation is widespread.

4. Culture: The culture of the Muslim world is not admired by outsiders, either in its high or popular versions. Foreign students do not flock to its universities. Its ideals do not resonate for others. No-one dreams of being like them.

At some point, the observer is entitled to wonder if Islam is behind the problems of Islamic countries. As shown by the enormous amount of conflict Muslims have with Hindu India and with black Africans in the Sudan and elsewhere, it is not just the West they can’t get along with.

One of the most unattractive things about Islam from the point of view of a non-Muslim observer is its combination of arrogance with a failure to back this chest-beating up with results. The West is often accused of arrogance, but the West and its imitators rule the world, so there is a certain logic, if no politeness, to this attitude. Islam, on the other hand, particularly in the minds of its most fanatical adherents, seems to consider itself entitled to rule the world and is alternately puzzled and enraged that this is not happening. It is a doctrine of Islam, for example, that the end of history comes when all the world is converted to Islam; I do not believe any other major religion makes this claim. This sense of superiority and destiny of domination is combined with a curiously inflamed sense of victimhood, for example the ongoing obsession with the crusades as having political relevance to the present day. And of course they ignore the fact that the Muslim world invaded and conquered Europe (at various points Spain, Sicily, the Balkans, Hungary) centuries before the West had laid a hand on them. Furthermore, in terms of their supposed grievance against Christianity, it is conveniently forgotten that Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Constantinople were once Christian areas, which fell to Muslim conquest. This is the mentality of the bully-wimp, of the fascist crybaby.

To be fair, one of the sad things about Islam is that many of its definite positive aspects seem to have been blunted in modernity. For example, in the Middle Ages Muslim societies were more tolerant of their religious minorities than was European society at the time, albeit with an air of contempt. They were also more scientifically advanced for a time. All serious writers on modern Islam have posed the following question: why is Islam an obvious correlate, if not a cause, of backwardness today when in the Middle Ages Islamic civilization was one of the most advanced in the world? This is frequently represented as a great puzzle, though I do not think it has to be one.

The simplest explanation is that Islam dictates by dogmatic fiat a kind of high-medieval civilization, but because it establishes it by dogma, it cannot easily advance beyond it, because dogma is fixed. Islam provided a shortcut to a level of social development higher than that of Europe’s Dark Ages, but also a dead end. This would also tend to explain the astonishing rapidity of its development in the Middle East after Mohammed’s revelation, which led to the vast Caliphate of Baghdad, ruling much of the known world, in a relatively short period of time.

The key historical difference between them and us, of course, is the Renaissance. It has even been suggested that the direction of medieval Islamic philosophy shows that a Renaissance was gestating in medieval Islam, inspired as in the West by the assimilation of ancient Greek learning, but that the religious authorities saw its disturbing potential to disturb received religious truth and strangled its development in intellectual infancy.

The counter-argument to all this is that the commonly repeated story of Islamic civilization being at one time the most advanced in the world is a gross exaggeration. The core contention of this school is that what they achieved, they achieved by militarily absorbing non-Muslim societies, like Persia, Egypt, and Byzantium, that were already advanced in their own right and whose achievements after the Muslim conquest cannot be ascribed to any Muslim genius.

The next problem is sharia, Islamic law, a detailed body of instructions on how to run society that has no counterpart in Christianity. The precepts of Christian ethics contained in the Bible are nowhere near as specific, and even they are only ethics, not actually intended to be the statutory law of the land. Even sharia’s closest equivalent in the West, the Jewish hallakha, is in the inventive hands of the Jews preposterously flexible by comparison. Sharia is a straightjacket for the society it governs, though one of a respectably high order by the standards of world history.

Some Muslims, most famously the secular nationalists who have run Turkey since Kemal Attaturk’s post-WWI revolution, have faced this fact squarely and given up on it as a basis for modern society. This was what the Shah of Iran was trying to do when so rudely interrupted by the Ayatollah Khomeini. To greater or lesser degrees, it is what other Muslim societies have done, with Syria, Malaya, Indonesia and Iraq in the vanguard. The opposite extreme is represented by Iran and Saudi Arabia, and was represented by Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

The rigidity of sharia prevents the dynamic legal, and thus political, order of the West from emerging, but the rigidity of sharia is only its first problem. Its other problem is that by making statutory law a direct dictate from God, it allows no philosophical, as well as practical, room for a secular state. We know this principle as the separation of church and state, which confers two essential benefits:

1. It protects the state from corruption by religion, enabling politics to proceed on its own terms and solve its own problems without getting caught up in religious dogma.

2. It protects religion from corruption by the state, preserving the ability of the spiritual sphere to be true to itself without succumbing to the temptation of resort to coercion in matters of faith.

Christianity teaches that one should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. This enables Christians to make a clear distinction between the goods of this earth, which an intelligent atheist can discern and figure out how to obtain, and the metaphysical good of salvation, which is made known to us by revelation. The culmination of the pursuit of goods of the first kind is politics, of the second, religion. Reasoning about these two goods can go on independently because they are by nature different in kind. But when religion and politics are conflated, we run the risk of policy being made on a basis of dogma and of faith becoming an object of coercion.

This is precisely the predicament that Islam creates for nations that imbibe it deeply. To say that the earthly ruler is, as in classical Islam, the regent of God on earth is to step back in political philosophy to what were in the West the days of divine right monarchy. This is a stage prior to all the philosophical ideas that underpin democracy, individual rights, personal freedom, legitimate dissent, and the other essentials of modernity. And as Huntington points out, classical Islam rejects the idea of national sovereignty, the basic building-block of modern international order. It is only really comfortable with the ummah, or community of all believers.

There are also disturbing aspects about Islam purely as a religion, independent of any social consequences. For example, its conception of paradise with the 70 virgins, et cetera, is, to be quite blunt, repulsively crude and I do not think this is just a Western bias. Everything I have gathered in conversation with representatives of other traditions suggests to me that a serious Buddhist, Hindu or Chinaman finds this equally unattractive. The ultimate end of man should not be a teenage fantasy. It is, of course, a wonderful myth for motivating young men to become killers.

There is also the problem of the Koran. The Koran differs from the Bible fundamentally in that the Koran is not just revelation but also incarnation, i.e. the appearance of God in history. In analogy to Christianity, the Koran is not just the Bible but Jesus as well. Unfortunately there is evidence accumulating from modern Koranic scholarship that the Koran may not be what it claims to be.

For a start, its claim to have appeared all at once in its complete form seems to be false, as shown by ancient versions of it that have been discovered. It has also been shown, based on the standard tools of textual analysis, that much of the pre-Islamic literature that was supposed to prefigure it was in fact written later and falsely dated. These issues are discussed at length in A href="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm">this article in The Atlantic. Basically, the same higher criticism that did such damage to Christian faith is slowly starting to work on the Koran. Whether this is a good thing if it weakens fanaticism, or a bad one if it lets loose the same forces of nihilism that have ravaged the culture of the West, remains to be seen.

The principal case that Islam is not a defective civilization is that there exist Muslim nations that have not become societies pathological in one way or another. Logically, this cannot include nominally Muslim nations like Turkey that have rejected Islam as a basis for social order. Take Morocco, for example, not a place of great political trouble by Third-World standards, though the usual suspects are certainly trying. Some experts on Islam will tell you that Morocco exhibits the closest thing found on earth today to traditional Islam, it being the case that the nominally purer societies like Saudi Arabia in fact practice a puritanical variant, the now-notorious Wahabbism, that derives from innovations of the 18th century. Morocco had a relatively unbroken social continuity despite colonization and decolonization, and has since had a traditionalist but unfanatical monarchy practicing benevolent authoritarianism. It cooperates with the United States.

The example of Iraq, a highly secularized Muslim country that exhibits extreme political pathology, makes clear that secularism is no guarantee of reasonableness for Muslim societies. The counter-argument to this, in turn, is that Iraq is still a society formed by Islam, if not currently practicing it with great enthusiasm, and it is due to Islam that it failed to develop into a democracy or some other reasonable form of government.

It is probably true that human beings can, if they put their minds to it, put a politically reasonable gloss on any religion. But this is only true as a matter of bare principle; what they will actually tend to do when given a certain religious starting point is another matter entirely. And on these grounds it seems fair to conclude, simply as an empirical matter, that Islam has a disturbing tendency not to measure up to the standards of modern civilization. Whether an Islamic Reformation analogous to the Christian one can set this problem aright is a matter of speculation, but there is every reason for us to wish for one.

[Star]

Write your own posts, nazi.

[Swift]

Write your own posts, nazi.Right after posting. Tsss... Couldn't you at least have some patience and READ the damned post?

[Last Song]

You said you knew it would happen. I read that far. Why bother beyond that?

[booyalab]

im not going to read that because there doesn't appear to be a debate-worthy point (assuming there is any point at all)

[kafkaesque]

I read the whole thing and there is a lot to it that makes sense. It seems to me to be using Islam as an example of the problems of religious fundamentalism (since it is an extreme example in it's dogmas).
The best point made here is that the refusal of Islamic nations to consider separation of church and state is one of the major causes of conflict.

Separation of church and state is the reason Catholics, Muslims, Jews and atheists in America can live on the same street without car-bombings.

[Lee]

For a defective civilisation it seems to have been hanging around in one form or another for a long time.

[coffeezombie]

It's not defective. Just different than the West. Different values. People with no concept of cultural relativism bother me.

[booyalab]

Separation of church and state is the reason Catholics, Muslims, Jews and atheists in America can live on the same street without car-bombings.

Dont be PC, muslims and some psycho ultra-nationalist jews are the only ones from that list that can be plausibly held responsible for most car bombings in the history of the world.

[booyalab]

It's not defective. Just different than the West. Different values. People with no concept of cultural relativism bother me.

some of us are familiar with it but find it unbelievably wimpy and unrealistic.

[Swift]

It's not defective. Just different than the West. Different values. People with no concept of cultural relativism bother me.It's defective because it's difficulty in separating church and state is an inherent bug that stiffled Islam's own growth. Of course they blame it all on the West.

[philonightmare]

I read the entire thing. I've studied Islam and know that a lot of the information presented in this article is false.

The Qur'an was never revealed all at once. It was revealed in parts, year after year. Even the Qur'an acknowledges this.

Islamic societies (such as Saudi Arabia) do NOT follow the Islam that is preached by the Qur'an and Sunnah (the Prophet's teachings).

In fact, the true Islamic society is one which accepts all people, all races, all religions. The fact that some countries (Saudi Arabia) have taken advantage of their position is sad. The Taliban is another example of idiots taking advantage of their position and misconstruing the true Islam.

The truest form of Islam is the one practiced during the Prophet Muhammad's time. This is evident by the way their society much improved after Islam was revealed.

This article may hold valid opinions about those countries that have deviated from true Islamic beliefs, but it has serious flaws in that it is associating the religion with the practioners. There is a difference. I will not say that all Catholics are bad just because I know some Catholics that are bad. I will say that this Catholic is bad, but I know this is not the case with all and Catholicism is not the source of this badness, rather the source is this person's own personal beliefs that have nothing to do with religion (even if that bad Catholic were to use religion as an excuse for their behavior --this is called misinterpreting and should not be accepted as what Catholicism is trying to teach).

The 70 virgins example? Bullshit. I hate when people take things out of context. I also highly doubt the author of this article has read the Qur'an cover to cover and can speak with intelligence on this matter without resorting to that example in every conversation he holds. I've heard that said in almost every anti-Islam discussion as a reason for the suicide-bombers. Not true. Just like me not saying that all Catholics are bad, I will apply the same reasoning on these Muslims. Not all of them are bad, only the suicide-bombers for their idiotic behavior.

[coffeezombie]

Theocratic government is just another form of government. One forgets that even in representative democracy, 49% of the population could be completely repressed. I feel repressed the way my government is now. I'd welcome a theocratic government that leaned towards the scientist beliefs that I possess.

[Swift]

Philonightmare, I can agree that true Islam is not so bad as it looks, but what's more important: the scriptures of the Qu'ran or the way a hell of a lot of people implement them and mix them up with other traditions, ie their ACTUAL behaviour?

Swift

[kuranes]

For a defective civilisation it seems to have been hanging around in one form or another for a long time.
It seems to work for some people. Like that old Yogi Berra joke "Nobody goes to that reastaurant anymore because it's so damned crowded."

It's not for me, but is supposed to be a mostly friendly religion. It's adherants ( of many flavors ) are present in huge numbers, and so the extremists represent a very small portion of that.

They should probably try to make more of an effort to point out religous contradictions in what the extremists are doing. You occasionally see something to this effect, but I'm talking about a massive effort. If these guys are willing to die and kamikaze over twisted doctrine, that very doctrine UNtwisted might be what gets to them, vs. strictly bullets etc. Not that you would trust this as a complete substitute. I don't think such an approach would work on "Christian nations" at war, nor would it faze the hard core Muslim terrorist leaders, but it might make a dent in the rank and file soldier/volunteers for their cause.

K

[philonightmare]

Philonightmare, I can agree that true Islam is not so bad as it looks, but what's more important: the scriptures of the Qu'ran or the way a hell of a lot of people implement them and mix them up with other traditions, ie their ACTUAL behaviour?

The scriptures, since that is unchanged and will remain so. The behavior of individuals or groups will however change upon their whim. Whether they choose to deviate in certain regards is their own problem, not the religion's. They are two separate matters.

I do see what you're saying though. And I definitely cannot agree with the way people have implemented some of the Qur'an's ideas.

[philonightmare]

They should probably try to make more of an effort to point out religous contradictions in what the extremists are doing. You occasionally see something to this effect, but I'm talking about a massive effort. If these guys are willing to die and kamikaze over twisted doctrine, that very doctrine UNtwisted might be what gets to them, vs. strictly bullets etc. Not that you would trust this as a substitute. I don't think such an approach would work on "Christian nations" at war, nor would it faze the hard core Muslim terrorist leaders, but it might make a dent in the rank and file soldier/volunteers for their cause.

That's a good point. I hadn't considered that before...

[nBT]

rage is rage
wheter 'justified' or 'inspired' by a holy book is unimportant.
debating to these people has no use.

rather fix their problems
religion may or may not turn out to be a source of these problems

i find the text paranoia. like some american who hasnt seen a differnt culture. thats as bad as a religious fanatist

[coffeezombie]

I agree with you, nBT. More people in Iran probably agree with what the government is doing there compared to how many Americans agree with what my government is doing here. In that sense, the theocratic government of Iran is more representative of its population.

[kuranes]

While we're waiting to "fix their problems" I still think it would be useful to use their own religous leaders and quotes from the Koran etc. to get them to see things differently. It's not only rage that motivates them. The terrorists use religous doctrine to further stir things up, or to FOCUS that rage against the USA, and whoever else is on their agenda. Right now a lot of the soldiers are recruited from young people chronically unemployed, who have been held down by dictators. I've stated my objections before to the USA continuing to support dictators in the name of stability. Meanwhile we have the evolving status quo to deal with. Until there is a resolution to the constant bombings and chaos, there probably isn't going to be enough "business" going on to generate higher employment. So the rage and infrastructure problems will continue. As a stop-gap method, I think pointing out that these violent actions are contrary to what Mohammed taught would be a useful first step. There are specific requirements for the declaration of a genuine "jihad" that have to be followed, to make it a legitimate general call-to-arms. Bin Laden and others have not met those requirements. K

[philonightmare]

While we're waiting to "fix their problems" I still think it would be useful to use their own religous leaders and quotes from the Koran etc. to get them to see things differently. It's not only rage that motivates them. The terrorists use religous doctrine to further stir things up, or to FOCUS that rage against the USA, and whoever else is on their agenda. Right now a lot of the soldiers are recruited from young people chronically unemployed, who have been held down by dictators. I've stated my objections before to the USA continuing to support dictators in the name of stability. Meanwhile we have the evolving status quo to deal with. Until there is a resolution to the constant bombings and chaos, there probably isn't going to be enough "business" going on to generate higher employment. So the rage and infrastructure problems will continue. As a stop-gap method, I think pointing out that these violent actions are contrary to what Mohammed taught would be a useful first step. There are specific requirements for the declaration of a genuine "jihad" that have to be followed, to make it a legitimate general call-to-arms. Bin Laden and others have not met those requirements. K

The two bold points are statements I strongly agree with.

[tragula]

Well, I read it and I would agree with most of it.

Religion and government don't mix well, whether it is in Muslim countries or the west.

Religion and the dogma it pushes are at the source of plenty of the world's problems. Mainly because religions are so divisive. People are either believers or infidels, and judged so by scripture.

Of course there are some religions like Buddhism that are inherently tolerant.

Also, the political correctness cops are just a little out of control around here if you ask me. Soon, it won't be safe to think anything that deviates from their liberal scripture ;-)

[kafkaesque]

Also, the political correctness cops are just a little out of control around here if you ask me. Soon, it won't be safe to think anything that deviates from their liberal scripture ;-)

What are you talking about?

[Serotonin]

Followers of Islam, like any belief, support ideologies that are misguided. The things that have been executed in the name of Islam are, in many cases, horrific. I don't disagree with that. But I had an Islamic friend who died of leukaemia a few years ago. As his death approached his faith grew. I saw him a month before he died, and he had a printout up on his wall. It read:
I ask Allah to give me all things so I can enjoy life. He says, "No, I give you life so you can enjoy all things". That was profoundly moving to me. On his death bed, according to his father, he said "I am a fighter. I have given this my best shot, failed, and I feel no shame or remorse. This must be what Allah wants for me". And so he died in peace. Islam gave him that peaceful frame of mind in his last moment. That's the value of religion. It makes people happy inside. Like a drug. Like "the opiate of the masses" but without Marx's cynicism. I rejected religion because I knew it could not make me happy. It was a drug that didn't work. So I looked elsewhere for happiness, and have found dribs and drabs of it here and there that sustain me.

[Lee]

Define "defective"?

This seems to be a list of ways in which the muslim world does not meet the moral or ethical standards of the west, but that is precisely the difference between them. "Defective" is also entirely subjective to desires and goals, "defective" would be different for everybody. Ultimately the least "defective" civilisation will prevail, although this process is likely to be be so slow and gradual most will be unsure which side won this clash of civilisations, even now the lines are blurred.

[Chukamuk]

Originally Posted by kafkaesque
Separation of church and state is the reason Catholics, Muslims, Jews and atheists in America can live on the same street without car-bombings.


Dont be PC, muslims and some psycho ultra-nationalist jews are the only ones from that list that can be plausibly held responsible for most car bombings in the history of the world.
Hmm, I wonder why you left out Catholics? Ever hear of a place called Northern Ireland?

Seems the atheists are the only ones not trying to kill anyone. Go figure.

[Shai Gar]

as the author of this thread did, i shall state my opinion with barely any facts to back it up.

america is a defective nation and the west is a defective culture. this is to do with christianity, and the christian ideals.

There, done.

i cant stand this continuous insulting of islamic culture, it has been going on since before the crusades and wont stop for a good many years yet, utterly dispicable. what is worse is that the people doing the insulting is not looking at what the muslim clerics are saying indepth, they simply dismiss it as hatred, it is hatred, but no man hates for no reason. i wont bother helping you out of your ignorance, just pull your head out of your arse and look for yourself at some independant views, and if you cant find any, or hold to the contention that there is no such thing as impartiality, then look at mostly impartial sources

[philonightmare]

[...]i cant stand this continuous insulting of islamic culture, it has been going on since before the crusades and wont stop for a good many years yet, utterly dispicable. what is worse is that the people doing the insulting is not looking at what the muslim clerics are saying indepth, they simply dismiss it as hatred, it is hatred, but no man hates for no reason. i wont bother helping you out of your ignorance, just pull your head out of your arse and look for yourself at some independant views, and if you cant find any, or hold to the contention that there is no such thing as impartiality, then look at mostly impartial sources

:cheers:

I still believe a separation of ideas (ie: Qur'an) from practioners (Taliban, Saudis, etc) is a wiser way of looking at this issue. I wish people would pick up a copy and read it thoroughly before arguing about it.

[kafkaesque]

Originally Posted by kafkaesque
Separation of church and state is the reason Catholics, Muslims, Jews and atheists in America can live on the same street without car-bombings.


Hmm, I wonder why you left out Catholics? Ever hear of a place called Northern Ireland?

Seems the atheists are the only ones not trying to kill anyone. Go figure.

Thanks Chukamuk. But my point is that in countries that insist that the church is the government different religions cannot get along and start killing each other. Why do muslims and jews in Israel hate eachother while in America they go golfing together? Why do Catholics and Protestants on the border of Northern Ireland shoot at eachother with machine guns while in America they hang out and have a friendly drink? The answer is separation of church and state.

[Shai Gar]

philonightmare? i have a copy of the quran in my bookshelf, a good book, interesting and it comes a long way from the bible, but there are too many things in both that i disagree with to hold them as sacred text's

the existance of a god for one

[Shai Gar]

the answer is not in religion, it is in supression, subversive politics and genocide.

people tend to get pissed off when their baby brother is shot through the head by isreali soldiers who are "only following orders"

[philonightmare]

i have a copy of the quran in my bookshelf, a good book, interesting and it comes a long way from the bible, but there are too many things in both that i disagree with to hold them as sacred text's

the existance of a god for one

I don't think one has to agree with something (even the existence of God) to be able to read it thoroughly. I'm glad you were able to read it, despite your non-belief. That's more than what some people are able to do without feeling the urge to puke, or something. But, when seeking knowledge one can't be picky (except about sources and whether they are backed up, whatnot) and reading everything available is something worth doing to get a better understanding of the subject at hand.

I too don't hold the word of some of the major world religion's texts as sacred, but I do realize that in order to understand the underlying reasons for why people are the way they are (according to their religion --them misinterpreting the ideas in the books being one thing) and think the way they do, I must read what they were taught on their mother's laps. You're right about suppression, genocide, and subversive politics. No one wants to see a child shot up.

Is religion the cause of this? I think is the question being pandered about here. That's why I said that people need to read the book before arguing about it. I also figured you'd be one of the people that has already done so. ;)

[Shai Gar]

i read it as nonfiction theory

[kafkaesque]

I don't think one has to agree with something (even the existence of God) to be able to read it thoroughly. I'm glad you were able to read it, despite your non-belief. That's more than what some people are able to do without feeling the urge to puke, or something. But, when seeking knowledge one can't be picky (except about sources and whether they are backed up, whatnot) and reading everything available is something worth doing to get a better understanding of the subject at hand.

I too don't hold the word of some of the major world religion's texts as sacred, but I do realize that in order to understand the underlying reasons for why people are the way they are (according to their religion --them misinterpreting the ideas in the books being one thing) and think the way they do, I must read what they were taught on their mother's laps. You're right about suppression, genocide, and subversive politics. No one wants to see a child shot up.

Is religion the cause of this? I think is the question being pandered about here. That's why I said that people need to read the book before arguing about it. I also figured you'd be one of the people that has already done so. ;)

That is a good point. I will do some more reading before posting on such a topic again, as I have no knowledge of the quran. I have however read the bible a couple of times, as my agnostic father advised "you had better read the damn thing."

[Shai Gar]

plus the reasons people fight are rarely to do with religion, religion is mostly just the excuse, in the case of most of the middle east i believe they fight for freedom from US interference, and for revenge against US interference.

i wont back this up, i dont think this needs to be, just as i wont back up the statement that the sky is blue

[philonightmare]

plus the reasons people fight are rarely to do with religion, religion is mostly just the excuse, in the case of most of the middle east i believe they fight for freedom from US interference, and for revenge against US interference.

i wont back this up, i dont think this needs to be, just as i wont back up the statement that the sky is blue

:hug: You make so much sense it's scary.

[Shai Gar]

i just thougth about it logically and posted what seems obvious, occams razor

[philonightmare]

That is a good point. I will do some more reading before posting on such a topic again, as I have no knowledge of the quran. I have however read the bible a couple of times, as my agnostic father advised "you had better read the damn thing."

You've got an intelligent father. And just so you know, I wasn't trying to bash anyone who hadn't read it, I just wanted to say that educating oneself on something they don't know is a worthwhile pursuit. :)

[philonightmare]

i just thougth about it logically and posted what seems obvious, occams razor

Haha, occams razor... I wish I were as good at it. I just muddle everything up with my damned Fe overriding my Ti. Ah well, that's why the world is a better place with INTPs in it.

[kafkaesque]

You've got an intelligent father. And just so you know, I wasn't trying to bash anyone who hadn't read it, I just wanted to say that educating oneself on something they don't know is a worthwhile pursuit. :)

It is indeed.

[Shai Gar]

Ah well, that's why the world is a better place with INTPs in it. yes it is, yes it is

[Serotonin]

Ah well, that's why the world is a better place with INTPs in it.

*looks at philonightmare contemptuously*

You crawler!

[philonightmare]

*looks at philonightmare contemptuously*

You crawler!

Eh?

Edit: I am not Australian, but from the gist... I'm not seeking approval. I'm merely appreciative of INTP's way of thinking. I am clearly not an INTP and so can see the value of you people. Duh.

[Shai Gar]

/me hugs philonightmare

leave her alone serotonin, she is cute... can i keep her?

[philonightmare]

/me hugs philonightmare

leave her alone serotonin, she is cute... can i keep her?

I think he's just upset that I now share airtime with his comment in your signature. ;)

[Serotonin]

/me hugs philonightmare

leave her alone serotonin, she is cute... can i keep her?

I never had her in the first place. Go ahead.
It was funny because my honours supervisor (he's an INTJ) said those exact same words to me when I was complimenting my other supervisor on a seminar she gave. So I guess I was looking for an opportunity to use it on someone else because
a) It was a good call - I love dry wit.
b) Because it was a good call I got confused and a bit ashamed that it looked like I was sucking up. I wanted to offload that shame onto someone else.

P.S. Philonightmare its OK, you are not a crawler

[Shai Gar]

DOUBLE HUGS

though yours might be temporary, his is permanent

[philonightmare]

I never had her in the first place. Go ahead.
It was funny because my honours supervisor (he's an INTJ) said those exact same words to me when I was complimenting my other supervisor on a seminar she gave. So I guess I was looking for an opportunity to use it on someone else because
a) It was a good call - I love dry wit.
b) Because it was a good call I got confused and a bit ashamed that it looked like I was sucking up. I wanted to offload that shame onto someone else.

P.S. Philonightmare its OK, you are not a crawler

Thanks for explanation. I knew there had to be a backstory to this somewhere. ;)

[philonightmare]

DOUBLE HUGS

though yours might be temporary, his is permanent

Darn. Guess I'll have to "paypal" you to keep it in there for longer. Anyway, I think we've derailed this thread far long enough. *Fe*

[Shai Gar]

depends on if i come to like it as much as the other two

[SheepDog]

I never considered Islam to be a civilization. A broad collection of religious views, perhaps, with a high degree of variability with in that broad definition, but not a 'civilization' per se.

[Shai Gar]

the muslim world was once a thriving civilisation, that has been dragged down due to constant warring on it, and kept there due to the preserving of the current status quo.

this isnt a conspiracy theory, this is simply economics, and very successful economics at that, not that i condone this

[philonightmare]

the muslim world was once a thriving civilisation, that has been dragged down due to constant warring on it, and kept there due to the preserving of the current status quo.

this isnt a conspiracy theory, this is simply economics, and very successful economics at that, not that i condone this

Very true. I wish they'd stop all that damn inner-conflict shit. Then again, it's never going to end unless in a utopian world. Damn.

It's also a lot of politics, along with economics o' course. "Follow the money" and all that jazz.

[Shai Gar]

what inner conflict shit?

[philonightmare]

what inner conflict shit?

Sunni versus Shite etc...

It pisses me off. Those two branches of Islam were created based on politics and economics if my history serves me right. They are essentially fighting over an old issue that goes back to who holds power first: the Prophet's relative or the Prophet's best friends. An issue I think that only the idiots in the old Islamic world wanted to create.

And the power struggles were over the caliph-dom (I know that's not the proper way to say it, but it's close). These things aren't even the most important aspects of Islam, yet people were focusing on the irrelevant. Undue conflict over something that shouldn't have ever happened. I believe the first fight was between Ali and Fatimah's followers.

[Shai Gar]

I thought that the sunni branch (sadams branch) wasnt particularly religious anyway...

but in any case the only conflict i hear about in the middle east is israel/palestine and theworld/iraq on the aljezeera news... could you inform me of this drawn out lethal battle?

[philonightmare]

I thought that the sunni branch (sadams branch) wasnt particularly religious anyway...

but in any case the only conflict i hear about in the middle east is israel/palestine and theworld/iraq on the aljezeera news... could you inform me of this drawn out lethal battle?

You get aljezeera news? You're lucky. I don't think America would provide us with this treasure jem of information. I can understand a bit of Arabic too, damn...

That's funny (not haha funny) that you've never heard of the other conflicts. I never realized this was not common information. Also, the Sunni branch is most of all relgious. Saddam is irrelevant as a practioner --clearly he changed the rules to suit himself and took advantage of his position. He does not make an accurate representation of the everyday Sunni. Let me go get my history texts for proper documentation of said "battles":

These battles were both political and bloody in nature. One of the main causes of argument within the caliphates is that there is a trend for them (caliphs) to be
[...]abnormally fond of squandering state money on formal pomp and show and sensous luxuries. Such senseless lavishness has resulted in two things: (1) It has been generating manifold mal-developments in the life and economy of those states. (2) It has failed to evolve a sensible political leadership commanding public trust and respect.

This then leads to a problem that must be dealt with socially as well. The caliphs did not always agree with one another and it was similar to monarchies in that they fought (sometimes) over who would take the lead position or who was next in line for the "throne."

On Ali: He was the Prophet's cousin and husband of the Prophet's daughter, Fatimah. I made an error above in saying the fight was between those two. It was between Ayesha and Ali. Here is what my book says:

The Caliph [Ali] set out to quell the revolt [which occurred after a rebellious governor chose to refuse orders given by Ali]. While yet on the way he learnt that Hadrat Ayesha has also raised the slogans of avenging Caliph Uthman's martyrdom [his death was a source for the first conflicts as well since no one knew who was responsible for it] and was advancing toward Basra with a large army. Caliph Ali retraced his steps. He rushed straight towards Basra and encamped right in front of Hadrat Ayesha's camp. A fierce battle ensued. The loss of life on both the sides totalled approximately 10,000. Hadrat Ayesha's army was eventually defeated.[...]
This battle, called The Battle of the Camel took place around 656 A.D. After this [and another source of conflict] "Caliph Ali shifted his capital from Madina to Kufa."
Source: Ill.History of Islam by Dr. Abdur Rauf (this is a reliable, very simple read)
I hope that's more than enough to get you started on thinking about this new perspective on Islamic inner-conflicts. I wish I had time to provide you with more facts, but I think this will take some more time to research. I also have at least 7 other books on the history of Islam and this was just the first one I picked up, sorry if it seem unreliable or biased to anyone.

Edit: Ayesha was Abu Bakr's (the Prophet's best friend and first Caliph) daughter. I think she was also the Prophet's youngest wife. This was partly the reason for the conflict because she would undoubtedly want her father to be Caliph before the blood relative of the Prophet since Ali was still so young and immature at the time of the Prophet's death (and the need for picking a Caliph arose).

[Swift]

For a defective civilisation it seems to have been hanging around in one form or another for a long time.Well yeah, 1400 years is pretty reasonable, but Islam never reached the hights our western civilisation has reached.

[Swift]

People with no concept of cultural relativism bother me.Cultural relativism is a fraud. It's not wrong to say Western civilisation is better than other civilisations.

We made the most progress scientifically, technically, culturally, socially, etc... There were other advanced civilisations, like the ancient Chinese and Egyptians, the indians of Central- and South America, etc... Some of them got extinct and unfortunately their knowledge (like astronomy) disappeared with them. Other civilisations never evolved past the use of stone tools, let alone having a written language. The only thing we could learn from them is perhaps the use of indigenous plants and animals for medicinal purposes.

It's a shame that we can't be proud of our own culture anymore without being called a "racist" or something like that.

Swift

[Shai Gar]

*
o

* "This war in Iraq makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction, such as Halliburton and its sister companies. . . It is crystal clear who benefits from igniting the fire of this war and this bloodshed: They are the merchants of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind the scenes. President Bush and his ilk, the media giants, and the U.N. . . all are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous member. God willing, we will persist in fighting them. . ."
o Source: [8] (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP69504) (April 15, 2004)

* "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Each and every state that does not tamper with our security will have automatically assured its own security."
o Source: [9] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3966817.stm) (October 29, 2004)

* "Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example."
o Source: [10] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3966817.stm) (October 29, 2004)

* "We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you."
o Source:[11] (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/index.html) (October 29, 2004)

* "It never occurred that the highest leader of the military armed forces would leave 50,000 people to face the horror that they faced all by themselves when they needed him most."
o Source: [12] (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/binladen.tape/index.html) (October 29, 2004)

* "And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same, and that we had to destroy the towers in America, so that they taste what we tasted and they stop killing our women and children."
o Source: [13] (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/binladen.tape/index.html) (October 29, 2004)

[philonightmare]

Cultural relativism is a fraud. It's not wrong to say Western civilisation is better than other civilisations.

We made the most progress scientifically, technically, culturally, socially, etc... There were other advanced civilisations, like the ancient Chinese and Egyptians, the indians of Central- and South America, etc... Some of them got extinct and unfortunately their knowledge (like astronomy) disappeared with them. Other civilisations never evolved past the use of stone tools, let alone having a written language. The only thing we could learn from them is perhaps the use of indigenous plants and animals for medicinal purposes.

It's a shame that we can't be proud of our own culture anymore without being called a "racist" or something like that.

Swift

I'm sorry to point this out to you...but you're wrong. It was actually Islamic/Indian civilizations that brought the European (Westerners) out of their stone-age ways. And the rest of what you said, sure be proud of your civilization, but don't say that you are the pure and simple source of all wonderful things in this world when clearly, and historically, you are not.

And the Western civilization would not have been able to make so much progress if it hadn't been for the Islamic/Indian civilizations and their much further progress in the world. It was Western civilization that "stole" the same ideas from them and didn't give credit where it was due.

[Swift]

It's not for me, but is supposed to be a mostly friendly religion. Islam tolerates the "people of the Book", ie the Christians and the Jews (although they have to pay extra taxes), but preaches conquest and conversion against other people.


They should probably try to make more of an effort to point out religous contradictions in what the extremists are doing. The extremists are only using religion as a vehicle. The real problem is that the Islamists are fed up with the United States's support of Israël. Money, guns, diplomatic support, a biased attitude concerning Israëls weapons of mass destruction, etc... It's a political problem, not a religious one.

Swift

[philonightmare]

*
o

* "This war in Iraq makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction, such as Halliburton and its sister companies. . . It is crystal clear who benefits from igniting the fire of this war and this bloodshed: They are the merchants of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind the scenes. President Bush and his ilk, the media giants, and the U.N. . . all are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous member. God willing, we will persist in fighting them. . ."
o Source: [8] (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP69504) (April 15, 2004)

* "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Each and every state that does not tamper with our security will have automatically assured its own security."
o Source: [9] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3966817.stm) (October 29, 2004)

* "Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example."
o Source: [10] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3966817.stm) (October 29, 2004)

* "We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you."
o Source:[11] (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/index.html) (October 29, 2004)

* "It never occurred that the highest leader of the military armed forces would leave 50,000 people to face the horror that they faced all by themselves when they needed him most."
o Source: [12] (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/binladen.tape/index.html) (October 29, 2004)

* "And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same, and that we had to destroy the towers in America, so that they taste what we tasted and they stop killing our women and children."
o Source: [13] (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/binladen.tape/index.html) (October 29, 2004)

The source for the hatred? Yeah, Bush, etc are most definitely part of the problem for the people acting out.

[Shai Gar]

Islam tolerates the "people of the Book", ie the Christians and the Jews (although they have to pay extra taxes), but preaches conquest and conversion against other people.
Swift
the jewish faith proclaims all others as ignorant heretics
the christians do too, but the christians also preach conquest and conversion.

i guess you havent read the qu'ran because it states how war is to be carried out. come back when you have a clue

[philonightmare]

the jewish faith proclaims all others as ignorant heretics
the christians do too, but the christians also preach conquest and conversion.

i guess you havent read the qu'ran because it states how war is to be carried out. come back when you have a clue

What he said! ;)

And my own addition: Swift, do you even know the details of said conquesting and warfare that Islam teaches must be followed as principles? If you don't, you can't make claims like that. I'll tell you right now, the kind of principles that a Muslim must follow include leaving the innocents, including women, children and the elderly alone. Whether an idiot like Saddam or the Taliban chooses to follow these principles is not the fault of the religion. It is of the practitioner using the religion as an excuse.

[MaroonBells]

One of the most unattractive things about Islam from the point of view of a non-Muslim observer is its combination of arrogance with a failure to back this chest-beating up with results. The West is often accused of arrogance, but the West and its imitators rule the world, so there is a certain logic, if no politeness, to this attitude.

Swift, This is one of the most idiotic pieces of text I have come across on this forum. I do not care to finish reading this. I graduated (M.A.) on the Islamic nations of Central Asia and their current economic position in the world. Please stop copy-pasting this junk here. Form your own opinion. No religious text has ever hit me.
MB

[Swift]

Swift, This is one of the most idiotic pieces of text I have come across on this forum. I do not care to finish reading this. I graduated (M.A.) on the Islamic nations of Central Asia and their current economic position in the world. Please stop copy-pasting this junk here. Form your own opinion. No religious text has ever hit me.
MBThen read the rest of the article and give me a specialist's point of view. I'm not a specialist, otherwise I would write my own texts. But I copy-paste articles like this one because I can agree with it in large parts and because I want to provoke a discussion.

Swift

[Swift]

I'm sorry to point this out to you...but you're wrong. It was actually Islamic/Indian civilizations that brought the European (Westerners) out of their stone-age ways. Islam was founded in 622 AD, at the time the romans already had an empire that ruled 1/4 of the known world. Ok, I admit, the Indians, Babylonians, etc... had some good idea's first. Give credit to those who deserve it. But we took those idea's further, while they stagnated or declined.


And the rest of what you said, sure be proud of your civilization, but don't say that you are the pure and simple source of all wonderful things in this world when clearly, and historically, you are not.I never said we invented everything. Others did before us. I said we evolved the furthest.


And the Western civilization would not have been able to make so much progress if it hadn't been for the Islamic/Indian civilizations and their much further progress in the world. It was Western civilization that "stole" the same ideas from them and didn't give credit where it was due. Oh please. We 'stole' their ideas. They had as much opportunity to evolve those same idea's as we did.

Swift

[MaroonBells]

They had as much opportunity to evolve those same idea's as we did.

Hi Swift, sorry for my early outburst.
Regarding the "opportunity to evolve the same ideas", please read Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" that suggests that not all civilization had the same opportunities to grow to the size of the western one. Abundance of resources and interconnectiveness with other civilizations plays a large part. The resource situation again is often predicated by geographical location. Must-read for you with an interest in societal development!

MB

[Swift]

MB, I have heard of that book. It talked about people in Eurasia having animal species nearby that could be domesticated and such stuff. I admit, we probably had a lot more opportunities than other civilisations, but I was rather referring to the civilisations of the Middle East. They too had mathematics, agriculture, the wheel, etc...

Swift

[Robespierre]

I never said we invented everything. Others did before us. I said we evolved the furthest.

Evolved the furthest from or towards what? Is there an objectively definable end goal for evolution other than adapting to the environment?

[Swift]

Evolved the furthest from or towards what? Is there an objectively definable end goal for evolution other than adapting to the environment?Evolving like taking an idea or a form of technology or art a step further?

[Robespierre]

Evolving like taking an idea or a form of technology or art a step further?

Further in what direction? Toward what end?

[Swift]

Further in what direction? Toward what end?It depends on what you're talking about. Military technology? Economical production? Stable, prosperous society's? I don't really understand what you're trying to question here.

[Robespierre]

It depends on what you're talking about. Military technology? Economical production? Stable, prosperous society's? I don't really understand what you're trying to question here.

There is no such thing as a further evolved human. For this to be true, there must be some definable point toward which humans are evolving, or some point from which they are moving away from. However, this is not the case. Each individual succeeds or fails based upon the goals he sets himself. If some redneck in the backwoods has 12 kids who survive to adulthood, but some millionaire has no children, which one is "winning"? The answer is neither. The redneck is achieving his goals, and the millionaire his.

The beauty of natural selection is that it is decentralized and works on an individual basis.

[Robespierre]

I don't really understand what you're trying to question here.

It seems to me as though you have a rather simple idea of evolution, as though there was some "correct" end to which all humanity was collectively striving to achieve. I disagree with this idea.

[Swift]

It seems to me as though you have a rather simple idea of evolution, as though there was some "correct" end to which all humanity was collectively striving to achieve. I disagree with this idea.I disagree too. Where the fuck did you find me saying this kind of bullshit? I never said there was some correct endpoint humans are trying to achieve. I simply said Western Civilisation was the most advanced. It seems you have misunderstood my ideas.

[Swift]

There is no such thing as a further evolved human. I was talking about civilisations, not humans.


The beauty of natural selection is that it is decentralized and works on an individual basis. Of course. It wouldn't work on a group of isolated Galapagos birds, right?

[Lee]

I disagree too. Where the fuck did you find me saying this kind of bullshit? I never said there was some correct endpoint humans are trying to achieve. I simply said Western Civilisation was the most advanced. It seems you have misunderstood my ideas.
If you simply say that you personally prefer western civilisation because of X,Y and Z... I think that would avoid the confusion.

If you actually mean evolved, then your understanding of evolution is wrong.

[Robespierre]

I disagree too. Where the fuck did you find me saying this kind of bullshit? I never said there was some correct endpoint humans are trying to achieve. I simply said Western Civilisation was the most advanced. It seems you have misunderstood my ideas.

You contradict yourself again. Most advanced... towards what end? If you are saying that one group of people is more advanced than another group, you must have some method of comparison. One must be closer to, or have more of, something which you have decided is good.

[Robespierre]

I was talking about civilisations, not humans.

Civilizations are ways in which we think of individual humans. Much like the individual's who make them up, there is no proper endpoint toward which any civlization is approaching.


Of course. It wouldn't work on a group of isolated Galapagos birds, right?

Did they evolve as a group? I suspect if that were the case, they would all be dead. No, quite the opposite. Each bird must fend for itself, individually. If it cannot servive, it doesn't add its genes to the next generation.

[Swift]

If you actually mean evolved, then your understanding of evolution is wrong.Evolution means "slow progress" as opposed to revolution, which is a rapid change. I never meant evolution in the Darwinian sence of the word in any of my prior postings.

However, I do believe that different environments and social institutions have caused a genetic difference between different human races. But since evolution has no "correct" end, as Robespierre stated, one can not speak of superior or inferior races.

Swift

[Lucas]

Cultural relativism is a fraud. It's not wrong to say Western civilisation is better than other civilisations.

We made the most progress scientifically, technically, culturally, socially, etc... There were other advanced civilisations, like the ancient Chinese and Egyptians, the indians of Central- and South America, etc... Some of them got extinct and unfortunately their knowledge (like astronomy) disappeared with them. Other civilisations never evolved past the use of stone tools, let alone having a written language. The only thing we could learn from them is perhaps the use of indigenous plants and animals for medicinal purposes.

It's a shame that we can't be proud of our own culture anymore without being called a "racist" or something like that.
Swift

Cultural and moral absolutism is a fraud. This is widely accepted by social scientists.
First, western civilization, a combination of many cultures not one whole, did not come out of a void and evolve on it's own. It is impossible to compare something as broad as the western postmodern world with the Inka or Egypt, saying one is inherently better without making a value judgement. They are woven into a different cultural fabric of meaning, values and historical context.

In saying that western civilization is better you are making a value judgement based on your particular standards. Many-non western cultures have much lower rates of psychological problems, in that sense they are 'better' than yours. And no you are not a racist, but a pure textbook example of ethnocentrism...

...ethnocentrism can be defined as: making false assumptions about others' ways based on our own limited experience. The key word is assumptions, because we are not even aware that we are being ethnocentric... we don't understand that we don't understand. http://www.iupui.edu/~anthkb/ethnocen.htm Your assumption is that the marvels of the western world are somehow the best of all of humanity and that all the rich cultural knowledge, myths, languages and histories of non western, or 'primitive' cultures are worthless in comparison.

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/relativism_and_absolutism.htm

[Swift]

You contradict yourself again. Most advanced... towards what end? If you are saying that one group of people is more advanced than another group, you must have some method of comparison. One must be closer to, or have more of, something which you have decided is good.Nobody said you must have an end in mind to advance something. Playing the violin is more advanced than making music on a hollow tree, since making music on hollow trees is something we haven't been doing anymore for a few thousand years.

Swift

[Robespierre]

Evolution means "slow progress" as opposed to revolution, which is a rapid change. I never meant evolution in the Darwinian sence of the word in any of my prior postings.

That's all well and good, but you still have the question to answer, progress towards what? What end has the west made more "slow progress" towards than the islamic world?



However, I do believe that different environments and social institutions have caused a genetic difference between different human races. But since evolution has no "correct" end, as Robespierre stated, one can not speak of superior or inferior races.

Now you've made a scientific theorization, which is good. You have proposed a hypothesis, and even one that is testable. Now all you need to do is find some data supporting your idea. In what ways would you expect islamic populations to differ genetically than typically western ones? How about the phenomenon of members of one group moving to live with, and take on the ways of, the other culture?

[Robespierre]

Nobody said you must have an end in mind to advance something.

No one stated that explicitly, perhaps. So I will state it now, in order to advance anything, one must have an end in mind. Otherwise, how do you define an advance? How do you know whether it is an advance or a retreat?

I am in St.Louis, USA right now. If I move towards the Atlantic ocean, am I making an advance?


Playing the violin is more advanced than making music on a hollow tree

Perhaps, if you end is to make music that has a repeatable note structure. I'm not saying that the ends in mind are always controversial, only that they exist, and without some end, nothing advances or retreats, it simply exists.


since making music on hollow trees is something we haven't been doing anymore for a few thousand years.

So time is a factor? Things that happened more recently are more advanced?

[Swift]

Your assumption is that the marvels of the western world are somehow the best of all of humanity and that all the rich cultural knowledge, myths, languages and histories of non western, or 'primitive' cultures are worthless in comparison.I wasn't saying their story's were worthless. I already expressed some grief over the lost knowledge of ancient civilisations like Egypt, the Aztecs, etc...

But while some tribes were doing nothing more than telling story's around a cozy campfire, we tried to advance our lives by developping better technology's, conquering new territories and finding better cures for our diseases. That's the difference.

Swift

[Robespierre]

But while some tribes were doing nothing more than telling story's around a cozy campfire, we tried to advance our lives by developping better technology's, conquering new territories and finding better cures for our diseases. That's the difference.

Here you explicitly define some of your values, most of which I happen to find valuable as well.

I would suggest to you though, that most groups value these goals as well, but that some succeed at attaining those goals more than others as a result of there social organization. The respect for private property, individualism, and open intellectual debate, are all properties of a society which I believe are essential to attaining those ends which I value.

[Swift]

That's all well and good, but you still have the question to answer, progress towards what? What end has the west made more "slow progress" towards than the islamic world?I think that the end goals are prosperity and power. What would you think?


In what ways would you expect islamic populations to differ genetically than typically western ones? Good question. I admit, that I don't know the exact answer to that. It's not that anybody has done some real sound research about this yet, isn't it?

[Swift]

I would suggest to you though, that most groups value these goals as well, but that some succeed at attaining those goals more than others as a result of there social organization. Then do you agree that structuring social life one way or another will make some civilisations "better" than others?

[Robespierre]

Then do you agree that structuring social life one way or another will make some civilisations "better" than others?

Yes, better according to my values, not some objective universal standard.

If you are muslim, and value living a holy life, Saudi Arabia is probably the most advanced culture you can find.

[Swift]

Here's a nice article about the difference between the human races:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050320_leroi.htm

"The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids … (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia."

[Robespierre]

I think that the end goals are prosperity and power. What would you think?

I personally agree upon propserity, but not power, and not by any means necessary. The ends never justify the means.


Good question. I admit, that I don't know the exact answer to that. It's not that anybody has done some real sound research about this yet, isn't it?

I don't really think much of your idea. I think if there WERE major genetic differences between the populations, that it would be known by now. I tend not to place the responsibility for people's actions with their genetics, but with conscious choices that they make.

[Swift]

Yes, better according to my values, not some objective universal standard.

If you are muslim, and value living a holy life, Saudi Arabia is probably the most advanced culture you can find.Absolutely. And I don't contend an Arab's right to think his country or culture is the best. But still, they want our technology, while we don't really need their social structures.

[Robespierre]

Absolutely. And I don't contend an Arab's right to think his country or culture is the best. But still, they want our technology, while we don't really need their social structures.

So what's the problem? If they want something of yours, exchange it for something you want from them.

[philonightmare]

Islam was founded in 622 AD, at the time the romans already had an empire that ruled 1/4 of the known world. Ok, I admit, the Indians, Babylonians, etc... had some good idea's first. Give credit to those who deserve it. But we took those idea's further, while they stagnated or declined.

I never said we invented everything. Others did before us. I said we evolved the furthest.

Oh please. We 'stole' their ideas. They had as much opportunity to evolve those same idea's as we did.

Swift

I feel like I'd be wasting my precious time arguing with someone who has clearly closed his own mind to truthful, objective information. Your every claim, except the date has been normative. Should I continue wasting my time on arguing over opinions? No. Have fun continuing to think that your civilization is the most successful, or best. whatever that means...

[Swift]

I feel like I'd be wasting my precious time arguing with someone who has clearly closed his own mind to truthful, objective information.What information did I ignore?

[coffeezombie]

Here's a nice article about the difference between the human races:


Those are very arbitrary "races," based upon the superficial characteristic of skin color. One African population may be more different than another African population than that same African population is from the entire European population.

[tragula]

Yes, better according to my values, not some objective universal standard.

If you are muslim, and value living a holy life, Saudi Arabia is probably the most advanced culture you can find.


I think the word people are dancing around is "progress". Things like inventing the light bulb. Or inventing the computer. Technological advances that, whatever downside they may have, are generally perceived as advancing the human race.

There is also social progress. From the point of view of most women Saudi Arabia would not be perceived to be the most advanced culture. In fact there may be a very un-relative moral absolute hidden right there.

As INTP you would think we would be somewhat biased in favor of a society that upholds scientific truth and secular values, over one built around religious traditions.

[mgb]

There is also social progress. From the point of view of most women Saudi Arabia would not be perceived to be the most advanced culture. In fact there may be a very un-relative moral absolute hidden right there.

As INTP you would think we would be somewhat biased in favor of a society that upholds scientific truth and secular values, over one built around religious traditions.

That's where relativism comes in.

Because we have not yet discovered the secrets of the universe or the existance of God, we can't say for sure why we are all here. With that in mind it's impossible to say that one lifestyle is better than others.

Saudi Arabia seems backwards to you. If you believe that The Archangel Gabriel spoke to Muhammed and dictated to Qu'ran to him and that Muhammed's bloodlines continue down to today's mullahs, Saudi Arabia doesn't seem so backwards.

To judge what they are doing by your standards is to have your own life judged by theirs. You can see how that exchange would go.

Personally, I don't think everything they do is right, but I also realize that I have no right to tell them what is right or wrong. If they are wrong, in time less and less people will adopt their ideals. If they are right, more people will.

[Robespierre]

Personally, I don't think everything they do is right, but I also realize that I have no right to tell them what is right or wrong. If they are wrong, in time less and less people will adopt their ideals. If they are right, more people will.

A convert! Finally someone has seen the light of libertarianism.

[s]

..... held responsible for most car bombings in the history of the world.


Yea, they were car bombing back during the Middle Ages and way before the slave trade to the New World.[sarcasm]

[chuckle]


Shit, Muslims were calling my pastey ancestors "barbarians" and they were right.

[Architectonic]

A convert! Finally someone has seen the light of libertarianism.

One down, six billion to go.

[Shai Gar]

If you are muslim, and value living a holy life, Saudi Arabia is probably the most advanced culture you can find.
actually the best would still probably be sweden, or finland, or norway

[MacGuffin]

actually the best would still probably be sweden, or finland, or norway
Not for a strict muslim, wanting to live in a country that follows religious laws.

[coffeezombie]

Because we have not yet discovered the secrets of the universe or the existance of God, we can't say for sure why we are all here. With that in mind it's impossible to say that one lifestyle is better than others.

Saudi Arabia seems backwards to you. If you believe that The Archangel Gabriel spoke to Muhammed and dictated to Qu'ran to him and that Muhammed's bloodlines continue down to today's mullahs, Saudi Arabia doesn't seem so backwards.


What about slavery in the American South? Do you accept that then? What if it is Nazi genocide? Neither of them believed they were backwards either. Just curious.

[Shai Gar]

a strict muslim would never seek to impose his beliefs on others, a strict muslim would rather that his fellow man is well versed in the qu'ran and can make the free choice in what to believe.

but the strict muslim will obey allahs laws himself right down to the letter. only in the most enlightened nations on earth will they allow this to happen, scandanavia is the best place on this planet for rights, and quality of life (pity about the weather).

[Robespierre]

What about slavery in the American South? Do you accept that then? What if it is Nazi genocide? Neither of them believed they were backwards either. Just curious.

All examples of THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

[mgb]

Because we have not yet discovered the secrets of the universe or the existance of God, we can't say for sure why we are all here. With that in mind it's impossible to say that one lifestyle is better than others.

Saudi Arabia seems backwards to you. If you believe that The Archangel Gabriel spoke to Muhammed and dictated to Qu'ran to him and that Muhammed's bloodlines continue down to today's mullahs, Saudi Arabia doesn't seem so backwards.



What about slavery in the American South? Do you accept that then? What if it is Nazi genocide? Neither of them believed they were backwards either. Just curious.

Straw Man.

People kill each other so it must be right according to what I said. Except that I didn't say that at all.

Belief is Islam isn't a condonation of violence.

Do they have harsh punishments in their society. Sometimes. Are their punishments any harsher than something you'd find in a modern day Christian based society? That would be a pretty close debate.

Do I think Islam is the be all and end all. Personally, I don't think so. But who am I? If they are wrong, time will tell, also if they are right. Same goes for everything. Time will tell.

[MacGuffin]

I don't think Islamic civilizations are defective, just sick. Much like Christian civilizations were sick during the Dark Ages.

Whether they will have a new renaissance is the question.

[mgb]

I don't think Islamic civilizations are defective, just sick. Much like Christian civilizations were sick during the Dark Ages.

Whether they will have a new renaissance is the question.

The timing is getting to be about right.

[kuranes]

Too bad we had to piss off the moderate Iranians by having one of our politicians tell them their country was part of an "evil" network.

[MacGuffin]

Too bad we had to piss off the moderate Iranians by having one of our politicians tell them their country was part of an "evil" network.
Well, to be honest, that country is perhaps the biggest sponsor of terrorism over the past 25 years.

I do agree there is a strong moderate force in Iran the U.S. would be wise to not crush with their actions.

[kuranes]

Saying they are "evil" just puts them on their guard though, if anything. It would seem that there would be other things that would be more effective. I still think Hollywood could be one of our most effective weapons. If we crafted movies that championed a POV that acknowledged the issues weren't black and white, but made the extremists look bad. (That assumes we aren't being extremists ourselves. ) A story that was told from the point of view of a kid trying to get through it all, perhaps, or a middle east female trying to live with the contradictions imposed on her. Not just some cookie-cutter obvious propoganda piece. ( Although it would still be SUBTLE propoganda, in this example. ) Just a thought.

[Robespierre]

Saying they are "evil" just puts them on their guard though, if anything. It would seem that there would be other things that would be more effective. I still think Hollywood could be one of our most effective weapons. If we crafted movies that championed a POV that acknowledged the issues weren't black and white, but made the extremists look bad. (That assumes we aren't being extremists ourselves. )

It also assumes that extremists are wrong.


A story that was told from the point of view of a kid trying to get through it all, perhaps, or a middle east female trying to live with the contradictions imposed on her. Not just some cookie-cutter obvious propoganda piece. ( Although it would still be SUBTLE propoganda, in this example. ) Just a thought.

Subtle or not, it would be resented. Especially if it was paid for with government money.

[kuranes]

Perhaps resented less than being bombed by the Israelis. There's a lot of sword rattling going on right now with regards to Iran. I'm just saying that some of these kinds of things are alternatives to force. The source of the funding and even the country of origin could probably be easily fudged. I used "Hollywood" as a synonym for "creative film making." Call it "less than lethal" Part 2. Obviously other options would be to do nothing at all, to back the theocracy etc.

[Robespierre]

I'm just saying that some of these kinds of things are alternatives to force.

The best alternative to force in the situation of Iran, is for the US to be completely uninvolved.


The source of the funding and even the country of origin could probably be easily fudged. I used "Hollywood" as a synonym for "creative film making." Call it "less than lethal" Part 2. Obviously other options would be to do nothing at all, to back the theocracy etc.

Do you really want the government to make more clandestine propaganda films?

[kuranes]

The propoganda films I've noticed have all been more of the heavy-handed type that I mentioned trying to avoid, unless you're counting Arnold's movies or something like that.

[Robespierre]

The propoganda films I've noticed have all been more of the heavy-handed type that I mentioned trying to avoid, unless you're counting Arnold's movies or something like that.

The idea of someone actually wanting the federales to make movies, covertly even, scares me.

I view such actions as an establishment of state-religion, on par with public schools.

[kuranes]

If I were an Arab country ( or had similar interests ) with a lot of oil money on my side, and I wanted to start coming out the clear winner in the PR battle, I'd be doing the same thing as what I just advocated the US to do. Showing a young Palestinian growing up from a teenager into a young man. The pressures he faces, his friends dying around him, some of them going "too far", how he tries to walk the thin tightrope across the ideological chasm, and the situations he gets thrown into, etc. I think it would be more effective for them than another suicider blowing himself and a bus load of people up. Even if you were totally against the Palestinian cause, don't you think this would hypothetically make a better weapon for them? The same would possibly hold true elsewhere. I bring it up as a possibility, in our "think tank" here. K

[Dman]

I think what you’re saying is that they would be more successful in their efforts by playing to the American public’s sympathies rather than by terrorizing civilians.

[kuranes]

I think what you’re saying is that they would be more successful in their efforts by playing to the American public’s sympathies rather than by terrorizing civilians.
Yes, that's part of it. And playing to the rest of the world too.

[Claverhouse]

I think what you’re saying is that they would be more successful in their efforts by playing to the American public’s sympathies rather than by terrorizing civilians. I'm not sure if I've mentioned it here, but part of the problem of the terrorist mentality is the Theatre of Blood syndrome --- "You despise us; oppress us; kill us and keep us poor* and suppressed: we will astonish the world with our vengeance, ha ha ! We will kill you and all who support you ! We will demolish the world to achieve our noble ends. We are right and you are wrong !" with appropriate manaical laughter.

[ *Even funnier when you realise that most terrorists are individually richer than 90% of workers in the West; especially old Fu Manchu: I can't afford to make home videos and distribute them freely ]

So then they go out with bombs and rifles etc. and kill soldiers, civilians and passers-by. This achieves nothing except to make the states' yield nothing and institute anti-terrorist measures which do not work particularly well, but have the bonus from the terrorist's point of view of making life progressively intolerable for citizens.

What they should be doing --- not from an ethical standpoint, but a practical empiric standpoint --- is to totally eschew violence against persons, which loses them sympathy, but to concentrate violence against institutions and structures ( not physical... ). In an age of Capital, attack Capital. So instead of destroying those ugly buildings, killing thousands of innocents and creating devastation, a better method of attacking the USA would be to destroy every mobile phone mast possible; to use electronic bombs to put out of commission all of Wall St. for a day; to keep making elaborate hoaxes that would stop a harbour or airport from working for a day, progressively losing the corporations and the governments more and more money. So long as you don't kill people or attack their pleasures the population will remain fairly neutral; but the romance of being 'fighters' slaying and being slain has a strong dramatic pull on most minds, so they don't see this.

[ Incidentally, a few nights ago, I saw part of a not very good adaptation of Josef Conrad's 'The Secret Agent'; it meant well, but even though he was much better than it is possible to imagine bearing in mind it was Robin Williams, it was still Robin Williams playing the 'Professor'.

The 'Professor' in the original is an exact exemplar of why terrorists think the way they do and their romanticisation of 'The Propaganda of the Deed', and a grasping not so much for actual political power, but for power over others.

Of course, Conrad was prefiguring the terrorism of the 20th century in some of this; but he was also reflecting much of what was happening then: there was plenty of anarchist and other terrorist activity in the 1890s and 1900s already. Not to mention that those people who were to practise the state-terrors of the 20th century were growing up in those decades. ]



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Arioch]

Not for a strict muslim, wanting to live in a country that follows religious laws.

I do wonder. Before putting Saudi Arabia up there on a pedestal as the wet dream of every strict Muslim on the planet, did you actually wonder if they actually think that Saudi Arabia is up to the standard of Islamic law?

If you look at it I doubt it if any country in the world can be conceived as obeying Islamic law. Let alone the Middle East.

And if we were looking for a Islamic country what factors do you calculate? Since Islam knows no race (does not find one race better then the other) being a Arab can't be a factor. If one finds numerical majority a factor then Indonisia is the most Islamic country in the world.

I find it curious that many INTP's seem to lose their interest in research when it comes to religious topics and grasps half formed straws

[MacGuffin]

I do wonder. Before putting Saudi Arabia up there on a pedestal as the wet dream of every strict Muslim on the planet, did you actually wonder if they actually think that Saudi Arabia is up to the standard of Islamic law?
Never said anything about Saudi Arabia. Just that liberal Scandinavia is not at the top of the list.

[kuranes]

A good book to read on this subject would be "Against Islamic Extremism" by Muhammad Sa'id al-'Ashmawy, former chief justice of the high court of Cairo. He has to have a bodyguard with him all the time for speaking out the way he does, which is a shame.

The daily inner struggle with procrastination, over-eating, selfishness, etc. is called the Inner Jihad ( also known as the Greater Jihad, which tells you something about Islamic priorities ) and the struggle with a physical world foe is called the Outer (or Lesser ) Jihad. Under Islamic law, military jihad can only be declared by a duly constituted government. It must be preceded by due warning, and efforts to reach a peaceful settlement ( the "call to Islam ). Civilians - especially women, children, clergy, and the elderly - must not be destroyed unnecessarily. Nor must property be destroyed unnecesssarily. Requests for a cease fire must be honored. Some would say that SOME of these conditions HAVE been met, and that the Saudi ruling family should NOT be considered a government of the people. It certainly doesn't represent the average person living in that country. Nevertheless Osama Bin Laden does NOT represent a government. Some would say that he should be considered "hirabah" - a pirate, for which the sentence of death is mandatory. Others feel he is a Robin Hood character.

His main goal has already been partially achieved, which was to get the USA to eliminate their military presence in Saudi Arabia. Under a deal with the Saudis we have been removing a lot of troops and equipment. I'm told they plan 18 bases in Iraq as replacements. I don't think we're leaving anytime soon, however much it might seem a good idea. So the question becomes "How can we try to make things better KNOWING that?" This Dawaa party is interesting. Previously extremely hostile to the US, they are now trying to help quell the chaos, and have the US as "allies".

Is the US/Israel alliance as important a piece of Bin Laden's real motivation as he would have the public believe? I'm sure that it IS significant, however, even if it is minimized. Perhaps another thread can look into the question of Israel, always a touchy subject.

One of the best authorities on the Iraq situation is a guy named Juan Cole, whose opinions are widely quoted at www.antiwar.com.

K

[Swift]

Before putting Saudi Arabia up there on a pedestal as the wet dream of every strict Muslim on the planet, did you actually wonder if they actually think that Saudi Arabia is up to the standard of Islamic law?If I'm not mistaken, the law in Saudi Arabia is in fact the Sharia, the law of Islam. And if it weren't, then Saudi Arabia still is the country in which the Holy towns of Mecca and Medina are situated.


If you look at it I doubt it if any country in the world can be conceived as obeying Islamic law. Let alone the Middle East. How did you reach this conclusion?

Swift

[Swift]

Is the US/Israel alliance as important a piece of Bin Laden's real motivation as he would have the public believe? I'm sure that it IS significant, however, even if it is minimized.Well actually, it's his main motivation. Bin Laden never said anything about hating freedom or democracy. It's the American government that is trying to minimize the American support for Israël as a factor in terrorism.

Swift

[kuranes]

Did you read me saying that I thought his main motivation was "hatred of freedom and democracy" ( as Bush would have us believe ) ? I said his main motivation was to get us out of Saudi Arabia. He has publicly stated that his main motivation was protesting the US support for Israel. He may have been speaking the truth when he said that, or he may have exaggerated the importance of that, for his own purposes. He is under no more compulsion to speak the truth when making public announcements than Bush is. This is what I meant in the last paragraph of my last post. K

[Swift]

Sorry Kuranes, I was just adding my two cents to the discussion. I had no intent of putting words in your mouth.

Swift

[Swift]

Regarding the "opportunity to evolve the same ideas", please read Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" that suggests that not all civilization had the same opportunities to grow to the size of the western one. Abundance of resources and interconnectiveness with other civilizations plays a large part. The resource situation again is often predicated by geographical location. Must-read for you with an interest in societal development!Regarding this book, I found a nice summary of the book, together with a review from a criticist.

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_ggs.html

[Ascending]

It seems everyone misunderstood swift; or perhaps only myself.

Many aspects of society are infact measurable.
For example if you were to compaire the naitive american medicine man and the modern doctor. Obviously they both work towards the same ends; that is the healing of the sick. I don't think it can be argued that one is not more effective then the other. These compairsons can be found all over: efficient development, production, and distribution in agricuture, a social structure that attempts to care of the poor ect. ect.

If both partys grasp for the same goal and one acheives it more effectively then the other than it is quite safe to say that that nation in that aspect is more advanced.
Importaintly, if one society provides an enviroment in which these developments come about more regularly and rapidly then I would in my limited and humble opinon say that that nation is generaly more advanced in terms of provideing for it's people.

Then again I have verbal communication issues so perhaps this was all resolved and I missed it. I did read through all 14 pages. Someone let me know eh?

[Ascending]

*sigh*

Leave it to me to kill a conversation. :P

[kuranes]

Ascending, it seems that you are referring more to infrastructure and technology, rather than "civilization" per se, which are indeed subjects much easier to measure, and important ones, to be sure. I'm not sure how you would "measure" the effectiveness of an entire culture, though. Subject for another thread, perhaps?

[CosmicDust]

The Muslims were naming the stars and conquering like colonialists during the "dark" Middle Ages of Europe. And they kicked the Christians' asses in the Crusades back then too. Things have simply done a 180 in the last thousand years. It's not about superiority or inferiority of the religions...there are many conditions that determine which societies thrive and which ones get the shaft or wallow in their own dung.

[Ascending]

I see no difference.
The success of a civilization (or culture) is measured by it's members self realization, be it through or made possible by expression (arts), reduction of suffering (medicine), security (law), and sustience (agriculture). Certainly we can say that some societys are more effective then others. One might (breifly) argue that another measure of success might be a lasting culture but this is moot since culture is for the sake of people and not visa-versa.

[kuranes]

Measuring the current success of a people is indeed easier than measuring the "value" of a "culture". Analogy - Is the total value of Ascending tied to what happens in his immediate job prospects? By the standards of some people ( Robespierre? ) - the answer is "Yes". I find this questionable, however. A culture can have value even when the people it originally was tied to are long gone, to say nothing of people who are simply experiencing problems currently. It depends on what we mean by value, also.

[Robespierre]

Measuring the current success of a people is indeed easier than measuring the "value" of a "culture". Analogy - Is the total value of Ascending tied to what happens in his immediate job prospects? By the standards of some people ( Robespierre? ) - the answer is "Yes". I find this questionable, however. A culture can have value even when the people it originally was tied to are long gone, to say nothing of people who are simply experiencing problems currently. It depends on what we mean by value, also.

Value = personal opinion. There is no right or wrong answer to which culture is the best. Only those which one person favors over another.

[Ascending]

I thought we were talking about effective and defective civilizations. Job prospects is a very very small part of the list I gave. Something like this...
http://www.fred.net/tzaka/aristot2.html

[Ascending]

Also I'd like to pointout that a discussion of "value" in such loose terms is useless. A fascist dictator might "value" his regime of murder, starvaton and hatred more then all other countirys. Such value is a prime example of how easly humans are willing to delude themselves.

[Robespierre]

Also I'd like to pointout that a discussion of "value" in such loose terms is useless. A fascist dictator might "value" his regime of murder, starvaton and hatred more then all other countirys. Such value is a prime example of how easly humans are willing to delude themselves.

More specifically, value is absolutely individual and subjective in every instance.

[Ascending]

Read: useless in measurment. I thought we were focusing on "effectivness".

[Robespierre]

Read: useless in measurment. I thought we were focusing on "effectivness".

There's no useful way to measure effectiveness unless we have agreed upon ends. As in, the most effective way to ______. That's where values come in, choosing those criteria with which to judge cultures.

[Ascending]

I'm reminded of Lewis Carrol's caterpillar. When I say dog, I may mean cat, and when I say cat I may mean dog. It defeats the purpose of language and communication. If we want to hop about and talk about which countries are most effective at raising virtuoso dancers then we can start another thread.

I submit that countries (and their cultures, that is customs, beliefs and infrastructure) come together into an orginized form for the purposes I've listed in my previous post. Therefore they have a specific end, therefore they can be measured.

[relaxo]

islam is a failure. every nation it touches stagnates. then those nations blame others for their stagnation.

lets take a look at islamic nations.
Indonesia. well Bali is apparently a nice place,oh, that's hindu.
Lebanon.
Mali
Libya
Morrocco. here's a nation that shouldn't be poor. they are.
Malaysia. Maybe the only shining star in islam? You want to live there?
Albania. horse, carts and peasants. lovely.
Sudan. Well the north is islamic. nice guys.
Turkey. supposed to be european, but still have an income lower then ex-communist nations.
Pakistan. very tolerant place...
Iran. even more tolerant. obey.
Some of the gulf nations have high incomes, if you're in the royal family.

Wonder why so many from these nations immigrate to Europe and North America? Oh because the west are worse or just the same right? idiots.

[Robespierre]

It defeats the purpose of language and communication.

Language cannot create meaning where there is none.

[coffeezombie]

islam is a failure. every nation it touches stagnates. then those nations blame others for their stagnation.


You're judging things from a western capitalist exploitation perspective, not a religious righteousness perspective.

[Robespierre]

You're judging things from a western capitalist exploitation perspective

Let the proletariate rise!

[kuranes]

Ascending, you're right to ask for what we mean when we say "culture"; the definition of which could easily encompass a gi-normous thread itself. Certainly if the question is expressed as "do a lot of the countries associated with Islam have similar amenities to what we have here in the USA?", then the answer would obviously be "no."

Many of the problems that people complain about when they say "Muslim" are actually more related to a specific powerful sect of them called "Wahhabi", vs. the entire religion, to say nothing of the entire culture. Just as there are many flavors of "Christianity", with some of them being quite far from my understanding of what Jesus was all about.

I don't think that it was by "following the rules of Christianity" that certain western nations got ahead of many of the others in the quest for material superiority. What is Islam being compared to? Another religion? An agnostic pragmatist philosophy? A country's infrastructure services? Next we'll hear someone say "I think Bruce Lee could kick Wittgenstein's ass."

[Ascending]

Thus another thread joins into the exercise of the omnimeaningless.

[kuranes]

Perhaps the simplistic slanted question that opened it is to blame for that.

[MacGuffin]

I ran across this quote in Newsweek's analysis of its bungled story on the desecration of the Qur'an:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7857407/site/newsweek/


"We can understand torturing prisoners, no matter how repulsive," says computer teacher Muhammad Archad, interviewed last week by NEWSWEEK in Peshawar, Pakistan, where one of last week's protests took place. "But insulting the Qur'an is like deliberately torturing all Muslims. This we cannot tolerate."A book over people? That's fucked up.

[ShadyShady]

the "oppressed" muslim females I know consider you "liberated" western women to be TRASHY WHORES.

[mgb]

the "oppressed" muslim females I know consider you "liberated" western women to be TRASHY WHORES.

And some muslim men thought that everyone in the western civiliaztion should die, too bad they missed YOU.

[Fingers]

You're judging things from a western capitalist exploitation perspective, not a religious righteousness perspective.

And you should judge from a human perspective, those countries are not nice places to live... people are treated like crap, with countless human rights violations.

Islam is just an oppressive totalitarian machine like any political ideology, it wants to control you... no book written thousands of years ago can possibly dictate life today

Relaxo has it right...

[mgb]

Let the proletariate rise!

Actually, I hate to do it, but I have to agree with coffeezombie somewhat. Relaxo's interpretation of Islamic countries is quite short sighted. In most of the cases there were extenuating factors that had nothing to do with Islam that led to the poor performance of these countries.

Indonesia for example was a Dutch colony until WWII. And they did nothing but help themselves. Out of this came a pretty corrupt government that was just glad not to be under Dutch control. As well, because of the large population and rough island geography, Indonesia would be extemely difficult to govern. This an high transporation costs probably does more to undercut their economy than Islam ever could.

[Robespierre]

Actually, I hate to do it, but I have to agree with coffeezombie somewhat. Relaxo's interpretation of Islamic countries is quite short sighted. In most of the cases there were extenuating factors that had nothing to do with Islam that led to the poor performance of these countries.

Indonesia for example was a Dutch colony until WWII. And they did nothing but help themselves. Out of this came a pretty corrupt government that was just glad not to be under Dutch control. As well, because of the large population and rough island geography, Indonesia would be extemely difficult to govern. This an high transporation costs probably does more to undercut their economy than Islam ever could.

Colonialism and capitalism are two different and directly opposing forces. One is a force of government, and represents capitalisms opposite in the western world, mercantilism. The other is the unobstructed exchange of goods and services on the open market, capitalism.

The islands of Indonesia are colonial properties of Java. The government of Indonesia has no more a right to rule as they do than the Dutch did.

[mgb]

Colonialism and capitalism are two different and directly opposing forces. One is a force of government, and represents capitalisms opposite in the western world, mercantilism.

The islands of Indonesia are colonial properties of Java. The government of Indonesia has no more a right to rule as they do than the Dutch did.

I'm not saying that they have a right to rule or not. Just giving an example of how Islam isn't the main reason for Indonesia's finiancial struggles. They have a long history of problems, like a lot of countries, that were ignored by Relaxo.

Just pointing out a faulty cause and effect.

[Robespierre]

Just pointing out a faulty cause and effect.

Right on.

I won't defend his point, I'll just make sure that no one confuses capitalism with colonialism.

[Jacque]

I simply said Western Civilisation was the most advanced. It seems you have misunderstood my ideas.

Absolutely. And I don't contend an Arab's right to think his country or culture is the best. But still, they want our technology, while we don't really need their social structures.

I was thinking of advanced civilization. The antagonists in science fiction can appear advanced, sometimes even more so. You can have an advanced race of sadaistic cannibals or an advanced race of finger puppets. Because they are proficient in the culinary art cannibalsim, because they wield more drama in a fingernail than we could ever dream or suffer, should we feel left behind? I say yes, if we are about being the best. But I'd say no, if we are about finding peace.

"If modernity leaves you behind, then reject modernity." A common thought I think among many varying cultural elements. Only in Morroco will a Muslim girl wear head scarf as act of rebellion. It's perplexing. Are we so advanced, so far ahead into the future that we've forced only one alternative, the past? And the past seldom needs anything from the future.

[Robespierre]

Are we so advanced, so far ahead into the future that we've forced only one alternative, the past? And the past seldom needs anything from the future.

What does this even mean?

[relaxo]

I'm not saying that they have a right to rule or not. Just giving an example of how Islam isn't the main reason for Indonesia's finiancial struggles. They have a long history of problems, like a lot of countries, that were ignored by Relaxo.


Sure , a long history of problems. One problem being islam. It is a religion, like all others, that surpresses individual thought, economic freedom, expression, and promotes intolerance and obiedience.

islam is certainly a problem in islamic nations. One thing islamic nations have in common, besides their social and eocnomic problems, is, well, islam. social and economic problems don't cause islam. it is the other way around. those nations use islam as a guiding force to their culture.

Kind of like communist nations. they have a long history of "problems" too. But one thing they all have in common is, guess what, communism.

and European nations? they never had any problems? No? islam never colonized europe? christianity never oppressed europe? if islam is not the problem in islamic nations then I guess christianity was never a problem in europe. and christianity is still not a problem right?

[Jacque]

What does this even mean?

Check the price of rice in China.

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS