World events

Remember the Klu Klux Kan in the US?

And the only people who will take up the discussion are the ones who actually would never do such a thing.

Also, actually, it's the other way around. In a way, they WANT to be destroyed by means of heavy warfare. Anything that would allow them to spin the destruction as an actual war on Islam (ie. a legitimate, defensive jihad. Bear in mind that they try to sell everything like that as an actually defensive act, which is something rarely discussed when discussing the ideas of jihadism) .

To end the Not All Muslims discussion right now there has to be a very deep distinction made, so we know who we may/should target without being indiscriminate. Sure, the attacks are indiscriminate, but we have to at least pretend that we have a moral high ground, which is a large part of what really is a propaganda war going right under the real war. Propaganda is also a war of ideas, of sorts:

Not all Muslims are Islamists (something I actually had to explain to a great friend of mine). Islamism is a political ideology saying that Shariah should be the law of the land. In turn not all Islamists are Jihadists, which is a sub-ideology saying that the only way to enforce it is through the holy war. Having gotten that out of the system we may start discussing the Islamist branch (good question I've never researched is how does it play into the Shi'a/Sunni system).

I believe a lot of the recent situation plays by the lack of nuance. I also believe they want to actually lose the war to spin it as a war on Islam as a whole. If we want to discuss these ideas very well, we need to make distinctions that aren't politically correct necessarily (not fully against being PC for somehow more personal reasons, which I don't want to publicly admit), but at least factually correct.

Like the guy who refused to sell something to those who adhere to "a literal reading of the Quran". And there's me scratching my head "what have the poor Quranists done to you, man?!"

BINGO!
Exactly the problem!
Mainstream Christianity DIDN'T solve it: developments in humanism did, as did the increased emphasis on universal rights, and the accompanying increased secularism pushing church and state WELL apart and prohibiting the church fullfilling a political role as part of the state.

Islam needs a (very!) strong counterbalancing force, like humanism and (philosophically) social(ist) values did in the 18th/19th cntury in Europe, supported by key players (academically and politically).

That's exactly my point: the clergy, losing their influence and support, had no choice but to react. This wasn't driven from within (although there were of course plenty of reform minded priests on every hierarchic level, although these in general were more focused on protesting the more worldly (abuse of) powers the church had come to embrace). It was a REaction.
And it stands to reason that when the clergy changes, the ontological basis for religion changes.
Because of course religion is not a "revealed truth", it grows and adapts to circumstances.

It would be naive to the extreme to think Islam will somehow reform itself.
Leave alone in places where it IS also the political power.

It will require a very strong external push, with the support of the population and main thinkers.

Problem is that the Reformation is irrelevant (in this discussion) because its main...well, its SOLE goal was to break the hegemony and monopoly of the (Catholic) church. There's no equivalent in Islam, so something similar is impossible...without the aforementioned external (non-religious) push to put Islam in a very defined, limited role in society.

As long as it remains the begin-all and end-all of life, as is currently the case (and not only in Islam-led states), it doesn't matter whether there are more or less moderate imams. The upshot still is that there is no alternative other than Islam.

A social secularisation? How do you mean?

The only real achievement from the Reformation on a social level is that it brought faith closer, as the very idea of interpreting and revealing it through priests rather than as a deeply personal experience was now anathema.
But the deeprooted resentment against a very wealthy spiritual upper class was fueled by an almost zealotous return to "base" values, like taking the scripture literally again.
Which is hardly secularising, nor particularly good.
Luckily that didn't last long (in most of Europe anyway).



Actually, no.
It made things signiicantly better socially and economically (witness Iran or Afghanistan in the early seventies).
But these regimes were hardly perfect as -as much as it was preferable over the alternative- the reigning regimes were fairly corrupt and ineffectual in maintaining a hard line against internal corruption and revolutionary forces which were brewing...which weren't even religious to start with!

The real revolutions in the sixties, seventies and much of the eighties were socialism-driven! The uprising against the shah (for example) was led by the socialist party and the intellectual (left wing) elite, who -to their eternal shame and damnation (the enemy of your enemy is NOT your friend!)- allied themselves with religious fundamentalism, which -as we all know- quickly took over.



However historically inevitable the actual course of history was, here I agree.
But that was never going to happen.



But this, with respect, is far too simple in the sense that it has no bearing at all on the West, but is an overall frame of mind in the Middle East. From recorded history this sense of "them" hating "us" is a pervading argument for continuous war in the region. Should the west step out today, or should Israel cease to exist tomorrow, they'll turn on another (or each other). This is the horrific legacy of a shame culture, where NOTHING is EVER one's own responsibility and ALWAYS someone else's fault.

Yes, massively broad strokes, I'm well aware.
And yes, of course it doesn't apply to everyone (or to individuals).
It's a generic trait in the region's culture. But so significant that it is actually rendering the region (self) destructive.



Not mystical: totalitarian.
It is a very real force in day-to-day life.
The idea of NOT being religious is not a consideration (I'm not even talking about believing in Allah; the very act of NOT believing AT ALL simply "does not compute".)


Not even 'not easily', I'd say not, period.
Well. Not without bloodshed on an unparalleled scale.

I just read about 9 more deaths in Egypt on a bus I believe

sad

Can't we just nuke Saudi Arabia into oblivion.

Even before social media there was the anarchists cookbook who I remember a number of people having though none of them to my knowledge used it in any harmful way.

Martijn, I've just noticed your "signature" comment at the bottom of your posts.

FUCKING THANK YOU.

It really does boil down to this in the end. The West would never have gotten so involved in the Middle East and started so many wars and radicalized so many Muslims if it wasn't for ruddy black gold.

And we (America) are on a good road right now, right, with a climate change denier heading the EPA and Mr. Exxon Mobil as Secretary of State?

Sure, because if the US invaded England, I'd suddenly want to keep sex slaves and kill children.

Maybe not, but if drone strikes against civilians were a regular occurrence, don't you think a radical US-hating "freedom fighters" element would inevitably pop up at some point?