The first part of this argument will focus on the ideals of Islam in order to lay the groundwork for a correct understanding of the Muslim faith. I will follow this with a brief exploration into the historical events which have contributed to the current status of Islam in the world. Finally, I will close with an explanation of the threats and misunderstandings which inhibit understanding of Islam in modern culture, particularly in the context of globalization.

I do not claim any expertise in the matter; I only wish to share what I've learned so far in the hope of promoting greater tolerance toward my fellow man.






What could possess someone to strap on explosives and kill innocent civilians? How could someone hijack a plane and fly it into a building? What goes on inside the mind of a terrorist?

The answers we get from the media do little to clarify the ideas behind terrorism. Often, these "explanations" are nothing more than unfounded bigoted statements that do nothing but exacerbate the situation. We hear, "They hate our freedom"; we hear that "Islam is a religion of hate"; we listen to neat little sound bites and attractive buzzwords like, "Islamofascism" so that we can label a situation without actually understanding it.

Even the term Islamofascism doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Islam and fascism are fundamentally incompatible ideas. Fascism is characterized by a supreme dictator, total government control, suppression of the populace, and extreme nationalism. Islam emphasizes the temporal nature of existence, and stresses that above any leader, party, or government, Muslims have a commitment to God. Even the leader of the government submits to divine will. In addition, doubt and curiosity are important virtue in Islam. The word ilm (knowledge) is the second most used word in the Qur'an, after God. It is no coincidence that the pursuit of knowledge is the most righteous path to God. The Qur'an even states that "the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr." It's difficult to be any more clear than that.

Furthermore, tolerance is a central tenet of Islam, particularly in the case of minority voices. When Islamic power was at its zenith, Christans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Mystics co-existed in harmony. Working together, scholars from all faiths worked at acquiring knowledge and spreading it throughout the world. During this time, scholars translated Greek texts, reviving knowledge that otherwise might have been lost forever. The Qur'an explicitly states the need for tolerance of other faiths, and encourages Muslims to learn from those who are different. Indeed, in Islam's golden age, minority groups, women, and other faiths enjoyed a level of freedom which would not be seen again until the 20th century.

Intolerance, discrimination, and bigotry are strongly discouraged, for God could have made everyone exactly the same, but if He did, then he would deprive humans the opportunity to learn from each other. Even when oppressed, Islam discourages the use of violence unless absolutely necessary, and the Qur'an commands Muslims to seek peace with others in all confrontations. Of the 99 names for God, the two that appear most often are "Compassionate" and "Merciful". By simply reading the text, it is clear where the virtues of Islam lie; justice, mercy, compassion, tolerance, knowledge...these are the qualities of the faithful. Dogmatism, oppression, and ignorance have no place in lives of the righteous.

Understand terrorists? Whose side are you on, anyway?

All I know is, Christians are still hearing about the Spanish inquisition and the Holy Crusades.
For all the maniacs that have blown themselves up, I say they still have "many" years ahead of them of shame still to come.

All I know is, Christians are still hearing about the Spanish inquisition and the Holy Crusades.
For all the maniacs that have blown themselves up, I say they still have "many" years ahead of them of shame still to come.

If that is the case then Christians also have to answer for anti-abortion doctor assassins and the KKK.

If that is the case then Christians also have to answer for anti-abortion doctor assassins and the KKK.
Hear about that to. Anything remotely related to or given credit to Christianity basically.

Now adays if it has anything to do with what people see as superstition it's blamed on religion. This being the U.S, that happens to be Christianity.

Like the OP. Whats the first thing people are going to think when they hear something has been blown up?
Could've been an accident but if it blew up our first response is to wonder if terrorist did it.

It just goes to show Muslims are going to hear about this for very long time to come. I dont think to many Muslims who dress appropriately are going to feel to comfortable in public for a while either.

So I have gone into a little bit into the ideals of Islam, but this fails to explain the advent of terrorism. The reason is because the theology of Islam provides no basis for terrorism. Even the word "Jihad", modernly translated as "Holy War" is incorrect. Jihad simply means "struggle", and it refers to the internal trials which a Muslim must face in order to walk the path of righteousness. However, it can also refer to the struggle for justice, but this does not always mean violence. In order to engage in a just war, several strict criteria must be met: first, it must only be a defensive war. Second, it may only be waged against the physical oppressors; civilians or innocents in the oppressing power may not be harmed. Finally, peace must be sought at every turn; if the opposing power desires peace, it is the duty of a Muslim to accept that offer. The idea of indefinite, unrestricted warfare is completely alien to Islam. Again, this highlights the main virtues of Islam of Mercy, Compassion, and Justice.

As Inviolable and Dharma brought up, the same is true for Christians and the KKK and terrorism against abortion clinics. In Bosnia, militants burned the crosses into slaughtered civillians. In India, Hindus massacred innocent Muslims by burning down mosques with people inside. None of these religions preach violence; in fact, they all preach the same message of peace, tolerance, and compassion; yet extremist groups hijack these messages and commit atrocious acts in the name of faith. It would be ignorant to apply the acts of a fringe group to an entire religion. Yet, we still do it. Why? Because it's easier to dehumanize people than understand them.

But, I digress.

So if the reason behind these atrocities is not theological, then where is it? On the personal level, it's hopelessness. These people are poor, lost, and see no way out. Thus, they latch onto this idea of a righteous cause to overthrow their oppressors in the West, whom, right or wrong, they blame for their current situation. With the reward of paradise and honor, this option starts to seem pretty attractive.

However, this sense of oppression is not new. Inviolable brought up the Crusades, which is perfect, because it leads into the next part of my argument. Rather than being isolated acts by a militant fringe, the Crusades represent an organized effort by the Catholic institution and leadership to exterminate other faiths. In Spain, they still celebrate the expulsion of the Moors, which nearly destroyed the cultural and intellectual wealth built up over centuries. In addition, the Crusades represent hundreds of years of determined aggression against Islam. In 2001, when President Bush made comments equating the GWOT to a "crusade", these old wounds were once again reopened. While he later retracted the use of the word "crusade", the damage was already done. In the minds of Muslims worldwide, America had set out to destroy their faith.

Still, there are more recent, and more damaging historical examples of Western oppression of Islam. The colonial and post-colonial period had a devastating effect on Muslims in the Middle and Far East. It also established a high wall between Western and Eastern cultures, with the West being seen as oppressors and the East as the oppressed. European colonial influence served to efface Islamic culture and history. Even worse, after the European powers left these countries, they gave them no means to rebuild themselves. Traditional boundaries between cultures had been erased and arbitrarily imposed to serve European goals. This is particularly evident in Pakistan and India, where fighting between Muslims and Hindus has claimed millions of lives, and the province of Kashmir is still steeped in war. Post-Ottoman Turkey was characterized by oppressive secularism, to the point that beards, hijabs, and other indicators of faith were forbidden in public. Now, many Muslims complain of the creation of the state of Israel; the problem is less of the fact that it is a Jewish state, as Muslims and Jews were traditionally allies, but it was the straw that broke the camel's back; after years of oppression, then abandonment, this was the final act of Western Imperialism upon the Muslim world.

This is all recent history, and now, the advent of Globalization appears to be the second wave of Western Imperialism.

The main point is that we have to remember that nothing happens in a vacuum, and it is disingenuous to assume that everything is the fault of one side or the other. Fortunately, these assumptions often arise simply out of ignorance, and there is hope that one day, these misconceptions can be remedied.

Stay tuned for more! :)

Has somebody been reading Karen Armstrong?

Wow EH. Great posts. You are spot on in your observations. :)

No, actually I'm taking a class taught by Akbar Ahmed. But her theories are applicable, and I'll get into them a little later.

My religion teacher last semester was really into Karen Armstrong. I've never read anything by her though.

This is all recent history, and now, the advent of Globalization appears to be the second wave of Western Imperialism.
I disagree. If you take the common definition of imperialism to be the pursuit of empire, one has to conclude that the globalization trend is not imperialism because it's inconceivable for market entities like corporations to hold or maintain an empire. They are subject to the laws of the states they operate in, and have mostly lost the ability the previous entities had to sic their home government on them for special treatment a la the British East India Company.

So we have been through the origins and history of Islam, but how does this all factor in with the modern world?

I would first like to explore the notion of "Post-Honor" and how it affects Eastern and Western interaction. Globalization has brought with it a rapidly growing interconnectedness between everyone on the planet. Accompanying this is a deemphasis of local or tribal identities and an emphasis on individuality and global citizenry. The power of multinational corporations demonstrates this, as these are institutions which transcend nearly all cultural and political boundaries.

However, this presents a problem for Muslims in the Middle East and Asia. Traditionally, the social systems which sustained these communities were tribal based; family and group honor are very important, and sustaining these communal bonds takes a high priority. But globalization has wreaked havoc on these systems. In only a few generations, these traditional notions of honor come in conflict with the realities of urbanization, individualization, and external powers. This, coupled with the ravaging effects of colonialism leaves many Muslims with an acute sense of displacement and loss. Many simply don't know how to function in a post-honor world. Worse, all of this is happening so quickly, they have little time to adapt. The end result is that people latch onto the most basic, and primitive expression of honor: violence.

Look at Afghanistan during the 90's. After we armed the Afghan rebels to fight the Soviets, we gave no other support once the Russians left. The country had no infrastructure, no leadership, and no direction. Is it really surprising that the Taliban took control? Not only did we allow the Taliban to take control, we completely distanced ourselves from the situation. From the Muslim perspective, this was just another instance of the West using Muslims as pawns to further their own goals. Looking back, it seems that they're right.

While the traditional communal bonds, known as asabiyya, sustained communities and provided the resources for cultural growth, the new realities of the modern world, which degrade these bonds, has caused a reactionary movement. This reactionary movement is known as "hyper-asabiyya". In the desperate struggle to protect the group's honor, the group adopts a position of intolerance and violence towards any other groups which might be perceived as a threat. Often, religion is used as a focal point for the expression of hyper-asabiyya; literalist interpretations of religious texts become favored because they are seen as the most "pure". Moderate voices are condemned as apologists or enemy sympathizers. Any cultural deviation suddenly becomes a threat, and must be destroyed. Traditionally, these cultural differences could be solved peacefully through interaction and intellectual discourse, but the current situation allows no room for maneuver.

Hyper-asabiyya is not unique to the Muslim world either; it can be just as easily found in Hindu, Far East, and Western culture. In Bosnia, Christian militant groups commit atrocious acts against Muslims because they are the enemy, and seen as a threat to their way of life. The same is true for militant Hindu groups in India. In Pakistan, Muslims oppress Hindus for the very same reason. Israel provides, perhaps, the clearest example. The existence of Israel, to neighboring countries, represents an act of Western oppression against Islam. Meanwhile, Israel is surrounded on all sides by hostile states. Everyone feels that they are under siege. If everyone feels like they are being attacked, how can there be a chance for diplomacy and understanding?

Even in America, where we like to consider ourselves above such petty influences, we act exactly the same. Our invasion of Afghanistan just after 9/11 had no political, economic, or military advantage to warrant such a war, but we invaded anyway. Why? To reclaim our lost honor. We didn't want anyone to think that they could fuck with us and not get away with it. Now, this may sound critical, but let me be clear; we all have the need to preserve our honor, and this sometimes leads us to make rash decisions. However, we must also be aware of our situation so that we may resist these destructive impulses, as violence only begets more violence.

How did hyper-asabiyya become so popular? Certainly it can't just be a result of global politics! The threats to honor do not exist only in the actions of governments and leaders, but in general social trends as well. Here I will address Nappy's contention about imperialism and globalization. It's true that it is impossible for corporations to create and maintain an empire, which is why I must modify my definition of the word, "imperialism". The imperialism I describe is not of a political or economic nature, but cultural. Critics of the West see America and her European allies as forcing their values and customs upon Eastern cultures. To a large extent, this is true. For a small example, take Inviolable's comment about Muslims "dressing appropriately". In the West, we take for granted that our way is the correct way, be it in cultural norms or even government systems. We are absolutely certain that Democracy is the best way. We have to begin to realize that not everyone in the world sees things the way we do, and that we may not necessarily be right about everything. Even more importantly, we need to recognize that our actions have consequences beyond our control. Not everything we do may be interpreted the way we wish. We have to be flexible.

So what can be done?

Both sides need to make considerable efforts to attempt to bridge this widening and increasingly violent gap. However, one of the first rules of writing is, "Know your audience." Since my audience is primarily Western, I shall focus on the steps we need to take to foster an atmosphere of understanding.

My first suggestion, even though it may seem obvious, would be to watch what we say. This goes back to the idea of alternate perspectives. When we use terms "Islamofascism", or "Islamic Extremists", or "Islamic Fundementalists", we need to ask, "How will people interpret this?" After traveling halfway around the world, translation and interpretation erase the subtleties and qualifiers which we need in order to properly understand these terms. After all, what exactly is a "Fundamentalist"? What follower of a religion does not accept the fundamentals? Also, terms like "Axis of Evil", while sound appealing on sound bites, severely undermine any attempts of diplomacy, especially with the countries involved. We are in dire need of a softening of rhetoric.

Second, our words need to match our actions. The US policy is filled with hypocrisy, decrying the actions of one group, while supporting those very same actions committed by another. When we bomb terrorists in Afghanistan, but talk nothing about the Bosnian War, we seem as if we're only concerned with acts of violence as long as they're being committed by Muslims.

Finally, and most importantly, we need more education. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. There are over 7 millions in the United States. Yet any examination of Islamic culture in schools is only cursory at best. We can no longer go on ignoring the world around us.


Thanks guys for letting me spill out like this. Hope this has given you all a little to chew on. Any comments, questions, or bones to pick, please post them! I'd love to get a good discussion going.

Just my 3 cents.


EDIT: Changed Chechen war to Bosnian War. I don't know why I wrote Chechen....thanks for the catch Vile

Excellent stuff Homer. :)

I'd like to comment on the following:

So what can be done?

Both sides need to make considerable efforts to attempt to bridge this widening and increasingly violent gap. However, one of the first rules of writing is, "Know your audience." Since my audience is primarily Western, I shall focus on the steps we need to take to foster an atmosphere of understanding.

My first suggestion, even though it may seem obvious, would be to watch what we say. This goes back to the idea of alternate perspectives. When we use terms "Islamofascism", or "Islamic Extremists", or "Islamic Fundementalists", we need to ask, "How will people interpret this?" After traveling halfway around the world, translation and interpretation erase the subtleties and qualifiers which we need in order to properly understand these terms. After all, what exactly is a "Fundamentalist"? What follower of a religion does not accept the fundamentals? Also, terms like "Axis of Evil", while sound appealing on sound bites, severely undermine any attempts of diplomacy, especially with the countries involved. We are in dire need of a softening of rhetoric.

I agree that we need to soften our rhetoric, but I think our rhetoric is deliberately confrontational, rather than accidentally so. I think there's little doubt that when you refer to someone's country as belonging to an "Axis of Evil" it's going to be understood to be an insult.


Second, our words need to match our actions. The US policy is filled with hypocrisy, decrying the actions of one group, while supporting those very same actions committed by another.

I can agree with that.


When we bomb terrorists in Afghanistan, but talk nothing about the Chechen War, we seem as if we're only concerned with terrorism as long as they're Muslim terrorists.

I think you want to come up with a different example. I'm almost certain that the Chechens are muslim...at least the terrorists you mention. :)


Finally, and most importantly, we need more education. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. There are over 7 millions in the United States. Yet any examination of Islamic culture in schools is only cursory at best. We can no longer go on ignoring the world around us.

Education is always the way to peace.

Great post Homer.

the only thing to come out of the middle east worth a fuck is the food.
the religions and ideologies are shit.
they all contradict each other in the bible, koran, etc..
they can ALL go fuck themselves.

Glad to see you have an open mind. Nevermind the fact that the scholarly work completed under Islamic rule revived knowledge lost for thousands of years and laid the intellectual groundwork which made the Renaissance possible.

Although, that reminds me of another point. Islam is not restricted to the Middle East. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. Islamic influence spans across the globe, and each area has its own flavor. However, recently, there has been a trend towards "Arabization", orthodoxy, and literalism in areas which do not traditionally associate with that. Again, this is just another part of "hyper-asabiyya", as people feel threatened and seek to find a unified identity.

Just my 3 cents.

Glad to see you have an open mind. Nevermind the fact that the scholarly work completed under Islamic rule revived knowledge lost for thousands of years and laid the intellectual groundwork which made the Renaissance possible.

Pesky little fact you've got there Homer. It pisses a lot of people off when you mention that stuff.


Although, that reminds me of another point. Islam is not restricted to the Middle East. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. Islamic influence spans across the globe, and each area has its own flavor. However, recently, there has been a trend towards "Arabization", orthodoxy, and literalism in areas which do not traditionally associate with that. Again, this is just another part of "hyper-asabiyya", as people feel threatened and seek to find a unified identity.

How do you influence a trend?

Nice to see you posting again, EH :)

Well Vile, a trend is just a large group of people make similar choices, we can always have influence. Given the current interaction between East and West, many people like the idea of Arabization. If interactions became more friendly, and the atmosphere becomes more tolerant, moderate voices within the community will hold more power.

Without trying to sound glib, it's simple action/reaction. The more you push people, the more they push back.

Now, there's also much work to be done by the Islamic community. The structure in the House of Islam is in serious disrepair, and it will take a lot of effort and a lot of time to rebuild it.

Is but a miror of early christianity.

Is but a miror of early christianity.

Is but a miror of early christianity.

Well Perry, despite your insistence by sheer volume of posts (perhaps accidental), Islam is not a mirror of Christianity. However, there are some strong parallels. To moderates, Islam represents a revised and corrected version of Judaism (which predates Christianity) and Christianity. For example, the Qur'an recognizes the prophets Moses and Jesus, but denies that Jesus was the son of God, but rather just a man filled with the Holy Spirit. Interestingly, certain Shia sects believe that when the last Imam returns, he will return with Jesus and the two will pair up (to fight crime), and rid the world of evil.

All three Abrahamic faiths are largely identical, but a few but important differences can go a long way. Still no reason why they shouldn't be able to get along. The Qur'an even states that on Judgment Day, Jews, Christians, and Muslims will all stand together in Paradise.

Just another 3 cents.

Interestingly, certain Shia sects believe that when the last Imam returns, he will return with Jesus and the two will pair up (to fight crime), and rid the world of evil.
Dynamic Duo?
http://dailyramblings.com/images/gaybook2.jpg

so umm who is batman and who is robin?

I dunno. I think that'd be a pretty bad ass crimefighting team, what with them bringing the Apocalypse and all.

So who is the joker? Penguin?

i'm the joker. damnit.

Interesting...

Source (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020593.php#c530067)

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights."

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, "The Haj"

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

Interesting...
Except for that the author pretty much pulled it out of his rear. As you may know, 73.6% of statistics are made up.

Interesting...

Source (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020593.php#c530067)

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights."

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, "The Haj"

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

Good post SMW. I totally agree with the above. Yes, I am actually agreeing with you on something.

SMW. Correlation does not imply causation. Even the correlation here is weak.

Where to begin...

Well, lets start at the top and work down. At 1 percent, the population is so small and powerless, that we barely give it any heed. So we can pretty much do whatever we want and we won't hear any complaints.

Lets look at this "stereotyped cultural uniqueness". In just about every reference to Muslims, they're seen as Arab, and either poor camel herders, rich oil sheiks, or terrorists. None of these are admirable positions, and none of them are even remotely accurate.

Moving on, at 2 percent, they start to gain a little bit of influence. However, to state that this influence comes only in the form of street gangs is disingenuous. It's a simple fact that poor areas, no matter the religion, are prone to crime and violence. And is it any surprise that religion is popular in prisons? Hell, by that logic, Christianity is a religion of violence and hate because many prisoners convert to Christianity. Or maybe they're just trying to find piece of mind like everyone else...

Next, this idea of "inordinate pressure" is laughable. Helal marketplaces? Seriously? Why aren't we decrying Jews for requesting Kosher meals or vegetarians for requesting "non-meat" meal options? Gimme a break. The fact is, for these cleanliness needs, Muslim communities start up their own Helal marketplaces independent of chains. There are two right close to me here in DC, and they're quite good if you're looking for a bit of different flavor.

Lets keep on rolling. Sharia law pertains to the actions of the individual. In Islamic nations, it was often the law of the land as well. However, it is compatible with other legal systems. Nearly all Muslims are willing to compromise. The general voice is for the government to leave their religious customs alone. Doesn't sound like too much to ask for. And before you start with "stonings" and "fatwas" and all that, that literalist interpretation of Sharia is held by a very small, but very vocal school of thought.

However, I would like to address the issues of the cartoons in Denmark and the riots in France. First off, in Denmark, freedom of the press is not absolute. For instance, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. Second, the cartoon was the winner in a competition for who could draw the most offensive anti-Islamic cartoon. It's quite understandable to see how Muslims saw this as an attack on their religion, because it was. With that being said, the editor of the newspaper should not have run the cartoon, as it transgressed far beyond the boundaries of good taste. It was purely offensive material against the most revered person on in the Muslim world. The response to the cartoon was excessive and deplorable, but that doesn't make their sentiment incorrect. I point you to my earlier argument of Islam being "under siege", leading to increased defensiveness and decreased tolerance.

For Paris, the riots were in response to the government's inaction to provide basic services to the people living in the ghettos. Primarily, these people were Muslims and they felt they were being discriminated against. Now I do not condone violent protests, but again, the sentiments are understandable.

As for the rest of the list, these results completely ignore the historical and racial context in which these acts occur. In many of these regions, there are Muslims killing Muslims, Christians killing Christians, and Hindus killing Hindus, etc. The religious justification for these acts are superficial and the divide is along ethnic lines rather than theological.

Moreso, some of these regions, like the UAE, are peaceful, and in others, it is the Muslims who are being massacred.

The argument you present is weak at best, and deceptive at worst. In my opinion (by no means expert, but at least even handed), this is nothing more than statistical slight of hand.

Just my 3 cents.

For good reading on the subject, I recommend the books "Islam Under Siege" by Akbar Ahmed, "A Brief History of Islam" by Tamara Sonn, and "The Place of Tolerance in Islam" (With response essays) by Khaled Abou El Fadl.

The above provide a moderate view of Islamic history while also recognizing the arguments of the extremes on both sides.

As for the rest of the list, these results completely ignore the historical and racial context in which these acts occur. In many of these regions, there are Muslims killing Muslims, Christians killing Christians, and Hindus killing Hindus, etc. The religious justification for these acts are superficial and the divide is along ethnic lines rather than theological.

Moreso, some of these regions, like the UAE, are peaceful, and in others, it is the Muslims who are being massacred.
I was just going to point this out...

Because really, it was the Muslims who were doing the massacring in Bosnia in 1995, right SMW? :rolleyes:

Everyone under 20 is an expert on everything and has no room in their brain for more info. Damn, when will I finally get that?

;)
SMW

Everyone under 20 is an expert on everything and has no room in their brain for more info. Damn, when will I finally get that?

;)
SMW

Don't worry I am with you on this.

For UAE, they don't have to fight because the country is RULED by Muslim law already. I lived in Dubai for 2 years - if y'all forgot (that's why Prae calls me Achmed sometimes). They will fight if their locale is NOT ruled by Sharia law yet.

The point SMW is making that once Muslims reach a critical point in terms of the percentage of the total population, they want Sharia law to be part of the local law and eventually taking over the local law. She is 100% correct in this.

As far as someone's earlier post about Islam laying the groundwork for intellect which led to the renaissance, I would have to disagree. That's like saying Christians invented the lightbulb. Or the number system was developed by the Hindus. Or Buddhists invented fireworks. Yes, the middle east was once the cradle of intellect, I would not give credit to Islam.

sorry, i don't trust ANY religion or ideology that has in print or socially restricts people on religious grounds. just one is how the men can have more than one wife, but if the woman wants some on the side, she can be stoned to death.
all the middle eastern faiths are screwed up in one way or another.

The point SMW is making that once Muslims reach a critical point in terms of the percentage of the total population, they want Sharia law to be part of the local law and eventually taking over the local law. She is 100% correct in this.
And in many countries Christians also want to see their beliefs encoded in the local laws. Of course I think you know this, because you've complained about it before, but I don't think SMW would agree with you on that one.

As far as someone's earlier post about Islam laying the groundwork for intellect which led to the renaissance, I would have to disagree. That's like saying Christians invented the lightbulb. Or the number system was developed by the Hindus. Or Buddhists invented fireworks. Yes, the middle east was once the cradle of intellect, I would not give credit to Islam.
I think you're wrong. If the people in the Middle East during Medieval times had been Christians, they would have largely abandoned science, mathematics, and medicine just like the people of Europe did. As it was, Islam was much more tolerant of things like scientific experiments, medical research, study of the writings of "heathen" ancient Greeks and Romans (although in Europe they did tolerate this somewhat), etc. It's not just that the Catholic Church persecuted scientists who said controversial things, their main philosophy until at least the Protestant Reformation was one that revered ignorance and said that praying and having faith were much more important than cleanliness and doctors and whatnot. I think that if Islam had not come along, the entire Middle East would have been dominated by Christianity and therefore would have certainly NOT been the "cradle of intellect". (Of course, as far as the artistic part of the Rennaissance, we can definitely attribute that to Christianity or at least to Christians.)

sorry, i don't trust ANY religion or ideology that has in print or socially restricts people on religious grounds. just one is how the men can have more than one wife, but if the woman wants some on the side, she can be stoned to death.
all the middle eastern faiths are screwed up in one way or another.
Agreed, although that doesn't mean we should be able to distort or outright lie about the ways in which they are screwed up. There are plenty of actual reasons to dislike Islam and Christianity without exaggerating them.

And in many countries Christians also want to see their beliefs encoded in the local laws. Of course I think you know this, because you've complained about it before, but I don't think SMW would agree with you on that one.


I think you're wrong. If the people in the Middle East during Medieval times had been Christians, they would have largely abandoned science, mathematics, and medicine just like the people of Europe did. As it was, Islam was much more tolerant of things like scientific experiments, medical research, study of the writings of "heathen" ancient Greeks and Romans (although in Europe they did tolerate this somewhat), etc. It's not just that the Catholic Church persecuted scientists who said controversial things, their main philosophy until at least the Protestant Reformation was one that revered ignorance and said that praying and having faith were much more important than cleanliness and doctors and whatnot. I think that if Islam had not come along, the entire Middle East would have been dominated by Christianity and therefore would have certainly NOT been the "cradle of intellect". (Of course, as far as the artistic part of the Rennaissance, we can definitely attribute that to Christianity or at least to Christians.)


If it was Hinduism instead of Islam in the middle east, would you give hinduism the credit? True, if Christianity would have been there maybe the intellect would not have been what it was. Just because it was not Christianity there, it does not mean that you give credit to Islam being there. My point is that any religion (except Christianity - although one can never guess how the middle east people would have worked under christianity) could have been there.

Actually, in India, during the reign of Emperor Akbar, Muslim and Hindu scholars made great progress in intellectual pursuits and interfaith dialog. Just as in Spain, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars worked on translating Greek and Latin works and recovering knowledge that was lost for centuries. None of this would have been possible without the protective policies of the Islamic empire which encouraged learning and religious tolerance.

Unfortunately, after the Christians invaded and evicted both the Jews and the Muslims, a great deal of this knowledge was lost again, and, more importantly, the intellectual atmosphere which created this knowledge disappeared.

I gotta go take a psyche test. More to come later.

Just my 3 cents.

While I agree violence can be incorporated into any religion, I suspect that Islam attracts a more violent strain of followers. I mean, don't you think the fact that Muhammed himself was a war general and spent his life conquering and killing his enemies affects what kind of people follow the Islamic faith? Compare that with Jesus or Bhudda or Vishnu - all relatively passive icons.

With that said, I would also argue that Christianity is second to Islam in terms of encouraging violent behavior - that Old Testiment is filled with merciless and ruthless crap if you read it.

While I agree violence can be incorporated into any religion, I suspect that Islam attracts a more violent strain of followers. I mean, don't you think the fact that Muhammed himself was a war general and spent his life conquering and killing his enemies affects what kind of people follow the Islamic faith? Compare that with Jesus or Bhudda or Vishnu - all relatively passive icons.

With that said, I would also argue that Christianity is second to Islam in terms of encouraging violent behavior - that Old Testiment is filled with merciless and ruthless crap if you read it.


nice.

While you're right in that the Prophet was a general, to say that he spent his life conquering and killing his enemies is false. Jihad is sanctioned in the Qur'an, but it must meet several, specific conditions.
1. It must be a defensive war or a war to end injustice.
2. War may only be conducted against those committing injustices. (No civilian casualties)
3. If the enemy wishes peace, then all efforts must be made to achieve it.

While these rules may be less inspirational than the words "Thou shalt not kill", they are certainly more pragmatic. Keep in mind that Mohamed was not just a religious icon like Jesus or Buddha, but also a head of state. In order to govern effectively, a leader must be pragmatic. The Qur'an recognizes that conflict is a part of existence, but encourages a peaceful resolution. Only if no peace can be made then can Jihad be justified.

Jesus was a great man, but he would have made an awful President.

Finally, before I get backed into a corner here, lemme say this; I am not saying that the Qur'an, the Prophet, or Islam is perfect, although I am sure there are some who claim as such. After all, it is a religion of humans, and humans themselves are imperfect. However, I find the idea that Islam is a "religion of violence" or a "religion of hate" to be repugnant. Often, these ideas are proffered out of ignorance or misconceptions. Other times, and perhaps more underhandedly, critics adopt the strict, intolerant interpretations of texts and events which the religious extremists use to justify the inhuman acts of terrorism. Against the loud minority which receives all of the attention, there is a vast silent majority. I believe that this is due to the fact that much of the Muslim world lives in poverty, and is unable to speak, and that there is no unified clergy which represents the religion as a whole. The highest official office in Islam is that of the Imam, and they can only guide their own congregation. Instead, much of the debate occurs in academic circles, which, sadly, is largely unseen by the public.

By 2050, it is expected that 1/4 of the world population will be Muslim. How could a "religion of hate" acquire that kind of following? After all, people adopt faith in order to attain serenity and peace of mind. If Islam offered nothing but violence and chaos, no one would join it.

Just my 3 cents.

While I agree violence can be incorporated into any religion, I suspect that Islam attracts a more violent strain of followers. I mean, don't you think the fact that Muhammed himself was a war general and spent his life conquering and killing his enemies affects what kind of people follow the Islamic faith? Compare that with Jesus or Bhudda or Vishnu - all relatively passive icons.

With that said, I would also argue that Christianity is second to Islam in terms of encouraging violent behavior - that Old Testiment is filled with merciless and ruthless crap if you read it.
Great post.

EH: Great post. I admire your ability to look at Islam from an unbiased point of view. :)

When I have studied the Quran (on my own and in school), it has surprised me slightly, because the picture we have of Islamic beliefs is so inaccurate. I obviously assumed that the fanatics would be the most vocal and therefore most Muslims would be much less extreme in their beliefs, but the dichotomy between what a lot of Muslims in the media seem to believe and the actual writings of the Quran is fairly shocking.

.....what a lot of Muslims in the media seem to believe and the actual writings of the Quran is fairly shocking.

And the media is owned by?? You guessed it! (I don't want to say it)

It seems they go out and find the most violent and crazy Muslim and put him on TV as the front man of Islam.