Towards a better understanding of Islam and democracy

Jaboney · March 2, 2007, 2:30pm

Fine-grained analysis, it is important. By nice to have some real, scientifically derived information think over, wouldn’t it?

I’m listening to a university podcast, and the prof is giving a presentation on democracy and Islam.

Interesting highlights

Number of countries with a Muslim majority: 47
Over the past 30 years, number of those countries which meet the necessary but not sufficient condition for democracy of having free and fair elections for at least 3 consecutive years: 15; for at least 5 years: 10/11
All of the countries that qualify for the above “necessary but not sufficient” set are non-Arab Muslim countries; no Arab Muslim countries do so.
Statistically, with countries that have an average income of less than $2000/yr we have low expectations of democracy. On this point these non-Arab countries are overachieving.
Statistically, with countries that have an average income of greater than $5000/yr we have high expectations of democracy. On this point, Arab Muslim countries are under-performing.
22% of Muslims are Arab, but it’s the Arab version of Islam that dominates media coverage.

Other interesting points:
A. Muslim history in India and Pakistan is the same up until 1947. Support for democracy in India, 64%; Pakistan, 23%. The sources of religion are the same, all that’s different is the last 60 years.
B. Senegal has a 1% AIDS rate, one of the lowest in Africa. Gov’t programs promoting condom use were openly promoted within all religious places of worship, and by women’s orgs.
C. France’s gov’t is constitutional constrained from acknowledging religious identity. This creates real problems, because the French gov’t is rendered unable to address French social bigotry. The extent of that bigotry was revealed when social scientists conducted a simple experiment. The sent out a number of resumes to various businesses. One version carried a Muslim name and address from a predominately Muslim area, another carried a French name and address from a predominately lower class French area, but in every other regard they were exactly the same. Those resumes bearing a French name and address received twenty times more invitations to interview for a position. But the gov’t is barred from recognizing religious identity. The non-recognition of religion work around was to invite community leaders based on the square-footage of the mosques to which they belonged, the theory being that larger buildings host larger portions of the community. This method had the virtue of respecting constitutional demands to remain blind to religion, and the vice of being blind to religion. 40% of French Muslims don’t attend mosque… thus, no representation. Which communities have the largest mosques in France? Those supported by communities & governments back in… Algeria and Saudi Arabia. :s

Statistics and anecdotes suggesting that there are very different versions of Islam being practiced, and that one of the great cleavages between these versions is between Arab and non-Arab versions. Which suggests that maybe these problems have cultural, as a opposed to strictly religious roots.

Ah yes, another interesting point raised.
Country by country comparisons of Sharia law show… gasp…striking differences. (So they say.) hmmm…

Gao_Bohan · March 2, 2007, 5:34pm

Yeah. No time to read the report right now, but it sounds interesting. However I am more interested in the stats on human rights than I am “free and open” elections. Hamas was elected in one of those. Morocco is a monarchy, and yet a few years ago it very significantly extended women’s rights. The Moroccan government does a good job of routing out extremists and locking them up too.

The countries that follow absolute Sharia are in the minority. I think there are 8 or 9 countries total. But nearly all Islamic countries continue to follow some aspects of Sharia law, and fundamentalism is on the rise everywhere. Observe what is happening in Egypt, Syria, and Algeria. Also, I wouldn’t put too much faith in the non-Arab/Arab gap. Afghanistan and Pakistan are non-Arab countries and yet both are hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism, graced by thousands of madrassas where students do nothing but memorize the Qur’an. Obviously the Taliban was non-Arab and yet they imposed total Sharia law on Afghanistan and heavily influenced parts of Pakistan via Pakistani tribal elders in league with the Talibanis. Iran is a non-Arab Sharia state.

It is true we see more modernism in non-Arab countries in general though. I’ll give you that. Kenya is a good example. I saw a show on bin Laden where the journalists interviewed some Kenyan clerics who had allowed bin Laden to preach at their mosque. They said something to the effect of, “The Arab talked about nothing than jihad. That’s it. Only jihad every single day. We did not want to offend the sheik, but we were glad when he left so we could talk about more important things.” It wasn’t that they disagreed with him or claimed he was distorting Islam. They just don’t focus on jihad in their community.

We see nothing akin to Islamic violence with any other religious communities in the world. Proponents of Christian theocracy are desperately isolated and ignored, and they aren’t violent except for the occasional abortion clinic bombing. Chinese Confucians/Buddhists/Daoists abound the world over, are ingrained in our societies, and yet we don’t see any problems from them either. Millions of poor Mexicans reside in the United States, and yet we don’t see Mexican priests calling for Catholics to kill non-believers, destroy the government, and implement Christian law. I would agree that poor, uneducated people tend to be more subject to succumbing to fundamentalism, but that is only a danger when the fundamentals of their religion are violent. Anybody claiming that poverty is the primary source of Islamic extremism have to contend with all the non-Muslim poverty-stricken peoples/immigrants who are not violent. Ditto for those claiming Western policies are the source.

Jaboney · March 2, 2007, 6:55pm

Chew this idea over and tell me what you think.

Anyone, if they really want to, is going to be able to find something in their religion, ethics, or politics, to justify violence and barbarism. Sam Harris, when accused of wrapping his arms around Buddhism, points out that Imperial Japanese managed to have even their seemingly pacific form of Buddhism serve violent ends… they just had to go through a few more mental contortions to get to that point.

But get there, they did. Big time.

The degree of mental contortions any particular individual is going to have to go through to justify violence (or pacifism, or whatever) is going to vary with scripture, tradition, culture, temperament, circumstances, biography, ect. But, no matter how easy that transition to the land of the loonies, unless the particular individual doing the deed is barking mad, he is responsible for his actions. There are no excuses. There will be reasons, which we ought to understand, but there are no excuses. It’s always the individual who acts; never Yahweh, Allah, not even Kali.

Any problem we have with particular groups displaying a greater propensity to justify horrors must consider as many as possible factors of the contributing factors, of which scripture is but one (and a mute, passive factor at that). Failure to right this point right risks both missing the mark and pissing off a whole lot more people for no good reason.

Can Sharia be used to help some people bridge the gap between being neighbourly and vicious? No doubt. But then, so can Buddha. Is it more easily done? At this point in time, all other things remaining the equal, it seems so. So what? The creed still isn’t doing the killing, and as you acknowledge, there’s greater modernism in non-Arab Muslim countries (even those which apply some form of Sharia).

So, we’ve got some people, in some situations, who will be more likely to act violently partially on account of the canon of law to which they subscribe. Where does that get us?
And does it make a difference if that same canon of law helps some people, in some situations, make the leap to acting in ways we would consider more virtuous than would have otherwise been the case?
How much does this really explain? Is there a direct, discernible casual chain here? Evidence suggests obviously not, but even assuming that there is, do we do enough to enable us to take effective action to counter it (without risk of making things worse)? Are there other, weaker, more accessible links in the chain that gets these guys to “BOOM” that might be more easily, or effectively targeted?

Q. What’s the typical order of introduction when it comes to democracy and human rights? The Magna Carta predates democracy by a good long while, but not dispersed power. In those days, dispersed power meant feudalism, economics, and religion; today it means democracy and economics. It would be interesting to compare the lists of democratically over- and under-performing Muslim to the list of oil-producing states (economically independent regimes).

Q. Why is fundamentalism on the rise everywhere? Much can be blamed on the Saudis, but there’s more to it than that. The Saudis don’t explain the rise of American or Hindu fundamentalism.

Gao_Bohan · March 2, 2007, 7:50pm

[quote=“Jaboney”]Chew this idea over and tell me what you think.

Anyone, if they really want to, is going to be able to find something in their religion, ethics, or politics, to justify violence and barbarism. Sam Harris, when accused of wrapping his arms around Buddhism, points out that Imperial Japanese managed to have even their seemingly pacific form of Buddhism serve violent ends… they just had to go through a few more mental contortions to get to that point.

But get there, they did. Big time.[/quote]

Yeah, the kamikazes.

The problem is that the jihadists aren’t usually crazy. Many of them are educated, intelligent men who do not display any apparent mental aberrations.

I disagree. Scripture is the driving factor, or rather, it’s the belief that scripture is the word of God that is the driving factor. From there we have the famous double bind: fear of God’s wrath and hope of God’s reward. Hellfire is still a very real thing for many Muslims. Those who die fighting in the cause of Islam simultaneously avoid God’s worst punishment (Hell) and attain his highest reward (martyr’s Heaven, on a higher plane than normal Heaven). To know this all we have to do is listen to the jihadists themselves who directly tell us they are fighting for what they obviously believe to be God’s cause, and hope to die martyr’s. Recently some Hamas senior officials lamented their new government jobs, saying they joined Hamas to be come martyrs, not ministers. LOL

If you have an alternative explanation for their behavior, give it to us. Remember that any explanation you give must also explain why non-Muslim groups do not display similar behavior.

[quote]So, we’ve got some people, in some situations, who will be more likely to act violently partially on account of the canon of law to which they subscribe. Where does that get us?
And does it make a difference if that same canon of law helps some people, in some situations, make the leap to acting in ways we would consider more virtuous than would have otherwise been the case?
How much does this really explain? Is there a direct, discernible casual chain here? Evidence suggests obviously not, but even assuming that there is, do we do enough to enable us to take effective action to counter it (without risk of making things worse)? Are there other, weaker, more accessible links in the chain that gets these guys to “BOOM” that might be more easily, or effectively targeted? [/quote]

Instead of asking questions, give us your theory. You clearly don’t follow the typical leftist Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace line of thought, nor do you favor any other typical viewpoints that I know of. We’re all eager for your answers to the above questions and your theory in general.

A major part of adopting democracy in the West was rejecting clerical rule. I have mentioned the efforts of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison to prevent their more pious colleagues from establishing a permanent council of clerics to be adjoined to the Congress to make ecclesiastical decisions. They also made sure the Constitution did not mention God or Christ or include religious tests, etc. Others resisted; the secularists prevailed.

I think the same applies for the Muslim world. A key step toward democracy is accepting the idea of “man-made law”. I put it in quotes because that is an oft-heard phrase in inter-Muslim debates. Fundamentalists exhort Muslims to reject man-made law and accept God’s law. If you look at any of the numerous ask-a-mufti websites online, you will see this phrase used quite a bit. The typical answer to the question, “Should I obey the laws of [insert Western country here]?” is “Obey all laws that do not contract Islamic law. Allah did not put us on this earth to follow man-made law, but his law.” Now usually this will not be a problem, but as Muslim immigration continues to increase steadily, and if their birthrates remain steady, we can expect a different question to be asked soon. Namely, “Are the laws of this country consistent with Islamic law?” When Muslims are the majority, as they will be in several European countries within 25 to 50 years, expect debates surounding these questions to take place. I am afraid the outcome of such debates may not be favorable to we infidels.

There has been an ongoing religious revival in the US now for a couple of decades. The results of that “fundamentalism” have been faith healer shams, morons handling rattlesnakes, and at the very worst some abortion clinic bombings. The Ten Commandments in the courtroom is hardly on par with jihadists beheading Christian girls in Indonesia, eh?

Jaboney · March 3, 2007, 1:53am

The problem is that the jihadists aren’t usually crazy. Many of them are educated, intelligent men who do not display any apparent mental aberrations. [/quote]Whnen it comes to understanding motivation and reasoning paths, that’s not a problem; it’s easier to unpack standard reasoning than deranged.

I disagree. Scripture is the driving factor, or rather, it’s the belief that scripture is the word of God that is the driving factor.[/quote] THAT is a very important distinction.

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]If you have an alternative explanation for their behavior, give it to us. Remember that any explanation you give must also explain why non-Muslim groups do not display similar behavior.[/quote] Non-Muslim groups do display similar behavior, but in those cases their actions tend to be more obviously tied to nationalistic considerations, state structures, and whatnot, and so aren’t directly attributed to religion. But tell me, can you offer an adequate explanation for why belief that scripture is the word of God has not driving non-Arab Muslims to undertake religious violence as readily as Arab Muslims? If scripture is the one determining variable, why do non-Arab Muslim groups appear more moderate and less inclined to act violently?

Belief in scripture may be a necessary condition for this kind of religious violence, but it is certainly insufficient. Other enabling conditions? Depends on specific conditions. Resentment: helplessness and perceptions of powerlessness no doubt play a role in the reasoning of some. Reaction: in the powerful, the belief that one is obligated defend, or purify, some holy thing (doctrine, place, community, whatever) is often cited.

Hindu fundamentalists–or are they nationalists?–certainly aren’t reliant scripture to drive their violence. American fundamentalists have little cause to resort to violence: internationally, the US military takes care of national enemies, and when it doesn’t there are proxies who may be supported at a distance. And domestically they tend to have other means of achieving their ends. Even when that’s not the case, radicalism tends to be checked by elements within the political culture that set a high threshold on acts of violence. Nonetheless, there are (partially) religiously-motivated acts of violence against abortion doctors, homosexuals, immigrants… which I would term reactionary.

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Instead of asking questions, give us your theory. You clearly don’t follow the typical leftist Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace line of thought, nor do you favor any other typical viewpoints that I know of. We’re all eager for your answers to the above questions and your theory in general. [/quote] You do understand scientific methodology, don’t you? ANSWERING questions precedes theory making.
Surely you don’t want me to offer an un- or ill-supported theory and then ask that you accept it on faith, do you?

Doctor_Evil · March 3, 2007, 4:22am

[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“Jaboney”]Chew this idea over and tell me what you think.

Anyone, if they really want to, is going to be able to find something in their religion, ethics, or politics, to justify violence and barbarism. Sam Harris, when accused of wrapping his arms around Buddhism, points out that Imperial Japanese managed to have even their seemingly pacific form of Buddhism serve violent ends… they just had to go through a few more mental contortions to get to that point.

But get there, they did. Big time.[/quote]

Yeah, the kamikazes.[/quote]

Sam Harris and the rest of you might want to look up Shinto before talking about the Japanese, Buddhism, violence and kamikazes.

Jaboney · March 3, 2007, 4:49am

Oh, there’s only one religion in Japan, and it exists in isolation from all others? Gee, I didn’t know that. Thanks, doc.

politbureau · March 3, 2007, 4:50am

The quasi-Hindu Tamil Tigers, inventors of the suicide vest and prolific employers of children suicide bombers, have carried out more suicide bombings than any other terrorist organization on earth.

Screaming_Jesus · March 3, 2007, 4:56am

A better Buddhist example would be contemporary Sri Lanka, where the sangha have been using their influence to try to persuade their fellow Sinhalese to continue their civil war against the Tamils. I can’t think of a blessed thing in the Pali Tripitaka that would justify this.

Historically, Buddhism in traditional Tibet was not so different from Shi’i Islam in Iran. Tibetan monasteries and monastic lineages violently suppressed one another. A WW2 era pilot who parachuted over Lhasa was attacked by an angry mob for daring to put his feet above the Dalai Lama’s head (while parachuting). In some alternate universe, perhaps, the Dalai Lama reigns over Tibet as an all-powerful theocrat, while the Ayatollah Khomeini preaches Mercy and Compassion to a rapt celebrity audience.

Doctor_Evil · March 3, 2007, 4:57am

It’s pretty apparent there’s alot you don’t know. Read up on the [i]official[/i] religions in Japan (pre-WWII). You might also want to read up on the Yasukuni Shrine (it’s Shinto)…

yasukuni.or.jp/english/

And here are some nice photos from the shrine including those of Kamikaze planes:

japanesehistory.de/fotos/Yasukuni/

Chew on that.

Jaboney · March 3, 2007, 5:01am

[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]A WW2 era pilot who parachuted over Lhasa was attacked by an angry mob for daring to put his feet above the Dalai Lama’s head (while parachuting). [/quote]Seriously? :roflmao: That’s hilarious!

It’s pretty apparent there’s alot you don’t know. Read up on the [i]official[/i] religions in Japan (pre-WWII). You might also want to read up on the Yasukuni Shrine (it’s Shinto)…[/quote]
Reading, reading, reading…

[quote=“wikipedia”]Shinto as an indigenous religion has no holy book, no founder, and no canon. The Nihongi and Kojiki, however, contain a record of Japanese mythology.

Shinto began to fall out of fashion after the arrival of Buddhism, but soon, Shinto and Buddhism began to be practiced as one religion. On sites of Shinto shrines, Buddhist temples were built, and people began to adhere to both.

Before 1868, there were three main forms of Shinto: Shrine Shinto, the most popular type; Folk (or Popular) Shinto, practised by the peasants; and Imperial Household Shinto, practiced by the imperial family.

But soon, in the 18th and 19th centuries, people began to form independent Shinto sects, which were very radical and some even monotheistic, such as Tenrikyo. These were soon known as the Shinto Sects, or the New Religions.

After the Meiji Revolution in 1868, Shinto and Buddhism were forcefully separated. The Emperor Meiji made Shintoism the official religion, creating a form of Shinto known as State Shinto, which merged Shrine, Folk, and Imperial Household Shinto together. Sect Shinto was seen as radical and separated from Shintoism. Under Meiji, Japan became a moderate theocracy, with shrines being controlled by the government. Shinto soon became a reason for Japanese nationalism. After Japan took over Korea and Taiwan, State Shintoism became the official religion of those countries as well.

During World War II, State Shinto was the only legal religion, and Christians and radical Buddhists were persecuted, as well as Sect Shintoists. However, many people were still adherents of both State Shinto and Buddhism.[/quote]I wonder how effective that separation was? I mean, if some yahoo was to forcibly separate paganism from Christianity, would we really give up Christmas?

Anyways, thanks for that. I’ll keep it in mind the next time I spend a couple of months getting hammered with Buddhist priests up in Hokkaido. (Note to self: Comrade Doctor says they’re all full of shit.)

eh. Your usual offering… turkey.

JAS · March 3, 2007, 5:04am

The quasi-Hindu Tamil Tigers, inventors of the suicide vest and prolific employers of children suicide bombers, have carried out more suicide bombings than any other terrorist organization on earth.[/quote]

Which still wasn’t good enough to get them banned in Canada for many years:

canadiancoalition.com/forum/ … 0191.shtml
ensign.ftlcomm.com/editorials/LT … amils.html

TainanCowboy · March 3, 2007, 12:04pm

I really do not know, does Canada have the church/state issue clearly defined in their organizational documents? Tax exemption for churches, temples, etc? Perhaps thats not applicable up there, I do not know.
More on Islam in Canada.

[quote]No group speaks for all Muslims
Salim Mansur, Sat, March 3, 2007

By SALIM MANSUR

A consortium of Canadian Arab-Muslim organizations released a media statement recently indicating it would work to defeat the Conservative government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the next election.

This consortium consists of the Canadian Islamic Congress, the Canadian Arab Federation and the Canadian Muslim Forum. It makes claims of representing all Canadian Muslims.

The press release states: “Stephen Harper has avoided meeting with any major Canadian Muslim and Arab organizations and most of his ministers have followed suit as they are powerless to act outside policies originating within the Prime Minister’s Office.”

The consortium denounces the Conservative government for being regressive when dealing with Muslims. It condemns Harper’s support for Israel, for leaning greatly in the direction of the Bush administration in Washington and for adopting its “corrupt policies” toward the Middle East, and in Afghanistan, preferring military engagement over diplomacy.

Canada is a democracy and an open society, unlike most Arab or Muslim-majority countries from where most Canadian Muslims have originated. Their political participation in Canada is unobstructed and as free as it is for any other Canadian, irrespective of ethnicity, religion or lack of it, gender or sexual orientation.

Islam is a faith tradition not limited to any one people bound by geography, ethnicity or other exclusive criterion. “Muslim,” analogous to “Christian,” is not an ethnic term, and the worldwide presence of Muslims reflects the diversity in which they live, as is the case with Christians.

Among Muslims, there exist differences in how Islam is understood and practised.

It is therefore unrealistic and contrary to any reasonable expectation to consider Muslims in Canada as sharing a monolithic view about their country’s politics. For this consortium to claim it represents “more than one million Canadians” is simply false.

Happily, political partisanship in Canada is not a criminal offence. Politics in an open and free society thrives on partisanship, within reasonable limits defined by its laws, conventions and tradition.

But to any observer of multicultural politics in Canada, claims of the sort this consortium makes about representing all Canadian Muslims are suspect and could conceivably, some day, imperil our democracy.

The Arab-Muslim world is experiencing a convulsion unprecedented in its history. Muslims with differing sectarian loyalties are engaged in the politics of murder and mayhem in Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan, Palestine, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere.

Canada is not immune from divisions and conflicts of the Arab-Muslim world washing ashore here. It has happened with other communities in the past.

In these circumstances, prudence and good governance require Ottawa not embracing any self-promoting group as the singular voice of the Canadians it claims to represent.

It further means Ottawa should pursue Canadian interests at all times, which, at best, are indistinguishable from the values of freedom and democracy which all Canadians hold dear for themselves.

Indeed, if the Conservative government does not recognize any consortium as claiming to speak for all Muslims, or for anyone else, then this is reassuring of the good sense prevalent in Ottawa.

Canadians of all backgrounds should hope any prime minister does not permit the making of Canadian policy at home and abroad to be held ransom to electoral calculations, or is intimidated by political threats such as this consortium makes in claiming it can influence “a crucial swing vote in more than 100 ridings.”

Any political party acquiescing to such demands or political intimidation by Arab-Muslim organizations, or any other similar groups, does not deserve to hold office in Ottawa.
Toronto Sun[/quote]

Jaboney · March 3, 2007, 3:59pm

Churches are largely, but not entirely tax exempt.
Donations to charity through the church are matched by federal and sometimes provincial dollars.
Before Harper, you wouldn’t hear a Canadian prime minister end a speech with “God bless Canada”, and I wish he’d stuff that little ditty.
There has been significant blurring of lines in the past, most infamously in the gov’t assimilation program that saw native children taken from there parents and communities (sometimes by the RCMP) and placed in residential schools run by churches, where hundreds if not thousands of kids were sexually abused.
Religious schooling is funded 50% by the provinces (not sure how consistent that is across the country), which means that the province retains a veto over curriculum.
Many of what are now gov’t run hospitals were established by churches, and many still have significant input and support from religious communities.
And until recently, for the past 100 years in Ontario, individuals could opt to have some family disputes settled by religiously-base tribunals.

Hope that answers a few of your questions.

Gao_Bohan · March 3, 2007, 4:30pm

First off, let’s keep things in perspective here. Islamic violence abounds in the non-Arab world. Jihadis in Somalia were nearly in complete control until the Ethiopians stepped in. I have already mentioned Talibani Afghanistan and Shi’a Iran. Thailand, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Chechnya, Nigeria, the Balkans, are all places that have experienced and continue to experience violence in the name of Islam, and they’re all non-Arab. Fundamentalism is sweeping Muslims in Europe and many of them are non-Arab. Let’s not kid ourselves that the “version” of Islam practiced by non-Arab Muslims is a beacon of peace and tolerance.

Having said that, I think that cultural resistance to Arab dominance, nationalism, pan-Turkism, and isolationism are driving factors in the moderation of Islamic practices. In Azerbaijan, for instance, one of the few countries in the world that is majority Shi’a, there is a strong resistance to the growing Salafi/Wahhabi influence in that country. Obviously Shi’aism is a factor, but Azeris have always been somewhat isolated and independent. The Arabs made few attempts to colonize the Caucausus, preferring the more moderate climates of North Africa and the Levant. Azeris deride Arabs as sakkalilar (bearded people) or garasakkalilar (black-bearded people), mock them in popular TV shows, and in general take offence at Arab arrogance. What little terrorism there is in Azerbaijan is due to conflicts started by the Salafis, and the government has recently been taking aggressive action against them.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Resentment and reaction. I agree that resentment due to their inferior worldly status is one factor driving jihadists. From its beginning the Muslim world perceived itself as the greatest civilization on the earth and the only one with the God’s blessings. They conquered the Persian Sassanid Empire, much of the territory once held by Rome, Hindu kingdoms and princedoms, and halted the advance of Chinese influence in Central Asia for good. Scientifically, artistically, and militarily, the Dar al-Islam was the colossus of the medieval world. But constant religious revivals proved their undoing. Arab scientists had to dance around the clerics the same as medieval Christian scientists did the Catholic Church. Eventually the disdain for science, the suppression of funding and research, dragged the Muslm world down technology as Europe speeded ahead. Before they knew it they were occupied by infidels, humiliated, and proven to be among the weakest nations on earth. Payback’s a bitch.

Reaction. Agreed that in some cases jihadism is a reaction against oppression or a perceived defilement of a holy shrine. A classic example is the raids on Mecca and Medina during the Crusades by a brash knight named Raynald of Chatillon. Saladin had been having trouble rousing up troops to out oust the Franks from the Levant previously, but after the raids there were volunteers showing up from all over Arabia, Persia, Anatolia, and Egypt.

Here’s another one. Action. Violent, aggressive action against infidels or fellow Muslims deemed too secular. Driven by the theological distinction of the world between the House of Islam and the House of War, they want to conquer all infidels lands and impose Islamic law.

[quote] You do understand scientific methodology, don’t you? ANSWERING questions precedes theory making.
Surely you don’t want me to offer an un- or ill-supported theory and then ask that you accept it on faith, do you?[/quote]

You’ve got all the evidence you need to forumlate a “theory”. Wake up and smell the napalm.

TainanCowboy · March 4, 2007, 2:30am

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Here’s another one. Action. Violent, aggressive action against infidels or fellow Muslims deemed too secular. Driven by the theological distinction of the world between the House of Islam and the House of War, they want to conquer all infidels lands and impose Islamic law.

[quote] You do understand scientific methodology, don’t you? ANSWERING questions precedes theory making.
Surely you don’t want me to offer an un- or ill-supported theory and then ask that you accept it on faith, do you?[/quote]

You’ve got all the evidence you need to forumlate a “theory”. Wake up and smell the napalm.[/quote]GBH -
Good points one and all. I’d like to add some info from another source writing on the current state of Islam jihadists and their actions in the world today.
It is illustrative of infiltration and subversion of a non-Moslem culture/society by non-overt methods. This is the face of the new “Dar al-Islam” in todays world.
Gleaned from another site -
[i]It’s how it works! Once they hit the 4% - 5% mark, they begin to push – hard.

The following is a description (slightly modified) from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm

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.

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 [Europe, Australia, USA and Japan]. Six percent of US prison inmates are Muslim.
Unlike most other minorities, they won’t integrate, but work to build their own separate community.

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halaal (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).

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.

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning (India, Mindanao, Philippines and Israel).

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare [Indonesia].

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 (infidel tax). (Sudan, Kosovo, Lebanon and Egypt).

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide [Sudan, Western Papua (New Guinea), Biafra, Turkey and North Nigeria].

100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam” - House of Peace - as in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.[/i]

This course is being followed world-wide as we live.

Jaboney · March 4, 2007, 9:59am

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]First off, let’s keep things in perspective here. Islamic violence abounds in the non-Arab world. […] Fundamentalism is sweeping Muslims in Europe and many of them are non-Arab. Let’s not kid ourselves that the “version” of Islam practiced by non-Arab Muslims is a beacon of peace and tolerance.[/quote]Where did I suggest that such was the case? The research demonstrated significant variation in the political culture and conditions of Arab and non-Arab states. Obviously, political culture and conditions will make violence more or less probable, but neither is the (ever elusive easy) answer.
If you care to dig up research on incidence of violence in Arab and non-Arab states, your argument would carry greater weight… unless of course that research reveals similar variation. I’ll have a look and see what I can learn.

Here’s another one. Action. Violent, aggressive action against infidels or fellow Muslims deemed too secular. Driven by the theological distinction of the world between the House of Islam and the House of War, they want to conquer all infidels lands and impose Islamic law. [/quote]Category error. One’s own action (violence) can’t be motivated by itself, it’s got to be the outcome of something else (possibly of one’s previous actions, if individuals get locked into a course of action). The example of action you raise would be a reaction: an attempt to restore purity/ reaction against impurity.

[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote] You do understand scientific methodology, don’t you? ANSWERING questions precedes theory making.
Surely you don’t want me to offer an un- or ill-supported theory and then ask that you accept it on faith, do you?[/quote]

You’ve got all the evidence you need to forumlate a “theory”. Wake up and smell the napalm.[/quote][/quote]Ah… channeling Cheney?

MikeN · March 4, 2007, 1:12pm

Not to mention the homosexuals, the Popes, Nelson Mandela and those little pagan bastards at Halloween:

[quote]Controversial pro-gun lobbyist and missionary Peter Hammond is facing criminal charges after allegedly shooting children with a paint gun in a bizarre Halloween trick or treat game.

The Reverend Hammond, head of the Peninsula-based Frontline Fellowship, was arrested after surrendering to police in Pinelands.

At least four children allege they were hit by paintballs in Rosebank and Pinelands on the evening of October 31.

Hammond faces charges of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and is due to appear in the Goodwood magistrate’s court on December 20.

Pinelands police said he had allegedly driven around Pinelands, Rondebosch and Rosebank with his three young children in the back of his car, calling costumed youngsters over then firing paintballs.

One boy was shot in the face.
[/quote]
int.iol.co.za/

[quote]The charges stem from 31 October when Rev Peter Hammond took his children out for a “counter Halloween” outing in the suburbs of Cape Town.

Several other children in the area say they were hit with paintballs.

Rev Hammond, who believes Halloween is an “occult” festival, turned himself in to the police after hearing that parents had made complaints.
…

He said he and his family did not approve of Halloween, which they saw as an “occult holiday celebrating human sacrifice, witches and goblins”.[/quote]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4491632.stm

Gao_Bohan · March 4, 2007, 6:06pm

gao_bo_han said:

Jaboney said:

Oh Ye of Little Faith,

If you doubt there is ongoing Islamic violence in any of those places I listed, then please, by all means, Google to your hearts content. Beware! You may not like what you find…

Gao_Bohan · March 4, 2007, 6:09pm

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“gao_bo_han”]Here’s another one. Action. Violent, aggressive action against infidels or fellow Muslims deemed too secular. Driven by the theological distinction of the world between the House of Islam and the House of War, they want to conquer all infidels lands and impose Islamic law.