Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
The key cause of Islamic violence is this: modernization. While modernization is a good thing and utterly inevitable, much of the Middle East is stuck in the past, thanks to a long series of ethnic warfare and foreign meddling. As a result, Islam as a religion is stuck in a juvenile stage of development, one that all religions must go through in order to survive. This stage is always marked by extremist activity - look at Christianity and the Crusades. Add in the complications caused by centuries of Western meddling and you have an explosive crucible of a region caught in a hellish state of constant violence caused by factors so complex and multifarious (and often ancient) that to completely understand them would require multiple lifetimes worth of study to begin to grasp.

Frankly, if Islam cannot change soon, if it doesn't mature and reform itself to fit in with modern mores, then it will eventually die, if only because its radical adherents drive everyone else away and manage to kills themselves all off before they can create more children.

It's an insane situation on all accounts.

~Tim?

Do try to remember that most of the "solidly stuck in the past" stuff owes a great deal to the House of Saud and its adoption of Salafist ideology. That caused massive regression, just like the Revivalist movement did in the US a few decades earlier. The defining difference is that the US is wealthy and has prospered, which secularizes the population and weakens the propaganda abilities of radicals; even so we've seen some horrible things from the Revivalists and the sects that descended from them, up to and including terrorism.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
The key cause of Islamic violence is this: modernization. While modernization is a good thing and utterly inevitable, much of the Middle East is stuck in the past, thanks to a long series of ethnic warfare and foreign meddling. As a result, Islam as a religion is stuck in a juvenile stage of development, one that all religions must go through in order to survive. This stage is always marked by extremist activity - look at Christianity and the Crusades. Add in the complications caused by centuries of Western meddling and you have an explosive crucible of a region caught in a hellish state of constant violence caused by factors so complex and multifarious (and often ancient) that to completely understand them would require multiple lifetimes worth of study to begin to grasp.

Frankly, if Islam cannot change soon, if it doesn't mature and reform itself to fit in with modern mores, then it will eventually die, if only because its radical adherents drive everyone else away and manage to kills themselves all off before they can create more children.

It's an insane situation on all accounts.

~Tim?

If 40K has taught us anything, its that modernization is definitely not inevitable...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
The key cause of Islamic violence is this: modernization. While modernization is a good thing and utterly inevitable, much of the Middle East is stuck in the past, thanks to a long series of ethnic warfare and foreign meddling. As a result, Islam as a religion is stuck in a juvenile stage of development, one that all religions must go through in order to survive. This stage is always marked by extremist activity - look at Christianity and the Crusades. Add in the complications caused by centuries of Western meddling and you have an explosive crucible of a region caught in a hellish state of constant violence caused by factors so complex and multifarious (and often ancient) that to completely understand them would require multiple lifetimes worth of study to begin to grasp.

Frankly, if Islam cannot change soon, if it doesn't mature and reform itself to fit in with modern mores, then it will eventually die, if only because its radical adherents drive everyone else away and manage to kills themselves all off before they can create more children.

It's an insane situation on all accounts.

~Tim?

Do try to remember that most of the "solidly stuck in the past" stuff owes a great deal to the House of Saud and its adoption of Salafist ideology. That caused massive regression, just like the Revivalist movement did in the US a few decades earlier. The defining difference is that the US is wealthy and has prospered, which secularizes the population and weakens the propaganda abilities of radicals; even so we've seen some horrible things from the Revivalists and the sects that descended from them, up to and including terrorism.

Wait you're arguing Saudi Arabia is not wealthy?

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I do not see modern Islam as a positive influence on humanity...

Then what do you see it as?

A hugely oppressive force on women, gays and minorities, an enabler of the basest violence, the destruction of art, education, progressive thinking, personal freedom. It certainly wasn't always this way, Saladin's Islam, the simplest example would be the tolerant rule of Jerusalem, was something that seemed totally enlightening for it's time, but it seem to have devolved into something relentless, aggressive and utterly intolerant.

I consider the religion a negative force, the sooner it is gone from the world, or grown up past this grotesque form, as most of Christianity seems to have managed, then I'll be a lot less opposed to it, basically when it stops hating me and those I love, then I'll stop hating it.

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I can most certainly tell the difference, I asked you for a nation, one, that treated women equally...

You never asked me that question. My name is not "Ahtman".

Ah, apologies, you just attached yourself to the point with such vigor, let me rephrase, 'I can most certainly tell the difference, I asked for a nation, one, that treated women equally...'

But since you have attached yourself to that raised point so keenly, how about you do provide me with the name of a country under islam that does treat women as equals? Because the point I was driving at, was I can't find one.

Saladin was a hell of a guy. I did a paper on him. It's not a good sign for your faith or culture if it has REGRESSED since the Crusades....

 Frazzled wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
The key cause of Islamic violence is this: modernization. While modernization is a good thing and utterly inevitable, much of the Middle East is stuck in the past, thanks to a long series of ethnic warfare and foreign meddling. As a result, Islam as a religion is stuck in a juvenile stage of development, one that all religions must go through in order to survive. This stage is always marked by extremist activity - look at Christianity and the Crusades. Add in the complications caused by centuries of Western meddling and you have an explosive crucible of a region caught in a hellish state of constant violence caused by factors so complex and multifarious (and often ancient) that to completely understand them would require multiple lifetimes worth of study to begin to grasp.

Frankly, if Islam cannot change soon, if it doesn't mature and reform itself to fit in with modern mores, then it will eventually die, if only because its radical adherents drive everyone else away and manage to kills themselves all off before they can create more children.

It's an insane situation on all accounts.

~Tim?

Do try to remember that most of the "solidly stuck in the past" stuff owes a great deal to the House of Saud and its adoption of Salafist ideology. That caused massive regression, just like the Revivalist movement did in the US a few decades earlier. The defining difference is that the US is wealthy and has prospered, which secularizes the population and weakens the propaganda abilities of radicals; even so we've seen some horrible things from the Revivalists and the sects that descended from them, up to and including terrorism.

Wait you're arguing Saudi Arabia is not wealthy?

Yeah, I had the same reaction to that post. Would you mind clarifying, Ser Pseudonymous?

~Tim?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Saladin was a hell of a guy. I did a paper on him. It's not a good sign for your faith or culture if it has REGRESSED since the Crusades....

Yep, Saladin is someone I bring up whenever people try to convince me that Islam can only be a force for evil. Its past isn't concurrent with its present. It was for a time a religion that fostered fairly modern and secular ideas. I feel that it could get back to that point; it would just need a strong single worldwide religious leader, like an Islamic Pope. It's that or self-destruction.

~Tim?

A central authority would go a LOOOOONG way to getting Islam back onto the track it was 800 years ago.

Unfortunately, WW1 kinda broke the last true one of those there was.

Heh no. The Ottoman Empire was close, but Islam has been fighting over the proper succession of the Caliphate since The Prophet died. That's the real division between Sunni and Shiite Islam. If a globally accepted Caliph emerges I'm immediately flying out to kiss the ring or whatever you do, because that man has literally worked a miracle to get all major factions to accept him.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
The key cause of Islamic violence is this: modernization. While modernization is a good thing and utterly inevitable, much of the Middle East is stuck in the past, thanks to a long series of ethnic warfare and foreign meddling. As a result, Islam as a religion is stuck in a juvenile stage of development, one that all religions must go through in order to survive. This stage is always marked by extremist activity - look at Christianity and the Crusades. Add in the complications caused by centuries of Western meddling and you have an explosive crucible of a region caught in a hellish state of constant violence caused by factors so complex and multifarious (and often ancient) that to completely understand them would require multiple lifetimes worth of study to begin to grasp.

Frankly, if Islam cannot change soon, if it doesn't mature and reform itself to fit in with modern mores, then it will eventually die, if only because its radical adherents drive everyone else away and manage to kills themselves all off before they can create more children.

It's an insane situation on all accounts.

~Tim?

Do try to remember that most of the "solidly stuck in the past" stuff owes a great deal to the House of Saud and its adoption of Salafist ideology. That caused massive regression, just like the Revivalist movement did in the US a few decades earlier. The defining difference is that the US is wealthy and has prospered, which secularizes the population and weakens the propaganda abilities of radicals; even so we've seen some horrible things from the Revivalists and the sects that descended from them, up to and including terrorism.

Wait you're arguing Saudi Arabia is not wealthy?

Yeah, I had the same reaction to that post. Would you mind clarifying, Ser Pseudonymous?

~Tim?

Sorry, my whole post was poorly worded.

I was talking more about the Middle East in general with that remark; Saudi Arabia is a special case. I also shouldn't try to pass off everything good that happened in the first world as a matter of wealth, as doing so does a grave disservice to everyone who fought tooth and nail to build it for us.

The US has prospered in a way that even Saudi Arabia hasn't, with safeguards in place to stop the unilateral imposition of religious beliefs on law, with a large number of dedicated champions of right fighting tooth and nail to fix what the Revivalists broke. With the Saudi royalty backing the radical, heretical movement and setting the standard, in a way, it's unsurprising; when the strongest player in the region supports everything that's ideologically wrong with the region, what do you expect to happen?


Of course, it's kind of silly that I, a staunch Transhumanist, am defending Islam, since I would love to see its downfall, just as I would love to see the downfall of every other religion aside from Transhumanism (when such is interpreted in a religious way), but I hate to see it (or anything) attacked on faulty grounds, as MGS is doing. This isn't really a response to you, I just felt like making my position clear.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Heh no. The Ottoman Empire was close, but Islam has been fighting over the proper succession of the Caliphate since The Prophet died. That's the real division between Sunni and Shiite Islam. If a globally accepted Caliph emerges I'm immediately flying out to kiss the ring or whatever you do, because that man has literally worked a miracle to get all major factions to accept him.

I don't know if [redacted by moderator. Such comments are not helpful.]

 xole wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 xole wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Kyrgyzstan. 95ish % Muslim population. They had a woman President before we did.

BUT, they are hardly hard line Muslims there. They have a national alcohal, as an example.

Pretty secular nation as well. Relatively "westernized" as well, being a former Soviet satellite.

There's really no need to exagerate. The number is closer to 80% muslim population.

I kind of like them though. They're an interesting mix of influences, with a nice history of violence and high hopes going forward.

Wasn't an exageration, working off of memory, which does seem to have been wrong. More recent studied do indicate a cloer to 90% total. Last time I was there I did get the vibe that Islamists were trying to gain ground in the country, though almost everyone I spoke to about their religion treated it as something they were simply born into, and weren't really all that observant of.

That's the vibe I got. You travelled there? Exciting. How was it?

One question I would want to ask you OT folk is, do you think a religion is capable of being damagingly flawed?

If so, how would you tell that a religion is like that?

If not, why not?

You need to be a bit more precise by what you mean by damagingly flawed. I would say that every religion is flawed in the sense that it hinges on the belief in a supernatural entity that does not exist.

Also, there is a huge difference in what a "religion" may be, and how people practice it. Overall the practice of Christianity is not as destructive to human civilization now as it was say 500 years ago. The practice of Islam is not as destructive in countries where Sharia law is neutralized by criminal and civil laws.

Buddhism, which was not envisioned as a religion by its founder is certainly less destructive than other religions but one could argue it is flawed because it is founded on a belief in reincarnation.

Hinduism may be one of the most damagingly flawed and destructive religions of all because its particular slant on reincarnation has enabled the milenia long tradition of castes to persist. The Hindu caste system is one of the most hateful institutions ever invented and ironically permeates a country that claims to be the world's most populated democracy.

Because every religion promotes the idea of supernatural phenomena that do not exist, inculcating children with these lame ass ideas and damaging their ability to understand the world means that every religion is damagingly flawed. They are all flawed and to one degree or another cause damage, the only difference is how much damage they cause, some cause little damage, some cause enormous damage.

JWhex wrote:

 xole wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 xole wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Kyrgyzstan. 95ish % Muslim population. They had a woman President before we did.

BUT, they are hardly hard line Muslims there. They have a national alcohal, as an example.

Pretty secular nation as well. Relatively "westernized" as well, being a former Soviet satellite.

There's really no need to exagerate. The number is closer to 80% muslim population.

I kind of like them though. They're an interesting mix of influences, with a nice history of violence and high hopes going forward.

Wasn't an exageration, working off of memory, which does seem to have been wrong. More recent studied do indicate a cloer to 90% total. Last time I was there I did get the vibe that Islamists were trying to gain ground in the country, though almost everyone I spoke to about their religion treated it as something they were simply born into, and weren't really all that observant of.

That's the vibe I got. You travelled there? Exciting. How was it?

One question I would want to ask you OT folk is, do you think a religion is capable of being damagingly flawed?

If so, how would you tell that a religion is like that?

If not, why not?

You need to be a bit more precise by what you mean by damagingly flawed. I would say that every religion is flawed in the sense that it hinges on the belief in a supernatural entity that does not exist.

Also, there is a huge difference in what a "religion" may be, and how people practice it. Overall the practice of Christianity is not as destructive to human civilization now as it was say 500 years ago. The practice of Islam is not as destructive in countries where Sharia law is neutralized by criminal and civil laws.

Buddhism, which was not envisioned as a religion by its founder is certainly less destructive than other religions but one could argue it is flawed because it is founded on a belief in reincarnation.

Hinduism may be one of the most damagingly flawed and destructive religions of all because its particular slant on reincarnation has enabled the milenia long tradition of castes to persist. The Hindu caste system is one of the most hateful institutions ever invented and ironically permeates a country that claims to be the world's most populated democracy.

Because every religion promotes the idea of supernatural phenomena that do not exist, inculcating children with these lame ass ideas and damaging their ability to understand the world means that every religion is damagingly flawed. They are all flawed and to one degree or another cause damage, the only difference is how much damage they cause, some cause little damage, some cause enormous damage.

People are flawed. People follow religions, so obviously all religions will be flawed to one degree or another. Often those flaws are caused by people and not a part of the religion.

~Tim?

Man interprets, write, and clarify the subject matter of their religion. Man is not perfect. There will be "Flaws"

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I consider the religion a negative force...

Had you said that at the beginning you could have spared us all the screed.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

But since you have attached yourself to that raised point so keenly, how about you do provide me with the name of a country under islam that does treat women as equals? Because the point I was driving at, was I can't find one.

By "under Islam" do you mean "under a theocratic government informed by Islam" or "a nation in which most people are Muslims"?

I had a lot of things to say, none of them were nice, and they have all to do with the insistence of ripping apart another religion all the while ignoring the tenets and teachings of one's own religion. And that's all I'll say.

I had a lot of things to say, none of them were nice, and they have all to do with the insistence of ripping apart another religion all the while ignoring the tenets and teachings of one's own religion. And that's all I'll say.

I like that Poda.

When something like the term "God wills it" or "Its God's will"...wait.....another..."Its His plan"....lets not forget labels...infidel, heretic, non believer, and a few others. Then its excusable to commit violence in "His" name. For those of us that do not fall under either religion we're still "excused" in enacting violence against the other religion if "working" for the other religion.