The two faces of Islam.

[S. Kroeze]

It is my impression no one has used this argument yet:

In the Muslim world religion is far more important and still central to every-day life, while Christianity has only limited weight in the Western world. Many Muslims do visit the mosque daily, instead of once a week (or even less among most Christians living in the Western world).
Their loyalty to the state and its government is weak on the other hand.

As a result, when Muslims are celebrating some glorious event they express their enthusiasm in a religious way, they hail Allah.
When Westerners are excited -for example after dropping the bomb on Hiroshima- they will express themselves in a non-religious way, waving the flag, singing the national anthem etc.
The most important loyalty for a Westerner is that to his country, living in a secularised society connected by Nationalism.

This only shows that for most Muslims religion is far more important than religion is for the average secularised Westerner.
To conclude that Islam is more violent than Christianity would be a most unfortunate conclusion.
My guess is that Christianity has the most bloodstained record of ALL world religions.

Here is an example of nineteenth century hysteria:

'This news galvanised the North. On April 15 Lincoln issued a proclamation calling 75,000 militiamen into national service for ninety days to put down an insurrection 'too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.' The response from free states was overwhelming. War meetings in every city and village cheered the flag and vowed vengeance on traitors. 'The heather is on fire,' wrote a Harvard professor who had been born during George Washington's presidency. 'I never knew what a popular excitement can be... . The whole population, men, women, and children, seem to be in the streets with Union favors and flags.' From Ohio and the West came 'one great Eagle-scream' for the flag. 'The people have gone stark mad!' In New York City, previously a nursery of pro-southern sentiment, a quarter of a million people turned out for a Union rally. 'The change in public sentiment here is wonderful -almost miraculous,' wrote a New York merchant on April 18. 'I look with awe on the national movement here in New York and all through the Free States,' added a lawyer. 'After our late discords, it seems supernatural.' The 'time before Sumter' was like another century, wrote a New York woman. 'It seems as if we never were alive till now; never had a country till now.'

Democrats joined in the eagle-scream of patriotic fury. Stephen Douglas paid a well-publicized unity call to the White House and then traveled home to Chicago, where he told a huge crowd: 'There are only two sides to the question. Every man must be for the United States or against it. There can be no neutrals in this war, only patriots- or traitors.' A month later Douglas was dead -a victim probably of cirrhosis of the liver -but for a year his war spirit lived on among the Democrats. 'Let our enemies perish by the sword,' was the theme of Democratic editorials in the spring of 1861. 'All sqeamish sentimentality should be discarded, and bloody vengeance wreaked upon the heads of the contemptible traitors who have provoked it by their dastardly impertinence and rebellious acts.'"

(source: J.M.McPherson; 'Battle Cry of Freedom',1988)

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
And, Vel, since no Muslim cleric anywhere is condeming Islamic terrorism, how can there be a good, peaceful Islam which Bush says exists, and a different "fundamentalist" Islam we should oppose?

This only shows the complete lack of any professionalism of the media you are watching. I have seen about a dozen highplaced and influential Muslim clerics condemning the 11th September attacks during the last year.

I also read quite recently an article in a Dutch newspaper (NRC) about the way the (in your opinion 'leftish') American media treat the relatives of the victims of the 11th September attacks.
Several relatives of victims are/have become peace-activists and had travelled to Afghanistan to shoot a film about the havoc caused by the American attack.
Oprah Winfrey was very eager to show their shootings to the public. So she invited them to her show, BUT she NEVER allowed those same relatives to present THEIR view to the public, because she considered their opinion unpatriotic. And that they had lost their loved ones as a result of an act of war was unimportant: only bloodthirstly flagwavers (like you) are allowed to express their opinion!

[Ned]

S. Kroeze, I agree with your analysis. The reaction of the North to the attack on Fort Sumpter is comparable to our reaction to the attack on Pearl Harbor. It ended the debate.

But, whether Christianity historically was equally as bloody as the Muslims in stamping out the Infidel is still beside the point, isn't it? Today, Christianity is no longer a "state religion" in most of the West, and it is "weak" in that it commands the daily devotion of only a very small minority. (It is interesting, but the aggressive Muslim attack on the West may make the West more religious as a consequence.) People in the West would today never rejoice over the death of a Muslim on religious grouds, but they may, as you noted, on nationalistic grounds.

But the converse is not true. The Islamic world does share a strong sense of union. An attack on any of them is perceived as an attack on all. Thus, when the Infidel attacker (or Crusader, in their terms) is killed, the world of Islam rejoices.

But world of Islam has in the last half century become increasingly radicalized against the West. The causes seem to be twofold: Israel and Iran. We support Israel who, in the view of the Muslim world, "Stole Muslim land." We supported the Shah who introduced reform into Iran, mainly the liberation of women. Both are great offenses against their religion.

The US is therefor the great Satan that must be destroyed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, IIRC, Jews joint the battle against the Christian Roman Empire and Christain Visigothic Spain. Could this help explain the difference in treatment?

As far as I can see, the Islamic assault on the Christian West and India continued for more than a 1000 years with Islam winning more than losing until the battle of Lepanto. During the last two or three hundred years, the tide turned radically in favor of the Christian West with the dismemberment of the Turkish and Mogul Empires. It seems though, that Islam is on the rise again. The clerics are beating the drums of holy war. The masses of Islamic youth are taking up arms against the Infidel, and rejoicing in every Infidel death. This is what I see. I do not see peaceful Islam anywhere.

As to toleration?, simply ask the Armenians. The Turks nearly wiped them out, IIRC. It wasn't that long ago either.

Your arguments that Islam is no more intolerant that Christianity is irrelevant. I agree that Christianity is intolerant. In fact, I think the Holocost is the legacy of anti-Semitism, which is almost entirely based in Christian intolerance. But even if Christianity has its ugly side does not mean that Islam does not.

I have never argued that Islam, as a unversalistic, monotheitic relegion does not have an ugly side- any faith that claims to be the one truth, any ideology that claims to be the one truth- can be twisted to justify anything at all. What I do contend is the notion that Islam is worse, in the sense that it is more violent. The Islamic world is seeing turbulence and political upheaval, so do many more places: Hindu fundamentalists are as likely to spark a war South Asia as Muslim fundamentalists are.

Your major mistake is ignoring all other issues and focusing, wrongly, just on relegion. All the areas fo violence you 'see' in islam also share ethinic and nationalist struggles- problems of egitimacy, authoritarian states, underdevelopment, and so forth. All areas of the world with uch a combination are violent places- Central and South Africa are- much of Latin America just 15-16 years ago was. In willfully ignoring all the myriad problems you form a false picture. Islamists are utopians, seekin to create, in their eyes, a pure, better wolrd, to fix what they see as the problems of the day, the injustices and value issues theys ee- if islamists are so popular is because so many young, eductated but unemployed or underemplyed people also feel their world is underpreforming and those are the result of the every day issues I brought up. Show me a place where Muslims are free, rich, and eductated also full of secterian violence between Muslims and others.

[GePap]

Oh, and I forgot to say that,as I stated before, the Armenian massacre was carried out byt the Modernizing, secualrist, nationalist young Turk regime of Enver Pasha which took power from the Sultan in 1908, so Islam and Islamist are not to blame for the massacre of Armenians, a wetern-looking authoritarian nationalisitc regime does.

[Velociryx]

S. Kroeze, I too, largely agree with you analysis, but this once again, changes the face of the debate to one of Islamic "patriotism" and western Nationalism. That is an excellent topic, and bears further debate, to be sure, but represents a fundamental shift of the debating grounds. No longer are we now holding a purely religious debate, and no longer is the focus squarely on the thread's topic re: two faces of Islam. (not that either is a bad thing....I think the current debate has been carried about as far as it can go!).

Your points though, only serve to underscore my original position. The fact that Christianity plays a much lesser role in the day to day life of the average Christian that Islam plays in the average day to day life of the average Islamic person only underlines the point that there is indeed a fundamentally different mindset at work in the ME. Ned's post following yours only serves to highlight the previously underlined point (and btw, I still completely agree with Ned....although there has been an incredible amount of bloodshed in the name of the Christian god in the history of Christianity taken as a whole, that's hardly the point. I do not think you will get an argument from anyone anywhere about that!

Regarding Muslim clerics condeming the acts of 9/11, YES! They certainly did! And several high ranking members of the clergy, at that! The first time I can ever remember them doing so. Interesting though, that their condemnations only came after President Bush's speech in response to those events "we will make no distinction between the terrorists themselves, and those who harbor them."

Given that until that moment, there have been no condemnations of the methologies employed by the terrorist organizations, and given the fact that the United States of America stood poised to do "God Knows What" as a knee-jerk reaction to the tower attacks, it would be very easy to ascribe those immediate counter-responses to simple survival instincts.

Given that we had not seen that sort of condemnation before 9/11, and we do not see it related to other, subsequent terrorists acts, this point seems clear.

As to the debate re: Islamic fundamentalism vs. Western Nationalism.....that stands to be an intriguing debate. The first question in my mind would be: Upon what criterion will we base our observations?

After all, western nations are by and large, some form of socialist or democratic societies, with popularly elected leadership....thus, a high degree of internal cooperation and internal coalition building is *required* of such a nation before committing troops to a general war. The same is not true of most nations in the ME, which are ruled by dictators in one form or another. They require no popular support to make whatever decisions they wish....their people are instead, galvanized and united by their faith.

So how are we to compare this "apples to apples." ?

-=Vel=-

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You know what...you're right Imran....there IS no fundamental difference of mindsets.

That is precisely why you see, here in America (which is dominated by Christianity in one form or another), there is an Islamic community that is currently being protected BY society at large.

There HAVE BEEN attacks made on Muslims and their places of worship here, but those attacks have been loudly and unequivocally condemned, and protection lent to Islamic groups here (and in fact, I just saw a new item today how there is a large degree of cooperation between some islamic groups in the US of A and law enforcement divisions).

I wonder....where are the Christian communities in Islamic countries, and how are they faring? Perhaps a field trip is in order. Why don't we get a volunteer from the ranks of those who don't believe there's any significant difference in the mindsets of the two groups, fly him to Islamabad with a crucifix and a bible and have him mill about the city streets for a while. You know....just to see what happens.

I'm sure he'll be just fine!....show of hands for volunteers? Imran? GePap? Anyone?

No?

Why not?

-=Vel=-

C'mon Imran!

[Velociryx]

GePap.....I realize your last response was directed at Ned, but I wanted to chime in for a moment, if I could.

If we are focused on the *religious* aspect of the ME, it is because it is the impetus of their actions, as admitted by them each and every time they blow something or someone up in the name of Allah. Not in the name of economic pairity, not in the name of more rapid development, not in the name of their political leaders, but in the name of Allah.

-=Vel=-

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
Show me a place where Muslims are free, rich, and eductated also full of secterian violence between Muslims and others.

Show me a place where Muslims are free, rich and educated and I bet it will be somewhere in the West.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
GePap.....I realize your last response was directed at Ned, but I wanted to chime in for a moment, if I could.

If we are focused on the *religious* aspect of the ME, it is because it is the impetus of their actions, as admitted by them each and every time they blow something or someone up in the name of Allah. Not in the name of economic pairity, not in the name of more rapid development, not in the name of their political leaders, but in the name of Allah.

-=Vel=-

Not all groups in the ME blow people up in the name of Allah- most blow things up in the name of the nation (with relegion being one part of the makeup of the nation). You also fail to answer the question of why: it seem to me your argument that these individuals blow things up in the name of Allah simply because they are Mulims, and the Q'uran calls for such action. I thing that is patently wrong- they blow things up in the name of Allah because they believe somehow either Allah has forsaken them, or because some sort of purification is called for, if the (to use Augustine) city on the Hill is to be established to fix the problems in society- which is a political aim dressed in scriptures.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


Show me a place where Muslims are free, rich and educated and I bet it will be somewhere in the West.

For once in your life you are correct sikander. Yes, Muslims in the west do live peaceful lives- even Muslims in democraic India live mainly peaceful lives (the richest man in India is a muslim). How come the nation of Isam doen't carry out terrorists attacks? whatever you think of the group, no one claimt their members are gearing up for suicide bombings. Are black US muslims reading a different Q'uran? Oh, and i also failed to see them dancing when caffees in Israel are blown up. Perhaps they aren't really Muslims after all.......

[Velociryx]

GePap: All of the major terrorist groups in the ME have declared a holy war against the west. If that is not "blowing things up in the name of Allah" then I am uncertain what else you require to meet that condition. Note here, that these groups did not declare a war of economic parity, or a war of cultural supremacy on the west, they declared a HOLY war. A religous war. This implies, in language as strong as it possibly can, that the war is being fought in the name of Allah.

What possible alternative intrepretation is there?

And you're quite right....there are some (even many!) groups that DID NOT.....DO NOT take to the streets and celebrate the latest bombings. Then again, my position was (and remains) that the fact that some groups DO celebrate, implies a broad base of support for their methods. Note here though, that a broad base of support is not the same as Universal support. In muslim areas geographically removed from the scene of the activity, you find less (if any) celebration.

Nonetheless, you still find no condemnation for the act, or for the celebration. At least none that has been reported in any news media.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
GePap: All of the major terrorist groups in the ME have declared a holy war against the west. If that is not "blowing things up in the name of Allah" then I am uncertain what else you require to meet that condition. Note here, that these groups did not declare a war of economic parity, or a war of cultural supremacy on the west, they declared a HOLY war. A religous war. This implies, in language as strong as it possibly can, that the war is being fought in the name of Allah.

-=Vel=-

I will be forcefull in saying this Vel: this statement is totally wrong. I have read Hamas' founding documents. While they are certainly Islamists and anti-Israel, they specificly say that their struggle is only about creating a Islamic state in Palestine and in no way extends anywhere ouside of palestine, which is why, in 10 years, Hamas has never carried out an attack against Americans anywhere but in Israel (and only as colateral victims) and has never been tied to any attacks outside of israel and the occupied territories.
Hezbollah only carried out attacks against non-Israeli weterners in Lebanon itself- no Americans or Europeans have been killed by Hezbollah outside Lebanon, fitting their nationalist, shia background. The biggest attacks I have seen liked to Hezbollah outside lebanon were attacks aginst Israeli interests in Argentina that killed about a hundread people.
The PLFP is marxist, the Al Aqsa brigade is part of Fatah, which is socialist and thus, their attacks certainly are not in the name of Islam). Abu Nidal was also a marxist. Most terror associated with Lybia had socilist roots (like Qaddafi), no ties to Islamists.

So Vel, again, your atatement about ME terrorists is simply factually wrong- no questiona about it.

And back to the dancing: I ahe never heard of Mulims in indai dance when Iseli caffes are blown up, or Moroccans, Mauritanians, nigerians, Tanzanians, so forth. All Muslims, none giving a damn. The only ones that dnace are Arab (who have various reasons for this behavior), and ussually only Palestinains (who have even more reasons).

[Velociryx]

And I congratulate you for taking me to task on my misrepresentation of terrorist groups. A well-deserved point.

MY point remains as constant as ever. I'm not talking about India. I'm not talking about Lybia. It's good that followers of Islam didn't take to the streets in celebration, but I would ask....where are the religious leaders....the enlightened wise men of Allah, spouting condemnations for bombings carried out in His name? Where are they in India? Where are they in the ME? We see NONE. None reported in any media, condemning either the party atmosphere or the methods.

Why do you suppose that is, and do you not see a *marked* difference in that behavior and say....when attacks were made on Mosques in the USA shortly after 9/11, the rapid and unequivocal outpouring of condemnation against such terrorist acts on the followers of Islam by clergy from nearby christian churches! In fact, after the initial attacks, members OF those christian churches offered to guard the mosques! Amazing.....simply amazing.

There's no difference at all there, eh?

-=Vel=-

[Sikander]

There have been some Muslim clerics who have spoken out against the bombings, and I have seen this reported in the Western / American press. This is however deemed not nearly as newsworthy as those who have supported mass murder. I have no way of figuring out the relative numbers, though it is fairly obvious that support for these acts is much higher than support for similar acts would be in the West if for some reason we suddenly spawned a bunch of religious mass-murderers.

Essentially I agree with those who do not see a universal trend toward murder and religious warfare in the Muslim world. The problem is definitely concentrated amongst Arabs, and it has spread to others who are usually located where there is religious / cultural strife, eg Pakistan, The Phillipines etc. A better question is why is the Islamic portion of the globe seemingly falling further behind the rest in most measures of economic growth, political freedom, religious freedom, human rights etc. The relative pattern is quite clear, and in many cases there is a retrograde movement in absolute as well as relative terms.

Perhaps it is this growing disparity that fuels the sorts of crimes that have blackened the name of Islam and the Arabs. It is interesting to note that it is not the illiterate on the Arab street who signs up to commit these crimes generally, but more often educated people who have seen the West, many having lived there for years. There does seem to be a willful psychosis on the part of these murderers, as they love to blame their problems on the West (and I include Israel here) even though the West freed many of them from centuries of abuse at the hands of the Ottoman empire. This sort of psychosis IMO (and many seem to agree on this thread) stems in part from the nature of Islam, monotheist and absolutist as it is. With no other functional institution in many Islamic countries there is a fair amount of desperation to see Islam succeed.

Finally, I wonder what sort of effect the seperation of the genders and the denigration of women plays in all of this? Women in the West play an important part in the psychological development of the average Westerner as well as the economic and political and sociological apparatus of Western society. I think that their marginalization (or in some cases subjugation) in Islamic society has a negative effect that is very difficult to measure, in addition to the negative impact that their absence from the economy has that is somewhat easier to see.

In any event I think the strongest systems will survive. If people around the world are willing to adapt when necessary, then they will most likely survive. If not, then there are more than enough people to take the places of those who fall defending the indefensible.