Explosion at Ariana Grande Concert in England

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Where is the conversation going? You say something patently false, I respond, you change the subject, we collectively abandon talking about the latest terrorist incident apparently triggered by a British National?

Congrats, you've been Cliffed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Religious orthodoxy, low literacy, and unrelentingly high birth rates are tremendous drags on economic growth.

There remains a widely perceived notion — still commonly held within intellectual, academic, and policy circles in the West and elsewhere — that “Muslim” societies are especially resistant to embarking upon the path of demographic and familial change that has transformed population profiles in Europe, North America, and other “more developed” areas (un terminology). But such notions speak to a bygone era; they are utterly uninformed by the important new demographic realities that reflect today’s life patterns within the Arab world, and the greater Islamic world as well.

http://www.hoover.org/research/ferti...e-muslim-world

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Where is the conversation going? You say something patently false, I respond, you change the subject,

Hey, you're the one who dropped this whopper:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

In fact, it's a pretty prescient example of historical precedence, as both ages of islamic enlightenment were ended by foreign military aggression and the subsequent galvanisation of religious/ethnic into a mono-religious resistance.

So the pre-eminence of the Ottoman Empire, which encompassed modern-day Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey (not to mention most of the Balkans) was ended by foreign military aggression? You're joking, right? North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia lapsed into economic and technological decline long before any Europeans showed up to spoil the party.

And the collapse of the Ottomans after WW1 didn't galvanise the religious/ethnic into a mono-religious resistance. It led to fractious nationalism riven with tribal, ethnic, and religious antagonism.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

...we collectively abandon talking about the latest terrorist incident apparently triggered by a British National?

The common thread is religion. You know, the thing that inspires ISIS adherents to carry out atrocities against helpless civilians. Not incidentally, the same thing that has hamstrung every effort to lift countries in the region out of backwardness and poverty.

The intellectual contortions people will go through in order to not acknowledge the religious motivations of a self-professed religious movement are extraordinary.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Hey, you're the one who dropped this whopper:



So the pre-eminence of the Ottoman Empire, which encompassed modern-day Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey (not to mention most of the Balkans) was ended by foreign military aggression? You're joking, right? North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia lapsed into economic and technological decline long before any Europeans showed up to spoil the party.

And the collapse of the Ottomans after WW1 didn't galvanise the religious/ethnic into a mono-religious resistance. It led to fractious nationalism riven with tribal, ethnic, and religious antagonism.



The common thread is religion. You know, the thing that inspires ISIS adherents to carry out atrocities against helpless civilians. Not incidentally, the same thing that has hamstrung every effort to lift countries in the region out of backwardness and poverty.

The intellectual contortions people will go through in order to not acknowledge the religious motivations of a self-professed religious movement are extraordinary.

I'd argue that the Fundamentalist streams of Islam being practiced today have more in common with political movements than religious ones. They advocate systems of government, codes of conduct, tax systems, etc... and actually ignore large parts of Islam and many of the religious philosophies.

You could argue that all religion has some form of social control, and thereby takes on a government like structure. However, the fundamentalists are definitely pushing more towards the political than the philosophical.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

http://www.hoover.org/research/ferti...e-muslim-world

Lots of cherrypicking in that article. Like looking at the number of Muslim-majority countries (mostly small ones like Oman and Kuwait) that have seen large birth rate declines, rather than looking at the overall decline.

Let's look at the big Muslim-majority and Arab countries.

Egypt: 3.5
Pakistan: 3.6
Indonesia 2.5

Now some non-Muslim developing countries in Asia:

India: 2.3
Vietnam: 1.9
Thailand: 1.5

The birth rates in Muslim-majority countries are going down. Just not as fast as in the rest of the developing world (outside sub-Saharan Africa), and they started at extremely high rates to begin with.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'd argue that the Fundamentalist streams of Islam being practiced today have more in common with political movements than religious ones. They advocate systems of government, codes of conduct, tax systems, etc... and actually ignore large parts of Islam and many of the religious philosophies.

Islam has always been a system of government and code of conduct. It has no prescriptions to 'render unto Caesar.' And the great majority of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries want Sharia to be the law of the land. So I don't really see the distinction - the religious is the political in the Muslim world today.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'd argue that the Fundamentalist streams of Islam being practiced today have more in common with political movements than religious ones. They advocate systems of government, codes of conduct, tax systems, etc... and actually ignore large parts of Islam and many of the religious philosophies.

You could argue that all religion has some form of social control, and thereby takes on a government like structure. However, the fundamentalists are definitely pushing more towards the political than the philosophical.

This is the so-called Wahhabi put in a very, very narrow nutshell. It's extreme orthodoxy, if you would. It's sort of an extreme orthodoxy that historically has not been shared by a majority of Muslims, particularly nobody outside of the Arabian Peninsula.
The way in which Saudi Arabia has influence in these madrassas is influencing particular teachings one step at a time. In other words, if you had a comparable situation in Christian with one church would begin to dictate to other churches what they should say about abortion first, then about fundamental issues in Christianity, then you know, one tenet at the time, because it had the power of the purse over them. You wouldn't have an outright conversion of one denomination or church to another. What you would have is a growing influence where those who are receiving money would begin to reflect the ideas of the fundgiver.

[quote]

Is there a connection between the fundamentalism of the Taliban and the fundamentalism of the Wahhabi?
The connection has been growing very, very strong in the past 20 years, and particularly in the past ten years. The dominant school of Islam with which the Taliban associate -- which is known as the Deobandi school -- is very prominent in Afghanistan and also in wide areas of Pakistan. Northern India has increasingly gravitated toward Wahhabi teaching, and has very, very strong organizational ties with various Wahhabi religious leaders.[\quote]


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...iews/nasr.html


I linked the article earlier. Spells out your point of fundamentalist versions and their linkage to the political ie Taliban. What is interesting is that it was written in Oct 2001. The author describes this petro islam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro-Islam that ultimately has proved correct and had profound consequences. It's an interesting read.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Islam has always been a system of government and code of conduct. It has no prescriptions to 'render unto Caesar.' And the great majority of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries want Sharia to be the law of the land. So I don't really see the distinction - the religious is the political in the Muslim world today.

Religion and politics are clearly not mutually exclusive. It's really a matter of leaning more towards one than the other.

Christianity and Judaism both have systems of government and political rules within them. So it really comes down to a matter of interpretation.

As Jeff Lebowski pointed out many of these so called rules that the fundamentalists are pushing have nothing to do with Islam. Instead they are old social rules from the Arabian peninsula. Many, in fact, directly contradict the laws of Islam.

You may be correct that Islam may be more inclined towards the political, as Sharia is a system of government. However, what we've seen here goes beyond that. I would 100% agree that Saudi Arabia, via its huge economic resources and control of Islamic holy sites, warped many practitioners of Islam away from a religion and more towards the political.

Obviously, there goal was to create a widespread Sunni state, with the Saudi family at its head. Unfortunately, they didn't bother to read their own texts, as Islam also strictly forbids hereditary rule.

[afc wimbledon]

The only thing that seperates Islam from Christianity is they are still profoundly religious were as we aren't anymore, if we still believed on mass that the bible was the word of God we'd be just as effed up.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I guess muslims just don't look to the west enough for inspiration?

Maybe it is time to say their methodology is a failure, and to try something different?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by blankall

Religion and politics are clearly not mutually exclusive. It's really a matter of leaning more towards one than the other.

Christianity and Judaism both have systems of government and political rules within them. So it really comes down to a matter of interpretation.

As Jeff Lebowski pointed out many of these so called rules that the fundamentalists are pushing have nothing to do with Islam. Instead they are old social rules from the Arabian peninsula. Many, in fact, directly contradict the laws of Islam.

You may be correct that Islam may be more inclined towards the political, as Sharia is a system of government. However, what we've seen here goes beyond that. I would 100% agree that Saudi Arabia, via its huge economic resources and control of Islamic holy sites, warped many practitioners of Islam away from a religion and more towards the political.

Obviously, there goal was to create a widespread Sunni state, with the Saudi family at its head. Unfortunately, they didn't bother to read their own texts, as Islam also strictly forbids hereditary rule.

Traditional Islam views religion as a pact between man and God and therefore the domain of spirituality. In this belief, there can be no compulsion or force used in religion.

Contrary to this, the "Wahhabi" ideology is built on the concept of political enforcement of religious beliefs, thus permitting no differences in faith whatsoever. In "Wahhabi" belief, faith is not necessarily an option; it is sometimes mandated by force.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/dec02islam2.htm

[Flash Walken]

Cliff, in your rush to prove your knowledge about the ottoman empire book(s) you've read recently, you're making arguments and counter arguments to things i've never said.

Below you will find my entire post history in this thread, where not once do I mention the ottoman empire.

If you want to have a discussion about the pitfalls of the modern or classical or ancient muslim world I'd be happy to as I don't think I'm close to an expert on the subject and have lots to learn, but I'm not interested in a discussion where you consistently change the subject when presented with disqualifying facts or explanations.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If the IRA had billions of dollars to promote their ludicrous agenda overseas to Boston and Sydney and Cape Town, the west would be dealing with international Irish terrorism in the same way they deal with Islamic terrorism.

The question is, would western governments be doing billions of dollars in business with the republic of Ireland if it was the largest , most prominent state sponsor of terrorism? I would hope not, but based on what we know of Saudi Arabia, the answer would probably be yes.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I don't think it is accurate to characterize that Islam has not gone through a reformation, nor is it accurate to suggest that the lack of reformation has made the religion more violent. The religious wars following the Protestant reformation were the bloodiest conflicts europe had ever seen until the first and second world war.

The Protestant reformation was one of the more violent epochs in Christianity and Islam has arguably gone through their reformation, even if we don't like how it has reformed itself.

A serious student of history could argue what we are currently experiencing​ is the result of a second Islamic reformation in the 19th century.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What on earth are you talking about?

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=manchester+mysogyny

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This statement is not any more accurate than the one I responded to. It's a poor understanding of history to believe the islamic world has not had an 'enlightenment'. It's also exceedingly poor history to believe that western 'enlightenment' lead or contributed to an aggressive adoption of "private faith and public secularism." This was a course charted over hundreds of years, beginning in the dark ages and bearing it's full fruit nearly half a millennia later.

The Spanish inquisition reached it's torturous height during the tail end of the Enlightenment period, and only preserved the free expression of religion in 1966. Forced recitation of the lords prayer in US public schools wasn't revoked until 1963.

It took hundreds of years for this evolution to take place, and those of us in the West who have witnessed the re-emergence of Protestant terror groups like the KKK for example, understand this transformation isn't close to complete.

In fact, it's a pretty prescient example of historical precedence, as both ages of islamic enlightenment were ended by foreign military aggression and the subsequent galvanisation of religious/ethnic into a mono-religious resistance.

Us in the west may want to look a bit closer at Islamic history if we want to avoid the same fate. Iran of the 1950s is essentially unrecognisable to much of the Iran of today. The same could be said for Baghdad of the 16th century compared to the 11th century.

Being attacked by external forces is a significant barrier to free and open expression. Existential threats have routinely lead to various forms of fundamentalism in every corner of human history and culture. Islam is not unique here.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I was going to do a longer reply, but I feel I need to respond to this.

This is fantasy. The japanese were bombed into submission with millions of their citizens killed, the united states completely dismantled their existing empire structures, re-oriented their government and economic institutions and then heavily, heavily invested in rebuilding both their physical country as well as the institutions and infrastructure necessary to make it run.

Then in the 1950s, the US backed off their inital stance in regards to large scale corporate structures in japan as well as their defense industry in order to help with force projection and technological development for use in Korea. These corporate structures, called zaibatzus were culturally important components of the japanese government that US was able to change direction on outlawing due to their importance in strengthening the japanese economy against the growing communist threat in asia.

So, after being virtually destroyed, having their empire seized and a significant portion of a generation killed, this incredibly ethnically homogenous country was pumped full of money and protected with the most powerful military on earth so that their economy could slowly and steadly build itself up and provide excellent standards of living for its citizens.

Your idea of what constituted the rebuilding of japan, korea and vietnam is a fantasy of your own making. Hormonal Birth Control wasn't even available until the 1960s, long after the japanese post war 'economic miracle'.

FFS, Cliff.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I guess muslims just don't look to the west enough for inspiration?

Where is the conversation going? You say something patently false, I respond, you change the subject, we collectively abandon talking about the latest terrorist incident apparently triggered by a British National?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Cliff, in your rush to prove your knowledge about the ottoman empire book(s) you've read recently, you're making arguments and counter arguments to things i've never said.

I've learned that what you're actually saying is much less important than what Cliff wants to talk about.

[CliffFletcher]

both ages of islamic enlightenment were ended by foreign military aggression

Presumably the first one is the Mongol conquest of Central Asia and Mesopotamia. When was the other one?

The Ottoman Empire is central to the issue because:

1) It saw Islam reach its zenith of military, economic, and technological achievement relative to the West.

2) It was the Ottomans who controlled the Near East during the Colonial era. Contrary to the narrative put forward by many progressives, Europeans didn't come in and exploit autonomous and prosperous Arab states. They were under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks - fellow Muslims - for 400 years.

3) This Ottoman-controlled Middle East didn`t decline because of Western imperialism. It declined due to dynastic decadence, corruption, and turning away from science and innovation (along with changing trade patterns resulting from European navigation around the Horn of Africa).

If we`re talking about the post-WW1 era, then fine. But at that point the West had already far outstripped the Middle East economically and technologically.

[PepsiFree]

It's crazy to think this bombing of people at an Ariana Grande concert happened during the Ottoman Empire. It still feels so fresh in my mind.

[nik-]

Imagine if conversation could progress along different paths during the course of it.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

Imagine if conversation could progress along different paths during the course of it.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Gently progressing along a different path
Forcefully directed by one person until people are talking about it

Tomato
Ketchup

What do I know

[nik-]

Don't get covered in ketchup since you can easily still talk about tomatoes?

[driveway]

If we're going to have the conversation about what's wrong with Islam, the other conversation that needs to be had is what is wrong with men?

Did anyone, even for a split second, think this might have been carried out by a woman? Does anyone think that anytime there is a bombing, mass shooting, serial killing, violent kidnapping, assault, robbery, car jacking, or incidence of vandalism?

If anyone is going to draw a link between Islam and violence, they must acknowledge the vastly stronger link between masculinity and violence.

So: what's wrong with men, and what do we do about it?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Testosterone. As for what we do about it... what are you, a eugenicist? You Nazi.

Seriously though I'm not sure if that was just a weak attempt at satire but the answer to your question is super obvious. "Men commit more random acts of violence than women do"... um, yeah, no kidding. We typically don't hold people accountable for their biology. We do hold them accountable for their beliefs and the actions they elect to take based on those beliefs.